Friday, December 26, 2008

Study Criticizes War Funding Mechanisms

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has come out with a new study criticizing the method in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are paid for. Bypassing the annual appropriation process, the Bush Administration has largely funded these wars through "emergency supplemental" appropriations. This maneuver set up annual battles between the Congress and the Administration in which the White House was able to back Congress into a corner by making it seem to be abandoning the troops in the field by questioning the size and scope of war funding. Brilliant political tactics by the White House, but ultimately not the right way to do it. Supplemental appropriations should be for unforeseeable emergencies (such as our response to 9-11), not for the conduct of land-wars of years in duration that include long-term construction and civil aid packages. Ultimately, if the war is so unpopular that Congress won't fund it, then it might not be a war worth being in.

1 comment:

Dan said...

Not that I am a cynic on how DoD spends its money, but "Supplemental" could be replaced with "Annual Bailout."

Newer Post Older Post Home