Intentionally Hidden Costs

The first line of the traditional letter from President Bush to the new president is likely to read, "Find some money for Iraq." News today reveals that Bush administration budgets do not include complete funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2009.

The spin on this from Bush's messagemongers is that how you spend money in war is a part of the overall strategy and they don't want to impose that one anyone, etc. But it also passes the buck and an enormous fiscal responsibility to the next administration by failing to offer an accurate picture of how much it would cost to sustain current operations in that foreign theater.

No one part of the federal government is better positioned than the Bush administration to offer an accurate picture of what kind of financial demands the war will place on the United States even through the first two quarters of a new presidency, but once again, responsibility is deferred. This is nothing more than the Bush administration not wanting to be bearer of bad news about the effect of the war on economy, and how bad the economy is, and so on.

By the way, those budget deficits? From Politico:

New estimates by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday show a worsening situation, with the deficit jumping to at least $250 billion this year and possibly $350 billion once the full costs of the economic stimulus legislation are factored into the equation. The CBO forecast reflects a weaker economy and lower corporate profits but could very well prove optimistic since it was prepared before the recent spike in unemployment and downturn in world markets.

Essentially, the Bush administration doesn't want us to know how much the war costs, and would also like us to forget that we're borrowing the money to pay for it.