Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker is using phony budget projections to manufacture a staged "fiscal emergency" in his state so that he can whack programs and political opponents, but even his fake "emergency" pales in comparison to the cost of the Afghanistan War to his state. In fact, the U.S. would only have to bring home 151 troops from Afghanistan to save more money than Walker's ridiculous union-busting plan. Better yet, ending the Afghanistan War altogether would save taxpayers in Wisconsin $1.7 billion this year alone, more than ten times the amount "saved" in Walker's attack on state employee rights.

One might ask, "Isn't Walker's fake budget crisis a state budget issue? How would ending the Afghanistan War pay for that?" We get this question a lot when we talk about the cost of war to a state's taxpayer. Keep in mind that state budgets are tangled with federal spending. That's especially true over the past couple of years, as state budgets have relied on federal Recovery Act funds to balance their books during the recession. Spending decisions at the federal level are therefore doubly important, as they not only affect the national budget, but also what funds are available to help preserve state-level public structures.

That brings us to Walker's slash-and-burn approach to the state budget.

"Under Walker's plan, most public workers -- excluding police, firefighters and state troopers -- would have to pay half of their pension costs and at least 12 percent of their health-care costs. They would lose bargaining rights for anything other than pay. Walker, who took office last month, says the emergency measure would save $300 million over the next two years to help close a $3.6 billion budget gap."

So on average, Walker's slash-and-burn attack on the unions in his state would save $150 million per year for two years. But if Wisconsin is truly in a state of fiscal emergency, as Walker claims, why is he not demanding the president withdraw troops from Afghanistan and make the savings available as fiscal aid to states? Every troop deployed in Afghanistan costs the U.S. $1 million per year, so simply bringing home 151 troops would save more money than his plan. And, with fiscal 2011 Afghanistan War spending alone to top $1.7 billion for Wisconsin taxpayers, an end to the war would free up more than ten times his plan's cash, which the president could use for state fiscal aid.

Of course, the end of the Afghanistan War would mean that people with whom Walker is cozy would lose some important revenue streams. Remember Wackenhut, the war contractors that disgraced us by holding drunken, nude firelight romps in Afghanistan on the State Department's dime? Walker got them a sweet privatized state security contract in a prior fit of "cost-savings" that failed to add up. But who needs to rein in death, destruction and obscenity when you can take a whack at the unions, right? Walker's not actually interested in fixing a supposed emergency. He's interested in paying off allies and zinging enemies, and you can tell that by his silence on war spending that's bleeding his state taxpayers dry.

At any rate, state politicians in Wisconsin and beyond are going to have to face a moment of truth when federal stimulus aid runs out at the end of this year. Their citizens hate the Afghanistan War, and they won't go along with draconian cuts to vital public structures or attacks on collective bargaining. They can either wise up and join the chorus of people calling for an end to the war, or be ready to face tens of thousands of fed-up protesters and angry voters. Your move, folks.

If you're fed up wit this war that's not making us safer and that's not worth the cost, join Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook and Twitter.