The Off-Budget War

The Bush Administration has recently submitted yet another "Emergency" supplemental spending request to continue funding the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This request will bring the total "Off-Budget" cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to over $200 BILLION. According the a study by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan research group who provide analysis for members of Congress, "The emergency request exceeds the president's combined 2006 funding request for the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development, and it is nearly five times the savings Bush is seeking next year in cuts to discretionary spending. "

There are so many levels of deception here that it is hard to know where to begin. One might wonder how, in the 2nd year of an ongoing project, the planners and managers STILL have no idea of the projected cost so as to be able to include it in a budget which already has a section marked "Department Of Defense". I mean, is this deceit or just down-right incompetence at the highest levels? In the run-up to the invasion (or the bait and switch period) Whitehouse officials derided anyone who suggested that the cost might reach as high as $100 BILLION. Then there is the question of how the money is being spent. $200 BILLION and our troops are still writing home for body armor? At a recent presentation I attended, independent journalist, Dahr Jamail, showed slide after slide of buildings that have not been touched since the bombings of the earliest days of the invasion. He showed slides and told us of interviews with doctors in hospitals that still have only minimal equipment and medicine and are forced to operate on less than 8 hours of electricity per day. Yet he was able to describe the 4 new permanent military bases and the construction of 10 others (with the contracts being awarded to Brown and Root, the Haliburton subsidiary). Why would we need permanent military bases in a country that we are only planning to "liberate" and leave?

Why would the administration want to keep this spending off budget? Perhaps it is because having the money on budget would subject it to congressional oversight. By simply asking for and receiving a blank check from the congress and not having it rolled into the Pentagon budget, Bush and Co. are able to spend the money anyway they see fit with no strings attached. This part even has some republicans complaining about the overuse of the "supplemental" request. Of course that will not keep them for voting for the request. From a recent AP story on this subject, "There appears to be little doubt Bush will get his request. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said the panel will take up the measure in early March, with a House vote shortly thereafter. "It is my hope that we can have this important bill on the president's desk in early April," he said in a statement."

It is my hope that we will have a strong challenge from members of all parties in both houses who will stand up and say "Enough"! Two years is too long to wait for the truth and some accountability. Contact your members of Congress and tell them to vote "No" on this supplemental request. Tell them to do their jobs and require any further spending requests for Iraq be placed "on budget" where they belong. Demand congressional oversight of your tax dollars.