The New York Times noted today that the Bush administration’s $2 trillion budget leaves out two extremely costly expenditures — the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why does this sound familiar? Because they pulled the same exact stunt last year.
In the 2004 budget, the White House left out money for Iraq and Afghanistan as well, choosing instead to go back to Congress months later to request an additional $87 billion, which, of course, lawmakers approved.
And now they’re doing it again. The administration is already predicting a deficit over $500 billion and that doesn’t even include money for the two major Middle East theaters that continue to be dangerous war zones for U.S. troops. Undoubtedly, the president will return to Congress several months from now — after the election — asking for more money for Iraq and Afghanistan, every penny of which will be added to the biggest deficit in U.S. history.
The administration’s defense for these budget tricks? Comically, officials said these costs are unpredictable and therefore they had no way of knowing how much money to budget for.
Yes, I understand that we don’t yet know exactly how much Iraq and Afghanistan will cost, but we know they’ll cost something. The budget includes zero dollars for these military operations now.
In fact, the administration already has a pretty good idea of how money they’ll need, planning to ask for a $50 billion supplemental. If they already know they’ll ask for $50 billion down the road, wouldn’t it be wise to budget for that money now?
I don’t claim to be a budget wiz, but if I’m working out my finances for the coming year, and I know I have a major expenditure coming up — let’s say I’m going to buy a car — I’d want to plan ahead. If I have no idea exactly how much money the car is going to cost, should I budget zero and wait and see? If I’m following the Bush model, that’s the smart thing to do.
As the Progress Report noted yesterday, the “Era of Fiscal Responsibility” is over.