The Micro-Pundit: Supposedly Supplemental Budget Requests
President Bush submitted his fourth emergency “supplemental budget request” for the funding of the military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Wow, his people must really be out of touch to be caught off-guard by the fact we’ve been in Iraq for nearly three years and in Afghanistan over four years.
We’ve been in Afghanistan since October, 2001. We’ve been in Iraq since March 2003. Since October, 2001, we’ve spent approximately $76 billion on military action in Afghanistan and about $226 billion on Iraq. On average, this works out to about $1.5 billion per month for Afghanistan and about $6.5 billion per month for Iraq. Simple averages. Nothing too exotic, right? And with over four years of spending history in Afghanistan and very nearly three years in Iraq, you’d think that the Pentagon could project likely spending requirements for both theatres without too much difficulty. In fact, Joel Kaplan of the Office of Management and Budget was quoted in a NYTimes.com article as saying that “the costs of military operations this year ‘will be roughly similar’ to last year’s costs.”
Well, apparently, President Bush was so shocked by the idea that Iraq and Afghanistan will cost about as much this year as last year that he had to ask Congress to approve an emergency “supplemental spending request.” All the President’s men couldn’t forecast the costs of Iraq well enough to budget for it? I’m sorry, but that’s complete, total, and utter bullshit.
How the hell does Bush get away with this? And why the hell does Congress let him get away with it? I’ll tell you why – Bush and his cronies and his allies in Congress don’t want the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan budgeted. If you put the occupation costs into the real budget, where it really belongs, then you have to justify the costs to the people. If you put the occupation costs into the real budget, you can’t trumpet $39 billion in cuts as a deficit cutting measure that “the people” demand because you just added $70 billion or more in military expenses to the deficit and the national debt. If you put the occupation costs into the real budget, you can’t claim to be fiscal conservatives any more when you let the debt and deficit skyrocket.
Congress doesn’t’ have the balls to confront the real issue here, namely that paying for the war on terror will cause serious long-term political and economic pain. The only way to handle the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan long term is to raise taxes and cut benefits. And, quite frankly, Congresscritters are to God-damned scared to face the voters and say “in order to pay for Iraq, Afghanistan, and other projects, I’m proposing that the federal government roll back all of President Bush’s tax cuts, increase taxes further on the wealthiest Americans, cancel the new Medicare drug benefit, increase the retirement age for Social Security to 70 and cut payments to the wealthiest retirees who don’t need the money.” Until we have a Congress willing to handle these issue and risk the wrath of their constituents (and until we have voters who realize that all of this needs to happen even if they hate these ideas with a passion bordering on fanaticism), we’re totally screwed.
It’s become blazingly obvious (and by “blazing” I mean written in mile-tall letters made of fire towering over Washington D.C.) that President Bush isn’t up to the task of being honest about the budget. It’s similarly obvious that a Repugnican controlled Congress won’t force Bush II to actually BE honest. Political suicide be damned - I’d vote for someone who held the President to account on his bullshit “supplemental spending requests.” And these days, I suspect I’m not the only one.
[Crossposted to The 5th Estate]