| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| Bush to Seek $80B for Iraq, Afghan Wars | ||
| 2005-01-25 | ||
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration plans to announce Tuesday it will request about $80 billion more for this year's costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional aides said Monday. The request would push the total provided so far for those wars and for U.S. efforts against terrorism elsewhere in the world to more than $280 billion since the first money was provided shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, airliner attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
White House officials refused to comment on the war spending package, which will be presented as the United States confronts a new string of violence in Iraq as that country's Jan. 30 elections approach. The forthcoming request underscored how the war spending has clearly exceeded initial White House estimates. Early on, then-presidential economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey placed Iraq costs of $100 billion to $200 billion, only to see his comments derided by administration colleagues. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday it was Congress' ``highest responsibility'' to provide the money that American troops need. But in a written statement, she said Democrats would ask questions about Bush's policies there. ``What are the goals in Iraq, and how much more money will it cost to achieve them? Why hasn't the president and the Pentagon provided members of Congress a full accounting of previous expenditures?,'' Pelosi added.
The package will not formally be sent to Congress until after President Bush introduces his 2006 budget on Feb. 7, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonmity. They said White House budget chief Joshua Bolten or other administration officials would describe the spending request publicly Tuesday. Until now, the White House had not been expected to reveal details of the war package until after the budget's release. The decision to do so earlier comes after congressional officials argued to the administration that withholding the war costs from Bush's budget would open the budget to criticism that it was an unrealistic document, one aide said. Last year, the spending plan omitted war expenditures and received just that critique. Adding additional pressure, the Congressional Budget Office planned to release a semi-annual report on the budget Tuesday that was expected to include a projection of war costs. Last September, the nonpartisan budget office projected the 10-year costs of the wars at $1.4 trillion at current levels of operations, and $1 trillion if the wars were gradually phased down. Aides said about three-fourths of the $80 billion was expected to be for the Army, which is bearing the brunt of the fighting in Iraq. It also was expected to include money for building a U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which has been estimated to cost $1.5 billion. One aide said the request will also include funds to help the new Afghan government combat drug-trafficking. It might also have money to help two new leaders the U.S. hopes will be allies, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko. The aides said the package Bush eventually submits to Congress will also include money to help Indian Ocean countries hit by the devastating December tsunami. Not including the latest package, lawmakers have so far provided the Defense Department with $203 billion for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorists, according to the Congressional Research Service. That includes $121 billion for the war in Iraq, $53 billion for Afghanistan and $29 billion for improved security and anti-terror efforts in the United States and abroad. In addition, Congress has provided nearly $21 billion for rebuilding Iraq and almost $4 billion for Afghan reconstruction. Large portions of that money has not been spent, especially in Iraq, where an armed insurgency and bureaucratic delays have slowed many projects. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #7 Not quiet good enough BAR, should be more like: "That's enough money to supply every elementary school teacher with a $50,000 a year raise with enough money left over to buy every 3rd child a free Harvard education plus allow all people now age 42-62 to retire immediately at triple their current salary." |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-25 5:09:38 PM |
| #6 The appropriate measure isn't the dollar amounts, it's the percentage of GDP. Ah, but it's not possible to influence the regular Schmoe's thinking unless it's framed in nice, simple terms. "Gawd almahtee, that's wun lawrge sum-o-money!!" |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-25 2:56:32 PM |
| #5 Nice analysis guys. One note: every time I read similar misleading claims in articles, I keep in mind that the journo school yutz who wrote it is probably functionally innumerate. |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2005-01-25 12:11:20 PM |
| #4 What ZF said. Plus, the tax burden in the WWI era fell far more heavily on working class families than it does now. So adjust the WWI figure even higher relative to today's per-taxpaying household figure. |
| Posted by: lex 2005-01-25 11:29:52 AM |
| #3 Why are percentages of GDP more meaningful? Because they provide a better picture of the strain on ordinary Americans of war expenditures. In the second year of WWI, $1800 out of every $10000 earned by each American was being spent on the war. In the second year of the Iraqi campaign, $60 out of every $10000 earned is being spent on the war. That's a huge difference. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-01-25 11:06:18 AM |
| #2 Note that AP is also lying about the inflation adjusted amounts - 93+26 = $119B. The inflation factor, which I feel understates inflation, is .068 for 1917 and .08 for 1918. This brings WWI expenditures to $1.54T in 2004 dollars for an average expenditure of $750B a year, dwarfing War on Terror expenditures in inflation-adjusted terms, never mind percentage of industrial output terms. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-01-25 10:48:50 AM |
| #1 Article: That would be nearly half the $613 billion the United States spent for World War I or the $623 billion it expended for the Vietnam War, when the costs of those conflicts are translated into 2005 dollars. AP is lying with statistics. US expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan are about $100b a year, or about 0.6% of GDP, a relative nit compared with past conflicts, including Vietnam. WWI expenditures* were about 4% of GDP in the first year, and about 18% of GDP in the second year, as befitted a major conflict with some of the biggest powers in Europe - Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire. The huge expense of that war was one reason why it was called the Great War, and a reason why the Central Powers agreed to an unfavorable armistice - they could no longer sustain it. It was also why Wilson became hugely unpopular for agreeing to jump in - many Americans felt it was an unnecessary war, which killed 100,000 Americans in just two years. Note that AP never mentions this. * Note the following stats: In WWI the initial defense outlay in 1917 of $26 billion occurred while real GNP fell $0.7 billion -- a 1% decline. In 1918 expenditures rose $93 billion accompanied by a $6.3 billion increase in GNP. As usual, AP lies with statistics. The appropriate measure isn't the dollar amounts, it's the percentage of GDP. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-01-25 10:37:44 AM |