[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 111 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7795-H7796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE SHARED SACRIFICES OF WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
read into the Record an insightful article by Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, one of 
the Nation's leading authorities on health care economics and a 
distinguished resident of central New Jersey. Dr. Reinhardt is known 
for his health care economics, but here he articulates the danger of 
what economists call the ``moral hazard'' we are currently facing with 
regard to Iraq.
  Economists refer to moral hazard when people, insensitive to the 
costs of their actions, increase the costs to others. With regard to 
Iraq, we have a situation in which the vast majority of policymakers 
and the general public are utterly insulated from the human and 
financial costs of the war.
  Dr. Reinhardt, as the father of a U.S. Marine, personally understands 
the angst that families feel every day about loved ones serving in 
harm's way. President Bush has taken to analogizing the war in Iraq to 
the American Revolution and, most recently, the Second World War. What 
follows is an opinion article written by Dr. Reinhardt that appeared in 
the Washington Post last month, in August, entitled ``Who is Paying For 
Our Patriotism?'' I will insert the entire article for the Record.
  Dr. Reinhardt writes, ``President Bush assures us that the ongoing 
twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. 
Editorialists around the Nation agree and say that a steadfast American 
public was willing to stay the course.
  ``Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that 
these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort, neither blood nor angst nor 
taxes, on well over 95 percent of the American people? At most, 500,000 
American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at 
some time. Assume that for each one of them, some 20 members of the 
wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed 
in Afghanistan, or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or 
seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million 
Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.
  ``The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths 
to insulate voters from the money costs of the wars to the point even 
of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. 
Furthermore, they financed the wars not with taxes, but by borrowing 
abroad.''
  Dr. Reinhardt continues, ``The strategic shielding of most voters 
from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but 
trigger the analogue of what is called `moral hazard' in the context of 
health insurance, a field in which,'' Dr. Reinhardt says, ``I have done 
a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of 
well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to 
the costs they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to 
advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a 
handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional and 
financial cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will 
be at work in that context as well?
  ``A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from 
the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill-prepared, 
as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context 
can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty ship every 2 weeks 
and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years 
now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with 
conventional equipment.
  ``Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors of the 
morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest 
the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor 
their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved 
ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  ``Moral hazard,'' he says, ``also can explain why the general public 
is also so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their 
families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to 
proclaim our support for the troops.''

                              {time}  1730

  But at the same time we allow families of Reservists and National 
Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones 
stand tall for us on lethal battle fields and the family is deprived of 
these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance 
in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the 
full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our 
legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves 
bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs in a Nation with a $13 trillion 
economy.
  When our son, says Dr. Reinhardt, then a Princeton graduate, decided 
to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him, do what you must. But 
be advised

[[Page H7796]]

that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this Nation will never 
truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the 
economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full article of Dr. 
Uwe Reinhardt, ``Who's Paying for Our Patriotism?'' appear at this 
point in the Record.
       President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. 
     Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a 
     steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.
       Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given 
     that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort--neither blood 
     nor angst nor taxes--on well over 95 percent of the American 
     people?
       At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being 
     deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for 
     each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with 
     fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan 
     or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or 
     seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 
     million Americans have any real emotional connection to these 
     wars.
       The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary 
     lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars--
     to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the 
     regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the 
     wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad.

  Dr. Reinhardt continues:

       The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional 
     or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the 
     analogue of what is called ``moral hazard'' in the context of 
     health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of 
     scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of 
     well-insured patients to use health care with complete 
     indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has 
     prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with 
     very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans 
     are completely insulated against the emotional--and 
     financial--cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral 
     hazard will be at work in that context as well?
       A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded 
     from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and 
     ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral 
     hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once 
     built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly 
     designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years 
     merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional 
     equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV 
     anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to 
     report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly 
     banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they 
     ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray 
     might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan?
       Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so 
     noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their 
     families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our 
     cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same 
     time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard 
     members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved 
     ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family 
     is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian 
     salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously 
     wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that 
     entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative 
     representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves 
     bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care 
     spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs--in a nation 
     with a $13 trillion economy!
       Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected 
     $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for 
     financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food 
     pantries for American military families? The state of 
     Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to 
     such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than 
     $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It 
     is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. 
     With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent 
     per capita. Is this what we mean by ``supporting our 
     troops''?
       When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to 
     join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: ``Do what 
     you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric 
     notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your 
     service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the 
     economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded.'' 
     The intervening years have not changed my views; they have 
     reaffirmed them.
       Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at 
     all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the 
     course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who 
     would not have that resolve?

                          ____________________