Here is your headline:
Democrats may cut Bush military budget
The article states:
Democrats are considering cutting President Bush's budget $142 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year by $20 billion, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said Thursday.
The war funding cut would affect the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and is separate from the ongoing debate over Bush's $100 billion request for immediate supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.
First off is a truly buried lede and hidden assumption:
The Iraq war is coming back on budget. No more absurd supplemental appropriations. Payback is a bitch, and for Bush, so will be PAYGO. More on that later.
The North Dakota Democrat said he likely will use Congressional Budget Office estimates — instead of the administration's February budget request — as the basis for estimating Iraq and Afghanistan war costs.
The administration asked for $141.7 billion for Fiscal 2008, but assumes only $50 billion for 2009 and no war funding after that.
CBO issued an estimate last month that forecasts 2008 costs of $120 billion for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and military aid for the armies of those two countries. The estimates would drop to $75 billion in 2009 and to $40 billion in 2010.
Long story short, by using budget estimates from the CBO instead of Bush's numbers, Conrad is going to cut funding by about $20 Billion for next year.
That means no more surge, and instead the beginning of troop withdrawal.
Conrad is following a CBO scenario under which the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are reduced to 30,000 by 2010.
There you have it. Conrad is going to allow only enough funding to get our soldiers the heck out of Iraq. How fast is that decline going to be? Track the numbers.
But wait a second, you say, what about this:
But over the full five-year window, Conrad said Democrats would actually provide $85 billion more in war funds than Bush requested since he assumes a continued troop presence over 2010-2012.
"We are going to provide actually more funding , because we think the president's budget has understated the war costs over the five-year period," Conrad said.
He added that the congressional budget resolution he is drafting for debate later this month will provide Bush's request for a $49 billion boost in the core Pentagon budget.
Conrad said a final decision has not been made whether to impose the $20 billion cut.
How is increasing the budget going to scale it back?
Two answers.
One, no more nonsense accounting from the Pentagon. The full costs of this war have far exceeded the Pentagon's estimates, as shown in Senator Conrad's
charts from today. he will have to admit what the price is for this.
But, you ask, how does that pressure Bush to get out?
PAYGO is a bitch--for those who flee accountability. Since the Iraq war will be back on budget, it becomes directly tied to taxes and the overall Pentagon budget.
If Bush wants his war, he'll have to raise taxes on his rich friends. If he wants to continue a larger than advertised troop presence, that's more money that'll have to be accounted for.
Honest accounting can save lives.
Oh, and one more thing:
Budget resolutions only require 51 votes. There ain't no filibstering Conrad's maneuvers. Peel Collins and Snowe over to our side, and Joementum can only bleat in irrelevance.
Comments are closed on this story.