Inside Washington for April 18, 2008
Iraq debate shifts from “blood” to “treasure”
An article in this week’s Washington Post suggested that there is a debate going on between several economists as to whether or not the war in Iraq has a causal link to the huge downturn in the U.S. economy. Much like that other ongoing debate among economists – as to whether or not we’re really, finally “in a recession” – the academics are way behind the curve. According to the architects of political reality – politicians and the voters who elect them – the jury is in.
First, let’s go to the voters. As the Post noted, a CNN poll in March found that 71% of respondents believed that there was a direct link between the $10 billion a month the U.S. is spending on the war in Iraq and the declining fortunes of the U.S. domestic economy. Likewise a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted at the start of this month found 67% of respondents saying that the cost of the war contributed “a lot” to our current economic condition, while 22% said it contributed “some.” That’s a combined 89% making the causal link. And the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted just last weekend adds an interesting context to the President’s pitiful approval rating on handling the economy (only 28% approve). As the Post points out, the last time a majority of respondents approved of the President’s handling of the economy in their surveys was also the last time a majority approved of his conduct of the war – in January 2004.
While the housing crisis and skyrocketing gas prices have pushed economic concerns to the front burner of electoral consciousness this year, the war is still a close second and its opponents are making the argument that the link between the two is very real. Although the most vocal proponents of the argument are Democrats, even Republican office holders are beginning to see the link. Thus, the scene of GOP Senators lecturing Gen. David Petraeus earlier this month about their growing impatience and concerns that the war was “bankrupting” the country.
But the loudest voices on the subject right now are those of Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the stump, Clinton talks about the need to “bring that money back home” while Obama argues that the war is costing each U.S. household $100 a month and asks, “Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war.”
The issue of the war’s cost will be part of the argument when competing economic plans are debated in the presidential race this fall. For instance, Sen. John McCain’s economic blueprint for his presidency is laid out with the assumption that the war costs will continue. His plans for future tax cuts rely instead on eliminating Congressional earmarks and other wasteful federal spending.
Similarly, Sen. Clinton’s budget blueprint assumes that current Pentagon spending on the war will be used to fund the logistics of her planned draw-down of forces, their redeployment, and their health care and payroll costs. According to her campaign, her plans for domestic spending are not linked to any assumption about eliminating the cost of the war.
In contrast, Sen. Obama’s economic plan does rely on what his campaign terms a “peace dividend.” In his speech outlining his economic agenda last February, he said that he would pay for “every single element” of that agenda by a three-part solution: ending the war, closing corporate tax loopholes and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Ending the cost of the war is a fundamental assumption for an Obama administration to achieve its plans for tax cuts and increased domestic spending.
While that debate is far off, one safe assumption as summer approaches is that any further worsening of the domestic economy, coupled with further increases in the costs of food and gas, will only exacerbate the seed that’s already firmly planted and growing in the public mind: Iraq is killing our economy.
Political Observations of the Week:
“If John McCain picks a young guy in a jogging suit, it’s an incredibly stupid move because it’s like the casting rule. You know, if you’re Robert Redford’s agent, and they want Brad Pitt to be the co-star, and you’re like, ‘No, we want Ernest Borgnine.’ You know, it’s a balancing act.”
Mike Murphy, veteran GOP campaign consultant, on the question of Sen. John McCain’s Vice Presidential pick.
“There’s one big question mark hanging over the Catholic vote, and that’s the Iraq war.”
Deal Hudson, adviser to the McCain campaign, on GOP fears that the Catholic Church’s opposition to the war will hurt the party among Catholic voters.
“All the people I’ve worked hard for, I’m now opposing them on TV. I do feel like the last of the Mohicans.”
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), on his very vocal support of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.
“[This is] red meat for low-tax, free-market Reagan Republicans.”
Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, on Sen. McCain’s speech this week presenting his tax plan.
“As Pennsylvania history shows, when you did have to admit an error, apologize and ask for forgiveness, it always meant one thing: you were going to lose.”
Veteran Pennsylvania political journalist Al Neri, on a decades-long trend in that state of the consequences of a verbal gaffe late in a campaign.
_____________________________________________________
John J. Kohut is an independent political analyst in Washington, D.C. He has been writing about national politics for more than a decade, including stints as an editor at the Cook Political Report and as senior editor at the Rothenberg Political Report.