fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
Angelina Jolie was on TV last night talking about how much (one part of) the UN accomplishes with $1.5 billion.

***
Pentagon to Request Billions More in War Money
By David S. Cloud
The New York Times

Saturday 30 December 2006

Washington - The Pentagon is seeking nearly $100 billion for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, a request that, if approved by Congress, would set an annual record for war-related spending.

The $99.7 billion request, detailed in a 17-page internal Defense Department memorandum dated Dec. 7, would be in addition to $70 billion appropriated in September. The request would push the total for the 2007 fiscal year to nearly $170 billion, 45 percent more than Congress provided for 2006.

(SNIP)

Since 2001, Congress has approved $507 billion for Afghanistan, Iraq and other operations deemed part of combating terrorism. Even with the Democrats in control, there is unlikely to be much appetite for cutting the war-related spending requests, Mr. Kosiak said.

"No one seems to be saying we're going to make deep cuts in war-related expenditures," he said. "I don't see evidence that the Democrats are interested in cutting this."

But the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees have said they will push the Bush administration to finance war costs in regular appropriations bills, not in supplemental spending measures, to make the costs clearer.

link

NOTE: A little outdated (August 2005), but still useful:



More costly than 'the war to end all wars'

We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined (if you include "special" legislation). If the best the Dems can do is move the military budget into the regular process and stop the "specials" I guess that will be good, but I doubt it. As long as they keep appropriating the money - and trying to balance the budget - war spending will send more kids to bed hungry and more poor people out on the streets, will keep more kids out of school - and will see more projects to wean us from oil dependence unfunded. Meanwhile, our "progress" in Iraq is very - suggestive - that we're pouring money down the throat of a dead horse. Whatever we are spending all those billions of dollars on - and it isn't military pay, armor, or veteran's benefits - it isn't working.

Last I checked, the U.S. spent right at 50% of the world total in military spending. What one would expect of the last imperial power. And some naive folks thought massive military spending during the "Cold War" had everything to do with the USSR. Heh.
With all this money spent on the war atainst evil and Bush's tax cuts, we easily could have ended our shameless reign as the worlds only western democracy without a national healthcare plan. Under any existing scheme as well.
Remember folks, the stagflation of the 70's were due in no small part to spending in Vietnam.
Yippie.

A sound economy and a healthy - and large - middle class is what sustains a democratic republic. The neocons, by whatever name, have known all along they have to destroy the economy to be able to take over the country. The government Norquist and Co wish to shrink and drown in a bathtub is our constitutional one. As our current decider in chief said, "a dictatorship would be great, as long as I'm the dictator" - long drawn-out wars are the only way to totally crater the economy. While socialism is frequently accused of that power, countries like Norway prove otherwise. (A balanced social/market economy is the best in the world for both business and people.) Only the "industri-military complex" sucks up money like a black hole does light. It's what broke up the U.S.S.R. - our military spending drove their military spending to totally disrupt their economy (which WASN'T a balanced social/market economy and so wasn't particularly stable in the first place). The leeches continuing the program are probably putting their money in euros so when we go belly up, they'll still have their blood money.

Pentagon Sees US War Cost in Iraq Rising
By Richard Cowan
Reuters

Friday 19 January 2007

Washington - The steadily rising Iraq war price tag will reach about $8.4 billion a month this year, Pentagon spokesmen said on Thursday, as heavy replacement costs for lost, destroyed and aging equipment mount.

The Pentagon has been estimating last year's costs for the increasingly unpopular war at about $8 billion a month, having increased from a monthly "burn rate" of around $4.4 billion during the first year of fighting in fiscal 2003.

During testimony at a House Budget Committee hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said that nearly four years into the war, the Pentagon's war costs were rising because it was having to replace big-ticket items such as helicopters, airplanes and armored vehicles that are wearing out or were lost in combat.

"We have a backlog and are seeing an increase," England told the panel.

When factoring in U.S. combat costs in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will spend about $9.7 billion a month during the fiscal year that ends on Sept. 30, according to Pentagon spokesmen.

Early next month, the administration is expected to ask Congress for a further $100 billion in "emergency" war money, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this year. The request comes as President George W. Bush has sketched out an increase of 21,500 U.S. troops in Iraq that could cost about $5.6 billion.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat, said he hoped Congress could avoid recurring emergency funding bills for the war. "We would like to get a better grasp of the cost of the Iraq war and the global war on terrorism - a way of accounting of costs to date and projecting costs to come."

Since fiscal 2001, Congress has approved $503 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other aspects of the U.S. "global war on terrorism," according to Congressional Budget Office testimony. Of that, $344 billion has gone for military, diplomatic and other security costs in Iraq, the CBO said.

Most of the funds have been provided on an emergency basis, outside regular budget procedures. Critics say that obscures the true cost of the war and results in less congressional oversight.

link

So, what's the status on Bush's request for $80-100 billion more for the occupation? Has the Dem faction of the War Party, controlling congress and hence the purse strings, approved it yet?

Nope and at the moment they are working out various ways to get the "war-making" powers back into the hands of those the constitution entrusted them to in the first place (Congress). One of those various ways includes funding cuts.

On "Good Morning America" Nancy Pelosi said, "The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources." This makes me think that the Dem faction will provide the money for more mass-murder, and that, for mainstream powerholding Dems, any opposition to the occupation is insincere and simply an excuse for politically motivated Bush-bashing grandstanding.

Do you know when the funding vote is scheduled to occur?

There's a difference between the regular and special funding - and of course Pelosi has to say what she did because the Administration is portraying our kids naked with empty guns sitting in the middle of a sand pit being used as target practice by the Iraqis if W doesn't get his way. They have to be very careful how they shape funding bills so the money can only be used to get the kids out, but does provide the money to get them out - in a more or less orderly fashion (airlifting out of Vietnam, not the "miracle of Dunkirk").

Barbara wrote:Of course Pelosi has to say what she did because the Administration is portraying our kids naked with empty guns sitting in the middle of a sand pit being used as target practice by the Iraqis if W doesn't get his way.

Exactly. She is not at all sincere about wanting to end the occupation, but would rather play politically motivated public relations games. She's clearly more concerned about what Boobus Americanus might think than ending the mass-murder. Of course, with that attitude it will continue indefinitely.

Hogeye - you aren't paying attention to what I said. Pelosi has to play the political game to get anything done. Yes, she is the leader of a Dem majority House, but not only is the margin not that big, she has to consider: 1) blue dogs in the House, 2) the entire Senate which is only Dem by virtue (!) of one "independent" Bush-lover polling with the Dems, and 3) any strategy to stop the President has to consider presidential veto power. She is very concerned about ending the occupation, but realism says go slow and careful. (It's like impeachment. We can't get rid of W without the Rs, so put it "off the table" unless/until the Rs themselves put it back on - and accompish whatever we can around Der Decider.)

I understand perfectly. She chooses to "play the political game" rather than oppose the occupation and mass murder. If "the game" requires maintaining the statist quo, spending another $80 billion and more American lives, and bashing Bush for the next two years, well, that just helps the Dem faction of the War Party win the game.

Bremer quizzed over cash for Iraq

The former head of the US-led civilian administration in Iraq has defended his decision to send billions of dollars in cash to Baghdad in 2003 and 2004.

Paul Bremer told a Congressional committee investigating allegations of waste and fraud that he had done his best to kick-start Iraq's economy.

The funds came from Iraqi oil revenue and previously frozen assets.

Much of the money went missing and critics say there was no system to track how it was used.

"Who in their right mind would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone? But that is exactly what our government did," Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said during Tuesday's hearing.

He added that there was no way of knowing whether the cash - totalling $9bn and flown in pallets from the US - would end up in enemy hands.

link

From what I read, the Dem faction of the War Party will give the Bush junto all the money it needs to continue the occupation of Iraq. But to pacify/dupe the anti-war types, they'll fly a non-binding resolution against the occupation. How typical - give him the money for murder but sponsor a symbolic gesture!

Hogeye wrote:From what I read, the Dem faction of the War Party will give the Bush junto all the money it needs to continue the occupation of Iraq.

DAR
Matt Renner | Progressive Democrats Aim to Cut Iraq War Funding

Matt Renner reports, "The Congressional Progressive Caucus is leading
the Democratic effort in the House to stop the president's escalation
plan in its tracks and bring US troops home within the year."
LINK


And:

Democrats Try Again to Stop Troop Escalation

As Senate Democrats seek votes on capping troop numbers and funding for Iraq, they may use the pending bill on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission as a vehicle, setting up a replay of the debate over funding for troops that this week derailed their leadership-backed non-binding resolution on Bush's "surge" proposal.

LINK

Nah, there's no difference between the Dem's and the Repub's.

The handful of Dem peaceniks can't even get the non-binding easy part passed. The Dem War Party elite has things firmly under control. Bush will get his $100 billion more.

Pelosi: Iraq Resolution Is Just the Beginning

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told her colleagues and the
country yesterday that the non-binding resolution disapproving of President
Bush's troop surge is only the first step in Congressional action on
Iraq, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is taking
steps to bring the same measure to a vote in the upper chamber. "In a few
days and in fewer than 100 words, we will take our country in a new
direction on Iraq," Pelosi said.
LINK

Nah, there's no difference between the Dem's and the Repub's.

We'll see soon enough. If Congress gives Bush the money next month, that will show conclusively that this "non-binding resolution" was nothing more than a dog and pony show. If Congress cuts off any additional funding, then they were serious about "a new direction on Iraq." Any bets on the outcome?

DAR
I'll bet they don't cut off all funding. Nor should they. Almost no one thinks that's the best way to do it. Maybe McCain and a few on the far right (Pat Bucanan), but they aren't isn't serious and only saying this to politically posture (as you probably are). Politics in a democratic republic with only two party options is a complicated nuanced thing, not well suited to simplistic black/white, good/bad, up/down dichotomies. As Murtha put it: withdrawal/redeployment to the horizon, consistent with the safety of the soldiers.
But the cutting off of any additional funds would only make Bush work a little to shuffle funds around. There are many billions of dollars sloshing around at the Pentagon. They can't even find where they put 2 trillion dollars. So don't forget that Bush and the repub's can still drag this out for sometime no matter what the Dem's do. As they well know. So no need for them to make the obvious blunder of handing the Repub's the opportunity to make it look like the Dem's lost the war by hurting troops.

D.

Darrel wrote:But the cutting off of any additional funds would only make Bush work a little to shuffle funds around.

Perhaps. So why not make Bush work a little for his mass murder program?

Darrel wrote:So no need for them to make the obvious blunder of handing the Repub's the opportunity to make it look like the Dem's lost the war by hurting troops.

If you consider ending the mass murder important, then it is not a blunder to cut off funds. OTOH if you consider partisan gamesmanship and power-grubbing to be more important, then I suppose cutting off funds for mass murder might be a errant political ploy.

Today's headline: Pelosi Backs War Funding Conditions. She's giving Bush all the money he wants. No surprise. The Dem faction of the War Party does the expected.