A new way to discuss US public spending
It's been a long while since someone-- was it Kos?-- suggested we all use the term 'Friedman Unit' to describe any six-month period, given Tom F's frequent reference in earlier years to the idea that "in just six months" everything would surely be resolved inside Iraq...
So now, I have another suggestion along similar lines. (Hat-tip to Bill the spouse on this, too.)
I propose we all start discussing the sums involved in various legislation or public discussion of US federal spending in terms of what we should call "Iraqi Occupation Days" (IODs).
That is, the amount of US tax dollars consumed in a single day of continuing to run the occupation of Iraq.
I'd say that one IOD equals roughly $300 million. That, based on the idea that the current costs of running the occupation are somewhere between $8 billion and $11 billion a month-- ballpark figures being the only ones available-- and if we put it at $9 billion then that's easily divisible by 30.
Thus, for example, in today's WaPo, we have a report that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has said that the cost of the new congressional measures to help US homeowners threatened by foreclosure "should be less than $25 billion." Well, that would be about 83 IODs (i.e., less than the cost of three months' worth of operations in Iraq.)
I need to develop this idea further, but right now I have to run... Thoughts?
Here in Boston, the unit is a "Big Dig", which (unfortunately) seems to keep on growing. Once upon a time it was a round dozen billion dollars (40 IODs), but there were additional overruns, and lately people with various political agendas have taken to including the interest costs as well.
I think it's a great idea. (Also, I believe it was Duncan at Atrios who coined the Friedman Unit.)
This is an excellent idea, and one that I have been trying to employ for some time now. I find it particularly effective when politicians are bloviating that we "can't afford" some program that costs $300 million to say, for example, "so we can afford to spend that in a day in Iraq, but not on children's health?
It's also a useful counter to those who talk about how we *have* to stay in Iraq as if it costs nothing to do so. Even if one were to accept their arguments about the security implications (which I don't), that doesn't mean it's automatically worth any cost -- it still begs the question of whether there are other programs that would be more useful even in the narrow realm of security.