This might not seem like a lot, until you read another one of Today's essays, once again the staff is ranting and raving about a new form of "socialized medicine" (note the current one socializes much of the research in State-Funded Universities and in foundations, and then hands the findings to big business who generates dazzling profits off of this research...a scenario where people should benefit from their tax-money, and not just big-business, is far too frightening.)
In this rant, they state "...While concessions announced this week are a step in the right direction, the overall bill is still an invitation to major deficit spending and a larger health care role for government. Trimming $100 billion from a $1.3 trillion proposal isn’t much of a haircut." But as Dean Baker recently noted (hey Oklahoman Editorial Staff, see how easy it is to say who said what!) the "huge" trillion-dollar price tag is equal to about 0.5% of projected GDP over the next decade. The Iraq War (which The Oklahoman overwhelmingly supported) at its peak cost more than 1% of GDP.
So, note that the HUGE figure to fix our disgraceful, embarrasing health care system is only one-third in size the number GDP-wise (over a decade) as is the percentage of times the Editorial staff said "liberal" or "liberals" in their piece explaining that Inhofe says funny things but we voted for him.
Yes, I know this is apples and roti, but what do we get from being told Inhofe can do as he pleases, and it is ok because we voted for him? What sense does that make? Isn't this the newspaper that constantly rants and raves about us being a Republic, not a Democracy? And therefore, shouldn't the fact that we voted for this man, and he is doing these zany things be something that should cause at least some alarm?
That is far too much to ask if first we can not even think to contemplate the massive costs of war compared to fixing our health care system.