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.

[BlackbirdSST]

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

Then you won't mind footing the bill? Open your wallet and use your money for any kind of experiment you care to. Blackbird.

[caltrop]

That assumes, of course, that continuing to maintain a presence in the Middle East and it's religious and ethnic conflicts will reduce the chance of further attacks against the US and weren't the reasons for 9-11 in the first place.

[zacyak]

Want true conservatives? Vote Libertarian.

There are many things that I do like about that party, but unfortunately they seem to have too many goofy flakes associated with them and nobody takes them seriously. They need to grow up and mature if they are serious about making an impact.

[PigRigger]

"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."

If you honestly believe abandoning the rebuilding effort in Iraq, or having it used as political blackmail, furthers our national security I KNOW there is no hope for this country.

The status quo and/or Isolation only delays our inevitable demise.

BTW, rebuilding a nation does not necessarily mean a welfare state. That's short sighted.

[jmc813]

There are many things that I do like about that party, but unfortunately they seem to have too many goofy flakes associated with them and nobody takes them seriously. They need to grow up and mature if they are serious about making an impact.

Damned straight.

[cookcounty]

I think Bush is playing the old "if you need 10, ask for 20" game. He's done it several times already, with good success.

[HEY4QDEMS]

[Fraulein]

Ron Paul bump!

[bc2]

There are plenty of us in the LP working on weeding out the wackos and replacing them with right-thinking folks like yourself.

[JohnGalt]

"The status quo and/or Isolation only delays our inevitable demise."

Is that a direct quote from Woodrow Wilson?

Guess I just believe in old fashioned conservative ideas like a well armed citizenry and a decentralized government as the best defense.

[bc2]

please point to the part in the US Constitution that authorizes this sort of expenditure. I've got my copy out but can't seem to find it.

The great part about our Republic is that you are free to donate your share of the $87 billion to a private charity willing to do what is outside of the realm of absolute neccessity to rebuild them and get the hell out.

[PigRigger]

"Then you won't mind footing the bill? Open your wallet and use your money for any kind of experiment you care to."

I didn't mind paying the 10's of billions to clean-up lower Manhattan, Washinton DC, and our airline industry; did you?. Multiply that at least 10x if we fail in the Middle East.

If we succeed $87 Billion will be seen as worth the price. If we fail, it will probably be a pittance when compared to the cost in lives and property we may have to sacrifice to win.

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t agree that all expenditures should be granted without review. I just don’t believe that holding up this amount will serve our country in an way, especially during this critical period.

[hove]

The fact is, President Bush is a globalist LBJ. Rebuilding Iraq...while America crumbles? Creating peace and security in Iraq, when our borders are a sieve? Building new infrstructure when ours is decaying? And here's the real travesty.......asking Americans to foot the bill is billions of tax dollars and the blood of our sons and daughters? This man is out of his mind! And anyone who is deluded into thinking that saving Iraq is our purpose, is a fool. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves. You folks who think Bush is a Conservative have been fooled. He is the poster child of liberal globalism. I will never vote for him again. Anyone with half a brain would have to agree.

[PigRigger]

Isolation hasn't worked in the past, has even less of a chance in the future. Either we attempt to implement a solution (under our own terms) understanding the costs involved or just accept the possible outcome of doing little or nothing.

How many had to die in WWI or WWII before it became crystal clear as to to what we were up against. This is WWIII whether you believe it or not.

Cutting and running from Iraq (or the Middle East for that matter), at this point, serves no purpose and will only make things far worse down the road. IMHO.

[JohnGalt]

The basic split between conservatives and Wilsonian liberals:

One group, conservatives, believes '9/11' (or WW1 or WW2) was caused by too much interventionism, the other group believes '9/11' was the result of not enough intervention.

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

[PigRigger]

"That assumes, of course, that continuing to maintain a presence in the Middle East and it's religious and ethnic conflicts will reduce the chance of further attacks against the US and weren't the reasons for 9-11 in the first place. "

I agree, but the key here is further reduce. I don't believe we will ever be able to stop them entirely. However, we will be in a better position politically and militarily to deal with them.

I also agree with most of the poster on this thread with regard to our borders. They simply are a danger to our national security. There "openess" is an example of politics trumping national security. They will be shut down only after an attack where they are found to be directly responsible.

[4CJ]

Iraq is sitting on a ton of oil. Let them pay for their own reconstruction with the wealth of their nation.

Bump.

[caltrop]

I'm not sure we do agree. I think our presence in the Middle East is a big part of the problem and the reason we were attacked on 9-11. 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. As far as I'm concerned, we should be out of there now.

[Sparta]

Paul Bremer has stated that the administration does not wish to increase Iraq's debt load, as it current owes hundreds of billions of dollars to France, Russia and other nations.

So we agree that we should cut $87 billion from the numerous unconstituional programs in the Federal budget to pay for Iraq's reconstruction?