President Bush Needs $50 Billion More for Iraq

According to the Washington Post, President Bush will ask Congress for $50 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War. Given that the Pentagon spends about $3 billion a week just in Iraq, we can understand the need for another run on the treasury. But it raises a curious question, "How much is $50 billion?"

Most people can picture the value of $1 million or even $50 million. But $50 billion? How do we put that number into perspective? We know $50 billion is what the Bush Administration said (in December 2002) the entire Iraq war would cost. This turned out to be an optimistic estimate. The Pentagon now tells us that Iraq has cost--not counting this latest demand--over $330 billion.

The spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid thought the President would just want $30 billion or so. President Bush, however, may have the need to include additional funding to cover the inevitable fraud and war profiteering. In any event, this still fails to give us a picture of what $50 billion really means in human terms. We could list the bullets, tanks, and armaments that $50 billion would purchase. But unless we are professional soldiers, we still face the same quandary. How much is $50 billion?

Accordingly, let us break this number down into human terms. According to a recent National Geographic study, Malaria threatens half the world's population. It will infect up to a half billion people this year. A million of those-mostly young children-will die. The World Health Organization identifies malaria reduction as a chief priority. Bill Gates called malaria "the worst thing on the planet." The Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) estimates that $13 billion spent on mosquito nets and effective medication over four years would halve the incidence of malaria.

Malnutrition due to the lack of micro-nutrients inflicts much of the world. We see preventable mental retardation and brain damage devastate the brain development of young children due to iodine deficiency. UNICEF tells us that between four and five billion people suffer from iron deficiency and 2 billion are anemic. This particularly affects pregnant women and young children (lack of iron is implicated in 20 per cent of maternal deaths). In addition, we learn that at least 100 million children under five suffer from vitamin A deficiency, high levels of which may blind or increase the risk that a child will die of diseases such as measles, diarrhea, and acute respiratory infections. The CCC has told us that for about $12 billion, we could help two billion people avoid malnutrition by providing micro-nutrients to resolve diseases caused by lack of iron, zinc, iodine, and vitamin A deficiency.

The actual numbers are hard to pinpoint, but a reasonable estimate is 40 million people worldwide suffer from HIV or Aids. According to the Joint UN program on HIV/AIDS, Africa remains the global epicenter of the AIDS pandemic. The number of people infected continues to grow (though the incidence of HIV/AIDS is leveling off). The CCC estimates that we could prevent 28 million cases of HIV/AIDS over the next three to five years by spending $27 billion.

I would not dare advocate that President Bush spend $50 billion on the above problems. Surely, however, this illustrates what we actually mean by this talk of spending $50 billion. It is 250,000,000 fewer cases of malaria a year; it is 500,000 live children. It is two billion people not suffering from malnutrition. It is 28 million fewer cases of HIV/AIDS. Mind you, we would need to recover at least two billion out of the five billion that contractors stole from the federal government. You see, 13+12+27 = 52, not 50. But I have faith that the U.S. Department of Justice lead by an independent, competent Attorney General will prove up to the task.