Take Me To Post Comment Form At the height of the war in Iraq, the cost to taxpayers was approximately $8 billion dollars per month. Twelve times each year, we taxpayers forked over $8 billion dollars to pay for a war to rid the world of weapons that did not exist. That deafening silence you heard came from the right wingers who consider themselves to be fiscal hawks.

There were no teaparty demonstrations. When it became crystal clear to even the staunchest war supporters that Saddam had no weapons, there were no claims that it was unconstitutional for the government to use our armed forces to "spread democracy". Even raising the question of the cost of the invasion of Iraq was tantamount to treason in some quarters.

With that historical context, today we find an interesting story about another government program where the cost over the next two years will be roughly equivalent to a couple of weeks in Iraq. State governments, private companies and labor unions have begun to enroll in the federal program designed to ensure that older people do not lose their existing health insurance coverage.

If you remember the health care debate from last year, you might recall the critics and their claims of a government takeover, or that you would lose your health care insurance, even if you were satisfied with it. Sorry if I am being redundant, but right wingers were lying, again.

For the cost of a few weeks in Iraq, which none of these folks even blinked at, the implementation strategy for health care reform includes a program designed to minimize the possibility that people approaching retirement age will be dropped from health care by their employer. Government assistance to help people keep what they have is the exact opposite of what right wingers were claiming just one year ago. Why am I not surprised?

As icing on the rhetorical cake, a number of states who are attempting to sue the federal government, are also applying to participate in the program. This example is an excellent illustration of why I pesonally think the teaparty movement is all about politics and not about the size of government or government spending.

A Democrat is in the White House. In my opinion that is the sole motivation of the teaparty movement. Should Republicans return to power, I gurantee you that whether the GOP spends $5billion per year, per week or per day, you will not hear a peep out of the tea brigades. Certainly you will not see any of them marching around with a Hitler mustache painted on Sarah Palin.

I happen to think the whole tea party phenomenon is phony outrage ginned up by professional lobbyists like Dick Armey. It is a lot like campaign 2008 when they thought Senator Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. For months we heard these allegations from right wing pundits about illegal contributions from China. There was no shortage of hand wringing about the integrity of our electoral process. There were calls for an investigation.

Then what happened? Senator Clinton did not win the nomination. All of that earnest concern about the integrity of our electoral process vanished. No more political hay to be made there. I think the teaparty phenomenon is exactly the same thing on a much larger scale. It is about partisan poltics dressed up with bogus concerns about government spending.

In any case, from a purely practical standpoint, which is a better use of $5billion in taxpayer dollars? Two weeks in Iraq looking for weapons that do not exist? Or two to three years of a program designed to make sure that the oldest members of the workforce have some protection against losing their existing health care insurance?

For those of you keeping score at home, that would be the insurance that right wingers told us would be forcibly taken away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/31/AR2010083106744.html

The $5 billion program is a key "bridge" provision of the new health-care law, intended to encourage employers to maintain coverage of early retirees and their families until states are able to establish federally subsidized health insurance exchanges in 2014. At that point, early retirees dropped by their employers presumably could purchase insurance through the exchanges at more affordable rates than the ones currently available to them on the individual market.