Much of what is stated is common sense. Unfortunately, some also is either incorrect or misleading. First, the nation will have to increase expenditures to repair the military, to fund homeland security, for wounded vets, ... irrespective of when we leave Iraq. If we do it sooner rather than later, then the total costs are lower, and if we have to wait for the next president for that to occur, then the additional cost would be a very large LOST financial peace dividend.

Second, it is important to get the government's fiscal house in order, and it has not been in order since Bush's first tax cuts. Bush's Iraq War simply exacerbated the problem. Whether you love him or hate him, you have to concede the President Clinton had a fiscally sound policy; President Bush has not. And bipartisanship or lack thereof had nothing to do with the fiscal morass that the Bush administration has led us into since the republicans were in control of both houses of congress when the budget went from solid to sordid.

And third, it is fundamentally dishonest to link Social Security and Medicare and talk about reforming them both for fiscal reasons. Arguably there are minor changes that need to be made to Social Security to keep it fiscally sound, and the privitization proposals have nothing to do what's required. Medicare needs fundamental overhaul - and the Bush-led changes in that program moved us in the wrong direction.

Posted at May 22, 2007 10:59 AM in response to The cost of the Iraq war