America wants to see an end to trillion-dollar war money pitIt's the "A" word

President Bush was obviously pleased last week when Congress put the final touches on a defense spending bill that will earmark another $50 billion for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This funding will help us continue to hunt down the terrorists, pursue our strategy for victory in Iraq and make America more secure," he said in a statement.

But there are many others, and count us among them, who grow increasingly alarmed at the amount of money that has been spent, and will continue to be spent, in the two trouble spots.

The $50 billion — which military commanders say should last until May — hadn't even been approved yet and the Pentagon was already reportedly in the early stages of drafting yet another wartime request for twice that amount.

The Associated Press reported that Reps. Bill Young, R-Fla., the chairman of the House appropriations defense panel, and John Murtha, D-Pa., the senior Democrat on that subcommittee, say the military has informally told them it wants $80 billion to $100 billion in a war-spending package that the White House is expected to send Congress next year. That's in addition to the $50 billion just approved.

Little wonder Sen. Murtha has been so outspoken in demanding a withdrawal target for U.S. troops. When discussing the scope of the pending request, Murtha told reporters: "Twenty years it's going to take to settle this thing. The American people are not going to put up with it, can't afford it."

Another $100 billion would push spending related to the wars toward a mind-numbing half-trillion dollars. That's "trillion" with a "t."

It brings to mind the insightful comment of the late U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

And Dirksen didn't even use the "T" word.

There is a lot of talk in Washington, D.C., these days about reining in government spending, while still looking to provide more help for seniors and veterans and improving education and health care. Yet this runaway defense spending, largely directed at two trouble spots, seems to run completely counter to that.

Murtha makes a cogent point, in the spirit of Everett Dirksen: Just how much longer can U.S. taxpayers continue to bankroll this fiscal black hole with no exit strategy before the national economy buckles under the weight?

We once talked billions, now we're flirting with trillions and there's no end in sight. That's not a very promising prospect for the new year, but certainly something that must move to the top of the list of priorities when Congress returns after the holidays.

— Yakima Herald-Republic, Dec. 28

The "A" word is back, with the bombshell news that the city of Vancouver is pondering a possible annexation of 26 square miles and 65,000 residents in Fire District 5 within Vancouver's growth boundary.

It was clear that the gears have been grinding behind the scenes for a while on the idea, which could lead to Vancouver becoming the state's second-largest city. Five January open houses have been scheduled for the city to offer its version of what annexation could mean for the residents in the east Minnehaha, Walnut Grove, Barberton, Glenwood, Orchards and Sifton areas. (The Hazel Dell and Salmon Creek areas are not included.)

Residents ought to mark their calendars now to attend one of the open houses and bring two things with them:

• An open mind.

• Plenty of questions.

There are certain services cities offer that county governments can't afford and were never expected to provide at the same level. As communities become more dense, with more traffic, more crime, etc., there is call for more police, better street maintenance, tougher land-use regulations (which can affect lifestyles and property values) and the like.

So far, there has been no public request for annexing the areas in question, which are near four parcels totaling 800-plus acres near Burnt Bridge Creek that already are expected to be annexed. The notion of this larger annexation hasn't been discussed by Vancouver City Council members in open session. But our open-mind and ask-questions advice goes for them, too.

"To me, there are a lot of unanswered questions," Councilwoman Jeanne Stewart said. She also wants the process to unfold in a deliberate fashion.

"I know for sure that the annexation of Cascade Park (in 1997) to this day has people thinking they were dragged into the city unwillingly," she said. "I think services were promised that have not even yet materialized. (Annexation) is best done by having people want to be in the city."

County Commissioner Betty Sue Morris has often said counties cannot provide the urban-type services residents in unincorporated Clark County often expect. But she also is troubled by the scope of this annexation idea.

Vancouver becoming the second-largest city in the state with about 220,000 residents might be something to brag about. But, in and of itself, it would be a lousy reason to activate the "A" word.

Bring on the questions and the answers.

— The Columbian, Vancouver, Clark County, Dec. 25