The Half-Trillion Dollar Solution The real debate on Iraq begins with Congress's consideration of the military budget. The president has requested almost three quarters of a trillion dollars to fund the military through September 30, 2008. More than $150 billion is earmarked for Iraq. We have already spent $350 billion there, so the president's proposal pushes our Iraqi costs close to the half trillion mark. At the same time, he is demanding a $100 billion cut in health care funding, falling most heavily on poor children, while he maintains his $200 billion annual tax cut, channeled mostly to millionaires. It is Congress's job to restore fiscal balance first, by placing an overall limit on Iraq war expenditures. Congress should limit this president to spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war -- and no more. While he may not like the limit (we don't either, but for the opposite reason), the president would have no choice but to sign this ceiling to get short-term funding for his war. In taking this step, Congress wouldn't be initiating a grand constitutional battle over the war powers of the president. It would be exerting its constitutional power of the purse and playing its traditional role as a check on another branch of government, rebalancing runaway programs that threaten to overwhelm our fiscal health and national priorities. Limiting all future expenditures in Iraq to $150 billion, tops, can in no way harm our troops in the field. It responsibly carries out the will of the American people: that the president, with professional military advice, should be unwinding this war and planning a prudent departure for friendlier nearby countries or home. "Fanaticism," George Santayana famously observed, "consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." There is nothing which sobers the mind more than a fixed budget. Even the administration concedes that Congress has the constitutional power to cut off funds. The challenge is to use this power creatively -- both protecting the troops and requiring the president to end his war on his watch. The key point is to establish the principle that President Bush is responsible for leading America out of the impasse he created. A budget cap will also create a framework encouraging Congress to focus on the big picture, rather than engage in constant criticism of particular strategic decisions. We have fixed our ceiling at a level which assures that all troops will leave Iraq by inauguration day of 2009. But our proposal provides a framework for a debate over a more rapid redeployment: if Congress wanted a quicker termination, it need only impose a rider to the next appropriations bill that specified some smaller number (say, $450 billion) as the appropriate budgetary ceiling for our tragic misadventure. This seems a more profitable focus than a series of debates over the next round of strategic maneuvering that will follow the president's surge. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is already assuring us that if the surge doesn't work, he is pondering the next Plan B. But Plan B is really Plan Q, or maybe Z. It is time to call this endless series of rationalizations to an end. Our "half-trillion dollar solution" is a choice of the lesser evil. There are no good options left. The American people should know that things can get worse -- that, whether we leave today or after a decade of urban ground combat, we may have to go back if Iraq ever becomes a true threat to the world or immolates itself in genocide. But for now, we should end this war with a minimum of domestic name-calling, a maximum of motive and opportunity for the many peoples of Iraq to solve their own problems without genocide, and a focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan (the last known mailing address for Osama bin Laden). Moreover, our proposal for a fixed budget would initiate the hard task of rebuilding America's foreign policy on its traditional bipartisan basis. By forcing President Bush to clean up the mess he has created, we would permit the next president and Congress to avoid yet another round of recrimination, and confront together the very real challenges ahead. Bruce Ackerman is a professor of law and political science at Yale. David Wu is the U.S. representative for Oregon's 1st Congressional District.
To subscribe to The American Prospect click here: www.prospect.org/subscribe Be sure to check out our profile on MySpace.com: www.myspace.com/theaericanprospect Students, search for us on www.Facebook.com. Check us out at Gather: http://prospect.gather.com |
|
by
The American Prospect
Member since:
February 10, 2006 The Half-Trillion Dollar Solution
February 27, 2007 10:51 AM EST
views: 72
|
comments: 4
Find more about:
liberal intelligence,
liberal,
the american prospect,
us politics,
iraq,
united states,
politics
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
Gather Contests and Giveaways
![]() less
Most Popular On Gather
![]() less
![]() more
|
||||
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Make New Friends |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Pets | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Style | Travel | Writing
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Pets | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Style | Travel | Writing
Version 17141, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2010 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.




Comments: 4
Nancy Pelosi said: ". . .no more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq. . .our tax dollars must go to protect our troops, to keep our promises to our veterans and to provide for the safety of the American people."
On this same date, in a letter to house Republicans, Congressmen John Shadegg [R/AZ] and Pete Hoekstra [R/MI] urged their colleagues to avoid debating the war and instead focus on radical islamists, as follows:
"The debate should not be a bout the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can or cannot win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
After much disgusting footdragging and gesturing and pandering on both sides, there was "debate."
-----------------------------------
Who's winning? Not us folks -- not "we the people." Unless they have "very secret" investigations underway, instead of more jawing, I don't see Democrats stepping vigorously up to the plate, I don't see candidates speaking vigorously on the subject [EXCEPT John Edwards who says "silence is betrayal] and I see the vast majority of Republicans vigorously foot dragging and continuing to insult our intelligence, our credibility, and the legislative process.
A "between a rock and a hard place" choice is to FIX the budget, ASAP, under vigilent scrutiny and TRANSPARENCY, since they cannot be trusted, no matter what they say, to resist the temptation to juice it up with special ammendments.