Obama asks Congress for extra $83.4 bln for military

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm confused. I was told that the budget was so extra large because he was doing a more "honest" accounting of the war costs unlike President Bush who depended on "supplimental" funds to wage the wars.

So on top of the super monster budget that had to be passed to account for those previously hidden war costs, now he is asking for a supplimental (Just like President Bush) of $83B?

Wasnt president Obama campaigning as the "peace" candidate as well as the "Change" candiate?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0930196920090409

WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama asked the U.S. Congress for an additional $83.4 billion to fund the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday, saying the security situation along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier was urgent.

"The Taliban is resurgent and al Qaeda threatens America from its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border," Obama said in a letter to Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, that was released by the White House.

Obama said 95 percent of the $83.4 billion in supplemental funds he was requesting would go to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and the U.S. effort to disrupt and defeat al Qaeda.

Here is an article about his stance of "Military Budget Slight of hand" Wher President Obama say's "NOT ANYMORE!"

uh huh...

In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.

As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.

Obama's message? Not anymore.

"That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."

This is the first real move toward belt-tightening at the Pentagon; we'll see if the new Defense Department budget reflects it, and Obama's pledge to stop "paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use."

Meanwhile, the president is weighing the options for a withdrawal from Iraq. In his speech, Obama said he would "soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."

What that means is that combat troops could likely be out of Iraq by the end of next summer. The Washington Post quotes anonymous officials as saying Obama will announce a withdrawal plan later this week that would have U.S. forces out by August 2010. A substantial force may stay on, however, to train and advise the Iraq military and conduct limited counterterrorism missions. As the New York Times notes, one of Obama’s national security advisers said during the campaign that that the force could number between 30,000 to 55,000 troops.

Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq is not over. In the volatile city of Mosul, gunmen in police uniforms opened fire on U.S. soldiers, killing a U.S. soldier and an interpreter.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/weighing-the-ir.html

[The 12th Commandment]

I'm perplexed by this too. It's not secret, obviously, but why not roll it into the regular budget? The only reason I can think of is to tack on even more spending as line items. These won't be secret either and are likely to cause some controversy. Since he can pretty much get whatever he wants right now anyway I don't see the reason for it?.

[Smoot Point Really]

Maybe President Bush was right and now President Obama is starting to not be such an idiot (like candidate Obama)... The Federal Government should be investing heavily in our military, and if they have to hide costs from the public for a budget that should be mostly hidden from everyone who doesn't have a "need to know", then I support it. We're talking about 1/10th of the original TARP and THAT is what needs to be completely transparent... Not the Defense/Military budget... the fact that we know dollar amounts is too much, IMO. No complaint here from me.

[Thiebear]

We already had 6months of 2009 funds from the previous admin.

This $864 billion total covers all war-related appropriations from FY2001

through part of FY2009 in supplementals, regular appropriations, and continuing resolutions. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $657 billion (76%), OEF about $173 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion

(3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans.

As of July 2008, DOD’s monthly obligations for contracts and pay averaged about $12.3 billion, including $9.9 billion for Iraq, and $2.4 billion for Afghanistan.

The recently enacted FY2008 Supplemental (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) includes

a total of about $160 billion for war costs for the Department of Defense (DOD) for the rest of FY2008 and part of FY2009. Funds are expected to last until June or July 2009 well into a new Administration. The Administration did not submit a request to cover all of FY2009.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Looks like were doubling up on the downlow...

[TMK9973]

Perhaps I'm WAY off - But are we talking the same thing?

The budget Obama proposed, that includes cost of the wars, is for fiscal year 2010. Starting in Oct of this year.

The Link Thiebear uses shows funds requested before run out in June, or July. Seems like there would be a 3 month gap.

could that be what the request is for?

[SnyderShrugged]

Perhaps I'm WAY off - But are we talking the same thing?

The budget Obama proposed, that includes cost of the wars, is for fiscal year 2010. Starting in Oct of this year.

The Link Thiebear uses shows funds requested before run out in June, or July. Seems like there would be a 3 month gap.

could that be what the request is for?

I'd guess that it is possible. What confuses me if thats true though is where this Gap in budgeting would come from to begin with? It seems like it is a timing issue? I'm really not sure.

Either way though, it feels very misleading and shady.

[TMK9973]

I'd guess that it is possible. What confuses me if thats true though is where this Gap in budgeting would come from to begin with? It seems like it is a timing issue? I'm really not sure.

Either way though, it feels very misleading and shady.

Not sure what you are asking.

Obama doesn't get to change the budget that was already approved. So if his budget doesn't start until Oct, and the current funding for the troops run out in June - What do you propose?

How is that shady?

As for where it comes from - It's a little late to ask where money for the wars are comming from.

[TMK9973]

Just checked. Yup - I was right. (I love saying that)

The funding is for the rest of 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs

This is left over from the Bush years of not including it in the budget. Next year will be the first time it is.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not sure what you are asking.

Obama doesn't get to change the budget that was already approved. So if his budget doesn't start until Oct, and the current funding for the troops run out in June - What do you propose?

How is that shady?

As for where it comes from - It's a little late to ask where money for the wars are comming from.

I'm sorry, I was actually speaking of 2 issues.

1. The budget process timing that would allow a significant timing gap.

2. Obama's stance against "hidden Supplemental Funding" that he used as the basis for the already incredibly large budget that was just passed.

#2 is the "shady"

It's disingenuous at best for him to claim that he needed such a large number then to turn around and claim miscalulations and ask for the very same type of supplemental that he railed against not that long ago.

As it stands, I think President Bush was attrocious in his handling of budgetary items and I see no "change" from President Obama in that regard except it's even worse.

[SnyderShrugged]

Just checked. Yup - I was right. (I love saying that)

The funding is for the rest of 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs

This is left over from the Bush years of not including it in the budget. Next year will be the first time it is.

Those costs wouldnt have been needed if he wasnt spending more in unplanned areas like afganistan and pakistan and for new counter narcotics activity. Don't forget, $60B was already added last June which was supposed to get us through the 3rd quarter.

Are we to believe that October, November, and December of this year alone warrants another $83.4 B?

[81artmonk]

The only reason I can think of is to tack on even more spending as line items.

DING DING DING.......we have a winner!!!!! It's almost like he scrambling and making a mad dash to get as much spending approved as he can, as if he realizes none of it will work and he only has 4 years to get things done.

[SnyderShrugged]

DING DING DING.......we have a winner!!!!! It's almost like he scrambling and making a mad dash to get as much spending approved as he can, as if he realizes none of it will work and he only has 4 years to get things done.

I think the military supplemental in June ended up having like $7B in foreign aid baked in, so I immagine we will see similar things in this one.