Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=2/27/03

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=ECONOMICS OF WAR

NUMBER=6-12842

BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: As the United State continues to press its campaign to disarm Iraq of deadly weapons, by force if necessary, a new aspect of the debate is surfacing. More and more daily papers are beginning to assess the economic aspects of the war, and the related issue of homeland defense. We get a sampling now from V-O-A's ____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: The Bush administration has begun to talk in specific figures about the costs of a military action against Iraq, and some newspapers are pondering its effects on the American economy. The price tag for a war, is very roughly estimated at between 80 and 100-billion dollars. That cost, several papers are pointing out, will have to be borne almost entirely by the American taxpayer. They remind that in the first Gulf war, several neighboring nations including Saudi Arabia reimbursed the U-S government tens of billions of dollars in battle expenses.

In a related development being editorialized about, the states are complaining bitterly that almost no federal money is being sent to them for mandated improvements in homeland security precautions. All this is beginning to worry the editorial writers in several papers, including U-S-A Today, the national daily published in a Washington, D.C. suburb.

VOICE: The White House estimates the costs at between 80-billion and more than 100-billion in just the first year, and it foresees a U-S presence in Iraq that could stretch on for years. Yet the administration has ducked [Editors: slang for "avoided"] a realistic explanation of how the nation would foot [Editors: "pay for"] this huge bill when the deficit is ballooning and costs for homeland security and the war on terror already are straining the budget.

Instead of proposing ways to finance the war, [Mr.] Bush continues to press for 695-billion dollars in new tax cuts over ten years that would make the deficits even larger. His approach runs counter to 140 years of U-S history.

TEXT: Concerns in an U-S-A Today editorial. In California, meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times, noting that the 100-billion dollar figure "is twice the cost Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld estimated last month," muses:

VOICE: Congress has finally started to ask how much a war with Iraq might cost. The answers would be daunting in good times. In a bad economy, they are a punch to the gut. Pentagon planners say defeating Saddam Hussein's regime and occupying Iraq for six months could cost as much as 85-billion dollars. Add the billions more that Turkey has all but extorted in bazaar-like bargaining to let in U-S troops and the tally will go past 100-billion.

Assume that an occupation will take much longer than six months to stabilize the country, if that can be done at all, and the bill grows further. The 100-billion dollar figure is a powerful argument for a continued and determined U-S effort to enlist as many other nations as possible as allies, at least partly to help pick up the tab [Editors: slang for the bill] The price tag also should persuade President Bush to drop his attempt to make the 2001 tax cut permanent [U-S] taxpayers deserve a clear explanation of the fiscal consequences of war paired with huge tax cuts.

TEXT: Aside from the huge costs of a new war in the Gulf, there are other concerns about the American economy from Iowa's Des Moines Register, which points out:

VOICE: Monday, a survey revealed employers are scaling back plans to hire workers. On Tuesday, the news was that investors withdrew one-billion dollars from stock funds last month. On Wednesday, consumer confidence was reported to have sunk to its lowest level in about a decade. People are apparently afraid for the future -- hardly an attitude that's going to get the economy going again. And President Bush continues to push [Editors: slang for "advocate"] tax cuts as the answer. He doesn't get it. [Editors: slang for: "understand the problem"]

TEXT: There is a related concern, that of increased domestic security in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 2001. The federal government has mandated a large effort to improve domestic security, but, as several papers are pointing out, so far, the government has not given the states any money to carry them out. Among the complaining dailies are The Oregonian in Portland, Wisconsin's Milwaukee Journal, Pennsylvania's Allentown Morning Call and The Detroit Free Press.

Here's how The Oregonian characterizes the situation, in words very similar to the other papers.

VOICE: Oregon will get no help with its deepening budget crisis from President Bush. When the president met with the nation's governor this week, he told them the states' crippling budget shortfalls were their problem, not his. [President] Bush is stiffing [Editors: slang for "failing to pay for"] the states with the skyrocketing costs of federally mandated homeland security, health care and education. [Mr.] Bush's callous stance will damage schools, human services and public safety in communities across the country -- and could further slow the economic recovery.

TEXT: On that critical note from Oregon's largest daily, The Oregonian, we conclude this sampling of comment on the economic effects of a war and increased domestic security.

NEB/ANG/RH