President Bush asked Congress on Monday for an additional
$81.9 billion next year to pay for military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as benefits for the survivors of service members and tsunami relief. The action clarified one of several elusive items not included in last week’s initial budget
proposal that may affect the administration’s plans to deflate the federal deficit.
Homeland security and defense spending were already slated to get a boost next year at the expense of domestic programs under the initial $2.57 trillion federal budget Bush submitted last week.
The original proposal, which will likely face difficulties in
Congress, is the first one to include cuts to non-defense discretionary spending since the
Reagan administration.
It cuts spending in nine of 15 cabinet-level departments, decreasing overall non-defense discretionary spending by about one percent.
It also includes efforts to implement permanent tax cuts during Bush’s first term.
The budget reflects Bush’s recent promise in the Feb. 2 State of the Union address to keep spending increases below inflation and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009 by freezing domestic discretionary spending for five years.
Yet the original proposal does not include expenses that would be incurred from the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, from efforts to make prior tax cuts permanent and from controversial changes to Medicare, University political science assistant professor Eric McGhee said.
“All of these things are not trivial costs,” he said. “They’ve done everything they can in this budget to not include these costs. That’s the thing that’s striking about it.”
The supplemental request
released Monday would earmark $12 billion to repair, refurbish
or obtain equipment to replace items worn out during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including $3.3 billion to armor convoy trucks and buy helicopter survivability systems.
It also includes $7.4 billion
to aid Iraqi and Afghan security forces; $5.3 billion to begin
restructuring the Marine Corps and Army into self-sufficient, modular units; $2 billion to help rebuild Afghanistan; $400 million for the survivors of service members; and $950 million for areas affected by the tsunami.
Bush said the money will allow U.S. forces to “play a critical role” in working to cement democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“The majority of this request will ensure that our troops
continue to get what they need
to protect themselves and complete their mission,” Bush said
in a statement Monday. “It also provides for the continued
pursuit of al-Qaida and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
Bush urged Congress to “move quickly so our troops and diplomats have the tools they need
to succeed.”
McGhee said the initial proposal differs from past budgets issued by the Bush administration because it tries to cut discretionary spending, or spending Congress can decide whether to approve each year.
“It makes a lot of efforts at cutting discretionary spending and not many efforts at cutting Medicare or Social Security,” he said. “They don’t tackle those big entitlement programs. That’s where all the money is.”
McGhee said cutting only
discretionary spending won’t lower the federal deficit, as the
administration predicts.
“When you’re attacking discretionary spending, you’re attacking a chunk of the federal budget that is actually smaller in total than the deficit,” he said. “You could actually shut down the federal government … and cancel every discretionary
program, … and you still wouldn’t solve the federal deficit.”
He said the administration may cut some large programs with its proposed Social Security reforms, but costs from new prescription drug benefits offered by Medicare would outweigh those savings.
“What they’re doing is trying to make a show of deficit reduction, but in reality there’s not much in the budget that does that,” he said.
During the 1990s, President Clinton and the Republican Congress came to an agreement about how to cut the deficit that involved some tax increases and adjustments to entitlement programs, McGhee said. Because Bush has said he won’t raise taxes, he can’t use that method.
He added that discretionary spending has generally increased since Bush took office, during
a time when tax receipts
have decreased.
“It’s an uphill battle to get to a balanced budget in this way,” McGhee said. “The economy now is growing, but relatively slowly, so the idea of doing this with discretionary spending is … going to be hard.”
He said the administration is using discretionary spending cuts on programs they don’t like as a political tool, which he said is a “tried and true” tactic used by both parties.
McGhee said there are some fiscal conservatives in the Senate who may have problems with the budget.
“Up to this point, most Republicans have been willing to go along with what the administration wants to do, and they’ve either just gone along or caused enough trouble that no budget resolution has been passed,” he said.
Military spending has increased by more than a third since Bush took office, the largest increase since the Reagan era, according to the proposal.
That trend would continue next year, with the proposal calling for a 4.8 percent increase in overall defense spending in addition to the
supplemental funds.
The Department of Homeland Security would get a 7 percent increase to about $34.2 billion. The funds would increase Border and Transportation spending to $16 million, including money for 210 new border patrol agents. It would also create a nuclear detection office to monitor illegal trafficking and assembly of nuclear devices. Much of the increase will come from fees, including a proposed $3 increase in airline passenger fees in 2006.
Defense will likewise receive
4.8 percent more funds, increasing its discretionary budget to
$419.3 billion. The growth would increase military pay by 3.1 percent and bolster special forces by 1,400. The budget calls for the Navy to retire one aircraft carrier and for the Air Force to slow production of its
F/A-22 stealth fighter jets.
In the last budget produced by the Clinton administration, non-defense discretionary spending grew by
15 percent. Such spending has declined over the past four years, with the proposal calling for spending to rise by about 2.1 percent.
The budget also proposed about 150 reductions in non-defense programs, saving about $20 billion in 2006, according to the proposal. Those cuts would save about
$137 billion over the next 10 years.
A variety of domestic agencies’ budgets would be squeezed under the proposal’s attempts to cut spending hikes, including a 9.6 percent cut in discretionary spending for the Department of Agriculture to $19.4 billion. The proposal would retrench farm price supports by $587 million and reduce loan availability. It would also increase food stamp spending.
Cuts to education would reduce its discretionary funds 1 percent, to
$56 billion, ending 48 programs. The budget would increase Pell Grants.
Oregon’s Democratic representatives blasted the budget proposal.
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., called Bush’s attempt to cut the deficit a “mirage,” saying the budget doesn’t include promised items.
“The president has created the illusion of shrinking budget deficits by slashing critical domestic programs in education, economic development, job creation and veterans health care,” he said in a Feb. 7 press release. “The deficit reduction is a mirage. … And public debt will increase each year to record levels under this budget.”
DeFazio said Bush has left tax cuts for the wealthiest untouched and has left the No Child Left Behind Act and veterans undefended.
Sen. Ro
n Wyden, D-Ore., said in a Feb. 7 press release that he opposed power rate hikes he said would be caused by the budget.
“The Administration is proposing a $2.5 billion hit to the Northwest economy through (Bonneville Power Administration) rate increases, while at the same time taking away the BPA’s ability to improve the reliability of its transmission grid,” Wyden said in the press release. “Low-cost power is the lifeblood of our economy in the Northwest, and this proposal is economic poison for our region.”
A statement from Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., could not be obtained before press time.

[email protected]