Wampum

The Politics Of Funding The War

President Bush included no amounts for the Iraq war in budget requests for FY 2005 which begins October 1. The administration originally intended to seek funding for the war through a supplemental appropriation after the November election but escalating costs in Iraq have forced the President to seek additional funds now. The Washington Post reports:

Driven by unanticipated combat, higher-than-expected troop levels and rising political pressure, the White House reversed course today and asked Congress for an additional $25 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year that begins in October. While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies," President Bush said in a statement on the request this afternoon. "We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops."

Kevin Drum thinks that the request for additional funding now is good politics for the President:

Bush and his advisors know perfectly well how this script plays out: in the short term Bush has to put up with a public debate about how things are going in Iraq, but once the dust settles the impression left in everyone's mind is that Bush and the Republicans are resolute while Democrats are squabbly and indecisive when it comes to national security. Far from "fearing a divisive, campaign-year debate," this is exactly what Bush wants. Keeping the war front and center is pretty much his entire campaign strategy.

We've seen this Kabuki show before. Don't fall for it.

POSTSCRIPT: Of course, there's another question lurking here too: which group of Democrats will John Kerry find himself in? Or will he be able to turn this to his advantage somehow?

Kevin’s question is a good one. Can John Kerry avoid the trap laid by the administration and turn it to his advantage?

Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis thinks that Kerry can do so by voting against the measure:

The knock on Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper, and says what people want to hear instead of his true beliefs.

And the Bushies have used Kerry's vote against the earlier $87B, after voting for the war resolution, to foster that impression.

Not to mention hit Kerry for being weak on defense.

But if Kerry votes against the $25B, he can turn all that on its head.

He can say:

1. "I voted against the last funding proposal because I felt to best support the troops, we shouldn't fund a failing strategy, and because it was fiscally irresponsible to spend so much without scaling back the tax cut for the wealthy.
"And the situation is the same today as it was then."

2. "I knew that vote would be twisted and distorted by the Bush-Cheney attack machine, but I did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.
"And I'm just as sure this vote will be featured in their next round of smear ads. But I wouldn't be supporting the troops if I let politics dictate my actions."

3. "One of the ads they ran said my previous vote meant I was against body armor for our troops.

"But as we heard recently from Iraq veteran Paul Rieckhoff, even though they got the money they asked for, 'our troops are still waiting for more body armor.'

"I believe the troops should get everything they need.

"But I have no reason to believe that cutting the Bush Administration another check with no questions asked, is going to get them what they need.

"Because it certainly hasn't yet.

"We don’t need to stay the course. We need to correct the course. Congress should deny this funding request and demand a new plan."

What is Kerry's other option? Vote for it?

Aziz Poonawalla of Unmedia thinks Kerry does have another option. Aziz first notes that the money really is needed for body armor and other items in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He then notes that a vote against the funding might harm Kerry with swing voters. Aziz thinks that Kerry should neither fold nor call. He should raise.

What Kerry has to do is demand more money - about $40b. Make the discrepancy large enough that it becomes a wedge between Bush and the fiscal conservatives. Kerry needs to emphasize that this war has been fought on the cheap with poor planning, and that the troops still don't have the body armor they need. Given that the Senate will grill Rumsfeld on the failures of training and discipline, Kerry's message that the troops are not being supported by the Administration will resonate.

I don't see a flaw in asking for more money - either Bush refuses, and erodes his own credibility, or concedes in which case Kerry gets the credit and Bush inherits the consequences from within the GOP.

The Bush request is, at its core, a fraud. Bush wants to put Kerry in a difficult position without having to level with the American people about the true cost of the war. I think Aziz is on the right track but that he errs on the low side when he suggests that Kerry request $40 billion.

The Post reports:

Republican aides conceded today that the $25 billion Bush will seek is likely to be only the first installment. In February, Bolten said the president would seek as much as $50 billion next year. But that was when the Defense Department had expected U.S. troop levels in Iraq to be about 115,000 by now and to fall to about half that by the summer of 2005. Now, the Pentagon is preparing to maintain a force of 138,000 for at least the next 18 months.

House and Senate budget negotiators have already agreed to include $50 billion in the budget blueprint they are trying to complete for 2005, but defense experts say even that will fall short. One House appropriations committee aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the full cost of war in 2005 will be around $65 billion, more than two and a half times the president's request.

Kerry should request the entire $65 billion that is estimated to be needed. He should argue that the issue is both one of providing all essential support for the troops as well as being candid with the American people about the costs of the administration's desert adventure.

He should propose a way to pay for the entire $65 billion (preferably out of other spending but perhaps also from repealing the Bush tax cuts on the $300,000 a year crowd) and thereby achieve the consistency that Bill Scher wants.

By asking for the full amount needed now, before the election, he forces Bush to discuss the true costs of the war, demonstrates that Bush wants to be less than candid with the American people, shows supports for the troops and demonstrates that he is fiscally responsible.

If John Kerry insists on a bill that reflects the true costs, it will be George Bush who is struggling to find some way to turn the issue to his advantage.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at May 10, 2004 02:26 PM | TrackBack