Time's money, talk's cheap, and somebody's done spent their allowance

You know you are heading into one of these weekends when you see the numbers in a report from the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the United States has spent roughly $604 billion on the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tab is estimated to hit $2.4 trillion over the next decade. And to think, you were probably sitting here, feeling all good because you just made an Internet payment on your student loans. Yeah. Good for you.

Word from the Democrats seems to be they are not going to do anything on President Bush's $196 billion request for war operations until early 2008, which seems to fall right in line with the present modus operandi of not doing very much of anything of all. The train of thought limping down the tracks on this is that the Pentagon can foot the bill through March by borrowing against its annual budget. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when the parent lets the kids borrow against their allowance, doesn't it result in a lot of wasted money? Besides, who would be surprised if the Pentagon's budget were to suddenly be increased by the exact same amount they had borrowed?

Officials in the industry say the beginning plan would cost other programs, like base support and training, increasing the costs on down the road. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), head of the Armed Services Committee, said the Dems were looking at approving dough six months at a time, to increase pressure for a timetable, as well as dodge a "negative message to the troops." Yes, sir. Nothing would increase pressure on a timetable like continuing to pay for the wars. The only timetable President Bush is interested in starts in January 2009, when he can get started on his Presidential Liberry. One year, six months, week-and-a-half, what exactly is the difference? As for the troops, I'm sure enough of them already have a negative message of some sort, regardless of how much more money is spent to not equip them. Speaking of negative messages, not one Republican member of the House Budget Committee showed for a Thursday meeting on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something tells me somebody is pretty comfortable not only wit the cost of the wars, but the idea they are, in all likelihood, going to get the money one way or another and in some sort of eventually. And from what we've sen, why shouldn't they be anything but comfortable?

Less and less like news each day

Holy damn. By this point, my only real surprise is there is no Britney Spears' Upskirt Shot of the Day club. Even chieftains of the most remote tribes of the Amazon rain forest know what Kevin Federline and slow creeping insanity managed to wreck for everybody else. Tell you what, princess, you shave your head again, would it at least tempt you to browse the panty section at Frederick's?

Better yet, I'm waiting for the morning when I'm just trying to enjoy my first cup of coffee, and the Feature section regales me with the snippet regarding Spears' upcoming scratch-n-sniff coffee table book, Oops, You Read Me Again. That'd be the book signing of the year.

With success like this, who needs failure?

With all of the flat-out denial we get treated to on a daily basis regarding the current state of our fiasco in Iraq, I imagine sometimes it is easy to forget that Iraq is not the only war America is losing. In the midst of plummeting approval ratings for both the president and congress, a less-than-surprising new chapter in denial made its debut courtesy of the nation's drug czar. According to John Walters, the head of the Office of Drug Control Policy, the war on drugs is seeing some of its best results of the last 20 years. Thankfully, there is no mention of the insipid and ineffectual anti-drug commercials the government has flushed away hundreds of millions of dollars on over the years.

So, what are some of the results that Walters is crowing mightily about? While 90%, give or take, of the cocaine that enters this country comes from Mexico, interdiction efforts have disrupted the flow enough to drive prices up in thirty-seven cities across the nation. The price jump is reported to range from 24% to nearly double in some cities. Okay, let me get this straight. Thirty-seven cities, out of thousands of cities, is considered the best results of the last twenty years? Sounds like typical war on drugs mathematics- high on optimism and low on return. Besides the numbers not exactly playing to Walters' favor, there is the train of thought that increased prices will just increase pressure in the clandestine drug market, leading to increased efforts to get it, at least in thirty-seven select cities. I'm sure any potential increase in the crime rate will make the irony involved somehow worth it.

Another key point in Walters' happy news was his statement that fewer American workers are producing positive drug test results, in addition to fewer cocaine-related hospital admissions. More ado about nothing. While fewer hospital admission can invariably reduce peripheral spending linked to the war on drugs, and fewer workers testing positive for drugs will undoubtedly help employers sleep better at night, it misses two two other obvious points to consider. Interdiction may be helping but the reality is people are simply growing more functional and using smarter. I have said for years that potheads are among the most cost-efficient employees out there. They hate switching jobs, due to often having to test for a new job, and they are among the safest, because workers' comp always drug tests for an on-the-job accident. That right there is more realistic and believable than possibly anything John Walters has said since taking charge at the ODCP.

You may consider Walters a little foolish, as he beams like Don Quixote charging a windmill, but at least he is a humble man, our drug czar, sharing some of the credit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Out of the world leaders battling a major war on drugs, only Calderon seems to be the one willing to put up some serious, and realistic, effort to combat trafficking, sending 25,000 police officers and army personnel to the areas hit hardest by drug violence. Not that sending 25,000 U.S troops to our borders would do much good, seeing as how the DEA, Customs, Border Patrol, ATF, U.S. Marshal's office, Coast Guard, Homeland Security can't coordinate and make a dent in any drug traffic, let alone the scratch to the iceberg Walters is celebrating.

Walters issued his remarks as the United States and Mexico are kicking around the details of an aid package estimated up to $1 billion to help Mexico fight the drug trade. What kind of success can we expect for this $1 billion, the kind John Walters is promoting, or something someone could be proud of with a straight face? Walters says the challenge is sustaining the results for the long term, but that seems to be casting an impossibly large shadow over the challenge of actually producing some results.