Monday, April 24, 2006
"Emergency" Supplemental Funding Of War Criticized
The use of "emergency" supplemental funding measures to fund the war in Iraq is coming under increased criticism by politicians of both parties.
The Bush administration, with Congress's cooperation, has insisted on paying for the Iraq war through supplemental spending bills. The funding is not included in the president's annual budgets or, in most cases, in the congressional budget resolutions, and it is considered separately from the regular appropriations bills. The money is not counted in the budget deficit estimates that the administration routinely releases. Nor is it counted against any budget caps that Congress has set for itself to abide by throughout the year...
(I)f Congress and the White House actually put the Iraq war properly on the federal books, other budget priorities -- not to mention local pork projects -- would feel the squeeze. That explains why, particularly in an election year, the game is likely to continue...
For his part, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., fumed in a March interview with National Journal: "The administration is running two sets of books here.... There are two sets of books, and one is not subject to the budget controls."
Another abuse that is enabled by the use of supplementals--the insertion of pork barrel projects--is coming under fire. From a perhaps unlikely direction.
The White House and Senate Republican leaders are gearing up to oppose a $106.5 billion spending bill for the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina this week because some lawmakers have added unrelated aid for farmers and fisheries, highways and ports...
Senators have added projects large and small because they know money for wars and hurricane relief will run low and have to be replenished--which makes this a must-pass bill.Among the projects:
- $700 million to relocate a freight railroad line from a section of Mississippi's Gulf Coast that developers want for casinos.
- $600 million for highways in states from Alabama to Alaska affected by natural disasters, some as long as seven years ago.
- $23 million for flood control in Sacramento and Hawaii.
- $20 million to help New England shellfishers recover from last year's toxic red tide.
- $15 million to help promote the sale of Gulf Coast seafood.
"Anything that isn't nailed down, they pick up and take home to their districts," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, one of several budget watchdog groups opposing the measure...
"They're extorting extra funding under the theory that (Bush) will never veto it," says Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Bush has yet to cast his first veto.
The administration is so opposed to the pork projects this time around because it could cut into monies that could be better put to use by their friends in the defense industry.
