The current obstacle holding up Washington’s continued aid to Ukraine seems unconnected to the merits. Republicans, many of whom do not share President Joe Biden’s resolve to stand firm against Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambitions, are refusing to approve new funding unless the administration accepts their position on domestic immigration reform. They are cynically using Ukraine’s fate as a chit in an unrelated political battle. But underpinning this decision is another view held by many of them and their constituents: that the money Washington spends on assistance to Kyiv is a poor use of taxpayer dollars.
The critic’s argument, which can frequently be heard on both the right and the far left, is rhetorically powerful: How does it make sense to spend money on Ukraine’s military when we have so many problems here at home? Why should America finance a foreign war when we’re facing ballooning budget deficits, rising consumer prices, and other pressing economic needs? The answer is relatively straightforward: Cutting the Ukrainians off would not only be morally reprehensible, and militarily shortsighted — it would be fiscally irresponsible.
Set aside the strategic wisdom of letting an autocrat overrun an independent democracy, the message that a Ukrainian surrender might send to a Chinese regime eyeing Taiwan, or an Iranian regime looking for openings to make greater mischief in the Middle East. Congress would be wise to extend additional aid to Ukraine because American taxpayers will likely save money in the long run by making this investment. And it’s not in the trickle-down way that Republicans often claim tax cuts for the rich will somehow pay for themselves. Rather, taxpayer dollars invested in supporting Ukraine now will save taxpayers from having to expend many more dollars down the line.
The United States has spent $113 billion on assistance to Ukraine since the invasion began in February 2022, and the Biden administration is proposing to spend another $61 billion through the end of next year. On a per-year basis, that’s less than one-thirtieth of the $2 trillion budget deficit the federal government ran in Fiscal Year 2023. Republican Senator J.D. Vance has argued continued support for Ukraine will force cuts to Social Security that “throw our grandparents into poverty,” even though assistance to Ukraine has cost American taxpayers only 4% of what Social Security benefits cost them. It’s an outlandish argument that assistance to Ukraine is driving our nation’s deficit or preventing us from making other critical public investments.
But even more important than putting the size of the Biden administration’s proposed investment in perspective, Americans need to appreciate what Ukraine’s resolve means for America’s global interests — not just morally, not just strategically, but financially. If Putin were to overrun Ukraine, and that victory emboldened him or other autocrats antagonistic to American interests, our military could find itself quickly in a hot war. If China was emboldened by this success to attack Taiwan, the U.S. military would almost certainly become engaged in a new Pacific theater. And that would not only be horrific — it would be expensive.
Consider that the “war on terror” cost American taxpayers the equivalent of about $3.6 trillion in today’s dollars over 21 years — that’s nearly three times as much per year, for seven times as many years, as what Biden has requested to support Ukraine. The cost of a global conflict with Russia and China would be far greater. If such a conflict cost the same amount as World War II did as a percentage of gross domestic product, it would total a whopping $27.7 trillion for American taxpayers — and that’s just the fiscal cost, to say nothing of the immense human toll another world war would inflict. The smart move is to help the Ukrainians win this war on their own, such that American taxpayers aren’t on the hook for a much bigger bill down the line.
All else being equal, it would be great if Congress could offset the cost of any new spending in high-deficit, low-unemployment times such as these. But suggestions that Washington should abandon Kyiv because lawmakers are too divided to agree on commonsense offsets or solutions to other political problems simply don’t make sense. In the long run, this relatively small investment is nothing compared to the price of appeasement. Fiscal discipline, while important, is not the hill Ukraine should die on.
Read the full article here