DLR'sCock
04-23-2005, 02:05 PM
US Senate Approves $81 Billion for Iraq, Afghanistan
The Associated Press
Friday 22 April 2005
Washington. The US Senate has overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.
Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give US President George W Bush much of the money he requested. But the bills differ over what portion should go to military operations.
The Pentagon says it needs the money by the first week of May, so Senate and House negotiators are expected to act quickly to send the President a final bill.
Other issues to be resolved in the competing versions include immigration changes, a US embassy in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, military death benefits and the fate of an aircraft carrier.
"I'm confident we will be able to come back with a product, in the form of a conference report, which the Senate can support," said Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
He said the bill gives strong support to troops in the fight against terrorism and provides needed dollars for the State Department.
Overall, the Senate version would cost about $81 billion, compared with the $81.4 billion the House approved and the $81.9 billion that Bush requested.
Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars since the attacks of September 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Greenspan Issues New Warning on Deficits
By Jeannine Aversa
The Associated Press
Friday 22 April 2005
Washington - On the same day that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan issued a fresh warning about the dangers of bloated budget deficits, Congress considered new tax breaks for the energy industry and an $81 billion measure to pay for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The events Thursday illustrated the challenges - "hard choices," as Greenspan put it - that policy-makers face in trying to control spending.
Greenspan, who steadily has pressed lawmakers, told the Senate Budget Committee that unless the situation is reversed, the economy in the years ahead could "stagnate or worse."
Meanwhile, the House neared passage of legislation that would give billions of dollars in benefits to energy industries.
The Senate prepared to vote on an $81 billion measure for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Greenspan's plea for fiscal fitness coincides with the deterioration of the government's balance sheets.
In 2000, the government posted a record budget surplus. Four years later, there was a record deficit, $412 billion. The deficit this year is projected to come in at $427 billion.
Even with plans to control deficits by restricting domestic spending, President Bush and Congress project that deficits over the next five years will exceed $200 billion annually. The shortfalls are expected to increase as baby boomers soon begin to retire.
"The harsh reality here is that our fiscal condition is not improving," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.
"I think part of the frustration of many of us on this committee is convincing our colleagues that there really is a problem," he said. "And they're probably not going to be convinced unless the American people are convinced.
"And it's very hard to convince people there is a real threat to our collective economic security when the economy seems to be doing reasonably well."
In the long run, persistently large budget deficits threaten the economy because they can push up interest rates for consumers and businesses. Higher borrowing costs would effect the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend and invest.
Greenspan told senators that "the federal budget is on an unsustainable path," in which large deficits will lead to higher interest rates.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Congress "overpromised" in its Social Security and health care commitments.
But he questioned Congress' political will to tackle the problem.
"I have been asking the question in my own mind. 'Will we be able to solve the problem' - that is make the policy decisions in a timely manner - or will we in America await a failure - a major failure in the health delivery system before we do anything?"
Greenspan repeated his support for a return to budgeting policies that would require Congress to offset future increases in government spending or new tax cuts with reductions in other government programs or tax increases.
A decade-long pay-as-you-go provision expired in 2002.
"Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," Greenspan said.
Greenspan touched a nerve with Democrats, some of whom are still stinging from the Fed chairman's endorsement of Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001. That cut was proposed when the government was expecting a decade of budget surpluses.
"I was wrong, like everybody else, on the issue of surpluses," Greenspan said.
In 2001, Greenspan said the tax cut should be accompanied by a mechanism that would rescind the tax cut if economic forecasts changed. He said it was "frankly unfair" for people not to remember that point.
"I think it is fair to consider how your message would be taken," said Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, recalling the 2001 tax cut endorsement. "It clearly was taken in the way that I have suggested in giving the green light."
Democrats mostly blame the growing budget deficits on Bush's tax cuts, which the lawmakers contend mainly benefited the wealthy.
Republicans credited the cuts with helping the economy rebound from the 2001 recession. The costs of the cuts, along with paying for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fighting terrorism at home, have led to the deficits, Republicans say.
The committee chairman, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said the cuts were "good policy" as evidenced by the "economic recovery . . . and the shallowness of the recession. . . . But that's history. We're trying to look forward here."
-------
The Associated Press
Friday 22 April 2005
Washington. The US Senate has overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.
Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would give US President George W Bush much of the money he requested. But the bills differ over what portion should go to military operations.
The Pentagon says it needs the money by the first week of May, so Senate and House negotiators are expected to act quickly to send the President a final bill.
Other issues to be resolved in the competing versions include immigration changes, a US embassy in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, military death benefits and the fate of an aircraft carrier.
"I'm confident we will be able to come back with a product, in the form of a conference report, which the Senate can support," said Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
He said the bill gives strong support to troops in the fight against terrorism and provides needed dollars for the State Department.
Overall, the Senate version would cost about $81 billion, compared with the $81.4 billion the House approved and the $81.9 billion that Bush requested.
Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars since the attacks of September 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Greenspan Issues New Warning on Deficits
By Jeannine Aversa
The Associated Press
Friday 22 April 2005
Washington - On the same day that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan issued a fresh warning about the dangers of bloated budget deficits, Congress considered new tax breaks for the energy industry and an $81 billion measure to pay for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The events Thursday illustrated the challenges - "hard choices," as Greenspan put it - that policy-makers face in trying to control spending.
Greenspan, who steadily has pressed lawmakers, told the Senate Budget Committee that unless the situation is reversed, the economy in the years ahead could "stagnate or worse."
Meanwhile, the House neared passage of legislation that would give billions of dollars in benefits to energy industries.
The Senate prepared to vote on an $81 billion measure for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Greenspan's plea for fiscal fitness coincides with the deterioration of the government's balance sheets.
In 2000, the government posted a record budget surplus. Four years later, there was a record deficit, $412 billion. The deficit this year is projected to come in at $427 billion.
Even with plans to control deficits by restricting domestic spending, President Bush and Congress project that deficits over the next five years will exceed $200 billion annually. The shortfalls are expected to increase as baby boomers soon begin to retire.
"The harsh reality here is that our fiscal condition is not improving," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.
"I think part of the frustration of many of us on this committee is convincing our colleagues that there really is a problem," he said. "And they're probably not going to be convinced unless the American people are convinced.
"And it's very hard to convince people there is a real threat to our collective economic security when the economy seems to be doing reasonably well."
In the long run, persistently large budget deficits threaten the economy because they can push up interest rates for consumers and businesses. Higher borrowing costs would effect the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend and invest.
Greenspan told senators that "the federal budget is on an unsustainable path," in which large deficits will lead to higher interest rates.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Congress "overpromised" in its Social Security and health care commitments.
But he questioned Congress' political will to tackle the problem.
"I have been asking the question in my own mind. 'Will we be able to solve the problem' - that is make the policy decisions in a timely manner - or will we in America await a failure - a major failure in the health delivery system before we do anything?"
Greenspan repeated his support for a return to budgeting policies that would require Congress to offset future increases in government spending or new tax cuts with reductions in other government programs or tax increases.
A decade-long pay-as-you-go provision expired in 2002.
"Our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken," Greenspan said.
Greenspan touched a nerve with Democrats, some of whom are still stinging from the Fed chairman's endorsement of Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001. That cut was proposed when the government was expecting a decade of budget surpluses.
"I was wrong, like everybody else, on the issue of surpluses," Greenspan said.
In 2001, Greenspan said the tax cut should be accompanied by a mechanism that would rescind the tax cut if economic forecasts changed. He said it was "frankly unfair" for people not to remember that point.
"I think it is fair to consider how your message would be taken," said Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, recalling the 2001 tax cut endorsement. "It clearly was taken in the way that I have suggested in giving the green light."
Democrats mostly blame the growing budget deficits on Bush's tax cuts, which the lawmakers contend mainly benefited the wealthy.
Republicans credited the cuts with helping the economy rebound from the 2001 recession. The costs of the cuts, along with paying for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and fighting terrorism at home, have led to the deficits, Republicans say.
The committee chairman, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said the cuts were "good policy" as evidenced by the "economic recovery . . . and the shallowness of the recession. . . . But that's history. We're trying to look forward here."
-------