Another Test
The GOP leadership of the current Congress has made it clear that it won't be dealing with certain issues, preferring to leave the mess for the Democratically led 110th Congress to clean up. The federal budget is one of those messes, and now we learn that the supplemental military bill (funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) is another.
Spending for the wars has been taken out of the normal budgetary process because of the assumption that the costs are unpredictable and therefore cannot be fixed, which would be required for the annual Pentagon budget. The result is that few members of Congress have been willing to challenge the costs in such a supplemental spending bill lest they be accused as not supporting the troops. The military knows this, so the latest request is going to be filled with items on a wishlist that won't really face much scrutiny. From today's L.A. Times:
The Pentagon is preparing an emergency spending proposal that could be larger and broader than any since the Sept. 11 attacks, covering not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but extending to other military operations connected to the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
The spending plans may push the Defense Department into conflict with Democrats as they take control of Capitol Hill in January. Democrats had been planning to limit the emergency "supplemental" spending measures that have funded the wars in favor of the regular federal budget process, which affords greater oversight and congressional control.
...The next request stands to be larger partly because of new rules laid out in an Oct. 25 memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England. Rather than strictly limiting spending to Iraq and Afghanistan costs, the memo said the military services could include costs associated with operations that are part of the larger war on terrorism.
Previously, the military portion of the supplemental spending measures has been used almost exclusively for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. England's memo would allow the military to include a greater number of expenses more loosely tied to the actual wars, such as new military weapons systems and training exercises.
Democrats said a supplemental of $80 billion to $100 billion was more realistic. Both House and Senate aides say they want to push in the opposite direction of the Pentagon, moving money out of the supplemental and into the regular budget.
...According to the England memo, the Pentagon wants to include money in the supplemental to replace equipment destroyed in combat or run down by accelerated wear and tear. More controversially, it also allows the services to replace old equipment with new models — actions historically subject to the normal budget review process. [Emphasis added]
While including the cost of equipment destroyed or worn out during the war probably is appropriate for such a supplemental bill, including the cost of fancy new weapon systems, many of which have been bounced out of the normal budget requests as being nothing more than gifts to government contractors, certainly is not. These costs should be subject to the same Congressional oversight as the budget requests from other federal agencies.
Whether the Democrats can carry out their promises of fiscal restraint will be the first major test for the new Congress. If they can stand up to the Pentagon on this issue, then they will have gone a long way towards returning balance to the three-part view .of government envisioned by the Constitution
Spending for the wars has been taken out of the normal budgetary process because of the assumption that the costs are unpredictable and therefore cannot be fixed, which would be required for the annual Pentagon budget. The result is that few members of Congress have been willing to challenge the costs in such a supplemental spending bill lest they be accused as not supporting the troops. The military knows this, so the latest request is going to be filled with items on a wishlist that won't really face much scrutiny. From today's L.A. Times:
The Pentagon is preparing an emergency spending proposal that could be larger and broader than any since the Sept. 11 attacks, covering not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but extending to other military operations connected to the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
The spending plans may push the Defense Department into conflict with Democrats as they take control of Capitol Hill in January. Democrats had been planning to limit the emergency "supplemental" spending measures that have funded the wars in favor of the regular federal budget process, which affords greater oversight and congressional control.
...The next request stands to be larger partly because of new rules laid out in an Oct. 25 memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England. Rather than strictly limiting spending to Iraq and Afghanistan costs, the memo said the military services could include costs associated with operations that are part of the larger war on terrorism.
Previously, the military portion of the supplemental spending measures has been used almost exclusively for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. England's memo would allow the military to include a greater number of expenses more loosely tied to the actual wars, such as new military weapons systems and training exercises.
Democrats said a supplemental of $80 billion to $100 billion was more realistic. Both House and Senate aides say they want to push in the opposite direction of the Pentagon, moving money out of the supplemental and into the regular budget.
...According to the England memo, the Pentagon wants to include money in the supplemental to replace equipment destroyed in combat or run down by accelerated wear and tear. More controversially, it also allows the services to replace old equipment with new models — actions historically subject to the normal budget review process. [Emphasis added]
While including the cost of equipment destroyed or worn out during the war probably is appropriate for such a supplemental bill, including the cost of fancy new weapon systems, many of which have been bounced out of the normal budget requests as being nothing more than gifts to government contractors, certainly is not. These costs should be subject to the same Congressional oversight as the budget requests from other federal agencies.
Whether the Democrats can carry out their promises of fiscal restraint will be the first major test for the new Congress. If they can stand up to the Pentagon on this issue, then they will have gone a long way towards returning balance to the three-part view .of government envisioned by the Constitution
posted by Diane at 9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home