Paying for our war with Iraq

Having celebrated the first anniversary of the day which changed this country and the world forever, attention in the United States has shifted from terror and Afghanistan to Sadam Hussein and Iraq. In the midst of a possible American-led (or just "American") invasion of Iraq, serious questions and criticisms have been raised.\nThese concerns include the lack of domestic and international support for a possible invasion and the lack of regional stability. These concerns, and others, are legitimate and deserve the utmost attention, but there has been one important issue regarding a war with Iraq -- and other military actions worldwide -- that has been overlooked. How are we going to pay for it?\nThe cost of invading Iraq, deposing Hussein and establishing a stable post-war country (all with little or no international support) will certainly be great. Consider that in 1991, the Desert Storm war cost the U.S. more than $50 billion, but then we were neither acting alone nor attempting a full scale invasion. Imagine how much it would cost to mount an unaided full scale invasion with more than 250,000 troops, not to mention the necessary supporting equipment. This staggering amount would certainly break what is an already strained federal budget. \nOnly a year ago, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that we would have a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus between 2002 and 2011. Today, the same organization estimates that number to be only $336 billion. Likewise, the CBO projects budget deficits lasting until 2006. These tight numbers leave little room for bloated spending and are in stark contrast with the huge surpluses we enjoyed just a few years ago.\nTwo things have led to the massive turn around. First, the War on Terror has cost the country tens of billions of dollars to prosecute. Second, and most important, has been the ten year, $1.35 trillion dollar tax cut enacted by President Bush and Congress last year. Thanks to the tax cut, federal tax revenues have been stifled at a crippling pace. Evidence of this is abundant if you see the vast majority of the (admittedly very small) $336 billion dollar 2002-2011 surplus comes after 2010, when the tax cut will expire. Furthermore, the large, annual surpluses we saw before the Bush tax cuts are nowhere to be found.\nPresident Bush and some members of Congress are now pushing to make the tax cuts permanent, and, at the same time, he is preparing this country for an invasion, and subsequent rebuilding of Iraq. How much this action will cost can not be known, but, without international support (which there is now a serious lack of), the costs will at least match (and likely greatly surpass) that of the 1991 war. But, with federal budget deficits persisting until 2006, more military spending will merely mean larger deficits and interest that future taxpayers will carry the burden of paying.\nWhether or not the war on Iraq is necessary is a question that's ultimately in the hands of Bush. It is a decision he should not, and I am sure, will not be taken lightly. The unbalanced budget that has been created by his tax cuts, however, cannot be ignored. If we enter war with Iraq, deficits will simply rise. Just as his father took the high ground and admitted his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge was wrong, George W. Bush should swallow his pride and admit his tax cuts deserve serious reconsideration.