Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

More on Truman Commission

To follow up on a post I did yesterday about the Truman Commission idea, I thought I would bring your attention to a news story making the rounds today. It's about the difference between what the military has budgeted to pay Halliburton for its work in Iraq and how much the company says it will cost to continue to provide services to U.S. troops. The difference is about $4 billion, but could be more.

The Walls Street Journal makes a point of mentioning the administration's original estimates for what the war in Iraq would cost - $60 billion - and the fact that they are now at roughly three times that amount. For just the rest of 2005, the administration will soon request an additional $80 billion - bringing this year's total to $105 billion for both Iraq and Afghanistan, with the vast majority going to Iraq. The only thing I can think of is maybe the administration hadn't counted on the insurgency being as bad as it has been. Even so, $60 billion seems a little unrealistic in retrospect.

The connection with the plan to create an oversight committee based on the Truman Commission is how much money has been wasted in Iraq. In the post from yesterday, I mentioned the news that the inspector general in Iraq will soon release an audit of the money from the sale of Iraqi oil that the U.S. controlled. It said that $9 billion was unaccounted for because of poor U.S. management. How does that happen? The Pentagon has already said it is because the situation in Iraq after the war was so crazy. I don't think that rules out the possibility that the system was flawed, not just that the security was bad. Add to that all the other investigations, inquiries and audits, and it seems like there is something to be learned from this experience. Hence, the Truman-style Commission.


Tags: Eye on Iraq (all tags)


Display:

Penta-gone Cash


$9 Billion "unaccounted for" dollars out of $105 Billion spent for the year means that roughly 8% of the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan just went away.

Who is responsible for tracking this stuff for the Pentagon and the people spending the money in the field?  These stories always seem to have all the depressing math and none of the relevant operation behind those numbers.  Its as if congress allocates money and it goes into some magical fantasy land of accountability where nobody cares or knows how it gets spent.

This is unacceptable and has been a staple of military spending forever.  

The bigger story here really though is not limited to Iraq.  The excuse given by the Pentagon that it lost track of the money because the situation was so crazy in Iraq is complete hogwash.  Is the Pentagon any better at keeping track of money it spends from the hostile warzone of Alexandria?  Hells no!

The GAO ranks the Pentagon as the worst government agency for accounting.  In 2000 the pentagon's own inspector general found it could not account for $1 Trillion (T! Trillion).

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript245_full.html

Sounds like crazy liberal propaganda, but even Donald Rumsfeld has discussed the problem:

"More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion -- that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service."

 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

So $9 Billion dollars is chump change in Pentagon cash and represents the tip of an enormous iceberg of government waste.

If there is going to be a Truman Commission, it must address the Pentagon's ridiculous accounting standards.

by Blagfly on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:57:01 AM EST


Re: Penta-gone Cash

This is a good point. The Pentagon is infamous for poor accounting of where our billions of tax dollars are going. And I agree there should be an overhaul of the accounting system - especially among conservatives whose reason for being is to rail against government inefficiency. Maybe the Truman-style Commission could tackle such a giant task. My only concern would be how such a mandate might effect its chances of being created at all. The focus is on Iraq, and making it such a broad ranging investigation might confuse the issue a bit. That said, an investigation could lead to something bigger if public opinion makes something more possible. I am just not sure the political will is there to tackle the entire defense department spending versus just contracting in Iraq, but that should certainly be the ultimate goal.

by Mike Surrusco on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 09:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Re: Penta-gone Cash

Yeah you're right.  You can probably talk people into fishing after $9 billion in Iraq...but the trillions over at the Pentagon, no one is going to care about that.

Get your head out of the beltway and think about that.  You're focusing too much on what the politicians think and the potential to rally public support for what really matters.

by Blagfly on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 05:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy