At the end of CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, host Bob Schieffer fretted over massive government spending but avoided blaming current Democratic proposals: “I’m not even talking about the cost of health care....It is now costing $1 million a year to keep one U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, not to mention that for every soldier there, we have one civilian contractor.”
Schieffer also cited reconstruction costs in Iraq: “I picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project since the Marshall Plan.” He described his reaction to the war spending: “...last week I got surprised – no, I should say had a jaw-dropping shock – a better way to put it – every time I picked up the newspaper and read about the numbers that we’re throwing around lately.”
In concluding his commentary, Schieffer wondered: “...when President Obama came calling to China, we owed the Chinese more than a trillion dollars...is going a trillion dollars in hock to one country made us more secure?”
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
10:53AMBOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, during the Johnson administration, the Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen was railing one day against government spending and managed to say ‘a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.’ That’s almost quaint these days and I’m not even talking about the cost of health care. I used to say I had been around so long that nothing surprised me. But last week I got surprised – no, I should say had a jaw-dropping shock – a better way to put it – every time I picked up the newspaper and read about the numbers that we’re throwing around lately.
Like yesterday, when I picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project since the Marshall Plan. Which you’ll recall was to rebuild Europe after World War II. Sobering but not surprising, many of those facilities may close when we leave because there are not enough trained Iraqis to operate them.
Another number in the news last week that I found astounding. It is now costing $1 million a year to keep one U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, not to mention that for every soldier there, we have one civilian contractor. Which helps explain another shocker that came out last week. That ten years ago we owed the government of Spain more than we owed China. Yet when President Obama came calling to China, we owed the Chinese more than a trillion dollars. Yep, old Ev Dirksen was right. A billion here, a billion there and it added up to real money and a big pile of bills. But is going a trillion dollars in hock to one country made us more secure?
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NO previous concerns
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:03 ET by ptsonSo it is wrong to spend money on the military but $billions for bailouts and condoms and art is GOOD spending? To quote a recent czar: "A-hole!"
CBS Needs to update its chyron
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:34 ET by allanfIt should say
these simple bas-ards!!!
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 12:31 ET by Patriot IIHit at the military ...this useless piece of flesh! Strange how the idiot doesn't mention the "Trillion" dollars plus his hero oblahma has spent this year and the 10 or 12 or more "Trillion" that will be spent in the next ten years....but no...it has to be whats spent on the military.....simple...stupid, moronic....clowns......they need to see what condition the military was in at the beginning of WWII because of embeciles like him! pull your pants down, bend over, and wait for the enemy to stick it to you........!
I hope Bob isn't allowed to handle his own bills anymore...
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:12 ET by Jnoble..if he thinks spending 54 billion on Iraq rebuilding is too much but 800+ on a "stimulous", 700+ on the TARP bailout and 1+ TRILLION for the health care reform isn't a big deal.
Good lord. Can't you see him shaking his head at an $80 electric bill while simutantiously making a bid on E-Bay for a $23,000,000 amusment park? lol
When you consider the
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 22:10 ET by BDWhen you consider the history of the DOD budget in context of its place in the Gross Domestic Product, the DOD budget is at a trend of historical lows.
We spend less of our GDP on Defense now then we did for every year in the past sixty with the exception of slightly smaller amounts during the time period 1995-2004. In fact, we spend only a fraction of the money we did on defense during the Pre WWII period, Korean War Period, Vietnam Period, and the end of the cold war.
THe period accounting for the presidency of James Earl Carter approaches what we spend now but we are still generally lower in scale.
THis can be accounted for simply by vast reductions in personnel within the Armed Forces in the post Cold War era that have still yet to be replaced.
At the end of the cold war the US Army consisted of 18 divisions compared to ten today and the other services have had like reductions.
If anything, if history is our guide we are spending TOO LITTLE of our GDP on defense and it shows in a lack of capability. Can we fight a major war and holding action elsewhere as was the plan under Reagan? Not likely. And our adversaries know it. And they laugh at "The Chosen One."
I cant leave a proper comment
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:18 ET by MPayneBecause it would be laced with profanity.
The nerve of the people never ceases to astound me.
" Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it. " - William T. Sherman
..and
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:34 ET by MPayneThis seems like this is Obama's answer to the Afghanistan issue. Have it float out there that it is too expensive and we will need to help pay for it. I assume he hopes this will keep support down for the War & Troops; a "graceful" way for him to deny troops.
It is clear that our troops do not have this administration's backing.
" Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it. " - William T. Sherman
SEE-BS...
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 00:10 ET by danybhoySchieffer does'nt seem to understand the value of the very institution that protects his sorry @$$ & allows him to stay safe while denouncing it. He has been in the Manhattan/Beltway Bubble for far too long, so he is disconected from the real America. He does'nt understand the real America or real Americans, & he does'nt even know it.
Between Schieffer, Couric, & Smith, I wonder who the hell can tune into CBSnews for anything news related?
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
What a dunce Bob is and
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:30 ET by bigtimerWhat a dunce Bob is and always has been, I just wished he would shut the heck up, retire, and go the hell away...he's a detriment to himself and doesn't even realize it.. he's been reading teleprompters too long. ...
Problem is, I know the propaganda continues 24/7, but seriously, with the internet now, people like him are useless idiots anymore....before they were just useful idiots.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Well Bob
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 19:03 ET by general companyI picked up the New York Times to discover we have spent more money
rebuilding Iraq’s schools, hospitals, water treatment and electrical
plants – $54 billion – than we have spent on any construction project
since the Marshall Plan.
Your not being a good Dim Bob. You would'nt suggest we just leave without providing them with every thing they need, would you? We could of had just trashed the place, let everyone else in the region know we will not hesitate to do the same to them. But that may of made them mad, and we cant have that, right Bob. Hey Bob, how many of our troops died trying to accommodate you Dims?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
General...
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 20:30 ET by okiehawk44The neo-left controls the appropriations for both military and civilian spending in Iraq and Afganistan and they have since 2006.
If they have not and do not now like the level of American spending they can immediately suspend it.
Have they? NO!
They love this nation-building crap and so did Bush.
That "nation-building" "crap"
Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:12 ET by UnsaneThey love this nation-building crap and so did Bush. Yeah, the Marshall Plan was a real dud, wasn't it?
Not that I would "nation-build" Afghanistan to nearly the same extent. IF it is limited to securing the nation enough for the Afghans to run it themselves, AND we limit our operations to simple things like purging as much of the countryside as possible of Soviet-era mines, for instance, and at that point turn over the keys to the Afghans to either let it fly or run it into the ground, that, I think, will be good. That and make sure enough Taliban are dead where they stand to the point where they cannot pose a threat...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unstated Reason for Health Care Reform
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 19:04 ET by TigerWe know that the so called healthcare reform now in Congress will establish another entitilement that will suck up a major portion of the national budget in addition to Social Security and Medicare.
I believe that the anti-military liberals in Congress know that this bill will suck money from defense and reduce the US military to the level of Britain's. That will leave China as the dominant military power in the world.
The healthcare reform is so cangerous. I am not sure we can recover as a free nation if it is put into law.
The Whiny States of America
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 22:35 ET by UnsaneI believe that the anti-military liberals in Congress know that this bill will suck money from defense and reduce the US military to the level of Britain's. That will leave China as the dominant military power in the world. If we are extremely lucky, we will have a military as powerful as Britain's if the government is empowered to baby people with "free" health care.
You are exactly right. This is part of the motivation behind the Left. And no, they do not care who is the dominant military power afterwards: China, India, Russia, it does not matter to the Left, so long as the United States is rendered completely and totally whiny on the world scene.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yeah, he has a point
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 08:27 ET by BDYeah, he has a point regarding the health care spending sucking th elife out of the military - such has happened in Canada.
The same nation that was able to contribute an entire field army during WWII is now only capable of fielding the equivalent of a brigade and is in the process of giving away their last tank battalion.
When you talk to Canadians they note that their government is in fiscal constraints and worry about its ability to pay for anything because of the huge amounts of revenue flushed into their abysmal healthcare system.
Paging Bob Schieffer your adult diapers are ready to be picked
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 19:51 ET by pahuberup.
Senility was declared years ago for this relic.
I had to read this post
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 21:07 ET by BKeyserI had to read this post twice. Am I to believe that a liberal newsman is suggesting that we finance our domestic entitlement programs on the backs of our men and women in combat?
Wow. What a surprise.
Re combat financing
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 22:16 ET by slickwillie2001And that reminds me, when President George W. Bush was in office, the liberal media couldn't wait to pick apart our soldiers' equipment. Remember the endless debates over body armor? A new version would come out and the democratics would scream because every soldier couldn't be instantly equipped with the latest and greatest. Now under the Bamster I guess all advancements in body armor have ended?
And the vehicles too; remember the HMMV up-armor body kits, field applied, and the debate over whether they were as good as an armored-from-the-factory HMMV? and the demands that our soldiers have better vehicles like tbe Buffalo and others? Endless Congressional investigations into numbers of newly-armored vehicles, etc, etc. Now it seems vehicles are no big deal.
In Afghanistan our losses continue, mostly from IEDs. Not a word from the liberal media. How many rounds of golf did the Bamster do this weekend?
Guy? Soldiers are expensive.
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 22:12 ET by JWFYou gotta pay, feed, clothe, house, train, buy equipment for, move them and their dependents and household goods and generally pay for and maintain all of the various tools they use including tanks, carriers, bombers, fighter planes and laser death ray satellites.
Comes out to something like a cool quarter mil in peacetime too.
Oh, you gotta pay for the retired guys too. Same budget. Including me. Thanks guy.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Scheiffer's a Quisling
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 23:29 ET by nadadhimmiScheiffer is old enough to remember the term "Quisling" from it's initial use to denote a citizen working against his own country on behalf of a forgein power. Scheiffer is most assuredly a QUISLING.
... provide for the common defence ...
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 23:38 ET by JakeMoIf he's really concerned about how we're going to pay for the nation's security, I've got a great place to find the money.
I hear there is anywhere from $300-$700 billion a year of waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare, medicaid.
Let's spend those dollars on the nation's security instead.
Yeah, the presidnet seems
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 08:29 ET by BDYeah, the presidnet seems to think that that much money could be saved. I say spend it on the military healthcare system which has been forced to shed doctors, nurses and technicians since the 1980's.
This morning on Fox ...
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 13:11 ET by SentryDanThis morning on Fox & Friends, the guys came up with a question that needs to be asked. It was: "If this new tax to fund the troops in Afghanistan is passed, do you think that the money will actually be used to fund those troops?"
I believe we all know the answer to that question, "NO" and not only "NO", but "HELL, NO." The Constitution provides for funding the U.S. Military, it does not provide for funding welfare programs. But this administration and this congress want to put all kinds of money to social engineering and the security of the Nation be damned.
In the military the term used for this kind of action is "dereliction of duty". It equally applies to our corrupt congress. "We the People" need to prevent these liberal slugs from destroying the United States. Let's vote the bums out. Then IMPEACH OBAMA.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.
Also remember folks, that the way to SUPPORT THE TROOPS is to support their mission. Anyone who says that they support the troops but don't support their mission is lying about supporting the troops. And if you want to know, yes I do have a dog in the fight, he is a United States Marine.
They tax us for nonsense
Tue, 12/01/2009 - 02:32 ET by JakeMoThey tax us for nonsense they have no Constitutional authority for, then they claim we have to pay extra if we want them to satisfy their Constitutional obligations.
If a business pulled a scam like this, the management would go to jail.