Priorities

Fabulous article at the Times about what we could have done with the money we've spent on our failed efforts in Iraq. It really highlights the differences in the priorties of Republicans and Democrats:

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.

...

In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.

With Republicans making the decisions, we don't get any benefit for our dollars. We just get an unpopular war, 3000 dead Americans, 35000 dead Iraqis, and a deficit problem that rivals and beats the worst trouble Reagan got us into in the cold war. Speaking of which: I'll take tax-and-spend any day over over spend-but-don't-tax-and-let's-see-where-that-gets-us.