Reply
Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:26 pm
Bush Paper Details Iraq Spending Plan
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
9/22/03
WASHINGTON - The administration wants $100 million for an Iraqi witness protection program, $290 million to hire, train and house thousands of firefighters, $9 million to modernize the postal service, including establishment of ZIP codes.
A Bush administration document, distributed to members of Congress and obtained by The Associated Press, goes far beyond the details officials have publicly provided for how they would spend the $20.3 billion they have requested for Iraqi reconstruction.
The 53 pages of justifications flesh out the size of the task of rebuilding the country, almost literally brick by brick. It also paints a painstaking picture of the damage Iraq has suffered.
"The war and subsequent looting destroyed over 165 firehouses throughout the country. There are no tools or equipment in any firehouse," according to the report, written by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led organization now running Iraq.
The report's estimated cost of rebuilding Iraq's fire service, including hiring and training 5,000 firefighters: $290 million.
At another point, the report says the headquarters and three regional offices of the border police "will require complete renovation." Two thousand new recruits must be trained because the agency previously used conscripts, "almost all of whom deserted."
Reviving that and other border protection agencies should cost $150 million, the report said.
The proposal was part of the $87 billion plan that President Bush sent Congress on Sept. 7 for Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest piece of that package was $66 billion to finance U.S. military operations in both countries and elsewhere.
"Expeditious approval of this emergency appropriation is critical for the coalition to lay the groundwork for an Iraq governed by and for the people of Iraq, to serve as the model for democracy in the Mideast and to help fight the global war on terrorism by providing an alternative framework for governance," the request states.
Congress, just beginning work on Bush's proposal, is expected to approve it largely intact. But the political soft spot has been the $20.3 billion for reconstruction, because of record federal deficits facing this country and demands by Democrats for increased domestic security spending.
"The administration fought against a $200 million boost for America's police officers, firefighters and paramedics," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. "But Iraqi first responders would get $290 million through this" Bush proposal.
Byrd made his comments at a hearing where L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, testified that the plan would help prevent terrorists from establishing a foothold there.
Other projects and their estimated costs listed in the report include:
Spend $100 million to protect ?- and perhaps relocate overseas ?- 100 witnesses and their families who testify against former government officials, terrorist groups or organized crime figures. "Without an effective witness protection program, it is simply not possible to prosecute these cases," the report says.
Hire, train and equip 20,000 guards to protect Iraqi government facilities, $67 million.
Retain 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government, for $100 million.
Build and modernize 26 jails and prisons for 8,500 inmates, $99 million.
Spend $9 million to modernize Iraq's postal system, including establishment of ZIP codes.
Rebuild the country's badly damaged electrical system, install at least 11 40-megawatt gas turbine generation plants and several larger units, replace power lines and towers, $2.9 billion.
Spend $55 million for an oil pipeline repair team that can respond quickly to new reports of sabotage or other problems, as part of a $2.1 billion effort to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.
Use $1 billion to provide drinkable water to 75 percent of Iraq's urban population, an additional 2.7 million people, up from 60 percent today. An additional $530 million would be spent to serve 75 percent of the rural population, an additional 1.3 million, many of whom now rely on water trucked in as infrequently as once every 10 days. Eventual goal: serve 90 percent of the population, $2.8 billion.
Spend $130 million to construct 10 major irrigation and drainage projects.
Use $125 million to rebuild railroad tracks.
Start building at least 3,528 new houses next year as part of a $100 million housing initiative.
Designate $150 million to start building a new children's hospital in Basra.
Spend $35 million to subsidize on-the-job training for private businesses.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting....VEEERY interesting..*gets mace* COME HERE GEORGE!
Naa, I like George..
RF Omega
RF Omega, welcome to Able2Know, glad to have you here.
The Bush Iraq budget report is astonishing, don't you think?
---BumbleBeeBoogie
Hey, mister, can you spare a dime?
Well, it could be worse...he could spend it on coke!
Figuring the Costs of War
Figuring the Costs of War
By Robert J. Samuelson - New York Times
Wednesday, November 27, 2002; Page A17
It is Feb. 7, 2003, just after U.S. troops have seized several Iraqi airfields to be used as staging areas. Suddenly, Scud missiles -- armed with both chemical and conventional warheads -- strike the airfields. Hundreds of Americans die. The U.S. battle plan is thrown into disarray. The Iraqis (it turns out) meekly abandoned their airfields with little resistance precisely to make them easy targets.
We don't know if there will be a war or, as this imagined story suggests, how it might unfold. But the fact that we don't know overhangs the economy. It weighs on confidence. Companies hesitate to make commitments. The uncertainties can't be dispelled by low interest rates or lofty reassurances. At a recent congressional hearing, Democratic Rep. Pete Stark quizzed Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan.
Stark: [President Bush has] an obsession, it appears, to plunge us into war. [On] the assumption that we will be there one or two years and [spend] $100 billion [or] $130 billion a year . . . what effect would this have on our economy?
Greenspan: The numbers you quote are clearly very much on the high side. . . . I would be very doubtful if the impact on the economy is more than modest, largely because this is not Vietnam or Korea. Korea . . . had a really monumental effect, because the economy was so much smaller.
Well, maybe. Since 1950, the economy's gross domestic product has grown from $1.7 trillion to $9.2 trillion in 2001 (figures in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars). A war would probably last some months, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates the costs to the federal budget at $6 billion to $13 billion a month: not crushing for so wealthy a society. But the true economics are murkier. What happens to oil prices? Might war trigger a recession? Would a swift victory revive confidence? Because no one knows, "scenario building'' -- the next best alternative -- is now in vogue.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington reports the following: Saddam Hussein's army totals about 375,000 men; his air force has 316 planes, maybe half operational; the air defenses are extensive; weapons of mass destruction are unknown. For a CSIS conference, Cordesman provided three war scenarios, and economists judged the consequences.
The "benign case" anticipates rapid victory. Much of Hussein's army surrenders or defects. Because uncertainty lifts, the economy fares better than under a "no war" scenario. The temporary loss of Iraqi oil is no big deal. Iraq's production now represents about 2 percent to 2.5 percent of world oil use. Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf suppliers offset the loss. Their surplus capacity is about 6 percent of global oil consumption, says analyst Adam Sieminski of Deutsche Bank. The United States might also release oil from strategic reserves.
By contrast, Cordesman's other scenarios -- though deemed less probable -- are scarier. In the "intermediate case," fighting lasts up to three months. Iraqi attacks slightly damage other Gulf oilfields. Oil prices, now about $25 a barrel, hit $42 by early 2003. In the worst case, Iraq badly damages other oilfields. Production drops by at least 5 million barrels a day, out of a total global consumption of 77 million barrels a day. Oil prices hit $80 a barrel. Intense urban fighting incites the U.S. antiwar movement. Social unrest spreads in the Middle East. In the intermediate case, unemployment (now 5.7 percent) reaches almost 6.5 percent by late 2003. In the worst case, it goes to 7.5 percent.
Another dark assessment comes from Yale economist William Nordhaus, writing in the New York Review of Books. He says that a worst case (including a long-term occupation and reconstruction of Iraq) could cost $1.6 trillion over a decade. Only about half this total would be federal budget costs; the rest would reflect slightly higher oil prices and slower economic growth. "It seems likely," he says, "that Americans are underestimating the economic commitment involved in a war." (One omission in his math: In the next decade, U.S. GDP should exceed $100 trillion; even his cost is less than 2 percent of the national income.) Life after major wars is not like life before them. They change -- for better or worse -- the political, economic and psychological landscape in basic ways. A quick and successful war against Iraq might transform the Middle East by empowering Arab moderates. A long and messy war might destabilize the region and, by showing that U.S. power is exaggerated, abet terrorism, tensions and conflicts around the world. Pax Americana would recede; a power vacuum would develop.
The wisdom of war depends on the answers to these questions and one other: What's the alternative? If it's peace and prosperity, then war makes no sense. But if fighting now prevents a costlier war later, it makes much sense. To be blunt: If Saddam Hussein gets nuclear weapons and threatens his neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) or drops one on Tel Aviv, prompting Israeli retaliation, we'll face a horrendous war.
The economy's fate ultimately hinges on these issues. It's unsatisfying to say that they are a matter of judgment and that we don't know and, probably, can't know the answers. But that is what candor compels.
BBB, It's not candor that requires us to answer the right questions, but all the pros and cons considered on what we're trying to 'fix' vs it's cost. The case study now is to compare what we had before Gulf War II, and what we have now. Are we/the world better off? What are the costs to us and the world?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace