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.

[PigRigger]

"In 2003, both are reasonable points of view only one is conservative and the other is liberal."

Hmmm, the "L" word. Hmmm....

Only time will tell whose right. I only hope our elected officals keep party politics secondary to the security of the people of this nation. Unfortunately, I really don't have much faith in that. It will probalby take another 9-11 for that to occur.

[Sparta]

1) Some of this crap that's being requested is ridiculous.

2) To pay for it, the amount LOANED to Iraq should be deducted from the final domestic Federal budget.

3) Iraq should pay this loan back ASAP using oil revenue and the booming economy that should result from free market reforms.

[PigRigger]

"refuse to be involved in their religious and ethnic conflicts the better"

Respect your point of view, but I have to ask one question before I get back to work.

What if we, as a nation and culture, are the targets of"their religious and ethnic conflicts"?

[JohnGalt]

Right? You just said that you will yell 'I told you so' with the next '9/11.' Talk about anti-patriotism.

A conservative must deal with the world as it is, friend.

[biffalobull]

The sooner we get our ground troops out of the Middle East and refuse to be involved in their religious and ethnic conflicts the better.

You, Sir, are right on the money

[zacyak]

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t agree that all expenditures should be granted without review.

Then why support the re-building expeditures in Iraq, most, if not all, which have been no bid contracts with political favoritism involved?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

With all due respect to Ron Paul, this list seems like perfectly legitimate items to be part of the rebuilding process. I mean, we either help or we don't.

[jmc813]

A big part of his point is that we are using our money to accomplish these things rather than making the Iraqis pay for it themselves.

[JohnGalt]

Robert 'KKK' Byrd had these comments last week in the Senate:

"Last Wednesday, I along with Representatives David Obey and Martin Sabo offered an amendment to the homeland security appropriations conference report that would have provided $125 million to hire 1,300 customs inspectors on America's borders. That amendment was rejected as too expensive. Yet, on the exact same day, the President sent Congress this emergency request for $150 million for 5,350 border inspections personnel including 2,500 customs inspectors – in Iraq."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8965

[PigRigger]

"Right? You just said that you will yell 'I told you so' with the next '9/11.' Talk about anti-patriotism.

Please, this comment is so beneath this discussion.

You can label me a "liberal", feel free to label me with any idiology that suits your agenda. However, out of respect, stop there.

Honestly, I find it difficult to imagine that one would even suppose this on another.

[JohnGalt]

Only time will tell whose right.
Implies there is a right or wrong, but based on what criteria?

I only hope our elected officals keep party politics secondary to the security of the people of this nation. Unfortunately, I really don't have much faith in that.
In other words "I doubt the political system will be able to 'finish' the war it started." Did you discover this after the war commenced? Or did you suspect this was the case but supported the war anyway? Admitting that you have no faith in the system, you still support a nation building project?

It will probalby take another 9-11 for that to occur.

You are saying that it will take another 9/11 for our political parties to sign onto, your term, World War III and nation building projects.
That is the context for my charge, which I do not make lightly.

[bc2]

Rebuilding the airline industry was a prime example of corporate welfare; if the airlines (or auto industry, or any other industry for that matter) can't support themselves, let them fall and someone with a better business plan will step forward if it's profitable.

To have American taxpayers pay for this garbage is beyond comprehension. It is far beyond the bounds of our Constitution, and antithetical to everything that is American, let alone "conservative".

You certainly are a liberal.

[jmc813]

The Bush administration has noted that this is not necessary.

It's not necessary to cut unconstitutional programs?

[PigRigger]

You are right, rebuilding our cities after being attacked is a liberal thought. Guilty as charged. God help us.

[bc2]

There is a difference between rebuilding NYC and rebuilding some idiot's stock portfolio, or some country where they will only go to build more weapons and terror camps in 15 years. I was replying directly to your comment about paying to bail out the airline industry.

Your positions are so weak you have to change the argument?

[caltrop]

We've made ourselves their targets through our involvement in the Middle East, a region which, absent their oil, isn't worth an American sprained ankle. That we've put ourselves in this position isn't all that hard to demonstrate or figure out. After all, the 9-11 attack wasn't carried out in Rome, Stockholm or Brussels. The reason why is clear - we've insinuated ourselves into their religious and ethnic disputes. Why anyone's surprised they've chosen to extend their war to the US mainland is a mystery to me.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Obviously, sooner or later the Iraqis are going to have to be self-sufficient. How much help do we owe them in addition to money and blood already spent? Well, Bush has decided on $87 billion. And most of that is actually going towards our forces, not Iraq infrastructure.