President Bush's $2.9 trillion budget submitted Monday to Congress is heavy on defense spending and short on domestic spending. But, after all, we are at war.
The budget would provide $481.4 billion for defense -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- and promises a buildup in military not seen for more than 20 years. The budget also calls for $141.7 billion in emergency supplemental funding for 2008 to continue the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan and other anti-terrorism efforts. That would bring the total in the war since 9/11 to $661 billion.
The War on Terror represents a huge drain on fiscal resources that could have been used elsewhere, and is the hidden foundation for the Bush administration need to curb spending on a host of other programs which aid needy Americans at home. To his credit, however, the president's budget this time -- for the first time -- puts forth its supplemental war funding request at the same time as the rest of the budget, particularly the non-war asking for the Pentagon.
That means Congress can have a fuller picture of what federal spending will be needed, both domestically and militarily. It also makes a good argument for increasing federal revenue sources to pay for it.
Looking at the federal budget pie, both national defense and Social Security are even with 21 percent of the budget each. The next highest categorical spending is 13 percent for income security and 12 percent for Medicare. It is to no one's surprise that the Bush budget accounts for more military and war spending by cutting corners in Social Security, Medicare and welfare spending.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the president is also calling for no tax increases, and in fact continues his push to make permanent his first-term tax cuts, a drain of $1.6 trillion over the next decade. Perhaps a justifiable case can be made with a non-war budget, making cuts to save us from higher taxes, but throw in the billions and billions of dollars for the war effort that until now has been kept off-budget, and cutting taxes makes no fiscal sense.
Perhaps U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, ID-Conn., an outspoken supporter of the Iraq war, put forth an option worth serious study -- imposition of a "war on terrorism tax." While Lieberman fell short on giving details about his war tax, we aren't about ours.
The Bush administration and Republicans are adamant about not raising taxes. How about forgoing the effort of making permanent tax cuts, and calling that a war tax? Some of the $1.6 trillion in lost taxes over the next decade could be recovered for the $662 billion we're asked to pay for the war effort, and also save us from making deep cuts to entitlement programs that essentially hurt the most vulnerable around us.
At some point, when the war bill is paid, then consider making the tax cuts permanent. That way, additional revenue is captured while the conservatives have their way, too, by not "raising" taxes.
