FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush’s New War Budget

by FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY

The President’s FY 2009-13 budget plan, which he will submit to Congress next week, includes $70 billion to cover only the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through the first four months of Fiscal Year 2009, which begins next October 1. This budgetary legerdemain is indeed a fitting memory pill encapsulating both Bush’s reckless philosophy of governance and his callous disregard for the sacrifices of the troops he asked to fight his wars.

By asking for $70 billion to pay for only that part the of war that remains during the last four months his tenure (October 2008 thru January 2009), the “war” component of Bush’s Fiscal 2009 defense budget request is understated by at least two-thirds or $140 billion. This is like funding only the first four months of the missile defense program and is logically inconsistent with the other parts of his defense request, especially high-pork wish list of cold-war inspired weapons programs, which I can assure you are all fully funded for full 60 months between Fiscal 2009 and 2013, which is the time that will be covered by his budget message to Congress.

Bush’s four-month “war budget” is also logically inconsistent with the entire federal budget that he is submitting to Congress next week, not to mention Bush’s economic assumptions and deficit projections, all of which assume a full five years or 60 months of expenditures between FY 2009 and 2013. These long term projections lie at the heart of Bush’s budget message to Congress. They are intended the tell the Congress and the American people what the future consequences of his current policy decisions would be if his program was put into place. The future consequences of Bush’s “decisions” may be expressed in dry statistics, but in fact, they are the definitive statement of tradeoffs embodied the self-styled “Deciders” practice of decision making. Put another way, these tradeoffs are the definitive statement of the values he holds dear and wants to see perpetuated as his policy legacy.

How these future consequences are stated is also central to the principle of accountability that is the bedrock of our Constitution.

So, what does this partial funding decision of the war budget say about the “Decider’s” values. Logically, it tells us one of two things: Either

(1) Bush has a plan to end the war and terminate all expenditures by early February 2009 or

(2) that Bush care nothing about the war or the sacrifices of the troops he asked to fight it and intends to dump the whole mess on the next administration without even providing the funding needed to carry out his legacy.

Option 1 is obviously impossible. Moreover, there have been recent reports of an effort by Bush to forge a long-term mutual defense defense pact with Iraq in a way that would not require the consent of Congress — itself a grotesque usurpation of the treaty making powers assigned to the Congress by the Constitution. So, one must conclude by process of elimination that Bush’s values include the “value” to walking away from a mess of his own making and possibly a cynical political value setting the stage for shifting the blame for failure, should the next President fail to “fully fund” the victory Bush is bequeathing, which may include the cost of the open-ended military presence of an unconstitutional mutual defense pact.

Bear also in mind, that this is but a one example of the kind of “values” which are reflected by the shortsighted recklessness that landed America in its current mess skyrocketing debt, a collapsing dollar, and a horrific trade balance, while it was perfectly clear during Bush’s entire presidency that long-terms trends needed to be addressed by a real deciders making real decisions (eg., soaring entitlements, crumbling infrastructure, deteriorating schools, a growing medical insurance crisis, an aging population, and a mass of shameful social statistics that are often among the worst in the “developed” world).

Bear also in mind, that Bush is also calling for a “short-term” $150 billion stimulus package consisting of targeted tax cuts and increased government spending over the remaining 8 months of this fiscal year (FY 2008) to deal with the clear and present danger of a recession. But these “stimuli” will increase the deficit and raise requirements for borrowing while the Fed is making dollars less attractive to lenders by lowering interest rates and indirectly putting pressure on the price of the dollar, the effects of which will surely spill over into the next fiscal year.

But, don’t worry, because, as Bush incessantly says incessantly to the troops, “I appreciate your sacrifice.”

FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY is a former Pentagon analyst and whistleblower. His writing on defense issues can be found on the invaluable Defense in the National Interest website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon and a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. He be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
John Stanton
Brzezinski Vision for a Power Sharing World Stymied by Ignorant Americans Leaders, Citizens
Philip Doe
Colorado: 300 Days of Sunshine Annually, Yet There’s No Sunny Side of the Street
Joseph White
Homage to EP Thompson
Dan Bacher
The Big Corporate Money Behind Jerry Brown
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
DNC Playing Dirty Tricks on WikiLeaks
Ron Jacobs
Education for Liberation
Jim Smith
Socialism Revived: In Spite of Bernie, Donald and Hillary
David Macaray
Organized Labor’s Inferiority Complex
David Cortright
Alternatives to Military Intervention in Syria
Binoy Kampmark
The Terrors of Free Speech: Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act
Cesar Chelala
Guantánamo’s Quagmire
Nyla Ali Khan
Hoping Against Hope in Kashmir
William Hughes
From Sam Spade to the Red Scare: Dashiell Hammett’s War Against Rightwing Creeps
Raouf Halaby
Dear Barack Obama, Please Keep it at 3 for 3
Charles R. Larson
Review: Paulina Chiziane’s “The First Wife: a Tale of Polygamy”
David Yearsley
The Widow Bach: Anna Magdalena Rediscovered
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail