(See Note at bottom of page on how these figures were determined)

According to a recent Brown University study, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their ripple effects have cost the United States $3.7 trillion, or more than $12,000 per American.

Yet, it's a sure bet that the Tea Party will be standing on its head against slashing the Defense budget when the "Party of Twelve" meet.  But the fact of the matter is that Defense spending is completely out of control right now.

The Dallas Morning News' banner headline this morning above the fold in 36 pt. was "Costs of wars to taxpayers a mystery" following by a trailer headline that read, "Push for cuts runs headlong into complex budgets."

To say that the article was an "eye-opener" would be understating the obvious.  When the Congressional cost cutters meet later this year, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be "juicy targets", according to the article.

Here's what we do know:  Just through 2011, Congress has alotted $1.3 trillion for war spending.  In a recent speech, President Obama assigned the wars a $1 trillion price tag.

But, these numbers do not even begin to tell the whole story.  Besides what Congress appropriated, the Pentagon spent an additional unknown amount from its $5.2 trillion base budget over that same period.

Lawmakers remain sharply divided against slashing the military budget, but there's a deeper problem to consider.  It is just nearly impossible to determine really how much the U.S. military really spends on war.  

One thing is certain:  the costs are staggering.  According to the Defense Department figures, by the end of April the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--including everything from personnel and equipment to training Iraqi and Afghan security forces and deploying intelligence-gathering drones--had cost an average of $9.7 billion a month, with about two-thirds going to Afghanistan.  Think of that--$9.7 billion A MONTH!  That's over three quarters of a trillion a month!!

That is money that comes just from the base budget and money appropriated specifically for the wars.  Still more funding comes from supplemental appropriations.  

To put all this in perspective, consider this:

$38 billion could buy:  40 years of federal funding for Amtrak train service or two years of air conditioning for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  

$10.3 billion could buy:  2010 budget for the Environmental Protection Agency or five years of fuel for vehicles, aircraft and generators in Afghanistan.

$385 billion could buy:  Cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit from 2004 to 2013 or funding for ten months of the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars.

Since the U.S. government issued war bonds to help fund World War II, the government has asked citizens to shoulder less and less of the fiscal responsibility of war.  In the early '50's, Congress raised taxes by 4% of the gross domestic product (GDP) to pay for the Korean War; during Vietnam, a tax was imposed that amounted to about 1% of the GDP.  

But not one cent in tax was imposed for Iraq or Afghanistan.  Even more amazing, in the early years, Congress didn't even demand an accounting of the cost.

"The debt crisis has been a game changer in terms of defense spending," said Laura Peterson, a national security analyst at "Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non partisan budget watch-dog.

"It used to be that asking how much the wars cost was unpatriotic.  The attitude going into the war is you spend whatever you(sic) cost.  Now, maybe asking is more patriotic."

This post based on an article that appeared today in The Dallas Morning News.  All

figures and quotes courtesy of that article.

 

Note:  HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

urrent military” includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*  

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes.