Ron Paul - Your Money In Iraq

House Web Site ^ | 9-29-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the US provisional administration in Iraq, appeared before Congress last week to lobby hard for another $87 billion for nation building. This figure is in addition to the nearly $80 billion we’ve already spent in Iraq, and the new funding request is for 2004 only. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2004- and the administration has made it clear that reconstruction will be a long-term project- American taxpayers easily could spend one trillion dollars over the coming years.

The stark reality is that the federal government will fund the open-ended occupation of Iraq either by raising taxes, borrowing overseas, or printing more money. All three options are bad for average Americans.

It’s important the American people know exactly what they will be paying for in Iraq. The $87 billion requested is such a huge sum that it seems meaningless to most of us. The details, however, will astound anyone who resents seeing their tax dollars spent overseas.

The following are just some of the administration’s requests:

-$100 million for several new housing communities, complete with roads, schools, and a medical clinic;

-$20 million for business classes, at a cost of $10,000 per Iraqi student;

-$900 million for imported kerosene and diesel, even though Iraq has huge oil reserves;

-$54 million to study the Iraqi postal system;

-$10 million for prison-building consultants;

-$2 million for garbage trucks;

-$200,000 each for Iraqis in a witness protection program;

-$100 million for hundreds of criminal investigators; and

-$400 million for two prisons, at a cost of nearly $50,000 per bed!

I doubt very seriously that most Americans would approve of their tax dollars being used to fund these projects in Iraq.

Criticism of this foreign aid spending in Iraq is not restricted to the political left. Conservative groups and politicians are increasingly angry at the administration’s exorbitant spending. For example, Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee sits on the Appropriations committee, which is responsible for all spending bills. He has a modest idea: insist the reconstruction money be paid back as a loan when Iraq’s huge oil reserves resume operation. Similarly, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona wants to offset every dollar spent reconstructing Iraq with spending cuts in others areas, especially given the amount of wasteful pork in the federal budget. But the White House is adamantly opposed to both ideas. Why is a supposedly conservative administration resisting even the slightest attempts at fiscal restraint?

We have embarked on probably the most extensive nation-building experiment in history. Our provisional authority seeks nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down- all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars. We will all pay to provide job-training for Iraqis, while more and more Americans find themselves out of work. We will pay to secure the Iraqi borders, while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable. We will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq, leaving American taxpayers with less money to provide these things for themselves at home. We will saddle future generations with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building.

[.cnI redruM]

And none of these critics will hesitate to blame Bush first if their constant lambasting in any way contributes to a total American failure in the efforts to reinvent Iraq as a peaceful, democratic nation.

[.cnI redruM]

And none of these critics will hesitate to blame Bush first if their constant lambasting in any way contributes to a total American failure in the efforts to reinvent Iraq as a peaceful, democratic nation.

[WhiteGuy]

" The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building."

If the "us" in this question refers to the taxpayers of the United States of America the answer is clearly NO!.

On the other hand, if the "us" in this question refers to big oil concerns and defense contractors (both foreign and domestic) the answer sadly is yes.

Nation building should only apply to OUR nation.

[JohnGalt]

Ron Paul bump.

I only hope that the President remembers that nation-building adherents are on the other side of the aisle, before its too late.

[alloysteel]

Oh, we COULD spend that much money there. And perhaps that much money shall be spent, over a period of years, to make Iraq into a peaceful prosperous country. Most of the investment in the country, however, will be made by the Iraqis themselves. The internal development of the country shall come as a result of political and economic stability, without fear that some insurgent terrorists will sabotage and subvert the infrastructure. Islamic fascism is a djinn loose upon the land, and it shall have to be put back into its bottle. The Iraqis have need to develop their own internal controls of this continuing threat, and given assistance, they can and will do it. If they do not wish another Saddam Hussein to hold sway, they must.

[VRW Conspirator]

And none of these critics will hesitate to blame Bush...

True! If the critics think it was irresponsible to go into Iraq, then to go into Iraq and bail out at some crucial point is grossly irresponsible. I do not like the idea of footing a bil for nation building. Yet, having a permanent US friendly presence squarely in the middle east is an outpost against terrorism and a good idea. When these lawmakers weigh the cost of the immediate expenses, they would be wise to weigh the future costs of not supporting Iraq being rebuilt. Whichever way they go will not be pretty.

[Isolationist]

Iraq is sitting on a ton of oil. Let them pay for their own reconstruction with the wealth of their nation. GWB is becoming more of a socialist than Clinton and if this keeps up he loss my vote for 2004.

[Non-Sequitur]

...$400 million for two prisons, at a cost of nearly $50,000 per bed...

Given what we know about Saddam Hussein you would think that the one thing that Iraq would have in abundance would be prisons.

[RetiredArmy]

Iraq has oil. Oil is money. I am just wondering why Iraq cannot rebuild Iraq with Iraq's money? Why do we need to pay for it and not get it returned? Ok, approve the $87B to them as a loan and they repay it through oil sales. Seems fair enough. They do not need a handout. Now that the oil money will go into building schools, hospitals, communities instead of buying tanks and bombs and planes, they can become just like the Saudies.

[.cnI redruM]

And the downside to that is what would happen if the Iraquis are unable or unwilling to pony up. We're on the hook in Iraq. If we pay the piper, at least we call the tune.

Over time, we obviously hand over the controls and try to gracefully disengage. That, however, comes with time and patience.

[zacyak]

It's kind of sad when one of the only politicians making a case for the conservative cause is a former Libertarian. Restoring water and electric is one thing; the rest of these expeditures is just a bunch of liberal crap.

[John O]

Islamic fascism is a djinn loose upon the land, and it shall have to be put back into its bottle.

There, that's more accurate

[.cnI redruM]

So, assuming we have agreement on your point about the critics, there just isn't much of an upside to Ron Paul's stand on this issue. At best, Paul is a nuissance who's quotes will frequently pepper Howard Dean and Wesley Clarke's political diatriabes in support of the Democratic Party's anti-Bush Jihad. At worst, Ron Paul convinces more and more of his cohorts to pull the scaffold from under the fledgling Iraqui government and acts as a sarcoma, attacking a new born infant.

[bc2]

"a permanent US friendly presence squarely in the middle east"

Like Afghanistan? No, wait, it was Iran. Oops, it was Saudi Arabia. No, sorry, I meant Egypt...

[zacyak]

Iraq is sitting on a ton of oil. Let them pay for their own reconstruction with the wealth of their nation. GWB is becoming more of a socialist than Clinton and if this keeps up he loss my vote for 2004.

It's sad to say, but I find very little about this administration that suggests they respect a conservative philosophy. Except for tax cuts, which are meaningless for me unless they are accompanied by cuts in spending, they haven't bothered throwing us conservatives any bones. If this is the new Republican Party then screw 'em, I'm looking elsewhere.

[bc2]

"It's kind of sad when one of the only politicians making a case for the conservative cause is a former Libertarian."


BUMP

Want true conservatives? Vote Libertarian.

[caltrop]

IMHO, total failure (assuming the objective is keeping Iraq in one piece and making it a western country) in Iraq is a near certainty no matter how many lives or how much money we spend. Iraq will, IMHO, eventually split into something like the three parts it was organized into in the Ottoman Empire. This will mean an oil rich south - heavily influenced by Iran, an oil rich north either heavily influenced by Turkey or a source of constant Turkish - Kurdish friction and the Sunni center. Whether, when the dust settles, we'll have been better off leaving Saddam in power is going to be an open question if any of these separate regions become a source of major terrorism and regional instability.

We should turn the whole place over to the UN, assuming they'll take this tarbaby off our hands, and get out now. Even beyond the current cost in lives and funds we've got entirely too much of our army tied down there and unable to defend the US in the event we need them. Finally, everybody in the world recognizes we're tied down in Iraq and has become emboldened. Iran and Syria are more than happy to see us tying up resources and dampening political enthusiasm for a continued presence in the Middle East. From their standpoint, we're in Iraq temporarily. It's easy to see we won't stay there as long as it takes since they know it'll be incredibly costly, take almost forever and real progress (if any) can't be demonstrated in anything less than decades.

In the end, the neocons will find they've bitten off more than we can chew and their attempt at fait accompli diplomacy (any half truth will do as long as we start the war the country will have to finish it) will backfire and result in our removing our ground forces and largely leaving the region.

[PigRigger]

"We will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq, leaving American taxpayers with less money to provide these things for themselves at home. We will saddle future generations with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one lawmakers should answer now by refusing to approve another nickel for nation building...."

What this dolt refuses to recognize is that this is a grand experiment in reshaping the culture of the middle east, starting with Iraq.

You bet we can use this money at home, but it may be better served re-building Iraq rather than using it to bury our dead or rebuild lower Manhattan (or Chicago, or LA for that matter)in the future. How much will that cost?

That is a likely outcome if we withdraw and isolate ourselves from WWIII.

Granted this is an experiment, it may fail. Is it worth $87 Billion, it is to me.

[JohnGalt]

If you honestly believe national security is resting on the success of building a welfare state in a country 10,000 miles away, I wonder if there is any hope for this country.

Attention Pseudocons: Wilsonianrepublic.com is still available