Wall Street Bailout vs. Iraq War: Comparing Price Tags

By Brigitte L. Nacos

There is good reason to be shocked about the price tag attached to the proposed rescue package for Wall Street and by extension for the whole financial system and the overall economy. $700 billion is no chicken feed. Members of congress must resist efforts by the White House to rush them once again into an uninformed decision. While a massive government intervention is inevitable, allowing the Secretary of the Treasury and the administration sole control over the initiative would violate the legislative chambers’ responsibilities. At minimum, Representatives and Senators must insist on oversight and transparency and then some. 

Yet, as inconceivably high the number is—$700 billion, it is astounding that the same people, who are up in arms over the likely costs of bailing out Wall Street at the expense of taxpayers, are compliant in the spending of comparable sums for the Iraq war. Add to that the cost of the Afghanistan war and other post-9/11 counterterrorism measures abroad and at home, and pretty soon the $700 billion bail out doesn’t look that shocking any more. 

The fact is that the responses to the 9/11 attacks—the prudent measures and, more so, the controversial and outright wrong ones—cost us far more than the projected bail-out of Wall Street. 

The National Priority Project keeps track of what that war costs the American taxpayers. As I check the ticker at this moment, the Iraq War alone has cost us close to $556 billion—and there is no end in sight. While the Iraqi government accumulates billions in oil money, we keep on spending and spending.

The fact is that the responses to the 9/11 attacks—the prudent measures and, more so, the controversial and outright wrong ones—cost us far more than the projected bailout of Wall Street.

Just take the Iraq War. The National Priority Project keeps track of what that war costs the American taxpayers. As I check the ticker at this moment, the Iraq War alone has cost us close to $556 billion—and there is no end in sight. While the Iraqi government accumulates billions in oil money, we keep on spending and spending.

Without paying for the Iraq War and the tax cuts for the wealthy, the federal government’s fiscal house would be far better prepared to withstand the shock of a massive bailout. Republicans who control the White House and for most of the post-9/11 years either one or two congressional chambers are mostly responsible for the fiscal mess. But Democrats are to be blamed as well. They won the majority in both houses of congress because voters wanted them to end the Iraq War. But they did not have the guts to use the power of the purse to force the president’s hand. 

At this point, Americans are mostly concerned with the economic situation and worry mostly about their jobs. Iraq is no longer on the public’s radar screen.   

One reason behind Congress’s fights for important changes in the handling of Wall Street’s bailout is fear—the fear of being punished by voters on Election Day. Nobody up for election wants to be blamed for taking care of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. 

But as the bailout puts a giant hole into the federal purse, perhaps Washington decision-makers will be reminded of the huge expenditures for the Iraq adventure (and for the tax cuts for the rich).

Comments

[Debt Rescue]

Credit worthiness of different companies discriminate with credit rating , hence the risk attached vary .