Page 2 of
2 No end to US's war budget
woes By David Isenberg
obligated in later years. Nor does
the DOD's reporting system capture some
intelligence funding that the DOD does not
administer and may not include other war funds
appropriated. Nor does the DOD capture amounts
that have actually been spent.
Concerned
about the accuracy of its reporting, the DOD asked
a private firm to conduct an audit on war cost
tracking. Although the DOD's current FY2008
request identifies the funds for Iraq against
those for Afghanistan, the
DOD has not presented a breakdown by operation of
all funds received to date.
But the most
interesting testimony was that of the final
witness, Harvard University budgeting professor
Linda J Bilmes. She noted that the process itself
by which the war is funded leads inevitably to
abuse. She testified:
I would like to say something about
the use of the "emergency supplemental" vehicle
for funding the war. In my opinion as a
budgeting professor, this is not the best way
for the US budget system - or any budget system
- to operate. The purpose of the emergency
supplemental facility is to fund a genuine
emergency or unforeseen event, such as Hurricane
Katrina.
The late transmittal of the
supplementals during the budget process leads to
less congressional review and a lower standard
of detailed budget justification than regular
appropriations. It is difficult to understand
why, five years into the war, we are still
funding it largely in this manner. We are
denying the budget staff of both parties, who
are some of the very best staff members in the
Congress - the budget committees, the
authorizing committees, and the appropriations
committees - the opportunity to review these
numbers thoroughly. So it is not surprising,
given this lack of transparency, that we have
seen widespread waste and alleged corruption in
payments to contractors, a lack of timely
requests for vital equipment such as MRAPs, and
continuing shortfalls in critical areas such as
veteran's health care.
Bilmes, unlike
the CBO or the CRS, counts the full economic costs
of the war. This includes long-term accrued
liabilities, human costs, social costs and
macro-economic costs, and not just budgetary
costs.
To give just one example, she notes
the economic costs of injuries will add a further
$200 to $300 billion to the cost of the war. She
also pointed out that the US government is grossly
underestimating the economic value of American
soldiers killed and the cost of caring for the
wounded. She testified:
Despite the fact that the military
"family" mourns the loss of its soldiers, the
official budgetary cost for a soldier's death is
$500,000 paid to the soldier's family. This
amount is a small fraction of the value used in
even the narrowest economic estimates - and much
lower than the $6-$7.5 million range used by
civilian government agencies.
In many
cases, the dead were young men and women in peak
physical condition, at the beginning of their
working lives. Their true economic value could
easily have been much higher.
Using a
VSL of $7 million, the economic cost of the more
than 4,000 American deaths in Iraq and exceeds
$30 billion. And while it seems harsh to convert
these deaths into cold financial numbers, at the
same time it is important to recognize that our
economy will suffer as a result of the
fatalities in this war.
As for caring
for the wounded Bilmes noted that the burden is
enormous:
The repeated tours of duty have
imposed an enormous emotional, social and
economic strain on the individuals serving and
their families. When a service member is
critically wounded, friends and family members
put their lives on hold. This puts enormous
financial and emotional strain on their loved
ones. Current law offers caregivers few
employment protections, so they not infrequently
lose their jobs and suffer financial
consequences. The Dole-Shalala Commission
estimated that 20% of families of veterans who
were wounded, injured or otherwise incapacitated
(such as with mental illness) have been forced
to leave their employment in order to become
full time caretakers.
We are in the
process of estimating some of the economic costs
to the families of having to sacrifice their
income and jobs, some of the additional health
care costs that families and society will incur
in caring for seriously injured veterans. We
believe this will impose an economic cost in
excess of $40 billion.
David
Isenberg is a senior analyst with the British
American Security Information Council. He is also
a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign
Policy, an adjunct scholar with the Cato
Institute, contributor to the Straus Military
Reform Project, a research fellow at the
Independent Institute, and a US Navy veteran. The
views expressed are his own.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110