Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Analysts see `shell game' in war fund

By Stephen J. Hedges Washington Bureau 
 
Eager to show support for American troops fighting overseas, Congress is
on the verge of setting aside up to $50 billion in emergency spending to
help pay for the     Iraq and     Afghanistan wars next year. 
 
 
But as much as 5 percent of that fund may not go for war costs at all,
according to outside budget analysts. Instead, they say, Congress is using
the emergency bill, known as a bridge fund, to rescind cuts that it
proposed in the     Pentagon's regular budget.
That shift of programs to the bridge fund is just one of the
behind-the-scenes maneuvers in what critics call the shell game that is
the Pentagon's 2006 budget, which lawmakers are finishing now. That game
has gotten more elaborate with Congress facing competing pressures to fund
two wars and cut a burgeoning federal budget.
"It's just become a budget gimmick on steroids," Keith Ashdown, vice
president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said of the cuts rescinded via
the emergency fund. "It just gives them a chance to take those costs off
budget."
Congressional leaders defend the emergency war funding. Rep. C.W. Bill
Young (news, bio, voting record) (R-Fla.), chairman of a House
Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense, said the additional
money will provide essential military equipment, whether the funding was
shifted from the regular Pentagon budget or not.
"We were very careful," Young said. "What we included in the House budget
fund was strictly for fighting the war on terror, equipment that our
presently deployed troops need, such as armor for Humvees, armor for
bodies and ammunition."
The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have cost more than $350 billion,
according to the Congressional Research Service, and the White House is
expected to ask early next year for another special payment.
The House and Senate each have approved a version of the 2006 defense
spending bill. The Senate version is about $390 billion, not including
spending on the wars. The House provides $409 billion, excluding $45
billion for war funding. They are now negotiating a final version.
But the Iraq and Afghanistan emergency fund is not the only place the
so-called shell game is playing out.
About $10 billion to pay for veterans' medical costs has disappeared from
the Senate version of the bill, for example. Instead it has been foisted
on the U.S. Treasury, allowing the Senate to claim its version of the
Pentagon budget is $7 billion below the White House request of $397
billion.
OMB said to be frowning
A congressional source said the White House Office of Management and
Budget is trying to block that money-moving, which has gone largely
unnoticed.
"My guess is that you will never hear a peep about this as they debate the
bill," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer and author of
"Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security."
Congressional negotiators and the OMB declined to comment on the defense
bill until the House and Senate agree on a final version, which could be
in the next few weeks.
The growing tab for hurricane relief has some in Congress suggesting a
fresh look at Pentagon spending. But it is difficult to make a dent in the
defense budget once both sides have signed off on it. The budget document
has several hundred pages and reflects billions of dollars of hard-won
compromises over military operating costs, weapons purchases and special
projects for particular states and congressional districts.
In the Senate, the Pentagon spending bill sailed through earlier this
month by a 97-0 vote. The House version passed 398-19 in June.
Both versions provide much of what the White House asked for, including
full funding for premier weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet,
the C-17 cargo plane, the Marines' V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
This year, both the House and Senate tried to beat the White House to the
war-funding punch by approving the emergency fund. 
While that might look like good planning, budget watchdogs say it's also a
chance for Congress to stretch the definition of "emergency" and use the
extra money for purchases that have little or nothing to do with the war. 
"It's invisible. . . . It doesn't go through the normal vetting process,"
said Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. His group estimates that more
than $3 billion in non-war spending has found its way into war funding in
recent years, including such items as expansion of a wastewater plant in
Pennsylvania and forest road maintenance in California. 
A recent study by Wheeler, the former Senate staffer who now works for the
Washington-based Center for Defense Information, notes that the Senate cut
$343.8 million in Army depot funding, some of which is used to maintain
combat vehicles and equipment, and some of which is used for other things.
But then the money reappears at a higher level of $1.4 billion in the
emergency fund. 
The Senate also cut $56 million from $680 million in upgrades to the
Army's Apache helicopter, Wheeler's report states, then restored $98
million in upgrades in the emergency bill. An additional $447 million in
cuts to operating expenses across the service, Wheeler found, appeared
again in the emergency budget. 
A House leader's defense 
Young said some of those shifts may reflect a conscious decision to move
military items from the annual budget to the emergency war fund. House
leaders, he said, kept pork out of the emergency funding, limiting it to
items requested by the military. 
"There are no so-called earmarks, where members come in and ask you for
something," Young said. "That was our position, and the members understood
that." 
Still, the attempt by Congress to pre-empt the administration's war
spending could end up costing more in the end. 
Although the administration has yet to ask for its 2006 war funding, the  
  Congressional Budget Office projects that the Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts will cost $85 billion in 2006. Young said recent discussions
with administration officials suggest that those costs could be even
higher, though he declined to name a figure. 
If so, some fear, Congress could end up paying some 2006 war costs
now--and then paying the administration's full request later. 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20051024/ts_chicagotrib/analystsseeshellgameinwarfund
-- 
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 proposed in the     Pentagon's regular budget
Perche' non provi a farci un riassuntino, cosi' capiamo meglio la tua 
opinione...
C'e' da tremare?
Am.

 C'e' da tremare?
 ma tremi anche di fronte alla tua ombra?
