COUNTERPOINT: Will $87 billion be used for the right reasons?
Last week, for the second time since April 2003, President George W. Bush submitted a request for $87 billion to the United States Congress to pay for “military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terror, and to help pay for the reconstruction of both nations.”
This request is in addition to the $79 billion already authorized by Congress earlier in the year, thus bringing the cost of the war to $166 billion in just this year alone, which according to the Associated Press “will worsen already gloomy forecasts for the budget deficit … and could translate into weaker economic growth in the United States.”
In a recent Newsweek poll, more than 51 percent of those surveyed were opposed to Bush’s request saying that the “Bush administration officials did a poor job in preparing citizens for the cost increase.” Yet, despite such bleak deficit projections and opposition, it is expected that Democrats in the Congress will approve the request. It is understandable and vital that, with the level of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops are not denied the necessary means to achieve and protect their objectives. The question to consider, though, is whether Congress should give the Bush administration a blank check for $87 billion or hold it accountable to ensure it is spent for purposes for which it was ostensibly requested. Given the administration’s penchant for big spending (next year the deficit is expected to exceed a record $475 billion), it may be wise to tie the approval of funding to several conditions.
First, the administration must spell out details of its overall strategy in Iraq. What is the broader plan? What is the level of planning for the reconstruction of Iraq? What are the prospects of international cooperation and assistance? Such a condition is necessary given the huge miscalculations of the administration regarding the situation in post-Saddam Iraq and would assure the taxpayers that money would be spent responsibly.
Secondly, the administration must provide more than just a vague accounting of where the money is going. Some lawmakers in Washington have already expressed concern over the fact that the administration cannot account for about half of the $4 billion spent in Iraq every month, and have good reasons to doubt that the additional $87 billion would be better spent. Especially suspect is the president’s request for $20 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. Whereas the stated goal is noble, the means whereby it is intended to be implemented are dubious at best.
Thirdly, the controversial proposal for tax cuts for the wealthiest must be postponed, if not repealed. When Bush took over office, the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $5.6 trillion over a decade. Since then, the projected surplus has turned into a deficit of $1.39 trillion. This estimate does not take into account the cost of making Bush’s tax cut permanent, which would add another $1.1 trillion to the deficit. The delay or the rescinding of the tax cut would enable the government to spend more on education, healthcare, and protecting the security here at home, as well as completing its objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This country went to war over seven months ago by trusting this administration. In the aftermath, the administration has been found wanting. It would be both unwise and irresponsible for the president to ask for more without returning in kind.
Medlir Mema is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to medlirm@cc.usu.edu.