The Nation: Bush's War Funding Safety Net

[marmar]

article | posted September 25, 2007 (web only)
Bush's War Funding Safety Net
Ryan Grim



When President Bush last went to Congress for funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he raised the specter of US troops going without the reinforcements, equipment, training, fuel and all the other things they need to stay alive over there if Congress didn't cut him a fat check with "no strings attached." The newly elected Democrats caved, citing a need to fund the troops, and sent him $124 billion.

The past few weeks on Capitol Hill have been dominated by Iraq, as the GOP has continued to stand with the President and Democrats have been unable to muster the votes to force his hand. Soon, Bush will be asking for more funding--reportedly as much as $200 billion. When he does, he'll again argue that the timely and "clean" passage of the spending bill is essential to keeping the troops equipped. But that's not true. Thanks to the Feed and Forage Act, an obscure nineteenth-century statute, Bush could legally continue to prosecute the war without funding from Congress.

Passed in 1861, the law provided a way for Abraham Lincoln to assure funding for the Civil War. Since then, it has been used to secure funding for other wars. On Sept. 21, 2001, the Pentagon said in a press release, "Invoking the Feed and Forage Act...will ensure the Department of Defense can fully support units of the U.S. armed forces involved in military operations and activities resulting from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the aircraft crash in Pennsylvania."

The Feed and Forage Act doesn't outright appropriate funds to the military, but allows it to "obligate" money--in other words, it allows the military to fight a war on credit, leaving the companies it does business with to rely on Congress to pick up the tab.

The Pentagon could acquire fuel, weapons, Hummers, bombs, food and any other supplies needed for the war effort with promises to pay suppliers the bills once Congress appropriates the money. No other federal agency or department has such authority--all others must have the cash in the bank. Defense industry vendors have historically been willing to take this gamble because their close relationship with Congress nearly always assures that the money will eventually be there. Economic competitiveness almost dictates that the companies participate. Besides, the obligations could be considered legally binding, and it's inconceivable that Congress would never again fund the Defense Department. And when it does, these companies would be waiting in line. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071008/grim

[LakeSamish706]

1. So basically as I understand what you are saying, this congress has no say...

in anything that this Administration decides!

[marmar]

2. I'm not saying it.....just posting an article from The Nation.

n/t