Beware the funding hype, or not
Lance on Mar 31 2007 at 4:49 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Lance's Page, Military Matters
According to Think Progress:
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and others have been arguing that Bush is wrong, and that funds won’t dry up until June, giving plenty of time for negotiations:
Murtha says he believes the April 15 date for funds running out is incorrect. Based on the inquiries he’s made, he said, the Pentagon will start running out of money at the beginning of June.
“We’ve never had a year where they didn’t give us bad information,†said Murtha, who’s known for his contacts inside the military. “We’ve been asking people and we think it’ll be the end of May.â€
Now we know who’s right. A new report from the Congressional Research Service makes clear that Bush’s deadline is completely fabricated:
In a memo to the Senate Budget Committee dated Wednesday, the congressional analysts said the Army has enough money in its existing budget to fund operations and maintenance through the end of May — about $52.6 billion. If additional transfer authority is tapped, subject to Congress approving a reprogramming request, the Army would have enough funds to make it through nearly two additional months, or toward the end of July. Using all of its transfer authority, the Army could have as much as $60.1 billion available.
See the full CRS report HERE.
Well if they are right we may have a chance to find out, but let me note a few things. First, we should take into account what is actually being claimed, and to start we should begin with the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
“the service will be forced to consider” cuts. What would those be? Things such as training, quality of life funding for troops and families, equipment repair. The “disruption to key programs”, such as those “will have a genuinely adverse affect on the readiness of the Army and quality of life for Soldiers and their families.”
Watch for your self:
So what seems to be the real problem, lost in competing sound bites? The military will not run out of funds April 15th, true. The normal military budget still exists, it is the supplemental funding which is running out. Therefore the funds will have to be stretched by taking resources from other areas, short changing soldiers and programs here at home, including soldiers who are training to deploy. Murtha and his allies, while attacking the administration for sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan with inadequate training, are insuring that pre-deployment training is cut along with other programs. The result? The extension of deployments of soldiers currently in Iraq.
What about that CRS report Think Progress mention? let us look at a couple of key points:
To use this transfer authority, DOD would have to submit a reprogramming request that could temporarily move for example, procurement funds into Army O&M as long as the four defense committees approved.
[…]
The Army has suggested that these actions would disrupt its programs including facilities repair, depot maintenance, and training. In order to ensure that funding is available for the later months of the year, the Army may very well decide that it must slow down its non-war-related operations before money would run out by, for example, limiting facility maintenance and repairs, delaying equipment overhauls, restricting travel and meetings, and, perhaps slowing down training. Although it is true that a delay in passage of the FY2007 supplemental could require additional management actions, Congress has given DOD flexibility by providing transfer authority so that funds can be moved to meet more urgent requirements. In this case, because the transfers would presumably be temporary, the disruptions might also be less onerous.
In addition, funding for operation and maintenance finances a wide variety of activities ranging from day-to-day maintenance of military facilities to pre-deployment training of troops. The Army could take some actions that might be less efficient but would not necessarily harm readiness by for example, delaying facilities repairs until later in the year or splitting support contracts into smaller increments so that obligations would be smaller initially and larger later in the year.
Seems to me that we see some framing going on, from both sides. Funds won’t be cut off completely, but it will result in significant problems. The Administration may be indulging in overly stark sound bites at times, but the problem is real. Since Think Progress and the myriad left/liberal websites spreading the meme know that, I suggest it isn’t too strong to say they are misrepresenting what is really at issue on purpose. The lack of funds, as Gates said, will lead to exactly what he claims, and the assertion that the Bush “deadline” is “completely fabricated” is belied by the very report they are citing.
Tags: Democrats, Iraq, partisanship, politics, John Murtha, War
Sphere: Related Content3 Responses to “Beware the funding hype, or not”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
Since Vietnam, the Democrats have demonstrated their disdain for the armed forces. Had the Clinton administration not emasculated the military in a futile effort to garner a "Peace Dividend" our position in Iraq would be much better. The back and forth over the funding for the military is proof of the adage. "’There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Benjamin Disraeli. You can prove just about anything if you choose your data points carefully. One thing is clear, the Democrats in congress are doing everything possible to embarrass the Bush administration, even if it hurts national security.
[…] All that talk about how the military had no need to have the funding bill voted on right away is being shown to be the load of manure I have been claiming it was. […]
[…] https://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=680 […]