Lawmakers Press Bush to Put War Costs in Budget

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16676

Lawmakers Press Bush to Put War Costs in Budget
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2006-12-24 18:37. Congress

By Caren Bohan, Reuters

Top lawmakers are pressing President George W. Bush to stop using a "shadow budget" to fund the Iraq war and instead list the expected costs in the 2008 spending plan he is set to unveil early next year.

Total war spending may reach $170 billion for the 2007 fiscal year that ends September 30, a record.

Since the conflict began in 2003, Bush has used emergency spending bills to cover nearly all of the costs for the Iraq operation, rather than including them in the annual budget.

He has come under criticism for this practice, not only by lawmakers but also by the Iraq Study Group that recommended policy options for Iraq and said that in the interests of openness, the budget process should not be circumvented.

Three lawmakers - one Republican and two Democrats - wrote to Bush on Thursday telling him that the emergency bills had created an "ever- expanding shadow budget" that was obscuring Congress's oversight process and skewing budget deficit projections.

Congress "should be able to examine supplemental requests and see that our forces are receiving the support they need, and that funds are not being diverted to other unrelated needs," the letter said.

It was signed by Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, current chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; and Democratic Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.

more...

[babylonsister]

1. Big kick; this is potentially huge, and if not, why not? nt

[whalerider55]

2. war? what war?

we haven't declared any war against any country we've fought, invaded, secured or protected since 1942.

what we have here is merely an abdication of congressional responsibility, i think it's damn cheeky of congress to insist that shrub include the costs of his little congressionally-sanctioned-not-quite a-war-but-americans-are-dying-fighting-for-democracy-over-there-so-we-won't-need-it-over-here adventure.


ouch. just a little cynical. ignore this post and have a merry christmas.

whalerider55

[babylonsister]

3. Your cynicism is valid. We are working on invalidating the

most idiotic loser the US has ever seen.

[stansnark]

4. why press him ?

just don't authorize any more money unless he does .

[Toots]

5. I always thought the military was payed by Defense spending.

Why do we need special funding to provide for the military? I always thought their payroll and supplies was built into the Defense bill. They will be payed no matter where they are stationed and they will have needed supplies as well. I don't believe any of this "special emergency funding" is going to provide anything for the military. I think it is going to pay for mercenaries and Halliburton and the hundred thousand American Contractors in Iraq. When does the honesty we are supposed to get with Democrats kick in?

[gratuitous]

6. If this war is the priority Bush constantly claims it is

He should have no problem including its cost in the budget, right? After all, if this is the defining war of Bush's presidency, the people should have a chance to see what it's costing, and debate that cost openly and transparently. People who don't operate in the open usually have something to hide, isn't that right George? You said it yourself.

Let the administration make the case for this war openly and honestly, subject to questioning and cross-examination, so we can all see what Bush claims is self-evident.

[talk hard]

7. start with cutting fraud and waste