Bush:"Increase military to fight t'rr'r." So who pays?

Yes, indeed. Who will pay for pResident Bush's planned increase in the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps?

Charles Moskos, a military sociologist and professor emeritus at Northwestern University, said that without a draft, the burden of the war falls disproportionately on the working class. He noted that of his 1956 Princeton University class of 750 men, 450 served. In the Princeton University class of 2006 there were 1,108 men and women, but only nine have joined the military.

"They call this an all-volunteer military," Moskos said. "But in the United States we are paying people to die for us."

Moskos said the other advantage of a draft is that it is far cheaper than a volunteer military.
Chicago Tribune.com

The answer is, Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, you will.

By the way, the above quoted paragraphs were buried in a story by reporters Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel. In fact the story ends on a curiously upbeat note:"The incentives* have borne fruit. The 2006 recruiting season, which ended in October, saw the Army pull in 80,635 recruits, just over its 80,000 goal. It has stayed above targets since then.

The big bug-a-boo is how to pay for it. Since raising taxes is anathema to Republicans and DLC Democrats alike, and don't expect the companies waxing fat profits off this Mess-O-Potamia to pay their fair share of protection money. Do expect further erosion of governmental services, except for police repression law enforcement, from Medicare to child care in the near future.

*By raising incentives and bonus money, adding recruiters and continuing to increase the military advertising budget, the Army should be able to sign up an extra 10,000 people a year within the current all-volunteer system, according to many military experts. But they add that an extra 10,000 soldiers would cost at least $1.2 billion extra annually.