White House staffers aren’t the only ones “not worried” about the ultimate cost of the Iraq war. The Republicans in Congress seem equally apathetic. The House Budget Committee held a hearing today to receive testimony regarding the CBO’s estimate that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may total $2.4 trillion. Only one Republican member of the committee attended. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) noted their absence:

Doggett: “I assume, by Mr. [Paul] Ryan (R-WI) being here, that every member of this panel, including every Republican member on that side of the aisle where all the seats are vacant, received notice about this hearing about the cost of war in Iraq?”

Spratt: “I’m sure they did.”

Doggett: “And when was this notice of the hearing sent out?”

Spratt: “Seven days ago, as required by the rules.”

The Gavel has video highlights from the hearing.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported today that “total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017.” With $705 billion in interest, the cost of the wars could amount to $2.4 trillion — with $1.9 trillion in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino attacked the report as “a ton of speculation” and downplayed it as a creation “based on questions that Democrats in Congress that don’t want us to be in the war asked.” Perino added that the White House is not concerned about the exact cost of the war:

[I]t’s just a ton of speculation. It’s a hypothetical … What I can tell you is I’m not worried about the number. What I’m worried about is making sure that the president gets what he needs in order to provide the safety and security for the country.

Watch it:

The CBO’s projection is not “pure speculation.” In fact, the report considers a range of predictions about the U.S. military presence in Iraq, consistent with the administration’s desire for Korea-like, “enduring” occupation of Iraq. For example, in one scenario, the CBO predicts 30,000 troops deployed for the “war on terrorism” until FY2017. In another, they predict a more “gradual” decline to 75,000 by the start of fiscal year 2013 until 2017.

While the White House may not be “worried about the number,” the cost is certain to be harmful to the economy. “[I]t’s clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path,” CBO Director Peter Orszag told Congress today. The “higher debt and interest costs, is going to cause severe economic dislocation, which are exacerbated by war costs.”

USA Today notes, “In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.”

UPDATE: Tim Grieve adds: “CBO officials were asked this afternoon whether the $2.4 trillion figure represents their ‘worst-case’ scenario. No, they said: It represents only the worst of two different scenarios the CBO priced out. The real costs could actually be higher.”

Transcript: Read more

Stephen Colbert draws 13 percent in hypothetical three-way matchup with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Somewhat surprisingly, this doesn’t just come from reducing Clinton’s vote share. Instead, in the three-way matchup she secures a commanding 45-35 win over Rudy. This is all mostly meaningless, but I think it’s evidence that an anti-Giuliani spoiler candidate (Tancredo? Paul? Buchanan?) could find an audience . . . there’s an evident disaffection with the Republican options.

House Democrats will bring the widely-supported SCHIP bill “back to the floor as early as this week,” with relatively few changes from the version that President Bush vetoed. Campaign for America’s Future has a new video featuring children with a message for President Bush and conservatives opposing an SCHIP expansion: “No health care for us, no photo ops for you.” Watch it:

The White House indicated today that it is willing to “shift” and allow “states to cover children up to 300% of the federal poverty level. … The administration previously opposed legislation permitting states to cover children above the 200% level.”

UPDATE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) today announced that SCHIP legislation will be introduced tomorrow. Details on the new bill HERE.

During debate of the DREAM Act today, lead sponsor Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) railed against Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), accusing him of “bigotry and hatred” after the anti-immigration lawmaker called for the arrest yesterday of three college-aged immigration activists who vocally supported the bill. “America is a better nation than what we hear from the likes of that congressman,” said Durbin. Watch it:

In a 52-44 vote today, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act, effectively killing the bill.

UPDATE: Though he sponsored the DREAM Act in 2005, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) skipped out on the vote this afternoon.

Today, the House held a record 1,000th vote of the year, “extending the previous record of 942 votes in a year set in 1978.” Last year, GOP-led 109th Congress held just 543 votes.

Eric Martin wonders why if I acknowledge that the greater boldness of the Obama and Edwards campaigns in challenging the conservative meta-narrative about terrorism is driven in part by political considerations that I still consider it an important development.

The biggest reason is that it’s wrong to think that politics is something that happens on the campaign trail and then in office the politicians follow their “real” beliefs. If John Edwards campaigns and wins on a strategy of bold economic populism, it’s likely he’ll govern as someone who believes that bold economic populism is a solid route to a successful presidency. If Barack Obama campaigns as someone who takes on the hawkish Beltway CW on foreign policy, then it’s likely he’ll govern as someone who believes he has nothing to fear from the Washington Post editorial page. Of course these kind of things can change as somebody governs.

Similarly, even thought I think it was the Clinton campaign’s first instinct to offer a timid health care proposal, it was also the Clinton campaign’s first instinct to try to neutralize all the key Democratic interest groups, and so a combination of SEIU and Edwards essentially forced Clinton to offer a bold proposal. But now that that proposal is on the table, it doesn’t go off the table whether or not it’s “real.” The proposal will be debated, and if Clinton wins it’ll have scored a win. Meanwhile, the people inside Clinton’s camp who were advocates of bolder thinking on health care are empowered by the production of a plan and the need to have an argument about it.

At the end of the day, it’s not about finding the candidate who “really” has the best views. Instead, insofar as the issues matter to you (and, obviously, there are considerations beyond “the issues” in play) it’s about finding the candidate who has the best platform. We can’t peer into their souls and we don’t really need to.