[BRussell]

Bush has requested $87 billion for Iraq, approximately 20 billion of which is essentially social/infrastructure spending for the people of Iraq. Among other things, the money will go to 40 garbage trucks at $50,000 apiece. Isn't this the kind of federal social spending that Republicans would be opposed to if it was for Americans?

Rahm Emanuel, Clinton's former advisor and now a Chicago Representative in the House, has proposed the "American Parity Act," which says that for every dollar of social spending in Iraq, one dollar should be spent in the US. Certainly a gimmick, but a powerful one.

Here's his list of what the Bush administration proposes to spend in Iraq vs. America.

Housing:
Iraq –20,000 houses rehabilitated
America –5,000 new housing units

Health Care:
Iraq –Provide 13 million people access to basic health services; one hospital in every major city; maternity care for 100% of the population
America –Not one new dollar for 42 million working uninsured

Education:
Iraq –Books and supplies provided for 12,500 schools; resources to enroll 4 million children; rebuilding or renovation of 25,000 schools
America –28,000 kids will be eliminated from Head Start, no funds are allotted for school modernization, teacher-quality programs are cut 10%, and 40 educational initiatives are zeroed out under the House Republican budget.

Major Infrastructure:
Iraq –Repair of nearly 3,000 miles of major roads
America –Highway funding in America cut $6 billion over the next 10 years.

Iraq –Complete reconstruction of only deep-water port
America –The President's budget cuts the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding by 10%.

Powell on the Sunday news shows was asked if we could loan Iraq the money rather than just giving it to them, and he said no, we shouldn't saddle the Iraqi people with debt.


OK, pre-Hitler Germany, putting a defeated country in debt, yadda yadda. Makes sense to me - we don't want to saddle the Iraqi people with debt. But of course we are also in debt in the US, and we have no plan to actually pay for this 87 billion. So we go into debt instead of them. And of course, Iraq is in debt right now to countries like France, so we might as well just send the billions over to France rather than Iraq. Cut out the middle man.

Biden and Kerry are introducing legislation to scale back $87 billion from Bush's tax cuts from the richest 1% in order to pay for Iraq.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today joined Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) in announcing legislation to help pay for the war in Iraq. The Biden-Kerry amendment instructs the United States Treasury to reduce the size of the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans to help pay for the war in Iraq.
...
The Biden-Kerry plan would require the Treasury Department to raise an additional $87 billion for the President’s request for supplemental funding for our troops in Iraq and for reconstruction. The Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to adjust the tax rate for those in the top tax bracket -- Americans whose average income is about $1 million a year. The rate adjustment would occur during the final six years of the President’s 10 year tax cut plan.

Another gimmick, but again it makes a powerful point. We don't want the Iraqis to go into debt, but we're willing to let Americans go into debt? Shouldn't we pay for our spending? Radical idea, I know.

This also puts into stark contrast this war and Gulf War I, which the governments of the world supported and in fact paid for. I think the US ended up paying pretty close to $0 for that war, because so many other countries contributed and supported it. Like father, not so much like son, I guess.

[shmerek]

Pulling back the tax cut for the top 1% is a good idea. I don't think the Iraqis should go into debt because of the war because it was the US that initiated it. My 2 cents.

[christ]

Its called investing in the future. The US is liable to be making billions from Iraqi oil (or saving billions by getting it at favourable rates, same thing) into the future, if they get the reconstruction of Iraq just how they want it.

[tie]

The US is unlikely to get any money back from favorable oil prices. Why would anyone give us favorable prices? American oil companies wouldn't, nor would the Iraqi government. They'll work with OPEC for their own self-interest, as they should.

Second, isn't Iraq's debt problem temporary? When a new government is put in place, they will cancel all of the old government's debt. As such, I don't see what is wrong with replacing debts to France with debts to the US. It is being spent on worthwhile projects -- for example, funding Halliburton -- not on extravagant new palaces. [Edit: I don't know anything about the legalities here.]

[christ]

Originally posted by tie:
Why would anyone give us favorable prices? American oil companies wouldn't...

Pardon?

Upon which planet do you reside?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by tie:

Second, isn't Iraq's debt problem temporary? When a new government is put in place, they will cancel all of the old government's debt. As such, I don't see what is wrong with replacing debts to France with debts to the US. It is being spent on worthwhile projects -- for example, funding Halliburton -- not on extravagant new palaces. [Edit: I don't know anything about the legalities here.]

I don't think it is automatically canceled. They will still carry that load. That is something that needs to be negotiated through the World Bank, I think. At least that's what I heard.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:

This also puts into stark contrast this war and Gulf War I, which the governments of the world supported and in fact paid for. I think the US ended up paying pretty close to $0 for that war, because so many other countries contributed and supported it. Like father, not so much like son, I guess.

Do you have any links on that info?

I've been looking for data on that for a while. Thanks.

[tie]

Originally posted by christ:
Pardon?

Upon which planet do you reside?

Why do you think American oil companies would sacrifice profits and sell oil preferentially to the US below market prices?