A Tale of Two Budgets
I rarely have written about the defense budget, seeing it almost as a political side show to policy, with twists and turns requiring constant attention and special expertise to decipher.
The budget, moreover, seems secondary to war itself, the domain solely of battling bureaucrats who have little impact on -- and hardly care about -- what happens in the real world.
Somehow, while we weren't looking, the annual defense budget bloated to a half a trillion.
Congress just administers the madness, adding line items in a behind the scenes ritual: pork mongers and Cunningham's on the take, Democrats trying to prove their martial spirit by arguing for even more, junior secretaries of both parties offering brilliant amendments to show that they care about the troops more still.
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has hit upon a perfect device for both public control and executive autonomy. He has turned crisis into a permanent state of excess. "Emergency" funding has now become the regular state of affairs. We have, in fact, two defense budgets, a regular budget that receives some scrutiny and is somewhat limited, and an emergency supplemental that grows ever larger without much outside oversight.
The budget situation doesn't threaten to bankrupt America. And people seem only too happy to pay to keep the military over there, cowed in an endless post-September 11, 2001, offering. Congress hardly would remark upon the deception were it not for the assault on their power. And in that the tale of two budgets may be coming to an end.
Since September 11, the defense department and the national security bureaucracy has been submitting two budgets to Congress: a normal authorization and appropriations request and a supplemental or "additional" request for "emergency" funding of the war on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The intent of the original emergency supplemental was to fund unanticipated war-related needs, as well as increased fuel and other commodities being consumed by the American military.
For five years now, the Pentagon has been declaring a budget emergency, operating with an annual supplemental of about $50 billion. The supplemental not only includes direct support for the war effort, but in a Pentagon version of pork barrel spending, it also hides favorite and controversial research, development and procurement programs from regular scrutiny.
The supplemental is beyond regular scrutiny, as ineffective as it might be, because the Pentagon barely produces a round number for Congressional approval. The supplemental budget and a set of supplemental budget amendments are submitted to Congress without the detailed written justifications that accompany the regular budget.
It is the absence of a paper trail, a kind of bureaucratic offering to the Congressional purse holders, which has resulted in a growing sense of disquiet on Capitol Hill, according to Congressional Research Service experts who observe and report on the budget process.
In a recent report, the CRS stated that "DOD requests for 'additional' or 'emergency' war appropriations are not subject to nearly the extent of review that Congress exercises over regular defense spending. The Administration decision to submit a budget amendment for a bridge fund is, at most, only a limited step in the direction of greater oversight."
In June, the Senate approved by 98-0 an amendment by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to require the president to request funding for Iraq in its regular, annual budget submission. The Senate-passed fiscal year 2007 budget resolution put a cap of $90 billion on total emergency funding.
Last week, according to reporting in Inside the Pentagon and by Reuters, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England directed the military services to base their requests for funding of the "longer war against terror" on supplemental budgets.
England told the services that such requests should not be limited to Iraq, Afghanistan or other direct operations, but should include as well general modernization programs.
England's avoidance of the regular budget is because regular annual defense spending (to the tune of $500 billion) is both under the control of Office of Management and Budget caps and Congressional oversight. Programs strictly funded by that money are tightly controlled while supplemental appropriations soar, with money readily available.
For the current fiscal year, that includes not only $50 billion as an attachment to the regular appropriations bill, but also a later emergency supplemental expected next February. There are additional supplemental requests for funds for Katrina-recovery, bird flu, border security, agricultural disaster relief and other homeland security purposes, a total that CRS says will "almost surely" exceed the $90 billion cap when all the bills come in.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, speaking at a Pentagon press conference last week, said it was "very difficult" to figure out what should be spent where and to anticipate all the war's costs, as well as the money needed to "reset" the military, that is, to replenish worn and lost equipment and other sunk costs.
Difficult I'm sure, but a lot easier as well if Congress doesn't demand basic accountability.
By William M. Arkin |
October 30, 2006; 9:00 AM ET
Washington Follies
Previous: Taking Preemptive Action Against North Korea |
Next: Preemption Shenanigans in Seoul
Posted by: Dimitry | October 31, 2006 5:05 PM
Mike T.
You must be new to the blog, I agree with you. The pre-election sticker on my rear bumpers reads as follows:
Stop: Bush the Barbarian, Killer and the Thief of Baghdad.
I do a lot more than ride around with a bumper sticker on the rear of my car, trust.
We have a real problem in America right now, however, the voters are going to have to change first and then make the necessary changes in goverment.
However, I am still skeptical, Americans are part of the problem as well, given their lust for blood, wealth and consumerism; Bush simply gives too many Americans what they want and that is why they support him.
With respect to Bush, I would like to see him in prison or impeached; I suspect that a night or two in Au Gharib or Gitmo would straightened him out.
However, the Democrats make a good point, if you impeach Bush then you get his twin, Dick Cheney!
Borrowing someone elses phrase then we have an enigma wrapped up in a conundrum!
Posted by: The Rev | October 31, 2006 2:20 PM
If you had to find one American to pin this whole mess on, Paul Wolfowitz would be at the top of my list. They should have forced him to Iraq for the duration as a platoon leader, until the war is over or both his legs are shot off.
Posted by: COOP | October 31, 2006 12:44 PM
"The next date is 2009. That is the date when we will be spending more money on interest on the national debt than we will on all regular domestic government in America. Due to the deficits and the debts that the Bush administration has accumulated, our debt burden will be so great by then, by the last year of the Bush administration, we will have to spend more money to our creditors than we will on our citizens. In a sense it will be a better deal then to be a creditor of this country than to be a citizen of this country. That is an outrage. That is the first time in American history that has ever happened.
Another key date is the year 2012. That is when the Chinese, if current rates continue, will own all of our debt. In fact, a firm in Connecticut has predicted by February 9, 2012, the Chinese will own all of our foreign debt. That is another outrage. The Chinese are not necessarily the friendliest holders of this debt. To be financially beholden to them is really a national security risk."
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ar04_ross/morenews/floor_052505.htm
Posted by: One Of Many | October 31, 2006 12:35 PM
I've seen the 2 trillion price tag for Iraq/Afganistan stated by government critics as the potential total cost as of Jan 20, 2009 when Bush leaves office. I also cannot find a reference to Condi saying this anywhere much less before the war started. I'm certain we'd be hearing it repeated if she had said it so I also doubt Mike T's claim.
I DO remember Paul Wolfowitz saying repeatedly that Iraqi oil would pay for the costs of the Iraq reconstruction. Here's what Wolfie said to the House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation on 3/27/03:
"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years...We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Here a good website that has compiled the past lies and obfuscations of this administration:
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
My favorite quote is from budget director Mitch Daniels concerning the cost of the Iraq invasion in a statement that he made to Reuters in April 2003:
"There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor."
I think history shows Americans were fooled, lied to, frightened and pushed like scared children into this war by an administration which even today is working hard to scare the average American and paint a rosy economic picture of this war. But the lies are so old and exposed now that even the most evangelical right-wing Bush supporter is seeing through them, yet they still say these lies ... like a captain of a sinking ship telling the fleeing passengers that everything is fine. It would be comical if it weren't so serious and was costing so many American and Iraqi lives, and leaving America for the worse economically, militarily and morally.
Posted by: Sully | October 31, 2006 8:26 AM
In regard to the nameless individual who stated, "I don't believe you." In regard to my statement in which I refer to C Rice testifying before congress on the $2,000,000,000,000 (Two Trillion Dollars) price tag for Iraq / Afghanistan; Good luck; CSPAN does not make it easy to view past mistakes.
Try paying attention next time your government decides to go to war.
As far as not 'believing' me; try taking the tin foil off of your eyes!
Wake up.... Or get off the line........
Posted by: Mike T. | October 31, 2006 2:32 AM
Posted by: Mike T.,
"C Rice went before congress prior to the war and stated that the war(s) would cost in excess of $2,000,000,000,000 (Two Trillion Dollars). I know this because I witnessed her report myself, while watching CSPAN prior to the war(s), in which we are currently engaged."
Mike, We only have your comment on this, show us a link to CSPAN as proof. I never heard her say it would cost $2,000,000,000 and I don't believe you.
Posted by: | October 31, 2006 12:18 AM
Posted by: Archimedes
"OBL doesn't want to wipe out all the infidels because he is hungry and doesn't have money. You would do well to remember that of the 19 men who hijacked the planes on 9/11, the vast majority of them were middle class. In fact, Mohammed Atta's father was a local physician and was far from poor. Ayman al-Zawahiri, OBL's #2 man made quite a good living as a doctor before becoming an aspiring genocidist. Their hatred of America and the West is based on an ignorant and myopic understanding of geopolitical reality viewed through the irrational lense of barbaric religious fundamentalism, not because they are poor."
So you're saying we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?
Posted by: DC | October 31, 2006 12:12 AM
It's nice to dream that the Republicans will rediscover the word "oversight", at least in the next congress. If the Democrats take over, there is no question that the budget process will change.
I find it outrageous that five years after 9/11 and over three years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the GWOT is still considered an exception and is part of a supplementary budget. The lack of candor is staggering. Perhaps if Congress took a look at the true cost of the war, it would think twice about the benefits of staying in Iraq.
I am sure we can look forward to more hypocrisy if the porkbarrel politics continue, the Halliburtons keep profiteering, and the Pentagon continues to outsource its basic services overseas.
Posted by: David L. | October 30, 2006 5:57 PM
It would appear the there are people confusing 'reason' with talking points.
I cannot see what a $2,000,000,000,000 (Two Trillion Dollars) budget for a pointless 'war' has to do with a particular 'party', the economy or national security.
Where has all that money gone? Where is the oversight? These are questions that no one has answered or has the guts to confront.
As far as I can see, Bush & CO. are as cowardly as their supporters.
Put down your tired talking points....put substance in your comments..... or get off the line.........
Posted by: Mike T. | October 30, 2006 5:47 PM
Oh, boy, here it comes. Endless rants and raves about this or that party's having to fix the other one's economic messes, usually spouted by folks who obviously lack an understanding of the complexities of the interaction between government and business. First Point: Clinton balanced the federal budget when he did because the economy was sufficiently strong enough to do so. Not because Republicans can't do economics or because Democrats are inherently more responsible, but because there was enough wealth to go around so that higher taxes wouldn't hurt the public. Combine that with the lack of a real national security threat and voila, a balanced budget becomes a possibility. Those in Clinton's cheering section would do well to remember that balancing the federal budget didn't become a priority at all until AFTER the economy took off and that Clinton was only able to achieve a surplus for a few years, quite the anomaly.
Second Point: For those that are still trying to convince the rich countries of the world that "solving" poverty will guarantee or benefit their security, please stop. This rather cynical ploy to get funding for your cause is not going to work and nobody is stupid enough to fall for it, except some governments in Western Europe and a gaggle of folks at the UN. OBL doesn't want to wipe out all the infidels because he is hungry and doesn't have money. You would do well to remember that of the 19 men who hijacked the planes on 9/11, the vast majority of them were middle class. In fact, Mohammed Atta's father was a local physician and was far from poor. Ayman al-Zawahiri, OBL's #2 man made quite a good living as a doctor before becoming an aspiring genocidist. Their hatred of America and the West is based on an ignorant and myopic understanding of geopolitical reality viewed through the irrational lense of barbaric religious fundamentalism, not because they are poor.
Besides, pouring money into impovershed areas does not "solve" poverty. Poor people aren't poor because they missed the day God handed out fortunes, they are poor because they lack the skills and knowledge they need to be competetive in a global economy. Third world economies are almost primarily based in exportation of raw materials or agricultural products. However, the stone-age farming methods employed by most of the third world's farmers renders them unable to compete and therefore they lose. Also, the fact that thrid-world countries stake their economic claims on raw materials, not finished products, makes them entirely beholden to the shrinking demands of a rapidly technologizing developed world. Look at Latin America, who 30 years ago decided they were going to be to tropical fruit what OPEC was for oil. It failed miserably because they forgot that the world just didn't NEED bananas, coffee, and cocoa the way they NEED oil. Brazil is finally getting it, as is Guatemala, but after how many years barely scraping by? African countries by and large still can't even put together functioning governments, let alone economies. How are shovel-fulls of cash going to help them learn to run a government? An economy? Contrary to the graduates of the Robin Hood School of Economics the poor aren't poor simply because the rich hog all the money. They are poor because they lack the skills that made people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah, and Richard Branson rich. If you want to help them, don't write them a check, teach them those skills.
Trust always in Reason
Archimedes
Posted by: Archimedes | October 30, 2006 5:20 PM
To the Revs' comments:
Lynching is defined as "the crime of lynching a person" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law) or "The punishment of persons suspected of crime without due process of law."
What I am proposing is holding trials against those in government who are actively engaged in apparent treasonous activities, and if found guilty have those same individuals put to death. What would they have to fear?
Hanging as a capitol punishment, while barbaric by nature would send the message to all those that follow to take notice and be aware that they too will be judged by those who wish to guard their constitutional liberties.
It is the sworn duty of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to guard the constitution and the liberties which it guarantees.
(http://clerk.house.gov/members/memFAQ.html#oath )
(http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm)
If there are those in government who, by their actions or inactions put into danger the Constitution or the liberties, which it guarantees; they have committed treason.
For someone who is found guilty of killing tens of thousands of innocent individuals through their direct or indirect decisions; this is a war crime
For someone who is found guilty of attempting to re-write the constitution; this is treasonous. There is no liberty to be gained by the removing of ones liberty.
Claiming ignorance is not a valid argument in the court of law nor should it be deemed acceptable by the People, regardless of the assumed power.
Is this an outrageous ideal? I think not.
It is the unfortunate burden of the people to remove anyone who threatens the sanctity of the Constitution. The provisions for the People of this country to maintain Liberty are there, but must be acknowledged at the very least by the People if those same liberties are to be preserved.
For a man of religion and one who obviously cares for the masses, tell me; 'How many must die in the name of a corrupt government with a clear desire for power, before I am stricken with the need to protect my own family from their ravenous death grip?
And when shall I draw a line in the sand and say that "enough" killing has happened to justify a means with no end?'
This country needs her citizenry to rally to the aid of her Liberty and Freedom, which so many have fought for. The only threat that can destroy our freedom and our country is a defeated people who will give up the Freedoms that Liberty founded.
RISE UP AND DEMAND THAT YOUR VOICE BE HEARD AND DEFEND FREEDOM FROM ANY AND ALL OPRESSORS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR APPEAL TO YOUR FEARS!
Posted by: Mike T. | October 30, 2006 3:20 PM
Mike T Lynchings and Dr. Condoleeza Rice?
Isn't she one of two high-profiles black Americans who sold themselves to the highest bidder, and helped to get an inept President and war hawk Administration into power?
And wasn't she the other high-profile black that the Administration used and sent out in front of America and the world to sell them on Bush Administration propaganda (the other fellow was sent to the United Nations to sell America's pre-emptive attack in Iraq)?
And where is that other nice and erudite well-spoken fellow, Colin Powell? It seems to me that the 'high-tech' lynchings have already begun, however as usual it is the blacks that are getting lynched. I wonder just how much time she has left for it seems that Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Baker have been encroaching upon her job; the President apparently listens to them more than he listens to her? Oops!
Well he also listens to the Donald, the one who is also responsible for this mess and did not have much to say to the aforementioned.
Do you suppose that the Donald will be lynched? From all indications, I don't believe that the Donald will be lynched, Condi is next in line and rumors are already floating that she had the information that could have prevented 9/11 and led to the capture of Osama bin Forgetten, long before it happened.
Keep your [terrorvisions] on, this is going to get interesting!
Posted by: The Rev | October 30, 2006 12:18 PM
Now there's a budget of more than $500 billion for defense spending. Only $19 billion annually is needed to cut gloabl poverty in half by 2015 and control it by 2025. Supporting those impoverished nations is a more effective and humanitarian way to bring about global and domestic security.
www.borgenproject.com
Posted by: Cayle | October 30, 2006 12:09 PM
With statements like "The budget situation doesn't threaten to bankrupt America", it is clear that you neither understand the dire economical situation that we are currently engaged in.
It is very clear that you have been programmed by the common media pimps that you serve.
C Rice went before congress prior to the war and stated that the war(s) would cost in excess of $2,000,000,000,000 (Two Trillion Dollars). I know this because I witnessed her report myself, while watching CSPAN prior to the war(s), in which we are currently engaged.
Ignorance is not a defense and in-fact is an admission of complacency. All those who support this war, it's corrupt perpetrators and the selling-out of The United States are guilty of nothing less than treason.
The talk of the day should be of hanging those in government who have betrayed the constitution and the country that they have been sworn to protect.
Get to the point..... or get off the line......
Posted by: Mike T. | October 30, 2006 11:39 AM
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, speaking at a Pentagon press conference last week, said it was "very difficult" to figure out what should be spent where and to anticipate all the war's costs...
It won't really matter, for whenever the Democrats get back into power (or a Liberterian perhaps) they will do what the Democrats had to do when Ronald Reagan and George Bush 41 were no longer in office, turn the nation back into a fiscally responsible nation.
How? They will pay the bills left over by the 'pubs, eliminate the deficit and stop the war drums from beating; perhaps they will re-invent the Defense Department. The latter will save America a lot of money as well as enable us to pay our bills; war hawks are an expensive commodity. They like to fight, but they never want to pay the bills (tax-cuts and all)!
Also a just accounting will show that we spent all of this money (owed mostly to China I heard), and what did we get for it, nothing? But that won't matter either; these guys will simply blame someone else for the world's condition that was caused by them!
And by the way, what happened to so-called fiscal conservatives? They believe in fiscal conservatism when the Dems are in power apparently, oops!!
Posted by: The Rev | October 30, 2006 11:13 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
==Second Point: For those that are still trying to convince the rich countries of the world that "solving" poverty will guarantee or benefit their security, please stop. This rather cynical ploy to get funding for your cause is not going to work and nobody is stupid enough to fall for it, except some governments in Western Europe and a gaggle of folks at the UN==
In this case how does one even begin to understand Bush's assertion that by attacking other countries and forcing them to change their system to the kind we nominally favor will enhance our security? The pinkos that are the subject of your "sober" assessment are guilty, in your eyes of trying to get the West to spend money to eradicate desperate poverty in the Third World, which has a strong component of saving actual lives of actual people. Bush then is guilty of hoodwinking the West into killing people on a highly questionable (laughable, actually) premise that their security will be enhanced through these killings and subsequent clumsy attempts at social engineering.