The budget doesn’t include the war(s)

February 6, 2006

We’ll no doubt hear a lot today and this week about the president’s $2.7 trillion federal budget, which will be unveiled today. One angle that may not get the attention it deserves is one fairly important expenditure that the budget neglects.

President Bush today will propose a $2.7-trillion budget that would take another slice out of domestic spending next year — but still leave a huge $355-billion deficit. […]

Bush’s proposed budget, however, is only preliminary because it has not undergone congressional review and debate. It also does not include the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (emphasis added)

Oh right, the wars. It seems like the kind of thing the administration would want to budget responsibly for, but this assumes the Bush gang wants to a) be responsible; and b) prepare an honest budget. Since neither is true, I suppose this news should come as no surprise.

Indeed as the WaPo’s Amy Goldstein noted over the weekend, this part of Bush’s “continuing…pattern of leaving substantial military expenditures out of the budget.”

The Pentagon said last week it would ask for an additional $120 billion outside of the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan. Something to keep in mind.

Enough crying over budget trickery. How about some Dem leaders pounding away on the fact that BushCo is intentionally spending more money on fewer programs, funneling money to religious groups, and cutting taxes for the rich?

It’s a simple angle: Bush is spending like a madman to be sure that we don’t have enough money for social programs like Social Security. Surplus: no problem funding social programs. Deficit: budget forces can squeeze out social programs. They tried this under Regan, but never on the scale we’re facing now.

All sound bites should include the sound of a toilet flushing and words like “future,” “children,” “hope,” “lost” and “stop letting Washington Republicans waste your money.”

  • Here is a sample of Bush’s economic mastery in explaining his medicare drug program….so how could he begin to explain funding war.

    BUSH: Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised.

  • I read that Bush has the cost of the wars at $50Billion and has not included it into the budget. I am interested in finding out where the Pentagon said the cost will be $120 Billion. I wonder what the cost of the wars will be once we roll into Iran? By the way, I believe that the course has been set and there will be no turning back on Iran now, IMHO.

    Without the wars, Bush is targeting $439 Billion for Defense. Add in the war and we are looking at HALF A TRILLION out of a total budget pegged at close to 3 Trillion. And the worst part is he is looking to slash the budgets for Education, Transportation and Justice. Not to mention Medicare and other “non-essential” supports for our society.

    I agree with eadie that certain forces would like to see the country bankrupt everything but the war machine.

  • We’re in the sixth year of this bullshit, and he’s projecting crap budgets for the next year, and nary a Democratic Party opposition in sight.

    It’s a little difficult to root for the Democratic Party to take over when they are so incompetent. It’s disheartening, to say the least. My spirits rely entirely on the blogosphere for solace and inspiration, and assistance in finding better Democratic Party representation.

    P.S. I’m non-partisan insofar as registration as a voter goes; I’ve never registered in my life for either party, but I have tended over the years to vote more with the Democratic Party than I did with the Republican Party. (Although, I am guilty of voting for Ahhhnald.)

  • The two party system arises from (1) bullies and (2) those who stand up to bullies.

    You’ve got the bullies … they’re called the COP. They even bully their own.

    Good luck finding anyone to stand up to them. Those who could do effectly are already bought off.

  • Wouldn’t this be an easier way to deal with the Social Security/Medicare budget concerns… just stop listing them in the budget?

    Just askin….

  • Oh and don’t forget, the “supplemental request for appropriations” for the offense…er, defense budget includes much that is not really for the war(s), such as the retooling of the military. And now, just like those uncounted calories on the cheesecake no one sees you eat, it doesn’t count towards the deficit either! How’s that for a double sleight-of-hand?

    • Comments are closed.