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

February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
Joseph Mangano – Janette D. Sherman
The Invisible Epidemic: Radiation and Rising Rates of Thyroid Cancer
Andre Vltchek
Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder
Jack Smith
Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again
Robert Fantina
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
Dean Baker
Market Turmoil, the Fed and the Presidential Election
John Grant
Israel Moves to Check Its Artists
John Wight
Who Was Cecil Rhodes?
David Macaray
Will There Ever Be Anyone Better Than Bernie Sanders?
Christopher Brauchli
Suffer Little Children: From Brazil to Flint
JP Sottile
Did Fox News Help the GOP Establishment Get Its Groove Back?
Binoy Kampmark
Legalizing Cruelties: the Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention
John Feffer
Wrestling With Iran
Rob Prince – Ibrahim Kazerooni
Syria Again
Louisa Willcox
Park Service Finally Stands Up for Grizzlies and Us
Farzana Versey
Of Beyoncé, Trudeau and Culture Predators
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail