RELIABLE.
NONPARTISAN.
EMPOWERING.
NONPARTISAN.
EMPOWERING.
|
Last updated on: 2/4/2009 5:46:00 AM PST
How were the reconstruction funds for Iraq initially allocated?General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) included a graph in its Dec. 15, 2006 report "Rebuilding Iraq: Status of DOD’s Reconstruction Program":
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) included in its Dec. 2004 report "Estimated Breakdown of Funding Flows for Iraq's Reconstruction: How Are The Funds Being Spent?": "Congress has approved $18.6 billion in taxpayer funds for reconstruction in Iraq. Here is a breakdown of how the money might be spent: The main spending includes $5 billion for new electricity generation and transmission; $4 billion each for water projects and security; $1 billion for oil sector repairs; and $500,000 for telecommunications. Some of the higher-impact proposals include: A new gas turbine electricity generation plant at the northern town of Badoosh, and three others in Baghdad; each costing more than $100 million. A water treatment and accompanying sewage plant to serve Baghdad's Shiite slum area, Sadr City, which now has neither; cost, $10-20 million each. A modern sanitary landfill for Baghdad, where the city's municipal waste can be dumped and buried; cost, $20-30 million. Repairs to the aging Mosul dam on the Tigris River; cost, about $40 million." Dec. 21, 2003 - Associated Press (AP)
Dan Morgan, a journalist at the Washington Post, stated in a May 7, 2004 Washington Post article "Lawmakers to Insist on Oversight of Iraq Money": "On April 18, 2003, President Bush signed another 'emergency' spending bill that set aside $62 billion for the Pentagon, of which $15.7 billion was in an Iraqi Freedom Fund. The provision gave the Pentagon 'unfettered flexibility' over at least $10.5 billion to $11 billion of the amount, Defense Department Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim said at the time. A white house budget office report to Congress, covering DERF expenditures from Sept. 18, 2001, to June 30, 2002, was general in nature, listing, for example, $4.2 billion for 'increased situational awareness,' $1.1 billion for 'enhanced force protection,' $4.6 billion for 'increases worldwide posture' and $1.5 billion for 'offensive counterterrorism.' 'The accounts that were set up had meaningless names and the extent to which the administration was using or not using the funds could not be determined,' said Scott Lilly, then-Democratic chief of staff on the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), a strong pro-defense Democrat, said he believes the Pentagon observed the letter of the law but still 'abused the trust of congress.' 'We're not sure exactly how they were spending the money,' he said." May 7, 2004 - Dan Morgan
Alan Fram, News Editor of Foreign Affairs and Military for the Associated Press, stated in an Apr. 25, 2004 article "Up to One-forth of U.S. Reconstruction Money for Iraq Is Going for Security," published in the San Francisco Gate: "Because of surging violence, U.S.-financed contractors rebuilding Iraq are spending a quarter of their money to protect workers and insure their projects, according to American officials monitoring the work. Stuart W. Bowden Jr., inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, cited estimates that contractors were spending 10 to 15 percent of their money for security costs earlier this year. Cole [Navy Capt. Bruce A. Cole, spokesman for the provisional authority's program management office] said planners estimated initially that security costs would eat up 10 percent of the reconstruction contracts. But Bowden said that money was expected to come from the $3.2 billion Congress is providing for establishing Iraqi police and armed forces -- and not the rebuilding money. 'That has not proven to be effective to date,' Bowen said." Apr. 25, 2004 - Alan Fram, MA |
|
|
READER FAVORITES
 TRANSLATE into 100+ Languages and Dialects |
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
