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.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

How much help do we owe them

Maybe a poor choice of words on my part...

[CMClay]

"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."

um, what about OUR debt load?

[Truth29]

"the Administration does not wish to increase Iraq's debt load ..."

So why don't we disavow all of the debt incurred by Saddam's government as illegitimate and then structure the $87 billion as a loan to be paid out of future Iraqi oil revenues? Russia, France and other debtor nations will scream, but they aren't exactly our friends now.

[PigRigger]

Please reread my original post, don't suppose any thoughts on your part. My points are clear. But if I must, here goes:

"Only time will tell whose right. "

After we are long dead (you may quote me on that we will all die one day) history will indicate which approach succeeded, when compared to all other approaches taken, in supporting our countries desire to secure our homeland.

"I only hope our elected officials keep party politics secondary to the security of the people of this nation."

It is what it states; I hope our elected officials put our country ahead of their own desires. Hopefully, this clarifies things on this point.

"Unfortunately, I really don't have much faith in that. "

In context with the preceding statement; recent news with regard to the Dem's wishing to hold up the requested allocations and their apparent politicalizing of Iraq for the 2004 election. I believe the same can be said about the Repubs to a lesser extent.

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

Again, in context with the preceding statement. One would think that personal and political aspiration would be put aside, for the most part, in a time of war. As we move further away from 9-11 I see bi-partisanship disintegrating at the alter of the 2004 election. Regardless of what approach is suggested, from either side, I don't see that changing unless another tragedy should occur.

Now with all that being said; please discontinue your efforts in attempting to "re-author" my comments.

Your self-delusional translations are insulting and rather pathetic in nature.

Honestly, how you come to derive some of your thoughts, based on those supplied by myself and others, would be quite amusing if it weren't for the seriousness of the subject.

Too insinuate that I would like to see another 9-11 to further my cause. Who the F* do you think you are; what kind of warped thinking drives you?

Please don't assume anything; just stay away.

[JohnGalt]

"In context with the preceding statement; recent news with regard to the Dem's wishing to hold up the requested allocations and their apparent politicalizing of Iraq for the 2004 election. I believe the same can be said about the Repubs to a lesser extent."


So this was a surprise to you? Hopefully you will learn from your mistake and support conservative policies that are tried and true in the future.

Good day.

[PigRigger]

This is where I respectfully disagree. I beleive their culture, and mainly their religion, has made us a target.

[american spirit]

Well said and right on the money.

[Reagan Disciple]

"I doubt very seriously that most Americans would approve of their tax dollars being used to fund these projects in Iraq."

I stopped reading right here. But Americans would approve of spending $10+B for John and Ted's Big Dig? Or any farm subsidy? Or Jefford's milk gestapo?

What Paul fails to realize is that this money is being spent not to help Americans prosper but to keep Americans safe.

If he's so concerned about wasteful spending tell him top go after Markey and Meehan and get them to refund the treasury for the overdraft on the Big Dig and leave the terrorist fighting to those who understand it.

[Iris7]

Good Day, PigRigger!

I want to say to all those I have pinged that within recent decades, even until a few years ago, I would have agreed with the sentiments almost all of you show. I no longer do. PigRigger has the truth of it.

The argument is long and difficult that leads to the truth, and in many places very sad. I have great love of the Republic, and am a man of the Republic in every way. Unfortunately those days are over, and it is time to move on.

The first point I will try to make is that the majority in any argument is at least as likely as the minority to be wrong. This should be enough to make you all reconsider.

Essentially the Republic, limited Constitutional Government, Ron Paulism, Libertarianism (I do enjoy Hoppe), States Rights, rule of law, all that stuff, has not been able to survive what Hamilton called "democracy" (as Hamilton predicted). As Tyler, Plato, and Aristotle pointed out, universal sufferage has terrible results. A Republic is an attempt to deal with this reality by "mixed Government" wherin "checks and balances" can be preserved. However, the mixed government, Constitutionally limited, with "checks and balances" is long gone. The most important of the Framer's checks on the Federal Government - States Rights - are gone with the wind. As Franklin said, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it." Well, we haven't.

So now it is Empire, for better or worse. The Iraq business is a brilliant piece of international strategy, aimed as much at China, Russia, and Europe as it is at the Arab and other Muslim countries. I can see what Bush is doing, and it is brilliant, just brilliant. This is not a war of going over there, kicking a$$, and going home. Those days are over if they ever truly existed. Read your history, you will find that the last war we were in that was like that was the one with Mexico.

The goals in this war, which is still to be won, and can still easily be lost, are many and multilayered. Think of the goals as an attempt to make a world where the United States remains top dog. This requires dealing with each country individually and all of them at once globally. This is what Bush is attempting, and is very close to winning.

The risks are many, and probably the greatest is refusal of the population to support the program.

[JohnGalt]

PigRigger doesn't believe our political system will support the Empire in the long run and believes it will probably take another 9/11 in order to 'inspire' the political will.



"you will find that the last war we were in that was like that was the one with Mexico."

I agree; the history of the country illustrates a continued abuse and dereliction of duty and power by the political institutions of the DC-tax regime. Liberty may seem anachronistic to the modern age, but I intended to die on the right side of the debate rather than standing in the square while the guillotine awaits its next victim.

[caltrop]

A brilliant piece of international strategy? Maybe somewhere beneath the half truths and flimsy grounds for the war itself, shortage of troops, reserve and National Guard call-ups, mountains of money, encouragement to AQ and others seeking a Moslem - US World War, emboldening of our adversaries, urgency and encouragement to those seeking nuclear weapons who believe they're the only thing preventing US attacks and our international isolation there is a brilliant plan. I suppose the fact the President's poll numbers are down, in large measure due to Iraq, is also part of the plan. Not only is he snookering the terrorists but the Democrats too. I find it all more than a little hard to believe which is, clearly, why I don't believe it. Bush is digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself and, unless the Congress saves him from himself and demands the troops come home now, he could easily dig his way right out of office.

[zacyak]

Mr. Dean, shouldn't you be out campaigning instead of spending time here on FR?

Hey bush-bot, perhaps you should quit drinking the kool-aid moron.

[inPhase]

thanks for sharing your wit on a classical liberal plan, which will have so many unwanted repercussions like taxes.


""a permanent US friendly presence squarely in the middle east"

Like Afghanistan? No, wait, it was Iran. Oops, it was Saudi Arabia. No, sorry, I meant Egypt... "

[inPhase]

"You folks who think Bush is a Conservative have been fooled."

well the Prez is certainly getting bad advice...

[bc2]

???

[inPhase]

"So let's count up the tab shall we: $100M to reconstruct Afghanistan (they don't rate the full treatment).
$1T to reconstruct Iraq.
$1T to reconstruct Syria (after we invade of course).
$1T to reconstruct Iran (ditto).
$1T to reconstruct Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan (after Israel finally decides to take care of business).
$1T to reconstruct The Korean peninsula (to handle to aftermath of destroying NK's nukes)."


Sounds like a new attempt to redistribute our wealth doesn't it, only globally.

[bc2]

You're nuts. Maybe you have given up on liberty, and our Constitution, however I have not, and refuse to seemingly give in to what I know to be wrong.

You should change your tag line to something more appropriate.