Why is paying for Afghanistan war necessarily more important that health care?

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders were the featured guests on ABC News "This Week" yesterday.  The discussion with host, George Stephanopoulos, centered on President Obama's upcoming announcement of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and the current health care reform debate. 

There were two exchanges that were illuminating.  The first had to do with a proposed House resolution, supported by Sen. Sanders, that any funding for increased troop levels in Afghanistan be paid for with a surtax.  (Video is here).

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does he have a point there, Senator Graham? If we're going to fight a war, shouldn't the American people pay for it?

GRAHAM: Well, I'd like to see an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending and find some dollars that we're spending today to pay for the war, and prioritize American spending...Can we trim up the health care bill and other big-ticket items to pay for a war that we can't afford to lose? So I welcome a debate about how to control government spending and pay for the war.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you are against the tax, but you are for cutting spending to pay for this, not increasing the deficit?

GRAHAM: I think it would be a good exercise for the Congress to look at ways to trim up the spending... Our national security future depends on getting it right in Afghanistan, and there is no better use of taxpayer dollars than to defend America, in my view.

It's fair to say Sen. Graham wasn't too worried about the possibility the funding for increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan, which he characterized as "no better use of taxpayer dollars", would come from the imaginary money tree we've used, with his full endorsement, to fund the Bush tax cuts, the Medicare drug bill and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But then the discussion turned to the health care reform bills and Sen. Graham was suddenly very worried about where that money would come from.  When Stephanopoulos noted a new MIT study indicated health care insurance premiums would fall with the Senate health care reform bill, Graham rebutted the study by saying he didn't "believe that's true".  (Video here)

GRAHAM:  So I think the whole thing is a sham.  And we've done nothing with the doctor fix.  Are we going to let the $2900 billion doctor fix go into effect over the next 10 years?  The House just passed it without an offset.  So when you look at it, it makes an Enron accountant blush the way they're trying to make these numbers work.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  What's your answer, Senator Sanders?

SANDERS:  I voted for the doctor fix.  I don't think that Senator Graham did.  Bottom line is...

GRAHAM:  No, because it wasn't paid for.

In short, Lindsey Graham is fully prepared to support increasing U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, regardless of whether it's paid for or not, but refuses to support any provisions that would expand and make less expensive health care for Americans if those provisions are unfunded. 

Lindsey Graham isn't alone in terms of his priorities:

With Obama's Afghanistan speech coming as the Senate takes up the debate over the health care overhaul, (Senator Richard) Luger recommended that Congress postpone the health care effort until next year so lawmakers can concentrate on how to finance the war.

"The war is terribly important," Lugar said.  " I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year...and talk now about the essentials; the war and money." (Link)

It would seem difficult for Senators Graham and Lugar to pretend they care about blowing the budget when they very clearly don't even care to consider whether the U.S. can actually afford the Afghanistan war.  What's even more distressing is their obvious consideration that building a democracy in Afghanistan, whether the Afghans want it or not, is a far higher priority than providing a decent health care system for Americans.

Comments

[Xong]

Republicans are worried about the war in Afghanistan because they had already screwed up Iraq. The Bush Administration uprooted an entire country (Iraq), which lead to increased threats from Islamic extremists and resulted in something far from a functioning democracy.

Now, if they don't "win" in Afghanistan and they don't find Bin laden, then in many people's eyes it would mean the War on Terror was a complete failure. Lives had been lost, civil liberties have been diminished, and the very fabric of what was once America, or the idea of America, has been stained. The future generation will be left to clean up the mess, similar to Vietnam.

But, really, it's not just the Republicans. This will be on everybody's shoulders.

[norris hall]

For the past 8 years Republicans have turned a surplus they inherited from Clinton into BIG RED INK.
And never did they complain that they were spending money we didn't have or shouldering our children with debt.
Now that a Democrat is in the White House they want you to forget the past 8 years and believe that Republicans are fiscally responsible.
Well, the war in Afghanistan is an EXPENSE. And it will have to be PAID FOR.
The idea of taking something from Health Care to pay for Afghanistan is a GIMMICK. First of all, there is nothing in health care. As long as you are in debt.... It's all borrowed money
And We are so deep in debt (to the tune of 12 trillion dollars) that there is only one way to move out of it: Stop spending and start collecting (that's right...TAXES).

Anyone who tries to pretend that we can take money from one program and shift it to another needs a reality check. When you are in debt...trading a new car for a mink coat just continues the cycle of spending. If you can afford to give up the new car, the prudent thing to do is to take that money and pay off some debt.

OR

Go out and make more money to pay off the debt.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul is irresponsible fiscal policy and the Republicans are playing that game

Tea Party Protesters, "Hello" where are you???????

[Jay McDonough]

honestly, I think the tea party crowd would gain a good deal of credibility if they were consistent in their criticism. They just look like Republican cranky sore losers now.