What is the cost of the war in Iraq? (The Times of London Editorial)

The Bush Administration was wrong about the benefits of the war and it was wrong about the costs of the war. The president and his advisers expected a quick, inexpensive conflict. Instead, we have a war that is costing more than anyone could have imagined.
The cost of direct US military operations -- not even including long-term costs such as taking care of wounded veterans -- already exceeds the cost of the 12-year war in Vietnam and is more than double the cost of the Korean War.
And, even in the best case scenario, these costs are projected to be almost ten times the cost of the first Gulf War, almost a third more than the cost of the Vietnam War, and twice that of the First World War. The only war in our history which cost more was the Second World War, when 16.3 million U.S. troops fought in a campaign lasting four years, at a total cost (in 2007 dollars, after adjusting for inflation) of about $5 trillion. With virtually the entire armed forces committed to fighting the Germans and Japanese, the cost per troop (in today's dollars) was less than $100,000 in 2007 dollars. By contrast, the Iraq war is costing upward of $400,000 per troop.

From Bush, Foe of Earmarks, Similar Items

President Bush often denounces the propensity of Congress to earmark money for pet projects. But in his new budget, Mr. Bush has requested money for thousands of similar projects. He asked for money to build fish hatcheries, eradicate agricultural pests, conduct research, pave highways, dredge harbors and perform many other specific local tasks. The details are buried deep in the president’s budget, just as most Congressional earmarks are buried in obscure committee reports that accompany spending bills. . . . The White House defines “earmarks” in a way that applies only to projects designated by Congress, not to those requested by the administration.

Missouri democrats push for mental health program
JEFFERSON CITY — House Democrats proposed on Monday to expand funding for a mental health program that provides intensive care for the homeless, people with substance abuse problems and those who are unaware that they are ill. Supporters say the program is designed for patients who have struggled with the traditional model, which assigns patients a case worker who helps them secure a variety of health services. Jackie Lukitesch, executive director of the St. Louis office of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said the biggest difference between the more intense treatment and traditional models is that patients who miss treatments and appointments are not automatically removed from the program. "They go out and seek out why, if they don't come in, and do not discharge them," she said.
The stepped-up care, called "assertive community treatment," has been used in several states. The Department of Mental Health asked for $5 million to fund the program in its budget requests for the next fiscal year, but Gov. Matt Blunt did not include it in his budget recommendations. A spokeswoman for Blunt said the governor had not included funding for the program "because of funding constraints."

How Would Mental Health be Afffected by the President's Proposed Budget?

Significant cuts to the budgets of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) were some of the lowlights of the Bush administration's budget for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) -- part of an FY2008 spending plan that trims or eliminates a number of prominent federal discretionary programs.
"Bush's proposal would provide a big increase in military spending to fight the war in Iraq while squeezing federal health-care programs and cutting most domestic agencies to below fiscal 2006 levels to meet his goal of eliminating the deficit in five years," noted the American Counseling Association.