Post by bossradio93 on Sept 10, 2003 12:51:47 GMT -5
War on terrorism has cost U.S. $600B
Source: American City Business Journals
W. Scott Bailey
09.08.2003
In January, a national think tank tracking costs associated with America's battle to fend off terrorism warned that irresponsible spending was causing the United States to "plant its own seeds of destruction."
Eight months later, with the second anniversary of Sept. 11 days away and the federal government heading toward a record $480 billion deficit in 2004, that same group -- International Horizons Unlimited (IHU) -- says nothing has changed.
In a new Deficit Watch: Costs of the War on Terrorism report obtained exclusively by the Business Journal, IHU projects that the United States will divert a total of more than $470 billion to combat terrorists in 2003 and 2004. That's in addition to the nearly $138 billion spent from Sept. 11, 2001, through the end of 2002.
Dr. Saul B. Wilen is president and CEO of San Antonio-based IHU. He says the current Deficit Watch report utilizes nearly 800 sources ranging from county commissioners and state comptrollers to government agency workers and others.
Furthermore, he adds that every effort was made to ensure that the sourcing of the data was "squeaky clean."
The report indicates that the ongoing effort to combat terrorism will cost the nation roughly $224 billion in 2003 and another $246 billion or more next year. In addition, Wilen contends that, despite throwing tons of cash at the problem, the country remains trapped in a quagmire of flawed approaches.
"Our entire approach to fighting terrorism is cock-eyed," Wilen insists. He claims that some of the federal government's mistakes are that it is spending far too much in several areas and way too little in others that he says are more vital.
"When we talk about protecting Americans, that is something that has been done at the local and regional levels where the first responders are," he explains. "But that's not where the money is going. We are telling the individual communities to pay up. But how can they when they have neither the money or the equipment?"
Other critics believe that more money should be funneled to the front-line forces at the local level. One is Michael Scardaville, a policy analyst on homeland security for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
Scardaville says, "First responders are a crucial link in any effective homeland security policy. To meet the demands of the terrorist threat, a major investment is necessary to train and equip police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and the public health community."
According to the IHU report, which includes updated data through July 31, 2003, only $3.5 billion will be dedicated to training and providing equipment to first responders this year. That number climbs to only $4.4 billion in 2004.
Haphazard approach
IHU's Wilen maintains that the United States must devote adequate resources in an effort to protect its borders and fend off enemy attacks. But he also believes that the federal government is going about that effort haphazardly, exhausting too many dollars that need to be budgeted elsewhere.
In January, Wilen said, "We must fight the war on terrorism. But we must do it cost-effectively and through prevention. We are doing neither. We are almost 100 percent reactive and we can't win that way."
Eight months later, he says the window-dressing approach continues.
"We have real problems with our infrastructure that have to be dealt with," Wilen contends. "Furthermore, our ports are a sieve, our borders remain a series of holes and our airport security is still weak at best."
Administration officials, however, point out the positive steps they say have been taken in bolstering America's homeland security.
On July 30, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge issued the following statement on airport security: "Since Sept. 11, we have required and installed reinforced cockpit doors, employed better-trained and better-equipped passenger and baggage screeners and deployed thousands of air marshals. Americans should know that every available air marshal is being deployed and additional resources are being directed to this critical program."
The homefront is not the only spending magnet in the war on terrorism, according to the IHU report. The United States spent $40 billion from Sept. 11, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2002, on its war efforts in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen and Pakistan. That figure, the IHU report shows, included some financial support.
By the end of this year, IHU projects that the United States will have spent nearly twice that, or $74 billion, in its war efforts in Iraq alone. That does not include an additional $7.3 billion IHU says will be spent to reconstruct Iraq and another $900 million to reconstruct Afghanistan this year.
IHU expects the United States to spend another $47 billion on its war efforts in 2004. That does not include additional projections of some $25 billion earmarked for the continued reconstruction of Iraq and another $1.8 billion to do the same in Afghanistan.
More bureaucracy
In reaction to the Sept. 11 tragedies, the federal government created the Department of Homeland Security, a move that has stirred up plenty of political and fiscal debates. IHU projects the department's cost to Americans will reach $80 billion in 2003 and another $29.3 billion in 2004.
Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., is one of several lawmakers who have criticized the creation of the new department. In addition to diverting valuable resources from other agencies, he has said that the department also "gives the American people a false sense of security."
The National Conference of State Legislatures has calculated that Congress and/or the administration has ordered but failed to help states provide for some $25 billion in programs, including $4 billion related to homeland security.
Among the new department's backers is U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio. In June, Bonilla, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said in a prepared statement: "The new department ... has a huge role to fill. I'm proud that we've taken care of the agency's needs and given it the opportunity to grow into a strong defense for our homeland."
He added, "Here in Washington, there are many of us who remain focused on the fundamentals that preserve our way of life -- strengthening our military, our intelligence operations, and our federal agencies that watch our ports of entry for killers trying to enter our country. I'm proud to play a role in these important issues."
The IHU report also takes a look at the projected expenses associated with terrorism beyond 2004. Among the ongoing costs are $4 million per month to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and an additional $916 million per month to keep still more American forces in Afghanistan.
IHU says there will be another $48 billion spent to upgrade airport security and some $50 billion to upgrade U.S. power grids. The latter could be critical in light of the concerns raised by the energy blackout that darkened a number of major cities in the United States and Canada in August.
Repeating history
Wilen says the United States has learned little two years after terrorists flew airliners into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. He says the federal government is still settling for the reactive approach, a road he believes is more costly fiscally, emotionally and physically.
"When we are responding," he argues, "we're playing catch-up."
Wilen, who addressed the 13th World Conference on Disaster Management in Canada earlier this year, adds that the huge expenditures are further draining other essential programs that are already struggling to survive. He says the impact is hurting children and the elderly the most, especially in the areas of health care.
Last August, the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) examined what it called "the widespread premise that the terrorist attacks on America increased public support for an overall increase in military spending."
Said PIPA Director Steven Kull at the time, "Recent polls have created some confusion because some indicated majority support for more defense spending, while others did not."
Kull said the PIPA poll, which surveyed a sample of 1,352 American adults, demonstrated that 61 percent favored more spending to fight terrorism. But he added that only 18 percent favored boosting military spending across the board. The median response in the poll was to keep the military budget at its present level, shifting some of its dollars toward the war on terrorism.
"There is no question that we must take a stand against terrorism," Wilen admits. "But we have to take the right stand. We have to use our resources as wisely as possible and be as prepared as we can. There still is virtually nothing in all of this (spending) that addresses prevention."
Wilen points to philosopher George Santayana, who once said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"My goodness was he right," says Wilen. "It took us three months to recover from 9-11 and three days to recover from its first anniversary. It will likely take us only three hours to recover from the second anniversary."
Critics of the way the United States is fighting terrorism say there are some patches of blue sky mixed in with the ominous clouds. Even Wilen says there is hope that we can get on the right track.
"But only if we reverse our attitudes and realize that we must involve the American people in the process of becoming prepared," he says. "Until then, all that we have is a perception that we are creating security."
Source: American City Business Journals
W. Scott Bailey
09.08.2003
In January, a national think tank tracking costs associated with America's battle to fend off terrorism warned that irresponsible spending was causing the United States to "plant its own seeds of destruction."
Eight months later, with the second anniversary of Sept. 11 days away and the federal government heading toward a record $480 billion deficit in 2004, that same group -- International Horizons Unlimited (IHU) -- says nothing has changed.
In a new Deficit Watch: Costs of the War on Terrorism report obtained exclusively by the Business Journal, IHU projects that the United States will divert a total of more than $470 billion to combat terrorists in 2003 and 2004. That's in addition to the nearly $138 billion spent from Sept. 11, 2001, through the end of 2002.
Dr. Saul B. Wilen is president and CEO of San Antonio-based IHU. He says the current Deficit Watch report utilizes nearly 800 sources ranging from county commissioners and state comptrollers to government agency workers and others.
Furthermore, he adds that every effort was made to ensure that the sourcing of the data was "squeaky clean."
The report indicates that the ongoing effort to combat terrorism will cost the nation roughly $224 billion in 2003 and another $246 billion or more next year. In addition, Wilen contends that, despite throwing tons of cash at the problem, the country remains trapped in a quagmire of flawed approaches.
"Our entire approach to fighting terrorism is cock-eyed," Wilen insists. He claims that some of the federal government's mistakes are that it is spending far too much in several areas and way too little in others that he says are more vital.
"When we talk about protecting Americans, that is something that has been done at the local and regional levels where the first responders are," he explains. "But that's not where the money is going. We are telling the individual communities to pay up. But how can they when they have neither the money or the equipment?"
Other critics believe that more money should be funneled to the front-line forces at the local level. One is Michael Scardaville, a policy analyst on homeland security for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
Scardaville says, "First responders are a crucial link in any effective homeland security policy. To meet the demands of the terrorist threat, a major investment is necessary to train and equip police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and the public health community."
According to the IHU report, which includes updated data through July 31, 2003, only $3.5 billion will be dedicated to training and providing equipment to first responders this year. That number climbs to only $4.4 billion in 2004.
Haphazard approach
IHU's Wilen maintains that the United States must devote adequate resources in an effort to protect its borders and fend off enemy attacks. But he also believes that the federal government is going about that effort haphazardly, exhausting too many dollars that need to be budgeted elsewhere.
In January, Wilen said, "We must fight the war on terrorism. But we must do it cost-effectively and through prevention. We are doing neither. We are almost 100 percent reactive and we can't win that way."
Eight months later, he says the window-dressing approach continues.
"We have real problems with our infrastructure that have to be dealt with," Wilen contends. "Furthermore, our ports are a sieve, our borders remain a series of holes and our airport security is still weak at best."
Administration officials, however, point out the positive steps they say have been taken in bolstering America's homeland security.
On July 30, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge issued the following statement on airport security: "Since Sept. 11, we have required and installed reinforced cockpit doors, employed better-trained and better-equipped passenger and baggage screeners and deployed thousands of air marshals. Americans should know that every available air marshal is being deployed and additional resources are being directed to this critical program."
The homefront is not the only spending magnet in the war on terrorism, according to the IHU report. The United States spent $40 billion from Sept. 11, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2002, on its war efforts in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen and Pakistan. That figure, the IHU report shows, included some financial support.
By the end of this year, IHU projects that the United States will have spent nearly twice that, or $74 billion, in its war efforts in Iraq alone. That does not include an additional $7.3 billion IHU says will be spent to reconstruct Iraq and another $900 million to reconstruct Afghanistan this year.
IHU expects the United States to spend another $47 billion on its war efforts in 2004. That does not include additional projections of some $25 billion earmarked for the continued reconstruction of Iraq and another $1.8 billion to do the same in Afghanistan.
More bureaucracy
In reaction to the Sept. 11 tragedies, the federal government created the Department of Homeland Security, a move that has stirred up plenty of political and fiscal debates. IHU projects the department's cost to Americans will reach $80 billion in 2003 and another $29.3 billion in 2004.
Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., is one of several lawmakers who have criticized the creation of the new department. In addition to diverting valuable resources from other agencies, he has said that the department also "gives the American people a false sense of security."
The National Conference of State Legislatures has calculated that Congress and/or the administration has ordered but failed to help states provide for some $25 billion in programs, including $4 billion related to homeland security.
Among the new department's backers is U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio. In June, Bonilla, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said in a prepared statement: "The new department ... has a huge role to fill. I'm proud that we've taken care of the agency's needs and given it the opportunity to grow into a strong defense for our homeland."
He added, "Here in Washington, there are many of us who remain focused on the fundamentals that preserve our way of life -- strengthening our military, our intelligence operations, and our federal agencies that watch our ports of entry for killers trying to enter our country. I'm proud to play a role in these important issues."
The IHU report also takes a look at the projected expenses associated with terrorism beyond 2004. Among the ongoing costs are $4 million per month to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and an additional $916 million per month to keep still more American forces in Afghanistan.
IHU says there will be another $48 billion spent to upgrade airport security and some $50 billion to upgrade U.S. power grids. The latter could be critical in light of the concerns raised by the energy blackout that darkened a number of major cities in the United States and Canada in August.
Repeating history
Wilen says the United States has learned little two years after terrorists flew airliners into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. He says the federal government is still settling for the reactive approach, a road he believes is more costly fiscally, emotionally and physically.
"When we are responding," he argues, "we're playing catch-up."
Wilen, who addressed the 13th World Conference on Disaster Management in Canada earlier this year, adds that the huge expenditures are further draining other essential programs that are already struggling to survive. He says the impact is hurting children and the elderly the most, especially in the areas of health care.
Last August, the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) examined what it called "the widespread premise that the terrorist attacks on America increased public support for an overall increase in military spending."
Said PIPA Director Steven Kull at the time, "Recent polls have created some confusion because some indicated majority support for more defense spending, while others did not."
Kull said the PIPA poll, which surveyed a sample of 1,352 American adults, demonstrated that 61 percent favored more spending to fight terrorism. But he added that only 18 percent favored boosting military spending across the board. The median response in the poll was to keep the military budget at its present level, shifting some of its dollars toward the war on terrorism.
"There is no question that we must take a stand against terrorism," Wilen admits. "But we have to take the right stand. We have to use our resources as wisely as possible and be as prepared as we can. There still is virtually nothing in all of this (spending) that addresses prevention."
Wilen points to philosopher George Santayana, who once said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"My goodness was he right," says Wilen. "It took us three months to recover from 9-11 and three days to recover from its first anniversary. It will likely take us only three hours to recover from the second anniversary."
Critics of the way the United States is fighting terrorism say there are some patches of blue sky mixed in with the ominous clouds. Even Wilen says there is hope that we can get on the right track.
"But only if we reverse our attitudes and realize that we must involve the American people in the process of becoming prepared," he says. "Until then, all that we have is a perception that we are creating security."