Greens, Democrats, Progressives, $87 Billion

[Iverson]

Swimming against the tide here, I'd like to offer a pause in the hate-fest in order to solicit discussion on an issue where there is potential for working together.

Recently, the White House requested $87 billion in appropriations for its Iraq policy. Call it rebuilding or empire or graft; call it what you like. We all know what we're talking about here.

Considering that progressives have been solidly against this war for a variety of good reasons, I conclude that progressives will be solidly against the Bush administration's adjunct plans.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offers a few reasons to oppose this request. You can review them here:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1009-03.htm

Although the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the bill unanimously, that does not necessarily mean that progressive Democrats agree with their counterparts on this Senate committee. Therefore, I ask Greens, Democrats, and other progressives, do we agree that this is a policy worth opposing? Conversely, is there a progressive argument in favor of the Bush admin. funding request?

Thank you in advance.

[Terwilliger]

1. I think the request needs to be fully vetted

I've heard stories about idiotic plans for some of the funds, and I doubt seriously that our "troops" need the whole $66 billion....what about the last appropriation? Where did that money go?

I think a true audit of the military's spending habits is in FULL order here.

[charlie]

3. Yeah, like the included $9 billion

earmarked for Rumsfeld to spend as he pleases:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089674/

[Iverson]

6. Thank you for drawing attention to that.

I just read the article on the link you provided. The plan is, of course, deeply offensive.

It raises the question as to why it passed unanimously. Did the Senators or their aides not read it, or did they accept the idea?

[charlie]

10. The author thinks it's showboating

They make a grand spectacle of stripping out funds for hospitals, garbage trucks, etc -- why should Americans endure austerity so the Iraqis can enjoy this largesse? Then they count on Rummy to pay for what they've removed. Sounds depressingly plausible.

[library_max]

4. I agree with Terwilliger

Holy crap, it's the seventh sign of the Apocalypse. :+

But I do. On the one hand, we can't just say hell no. This country has made a commitment to Iraq. We broke it, we bought it. We need to let the UN and the international community into the transition process, and then maybe we could persuade them to help out some with the costs of rebuilding (and of course let them share the profits). But unless and until we achieve that, we can't just say no money for Iraq. It makes us look like bastards and isolationists and crybabies and a lot of other bad things politically.

But on the other hand, the Bush Administration has NO RIGHT to a blank check of any kind. Their credibility is less than zero. We need to pick this request apart and see where all the money is going to go, and make sure that it isn't ALL going to go to Halliburton and suchlike.

The best thing would be for the UN to take over (with very generous funding from us, since we did the damage in the first place). This takes the disbursement of funds and the control that attaches to it out of the hands of the corrupt Bush Admininstration. But failing that, second best is to have a bipartisan Congressional initiative which does essentially the same thing - honors our commitment to rebuilding without letting the BFEE funnel all the money into the pockets of its campaign donors.

[KG]

2. not one fukkin' cent.

withdraw the troops now, give iraq unlimited credit to rebuild their country. until '91 they were a modern county, and had a civilized society for millenia. they don't need the US's approval of what kind of gov't they wish for themselves, and the dam sure don't need halliburton to do the rebuilding work.

viet nam has rebuilt their country just fine with out the carlyle group.

[library_max]

5. That's an attractive idea

if politically problematical. Question: to whom in Iraq would we give the money?

[KG]

7. oh, yeah, politically problematical, of course.

for the US i guess, coz it's what works best for the US that counts, not the iraqis. in spite of all the glorious rhetoric to the contrary, what's best for the iraqis is the last thing on the bushites minds.

sooner or later, the iraqis will decide for themselves how their country will be run. let's leave now, and let them get on with it.

[library_max]

9. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

I meant politically problematical for Democrats. We're never going to sell "Shut up and hand over the money to the Iraqis" to middle America. There's no point in taking a position that's just going to go down in flames and make us look bad in the process. Terwilliger's idea is better.

[KG]

11. my concern is for what's best for the iraqi's

and doing what best for them will benefit all.

what is never mentioned is that only $20B is actually for rebuilding iraq. the rest is for, not just maintaining, but expanding the US military might in the ME, and that is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

not only that. but $87B just doesn't exist. is just part of the economic fantasy world our politcal leaders, (D) & (R) live in

[library_max]

20. Not sure I understand all of this

"$87B just doesn't exist"? Of course it exists. If you mean that it isn't in the budget at present, that's why Bush is asking Congress for it. If you mean that there isn't enough revenue to pay for it and all the other stuff we've already committed to, that's nothing new. The best idea I've heard to pay for it is to trim back the tax cut for the top 1% income group.

You're right, $67B is for the cost of occupation. What if the Democrats manage to cut off the money and force the troops to come running home, and then Iraq collapses in chaos (like Afghanistan)? You wanna give Bush that issue to run on in 2004?

And you never answered my first question. If we're going to give Iraq "unlimited credit to rebuild their country" (and this would never sell politically in the U.S.), to whom in Iraq would we give the money?

[Old and In the Way]

8. I have no problem with $50BB.....

as long as it goes directly to an elected Iraqi government with Congressional and/or UN oversight to use it to repair and rebuild the damages 2 wars and a decade embargo have wrought on the people.

Could that be incentive for Iraqi's to come together and work for their common good? Perhaps, but I'm not sure that even this would motivate some factions who are motivated by radical fundementalism.

Most likely, it goes to Republican corporate interests with trickle down benefits to their friends....

[cosmicdot]

12. guess it's too late to account for the $43 Million given to the Taliban

c. May 2001
who did they give that to?
did it go through the UN?

I know it's a drop in the bucket v. $87 Billion

we need better accounting of all money that is earmarked

[maha]

13. It's difficult

... to fit the words "progressive" and "Bush administration" into the same sentence without gagging, but I'll give it a shot.

Stuff We All Know

The $87 billion Bush Iraq budget is padded up the wazoo. I mean, $9 million for zip codes? Puh-leeze!

Even when Congress approves funds, the funds have a way of not getting where they are supposed to go. For example, this Associated Press story says a quarter of U.S. troops in Iraq lack proper body armor, even though Congress approved funds for the armor in April.

Congress approved $310 million in April to buy 300,000 more of the bulletproof vests, with 30,000 destined to complete outfitting of the troops in Iraq. Of that money, however, only about $75 million has reached the Army office responsible for overseeing the vests' manufacture and distribution, said David Nelson, an official in that office.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20031013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_body_armor_1

Is this telling us that money is somehow not going where it's allocated? That there is massive waste and fraud consuming the money we are spending in Iraq? Does a bear ... well, you know what the answer is.

On the other hand, the troops are going to be there for at least another year, and realistically a lot longer. It's real easy and self-gratifying to make speeches about how they ought to come home RIGHT NOW, but while we're making speeches the soldiers are sitting in Iraq with inadequate shelter, food, water, and armor. And of the $87 billion, $66.7 billion is for troops support. The remaining $20.3 billion is for Iraqi infrastructure.

In my opinion, Congress should not continue to give Bush blank checks. On the other hand, refusing to consider ANY allocation could cause extreme hardship to our soldiers.

The answer is, I think, for Congress to assume much more oversight and control of how monies are budgeted and distributed in Iraq than the Bushies want them to have. But the Constitution gives Congress this power, so if enough of Congress stands firm, Congress can beat the Bushes on this issue. And that is, I think, the proper Progressive stand on Bush's $87 billion.

[Iverson]

14. kick for the night

I'm going to bed soon. I have to get up early. My thanks to those who have contributed, and I hope we get more.

[welshTerrier2]

15. $87 Billion - No Way !!

We watched as many key democrats talked about "using diplomacy", giving the inspections time to work, respecting the U.N., building a "real" coalition ... and how did they vote on the IWR ?? they let bush go off and do whatever he damned pleased ... and the results have been devastating ...

hundreds dead, a death-a-day, a puppet government in Iraq, loss of worldwide prestige, ballooning costs, a risk of expanded war into Syria and Iran, increased risks of terrorism ... all this and no WMD and a pile of lies bigger than the pile that Nixon built during Watergate ...

and now, a request for massive, unilateral funding ... the statistics are staggering ... if i heard the quote correctly, the federal government spends only $34 billion on education in this country ... and our nation's education system is in crisis ... we have more than 42 million americans who cannot afford healthcare ... bush's government gives them a tax cut ... guess what, still no healthcare ... and we talk about the real heroes, the troops ... and the republicans make deep cuts in veterans benefits ... the "no child left behind" act? severely underfunded ... the 9/11 response? a Homeland Security Act ... guess what?? severely underfunded again ...
what we really needed was a "Homeless Security Act" ...

$87 Billion ... it ain't chicken feed ...

so, what do we hear as supporting arguments for this request ?? "got to support the troops" ... Bullshit !!! a bloated military budget has been provided for ... the pentagon should allocate funds as necessary ... can you imagine other government departments coming back for additional, massive appropriations like this? our nation's schools are failing ... time for another $87 billion ... americans are out of jobs ... time for another $87 billion ... isn't it always the republicans who keep saying you can't throw money at problems ???

we should not "support the troops" by providing the $87 billion ... it is the job of the Congress to cut off funds for wars that are not in the nation's interest ... Congress has an obligation to pull the plug on king george's madness ... bring the troops home in six months or less ... i think they'll really appreciate that kind of support ...

we also hear arguments suggesting that we have an obligation to the iraqis now that we've invaded their country ... i have no problem with this ... think of the money we would free up from the pentagon budget by bringing those troops home very soon ... we could provide real support to Iraq well beyond the $20 billion ... of course, even the $20 billion for "rebuilding" will likely end up in the accounts of certain corporations ... so let's not deceive ourselves about "doing the right thing" in Iraq ...

democrats must not go along AGAIN ... there is no exit strategy ... when will we learn that a dominant military does not mean we can impose our will ?? the Israelis have a vastly superior military to the Palestinians and have enjoyed very little peace from terrorist attacks ...

if the democrats want to be credible on challenging bush in Iraq, the time to say "NO !!" is NOW ... you can't vote to "go along" with the IWR and vote a massive "post-war" funding package, and then say you "opposed the WAY" bush conducted the war ... it just isn't going to fly ... it is way past time to stand up and be counted ...

we need our candidates to show some guts NOW ... we need them to show some leadership ... twiddling around with the wording or building in a requirement that Bremer has to account for the money every six months is "just pretending" you're an opposition party ...

with no clear exit strategy, a death-a-day, the massive costs at a time we can't afford them and the loss of american prestige around the world, the time to say no to the $87 billion is right NOW !!

[onebigbadwulf]

16. How much does Iraq have????

Wait a second......isn't the Iraqi oil deposits only estimated at 20 billion dollars ???

Or am I way off? ...right now it doesn't seem like this war will EVER pay off.

[charlie]

18. Heh

Believe it or not, right now we're importing oil into Iraq. The output from undamaged wells isn't enough to meet current needs.

[0rganism]

19. It's only 20 billion at the moment

When the next fuel shortage pops up, it'll be worth a lot more than that.

However, you're right. This war won't pay off. I never met a war that did.

[0rganism]

17. Ya know, I bet if we took 10% of that money...

...and spent it building a solid social infrastructure in the Palestinian Authority, there'd be a helluva lot less angry Arabs shooting RPGs at our troops.

Just a hunch. What do I know?