Every time there is a spending bill in congress everyone is up in arms. "$200 billion on this! $11 billion increase. $5 billion reduction in increase." It's all spin. We can't understand these numbers. They are never presented in perspective. They're always presented in alarmist fashion in order to shape perception. Then there is this info and no one reports on it.
"US Tax Revenues Up 9.7% through four months, Deficit Down 57%"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Perhaps no one reports on it because it couldn't be true
I don't see how the deficit could be down with the cost of the war spiraling ito orbit
Perhaps it is a lie. If so, the statement should be proven false. The article links to the actual Federal Report (data). Maybe you should read it and prove him wrong.
A statement like "spiraling into orbit" does not allow me to make my own decision of whether we are spending too much. You have made the decision for me. What did we spend last year? What are we proposing this year? What about 2 years ago? What is the rate of increase? And what percentage of the budget is it? Give me these numbers and I will be able to conclude for myself if we are "spiraling into orbit" or if we are spending more on an inflation basis. And if the cost is 45% vs. 5 % of the overall budget, I could conclude that the spending is bad for our economy.
My point is not that you should not have to do this, but that the media should do it and present it in such a fashion that we can understand it and make up our own minds. Instead, we get headlines telling me what to think.
I don't know if you saw the interesting feature on 60 Minutes last night concerning the budget crisis- I'm sure you could find a link on cbs.com
Also I found the following article
by US Rep Abercrombie
NEIL ABERCROMBIE
On war costs, Bush is master of disguise
By Neil Abercrombie | March 5, 2007
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION has asked Congress to approve $93.4 billion in emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of 2007 and another $141.7 billion for next year. This, on top of a proposed 2008 defense budget of $481.4 billion.
Please note that the two supplemental appropriations requests are termed "emergency," which ought to mean unexpected or unpredictable costs. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been funded through emergency spending requests since they began. You might think someone in the Pentagon or the White House Office of Management and Budget could project costs for a year. Apparently not.
Why is a supplemental request the budget vehicle of choice? Because as an emergency measure, it doesn't count against the budget ceiling that Congress adopts to guide spending, and therefore isn't figured into government estimates of our annual budget deficit. So, for the last four years, these emergency spending bills have helped President Bush obscure the true cost of the war.
As "emergency" legislation, these supplemental requests don't get the same scrutiny as regular annual appropriation bills. In fact, for the last five years, there's been heavy pressure from the administration and the Republican majority in Congress to approve them quickly and without argument. Those who have opposed, or even questioned, any part have been accused of "not supporting our troops."
The Bush administration is already saying that if it doesn't get everything it wants -- or if Congress adds requirements for troop readiness or demands for protective equipment -- our men and women in combat will run out of bullets or be left stranded in the desert.
Baloney. Our first priority in Congress is supporting the troops. But supporting them means, among other things, covering their basic equipment needs in annual defense authorization and appropriation bills. Supplemental budgets are intended to pay the additional costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the $5 billion to $6 billion we're told the president's "surge" in Iraq will cost.
The administration is misusing emergency budget requests in another way: The bills contain much more than war-related items -- $14 billion is requested for new armored vehicles, including 58 M-1 Abrams tanks, 168 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 111 Stryker light armored vehicles, 121 M113 armored personnel carriers, and 22 M88 recovery vehicles.
If these were all replacements for vehicles damaged or worn out in combat, they would belong in an emergency spending bill. But this request goes far beyond replacing combat losses.
Some of the so-called emergency replacement items in the 2007 request won't even be available until 2010 or later. We've been asked to replace two $20 million fighter aircraft with $200 million Joint Strike Fighters, which are still in development.
At the same time, the emergency request skimps on equipment badly needed by troops being deployed to Iraq as part of the surge. Why was Congress told that the Army can't even meet the basic needs for these Iraq-bound units?
Millions and millions of dollars are included in supplemental appropriations requests that should be spelled out, prioritized, and justified through the regular congressional authorization and appropriation processes. Instead, they are hidden behind an emergency label.
The Democratic leaders of the House and the relevant committees and subcommittees are working to end this practice. We believe that every supplemental request should be "scrubbed"; that funding for anything that is not for a genuine emergency or an unforeseeable expenditure should be part of the annual Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriation bills.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the responsibility to make judgments about the nation's spending priorities and to oversee that spending. Those responsibilities can be best met when all foreseeable Pentagon spending is presented in the annual Defense budget, not tucked into hurried, must-pass, emergency spending bills.
We all know that maintaining a strong national defense is not cheap. Conducting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not cheap. But these costs should not be hidden, minimized, obscured, or embellished.
US Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii, is chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
Post a Comment