| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Congress Grills Bremer on Iraq Spending Plan |
| 2003-09-23 |
| The chief U.S. administrator for Iraq faced skeptical questioning in Congress as he defended a plan that seeks $20 billion for civilian reconstruction in Iraq – nearly 10 times the administration’s estimate of a just a few months ago. ... Officials said the $20 billion would cover an array of reconstruction-related activities, ranging from vast public-works projects to $200 million for two new prisons and $100 million for 3,500 new housing units. A children’s hospital would be built at a cost of $150 million. And $100 million is being requested to protect witnesses and their families who testify against former government officials, terrorist groups or organized-crime figures. By comparison, the U.S. in 2000 spent $28.4 million on the federal witness-protection program, while California – a state with about 15 million more residents than Iraq – spends $3 million a year on witness-protection program. ... The request, which Congress appears ready to approve with few modifications, marks a massive increase in U.S. funding to rebuild Iraq. Congress earlier this year set aside $2.4 billion for rebuilding projects that was meant to last through next year. ... I don’t get it. The administration has asked for $52 billion for military operations in Iraq. The current monthly cost is $3.9 billion (roughly $47 billion) and many analysts agree that the rate is too much even for Pentagon standards. Why does the administration expect to spend more money next year? Does it mean attacks against the U.S. troops will not only continue but increase its pace? Why is it necessary to spend $20 billion for reconstrction? This is like $1000 per capita - almost equal to their income per capita. Does the U.S have to build prisons, houses, hospitals for Iraq? Why so much money for witness protection? Assuming that there would be 1000 witnesses to protect, this is $100,000 per witness. To me it looks like the administration has overstated the cost of spending on Iraq - both the military and the civilian spending - in the amount of $20-30 billion (I predict $3 billion per month on military). The question is why? 1. They do not want to go back to Congress 2 months before the election and ask for more money (in case it is needed). 60% of the population is against it today, but they will forget it next year. 2. They expect to face bigger problems next year 3. They are using the money somewhere else (a build-up for another military operation?) 4. All of the above |
| Posted by:. |
| #7 Tell ya what "dot"? We'll spend it all on illegal, excuse me, "undocumented" aliens here in the good old USA instead, okay? Bet that'll get you and Senator Fat Boy on board, right? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-9-23 10:35:04 PM |
| #6 Wow, NORMAL people would say that this shows real dedication and generosity on the Part of the United States to make Iraq a success story. "." clearly isn't the generous or compassionate sort, seeing success in Iraq as spelling failure for his view of the world. Thus, he opposes this on the grounds of "it can be spent better if you listen to ME!". No, it won't. and note, "$875 million to restore drained marshlands" Marshlands formerly occupied by Marsh Arabs, and a formerly valuable ecosystem nearly destroyed by Saddam to starve out his opponents. Not a peep of condemnation from "." or any other of the eco-hypocrites while this went on, nor a peep of praise for the allocation of this money to repair the damage. Explain to me, ".", just WHY I should listen to a two-faced, jealous, high-school embittered loser like you? |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-9-23 10:23:23 PM |
| #5 Base building in Iraq? Sounds good to me - I'd like ones with short flying time to Tehran, Riyadh, and Damascus, thank you |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-23 8:42:25 PM |
| #4 Sounds like George Bush expects an American presence in Iraq for quite some time. That presence may indeed be military facilities - where better than in the heart of your enemy's territory? George Bush understands that the money spent there is an investment, one that will pay back more than we spend, and probably more than we ever anticipated, over the long haul. It's going to take time to get Iraq's oilfields to full production levels, and to stabilize the country enough to sell that oil. I think what GW is doing is to make sure the money is there to use until that oil begins to get to market. I also believe he expected to get there sooner than we have, but the guerilla war there has changed the timelines. I would much rather see $87 billion spent there than wasted on pork here in the United States, so some Massachusetts and West Virginia senators can buy votes and continue to drain the coffers for their own enjoyment. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-23 8:00:25 PM |
| #3 More... 1. $290 million to hire, train and house 5000 firefighters, 2. $9 million to modernize the postal service, including establishment of ZIP codes 3. $100 million to protect - and perhaps relocate overseas - 100 witnesses and their families 4. $100 million for 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government 5. $99 million to build and modernize 26 jails and prisons for 8,500 inmates 6. $35 million to subsidize on-the-job training for private businesses 7. $856 million to upgrade three Iraqi airports, a seaport, rail lines and communications systems 8. $875 million to restore drained marshlands Oh boy! Iraqis are so lucky to have a rich uncle. |
| Posted by: . 2003-9-23 5:28:57 PM |
| #2 Another possibility: Although no administration official says so explicitly, the White House goal is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's re-election campaign. |
| Posted by: . 2003-9-23 4:59:12 PM |
| #1 $1000 a head to rebuild a country from the ground up - army, electric power, etc. sounds cheap. Not sure about the witness protection program - i suspect theyre thinking about more than 1000 witnesses, though. also note complaints from the troops over there that theyre short a lot of stuff. and that CPA is said to stand for "cant provide anything". |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-23 4:46:37 PM |