6000 miles of dollar bills for Iraq

Congress passed the supplemental spending bill last week and Bush signed it immediately. It was a terrible bill, both for what it contained and what it didn't. You all know what it contained: more money for this rotten war in Iraq. What it didn't contain was the paltry $650 million for pandemic preparedness that had been in an earlier version.

Bush's Office of Management and Budget is being blamed in some quarters (CIDRAP: someone in the Office of Management and Budget or elsewhere in the administration "might have made the call that there was less of a sense of urgency"), but I won't let the Democrats off. This is the fault of both Democrats and Republicans. They passed this monstrosity and the President signed it. It's a Mt.Everest-sized monument to distorted, misshapen, upside down, backwards and grotesque priorities from our political leaders, Democrat and Republican. It is outrageous.

$99.5 billion -- yes, billion with a "B" -- "for the troops" (i.e., money to allow them to keep killing and be killed). Nothing for pandemic preparedness. How tall a stack of $1 bills is $100 billion dollars? A dollar bill is about 10-4 meters times 1011 bills or 107 meters, i.e., a pile of bills stacked over 6000 miles high. From Boston to LA and back again in one dollar bills. Stack of the pandemic pile? zero miles. zero feet. zero inches.

What else do you need to know.

More like this

Well said Revere. I'd only add that spending 99.5 billion on the Iraq war is like laying a road from Boston to LA, and then ripping it up once your done.

Whereas the 650 million for pandemic preparedness would be the gift that keeps on giving. Permanent increases in public health preparedness, better care for all.

Also, If you'll excuse the pun, when I first read the title of the post, all I could think was that it gave new meaning to the phrase: "paper trail"

By Jon Herington (not verified) on 29 May 2007 #permalink

Well Revere it had to go this way. Pandemic is not pork but there were so many amendments to the original bill that it was an all or nothing, so they got nothing. They will surely revisit some of these things and panflu is one of them. It was at last reading going to whack the minimum wage increase which has always resulted in a recession when applied. We become more non-competitive than we already are.

Its all about the carbon footprint and how very likely this may be just one more event in the scheme of things. God, the Grim Reaper, human die back, call it what you will...That carbon footprint is about to change. I wonder what the effects on the climate would be from say 3.5 billion decaying bodies and their carbon/methane be? I dont think were are going to see another 1.5 billion in 25 years. Nature just may be taking its course here.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 29 May 2007 #permalink

I've often felt that "nature will take it's course," knowing full well the degree to which our population bloom is a result of the all too temporary influx of cheap (easy to get) oil, antibiotics which temporarily reduced early deaths, and technologies which improved our situation in the short-term but at the cost of long-term adverse impacts. I can�t see how we can escape the reckoning. However, I also can�t help feeling that this position is defeatist and maybe even cowardly � if it�s inevitable, then I really can�t do anything about it, so I don�t have to try to do anything about it. I�ve been trying to find a compromise position that says we can do much to lessen the impacts of a pandemic (and other looming threats), learn the lessons we need to learn about building a more sustainable civilization, and build hope for a future for my children and decedents. The question is, do we have enough time?

The part of me that doesn�t want to give up is just as strong as the part of me that knows the bill is coming due. At national and global levels this means building a culture of long-term values and defeating short-term perspectives. I don�t know how much $650 million in the hands of the government would really do to improve our collective panflu prep, but real leadership (sorely lacking these days) could make a difference and perhaps the most important difference

By Dan Dorman (not verified) on 29 May 2007 #permalink

Dan: The post was really about the upside down priorities. The pan flu prep money was destined for the wrong place, IMO, vaccines and antivirals. It should go to state and local health depts. and social service agencies to make our communities more resiient. That amount would be $10 million per state if divided evenly and would go a long way. Note that it is less than 1% of the total in this "supplemental" bill. I think it's a hard seel (at least to me) that the money for defense is making us safer than money to protect us from the many "natural" shocks to our communities like hurricanes, emerging diseases, substance abuse, gangs, etc. Maybe the recent lobby reform will squeeze out some of the more corrupt congressthings and we'll not be shoveling so much money to Halliburton, Lockheed and the rest of the parasites.

yes, the war is worst then a waste.

but in the last 18 months congress has already voted 6.1 billion for pandemic flu, at a time when the rest of cdc and most other public health programs have been cut.

SL: I agree. See my comment just above yours. And tomorrow morning's post.