On August 5, the Washington Times ran an article on Iraq's potential total budget surplus at the end of 2008. The article, "GAO: Iraq could have $79 billion budget surplus," went on to report:
"The Iraqi government could end the year with as much as a $79 billion budget surplus as ever-increasing oil revenues pile on top of leftover income the Iraqis still haven't spent on their national rebuilding effort, congressional auditors say.
A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made public Tuesday prompted renewed calls from senators that Baghdad pay more of the bill for its own reconstruction, which has been heavily supported with U.S. funds.
The projected Iraq surplus, including unspent money from 2005 through 2008, has been building because of rising world oil prices, increasing Iraqi oil production, the government's inability to execute budgets for spending its money and persistent violence in the country, the GAO said."
The good news is that levels of violence have decreased, and Iraq's oil production is on the rise. So why is the resulting budget surplus not being spent on any number of needed rebuilding projects? Why is the money just sitting there? As the GAO report detailed, this surplus has been building since 2005. The estimated surplus from 2005-2007 was $29 billion. With crude oil prices rising rapidly since 2007, another $50 billion will be added. The GAO report suggested the following reasons for why the money has not been spent:
"First ... (the) relative shortage of trained budgetary, procurement and other staff with the necessary technical skills as a factor limiting the Iraqi government's ability to plan and execute its capital spending," the GAO said, adding that a second problem is the government's weak accounting systems. Third ... violence and sectarian strife remain major obstacles to developing Iraqi government capacity."
Iraqi lawmaker Haider al-Abadi stated that Iraq is pulling its weight in funding reconstruction. However, the GAO also reported that from 2005 through April 2008, Iraq spent just $3.9 billion on reconstruction. How does al-Abadi define "...pulling its weight...?"
The governor of Iraq's Central Bank, Sinan al-Shabibi, said he thought the problem with not spending money on reconstruction was due not to the bulk of funds being spent elsewhere, but because of security problems, and especially the lack of experts in Iraq's ministries.
The Washington Times article also reported that, "Since 2005, the United States has funded a number of efforts to teach civilian and security ministries how to effectively execute their budgets. The efforts included programs to advise and help Iraqi government employees develop the skills to plan programs and to effectively deliver government services such as electricity, water and security."
Have the students in these classes been doing their homework? Has their progress been tracked? Have they been assigned experienced mentors to aid their efforts? I thought the post-Rumsfeld era was going to be more efficient, productive, and professional in all aspects of this war. They got the Surge right. What about the rest? Does anybody care ... or will it just be more expedient to dump it all on President Obama or President McCain?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I am in shock and awe about this whole budget surplus deal. NOT! As long as the good old USA is willing to spend its bucks Iraq may as well keep banking its oil bucks. In case you haven't noticed we are in a transition period, a lame duck period, and whomever is the next El Presidente of the USA will be picking up the pieces of this mess for some time to come.
Even though George W is a lame duck, his legacy hinges upon the future of Iraq. I don't expect any President to be an expert in everything with which he must deal. However, I do expect him to surround himself with good people - subject matter experts.
Has Condi Rice advised Bush on the Iraq budget issue, and asserted her opinion in the face of the advice he has probably been getting from the do-nothing politico entourage that seems to insulate virtually every president?
I don't know that George W's legacy hinges upon the future of Iraq. I am inclined to think that his legacy consists of his trashing of the U.S. Constitution, his fervent belief that if the issue at hand does not have religious overtones...it should have...that God will save the Republic 'cause he sure is not capable of providing the leadership necessary to keep the U.S.A a strong and vibrant country. How best to deal with this whole immigration issue, put up a really big wall. I could go on and on. Iraq will be but a small blip in this president's legacy.
This could cause me to become a (dare I say it) a Democrat for this election!!!
OOOOOPS! Almost forgot. Thank you Mr President and all of your cronies for allowing "out-source" to become a term embraced by big business and dreaded by the common working person.
My apologies for straying from the subject, Iraq oil bucks.
I am like those Iraqi budget students, just not paying attention in class!!
You make some valid points. But look back at President Lyndon Johnson. His administration, with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, engineered and passed sweeping legislation in the areas of civil rights, housing, health, and education that shaped the society in which we live today. But what is his legacy? Vietnam.
Thinking of becoming a Democrat in this election? Remember - the next President, especially should he serve two terms, will exert a monumental influence over the Social Security system under which both you and I will begin collecting benefits after a lifetime of contributions. McCain has already said he will neither raise Social Security taxes nor raise the current salary cap ($97,500 in 2008) to deal with potential deficits. That leaves two options: cut benefits and/or raise age eligibility. Obama has proposed eliminating the salary cap to increase Social Security funds but not increasing age eligibility or decreasing benefits. Chew on that tomorrow with your breakfast cereal.
You are correct that former President Lyndon Johnson did sign several sweeping pieces of legislation, but was hamstrung by the business of Vietnam.
So what sweeping pieces of legislation and program changes will this eight year administration be noted for?? The "Patriot Act" that gutted citizens rights? Cell phone spying??
Get yourself put on a list and find out at the airport that you can't get on a plane 'cause you could be a terrorist. As I noted previously, the country has an immigration issue, put up a really big wall.
Oh, I get it. This administration will be noted for putting the stamp of "BIG BROTHER" on your forehead, and you will thank them for it.
Yeah, I get it alright.
Hey!!!! You are supposed to be the bitter guy!
Back on subject, I just wish that Iraq would start picking up some of the costs of their own rebuilding.
Also, the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have both pronounced that Social Security problems needed to be addressed. That's sixteen (16) years of hand-wringing. I wish someone would do something!
My point was not that Bush had done wonderful things, like Johnson, that would be overshadowed by Iraq. Rather, of all the policies Bush has implemented - the Patriot Act for example, which passed the U.S. Senate with only one "Nay" vote (Democrat Feingold of California), his legacy will hinge on Iraq.
Should the new Iraq become a shining example of democracy and capitalist enterprise as well as a staunch ally of the USA, then people will tend to forgive excesses such as the Patriot Act. It's too bad we have such short memories.
Post a Comment