Administration Plans To ‘Let Her Rip’ In Gigantic New Emergency Spending Bill For Iraq
Administration Plans To ‘Let Her Rip’ In Gigantic New Emergency Spending Bill For Iraq
For several years, the Bush administration has been circumventing the traditional budget process by requesting emergency spending bill to cover the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. (So far, more that $300 billion has been spent on Iraq alone.)
The process has contributed to a fiscal situation that is “out-of-control.” After inheriting record surpluses, the Bush administration celebrated a deficit of “only” $248 billion in 2006.
Now, the administration is preparing its next “emergency” request for Iraq and Afghanistan. This time, it’s expected to be even larger, because of a memo written by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England that encourages the military services to exploit the process. The LA Times has the story:
The next request stands to be larger partly because of new rules laid out in an Oct. 25 memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England. Rather than strictly limiting spending to Iraq and Afghanistan costs, the memo said the military services could include costs associated with operations that are part of the larger war on terrorism.
Previously, the military portion of the supplemental spending measures has been used almost exclusively for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. England’s memo would allow the military to include a greater number of expenses more loosely tied to the actual wars, such as new military weapons systems and training exercises.
Critics of the Pentagon budget process say the memo has encouraged the services to inflate their requests.
“The England memo basically said, ‘Let her rip,’ ” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project and a former congressional budget aide. “Anything goes, as long as you can put it under the pretext of not only Iraq or Afghanistan but the global war on terror.“
The military should get the equipment and resources it needs. But unless these are provided through the regular budget process, anything approaching fiscal discipline is all but impossible.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s good the have the congress back, but this just demonstrates how dangerous this administration is. It’s never to early to work for ‘08.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:05 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Well…it looks like the first test of the 110th Congress will be an important one.
We’ll see whether or not the Democrats we voted in to end this madness actually hold true to the mandate that put them in office.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:08 ami’m hearing on majority report that malaki’s people have left the government… breaking news… not positive…
November 29th, 2006 at 10:12 amYou know, I always wondered what it would be like if the poeple were given the opportunity to CHOOSE what their tax moeny actually went towards. Not in the indirect manner of representation but in that we actually check something off a list when we file… or on our W2s or something. Legislatiors would have to publicly make a case for what they deam worthy of our hard earned dollars then if we want to cough up the moeny we do… and what they end up with is what they have to work with.
Period. if they want more they’ll have to ask… nicely. Specal conditions for emergencies excluded of course…
Just talking off the top of my head here. I’m sure the legistics of this would some how end in civilization as we know it… there just HAS to be some better way though. I just cant stand the thought of MORE of more moeny going to this madness when we need so much more in the way of schools, health care and so on….
am I crazy?
November 29th, 2006 at 10:16 am#3 WTF!
If this is true it would mean Iraq is in a ~CIVIL WAR!!~
oh… wait… yeah.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:18 amDrunken sailors, I tell ya.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:23 amBush did NOT inherit a surplus. In fact, Clintons best year was a $484 billion deficit. You guys always forget about using true accounting princliples. Read this report if you don’t believe me. It will open your eyes to the true deficit and what programs like Social Security really cost this country.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060803/1a_coverart03.art_dom.htm
November 29th, 2006 at 10:23 amAlso in the story
I remember when that was considered exorbitant. This war is nearly 4 years old. We shouldn’t be allowing emergency spending requests anywhere near that level.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:24 ammilitary/industrial/congressional cesspool/blackhole.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:24 amRoger Roger,
November 29th, 2006 at 10:30 amIt was a budget surplus. Ya know when the government takes inmore money than it spends in a single year. That was the surplus. As for the deficiet that was Clinton was working on. The deficeit that was left to him that grew out of proportion from Reagan and Bush the Elderly.
Roger it’s my understanding that if we apply the “true accounting principles” to the current budget, it gets exponentiallly worse.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:32 amNo more money till they find the missing 9 billion.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:33 amThe first thing the next POTUS needs to do is get on television for a couple of hours and thoroughly go through what has been done to our Country.
What lies have they been told? Why did they lie? How much Money has been spent? How much given away via corporate welfare at our expense? What laws and regulations were changed and who did those changes benefit? Why were they made? What privileges and powers have been given to Corporations? What rights have been lost by Citizens?
Americans need a lesson on recent American history and a decent education.
Idiots and fools are lousy Citizens.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:34 amoh – it’s sadr, not maliki… i got the name wrong… see new thread…
November 29th, 2006 at 10:36 amsorry for the confusion, if any…
It will open your eyes to the true deficit and what programs like Social Security really cost this country.
Comment by Roger_Roger
So the problem is Social Security? Getting health services to all US citizens is a “cost” to your country? But not billions spent in a stupid, futile, illegal war? Doesnt it ashame you that even Cuba takes more care about its population than US when it comes to health services? Boy, CEO´s from oil/war companies must be laughing at you.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:40 amRx2,
November 29th, 2006 at 10:43 amYou guys always forget about using true accounting princliples.
Nearly 4 yrs of ‘emergency spending’ is true accounting principles?
Back to the institution, Roger. More meds may help.
Isn’t this the same as saying, ” lets extend those no-bid contracts to our loyal friends. This maybe our last chance to line the pockets of those that will kickback to finance our elections for the next cycle.”
And around and around we go, the rich get richer, the middle class foots the bill, the troops still fight and die. Perpetual war machine. Ikes advised us that the military industrial complex must be stopped. But, that is unlikely under this sinerio and with the propaganda to come from the Iraq Study Group. The icing on the top.
Things may look encouraging to the average person but in reality deceipt, secrecy,and backdoor deals will eventually take the prople of this country to the abyss. Except for those people that will sucessfully skim the cream the top from our military budget.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:11 amRepublicans have NO credibility when it comes to fiscal management They had to set their tax cuts to expire in 2010 just so the long-term effects of those cuts on the deficit, which are astronomically bad, can be hidden. Under Reagan we got record deficits, under Clinton record surpluses, then W. came along and created deficits that topped even Reagan’s records.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:19 amLook who rang the opening bell today….
November 29th, 2006 at 11:27 amIt’s time that Congress reign in the spending and conduct inquiries about what is going on in Iraq about the money.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:40 amLook who rang the opening bell today….
Comment by Dan
The richest people on the planet…
November 29th, 2006 at 11:45 amIf the newly elected Democratic Congress sincerely wishes to end the occupation in Iraq and is truly concerned that no more troops return to this country in flag draped coffins and that no more troops return to this country brain damaged, paralyzed, blinded, and psychologically scarred from the unnecessary fighting in Iraq, then they should do the logical thing and cut off the funding to the military in Iraq. Congress eventually did that during the Vietnam War and the war soon came to a halt. The same thing can be done to Iraq if the incoming Congress has the political will and courage and integrity to get it done.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:51 amthen they should do the logical thing and cut off the funding to the military in Iraq.
That stunt would certinally cost some lives. I’m all for the pull out (Yeah that’s right converted a couple days ago). But I don’t think cutting off money to the people over there is the way to do it.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pmLook folks-before you pull the plug on funding, you have to keep in mind all that the military and Defense Department does that is NOT directly related to the war in Iraq, and be aware that those areas need to be funded also.
In order to create the illusion/lie that our government can fight this war and have tax cuts-AND reduce the deficit, the Bush administration has essentially been STARVING the Dept. of Defense to hide where the money is going. Ask anyone who is a civilian employee of DOD and they will tell you that non-war related security and safety issues are now being left to hang completely unfunded, and many are afraid that a major avoidable catastrophe will occur because they dont have the manpower or the ongoing upkeep of important equipment used to monitor or maintain national security information. For example, who do you think makes sure that US commercial airlines flying out of LA don’t crash into missles being tested at Vandenberg Air Force Base? DOD civilian employees maintaing a communitcations frequency database that precisely monitors both so they don’t interfere with one another. Guess who has seen its budget frozen to fund the handful of engineers who perform this important duty? All so Rumsfeld could pretend they weren’t spending any money.
If adding to the budget will stop this and other kinds of madness, then we are all safer for it. The Bush administration has mismanaged our resources, to the point where even though we may want to punish them, we must still take care of business which means spending money–IN THE RIGHT PLACES.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:06 pmI agree strongly that the only way to obtain any accountability is to discontinue the supplemental appropriations by rolling these expenses into the regular defense appropriation budget. The current process was a bad idea from the beginning.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pmI’m all for the pull out (Yeah that’s right converted a couple days ago).
So proud… *getting all teary*
But I don’t think cutting off money to the people over there is the way to do it.
Comment by Tundra
You’re right, Tundra. Our people over there haven’t done anything but their jobs. Just fund bringing them home.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pmThe Democrats have already said that they won’t cut funding of the war.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#7
Social Security SHOULD NOT cost this country anything. It is supposed to be a trust account where money out of our paychecks is held in trust to be paid back to us when we retire.
The reason it is costing us is because successive administrations have dipped into that trust account to pay for wars all over this globe with disasterous results.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:28 pmAs the KBR execs rang the bell, my wallet suddenly emptied…?
November 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pmGreat post – but the General Fund deficit last year was $574 billion. That $248 billion unified deficit counted those Trust Fund (e.g., Soc. Sec.) surpluses as offsets.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:47 pmMilitary Industrial Complex Out Of Control.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:30 pmFriends, they’re having a Weapons Orgy and we’ll be left to pay for it no matter what secret budget they attempt to hide it on.
Talking About ‘Sawing Off The Branch One Sits On’, right?
November 29th, 2006 at 1:33 pmOr: ‘See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil’.
Nothing will change without smart widespread consumer boycott.
“boycott – a group’s refusal to have commercial dealings with some organization in protest against its policies” The Free Dictionary By Farlex
Let’s hope Dems are taking notes on how “fiscal responsibility” really works. I’d hate to see them take over in Jan. and start spending piles of money on junk that benefits no one. The Pres. and his party’s congress continue to show us all what it’s like to live within one’s means, and to carefully spend only as much as necessary to achieve clearly defined goals – huzzah! to them.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:03 pmApparently Bush “lets em’ rip” quite often.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pmre#4
You are not crazy, what you say makes perfect sense.
We check off where we want dollars taken from our refund, so it should be easy to check off where we want our taxes to go!
November 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pmBush did NOT inherit a surplus. In fact, Clintons best year was a $484 billion deficit.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 29, 2006 @ 10:23 am
Let’s say that that is true, for the sake of the argument. No matter how you spin it: Pres Bush not only has not decreased the deficit, his administration has increased it.
You complain about people not “true accounting principles” to calculate a deficit. Let me remind you that the method used to determine Clinton had a surplus at the end of his administration is the same one that shows Pres Bush is presiding over a record deficit.
If on top of that, you figure the “burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel” (like the article you linked suggests should be done to Clinton’s surplus), then Pres Bush’s deficit is even larger yet.
Finally, Pres Bush’s deficit doesn’t take into account the actual burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money comes from “supplemental” spending bills. See, he is also not using “true” accounting principles.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:23 pmThat’s it… no Social Security for Roger_Roger. The deficit is way too high. And yes, it’s all Clinton’s fault.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:23 pmErrol – you are correct about the funding cuts by Congress during Vietnam. That war came to an abrupt end. Congress can withhold funds for Iraq, starting with no more money to Halliburton. Once the canteen packs up, our troops will be home.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm#36 – Gregor Samsa,
November 29th, 2006 at 5:15 pmRead RR’s reference carefully – the $484 billion figure was for four years. The current MBA administration has managed to squander $3.5 trillion in a single year when you include political junkets, expended ammo, worn-out and destroyed aircraft, destroyed Hummers, veterans’ benefits, raids on Federal retirement funds, the zero balance in Social Security as well as the general decay in our national infrastructure. It will take upwards of 60 years to recover from the disaster caused by BushCo in 6. God knows what he will accomplish in the remaining 782 days. This brings up a simple question – why should 400 million people suffer for the comfort of a mere 400 thousand?
Read RR’s reference carefully – the $484 billion figure was for four years.
Comment by WaltTheMan — November 29, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Yes, Walt, I realise that. All I was trying to say is that, no matter how you look at it, Pres Bush has squandered more money than any previous administration.
Also, that Clinton actually had a “deficit” is a relatively new spin. Sort of like “if Clinton had done something about BinLaden, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened”. Same lowering of the bar for Pres Bush.
The current MBA administration has managed to squander $3.5 trillion in a single year when you include [...]
::sigh:: Yes. Disheartening, isn’t it?
And these Bush cultists take exception because Clinton’s surplus wasn’t calculated using “true accounting principles”? The deficit balloons out of control, and they want to say “but Clinton did it too”?
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
why should 400 million people suffer for the comfort of a mere 400 thousand?
Don’t even get me started. You will get me banned from ThinkProgress.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:40 pmAs far as I am concerned, this really isn’t news. Allow me to explain. While I was on Active Duty in the Navy, it was commonplace for the military to spend frivolously.
Every ship is allotted so much money per fiscal year. I remember vividly being told by my bosses that as we approach the end of the fiscal year, we need to spend as much as we possibly could. I asked why, and was told that if our particular ship was allotted say 10 million per year (way too low), and spent only 9 million, then we would only get 9 million the next fiscal year.
It just did not pay to save money, and it irks me to think of all that money wasted.
Those of you who want to blame this on the Bush Admin, you are being dishonest. This kind of crap has been going on for a whole heck of a lot of years. It is never going to change. The military will always spend like a drunken sailor that just pulled into port after 90 straight days at sea. That you can count on.
It sickens me to think of the amount of money wasted every year, and not just by the military.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm#41 – Retired Navy,
November 29th, 2006 at 8:01 pmThere is a nuance of difference. When a corporation is given a multibillion no-bid contract, it does not have to account for the spending, it merely cashes the check and provides the service. An Admiral or Captain has to account for every cent spent, even if it is for caviar dinners for the crew near the close of a fiscal year.
#42,
I hear ya, but there are ways around it. The prime objective was to spend the money, even if it meant buying things we normally wouldn’t.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:19 pm#41 There is a difference. The Pentagon has a budget. If they spend like a drunken sailor at port that is their problem…they have nothing left…unless the administration gives them more. This is not budgeted money. It is extra.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:35 pm#44 – JPark,
November 29th, 2006 at 9:15 pmIn the military, every commander with a fiscal budget is granted a fixed ammount to spend each year for equipment, substinance and the like. If that commander goes under budget, their next years’ budget is reduced to the new ammount. If he blows the budget due to “unexpected” contingencies, he will get more in ensuing years. The net result is that a commander is penalized for underspending, but rewarded for overspending. As a result, approximately 5% of a military units’ expenses occur in the final week of a fiscal year. My brother-in-law served on an attach submarine and feasted on kobe beef during that period.
attach s/b attack
November 29th, 2006 at 9:16 pmBut Walt, we are not talking about the actual budget. We are talking about emergency funds. Above and beyond what they had originally been given.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:19 pm#47 – JPark,
November 29th, 2006 at 9:27 pmI am only responding to Retired Navy’s description of the spend down situation. The off-budget crap is a wrinkle introduced by the neocons to enrich themselves and their supporters at the expense of untold future generations. Read my post #39.