Not Another Dime for Reconstruction

Regardless of which side of the Iraq War debate you fall on, one thing should be universally agreed upon: The American taxpayer should not be footing the bill for institutionalized corruption. However, as was pointed out in an AP article yesterday that is exactly what we are doing. Radi al-Radhi, who runs the Public Integrity Commission for the Iraqi government, reported over the last 3 years over $8 billion has been stolen. Here's part of the reason:

Corruption in the country, while traditionally rampant, is encouraged by constitutional clause 136 B, al-Radhi said. It gives Cabinet ministers the power to block his investigations.

So far, he said, ministers have blocked probes into the theft or misspending of an estimated additional $55 million in public funds.

That's right, we are pouring our taxpayer dollars into rebuilding a country that feels it is a Constitutional Right to be corrupt. In January, Stuart Bowen Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction handed Congress a report detailing some of the issues in Iraq, which included:

Corruption continues to limit the ability of the GOI to manage reconstruction efforts and key areas of economic policy. The Iraqi Ministry of Oil estimates that Iraq loses $700 million of revenue each month because of oil smuggling.

With oil closing at $64.28 a barrel yesterday, that works out to almost 11 million barrels a month that just disappear, or 130.7 million barrels a year. Put another way, that 11 million barrels would be enough crude oil imported to cover all of the needs for the US (gas, plastic, home heating oil, etc.) for more than a day each and every month. That would be impossible to pull off without some kind of consent, and taxpayers are putting up the cash that allows it to continue.

I've written before about the absence of criticism when it comes to Iraq from those who pound their chests about being fiscal conservatives. The extreme anti-government crowd that masquerades as fiscal conservatives, like our own Representative Scott Garrett, rail against providing reconstruction aid to the Americans victimized by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, citing corruption as their reasoning. However, you will be hard pressed to find a single quote about the abuses in Iraq (I know, I've looked). The abuses in Iraq are at least 800% worse than those of the still devastated Gulf Coast region, and apparently are constitutionally protected to continue into eternity.

This sort of abuse isn't a slap in the face to the American taxpayer; it's a kick in the crotch. It needs to come to an end, and come to an end now. Our Congress either needs to demand more accountability, cut off the reconstruction funding until the Iraqis can get their stuff together, or get voted out of office in 2008. The unborn children of my unborn children are going to be paying for this war, with interest, and it is a complete dereliction of duty that Congress continues to allow this garbage to go on.

Garrett as Usual

As I pretty much expected, Representative Scott Garrett still hasn't posted an explanation on his website and said nothing on the House floor about why he'd be voting against the Katrina Aid. It's another insult to those who lost everything, another insult to those from our District who have recognized the need for Americans to help Americans, and an insult to those who expect accountability from our Representatives.

Garrett votes against Katrina Victims Again

In another 12 to Garrett vote, the New Jersey delegation stood up with our fellow Americans impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Once again, Representative Scott Garrett has voted against providing support to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Without a press statement, I don't want to put words in his mouth. I'll post more on this tomorrow after I have the chance to see what if anything he said on the floor before he voted against the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.

Talking 'bout Money, Money, Money...Money

Representative Garrett's still on the defensive about his vote against a round of Hurricane Katrina aid. His website now is running an "In Case You Missed It" spot touting how the government is trying to recoup funds from fraud, waste and abuse related to the recovery efforts. When voting against the package, to his credit, he gave as his reason for voting against the aid a lack of controls against such fraud. Granted, it's unclear which pot the money that was abused came from, the package he voted against or the package he voted for, but we'll let him have his moment of prideful chest beating.

In the same vein though, let's apply the same "In Case You Missed It" attitude to the President's budget proposal. There are two very big problems for our area in the proposal. First are the myriad of cuts to police, fire departments and hospitals which will inevitably lead to increased property taxes as the state and towns are forced to pick up the tab. In addition, there would likely be an increase in health insurance premiums as hospitals diligently continue providing care for those whose funding is being taken away, passing the cost to those of us fortunate enough to have health insurance.

Second, is in order to project a budget surplus in 2012 while making permanent the "temporary" tax cuts enacted a few years back, the President needs to bring in a trillion (with a t) more dollars from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). While a temporary fix is in place preventing more NJ families from falling into the AMT trap this year, it expires after next year. It has been documented for years that the AMT entrapment is spreading, and this is a large part of how the President's plan balances the budget.

But now, due to inflation coupled with administration tax policies, the AMT is hitting millions of ordinary families, many earning well under $100,000 a year. Within five years, 37 percent of people earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and 73 percent of those with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT, compared with less than 3 percent three years ago. Nearly all families earning over $100,000 will pay it, according to a Brookings Institution study.

So, realistically speaking, as laid out the President is planning on a massive tax hike for families in our District. But, now to the "In Case You Missed It" part, here's what Garrett's had to say about the budget so far:

From The Record:

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, said the president's budget represents "a positive step" toward that goal, and warned against Democrats' raising taxes to afford more spending.

"Every family in America must set priorities and make difficult decisions when putting together a household budget, and the federal government should be no different," said Garrett, a member of the House Budget Committee. "I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will remember that ... every dollar that goes into the federal budget is a dollar that comes out of a family budget."

From The Courier Post:

However, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, saw things the opposite way. He praised Bush for adopting the "common sense, bipartisan goal" of balancing the federal budget within five years.

And this from Garrett's Website:

For instance, the budget request projects a drop in the Federal deficit over the next four years, leading to a $61 billion surplus in 2012. Also, the budget plan will balance the Federal budget within five years.

I saved that one for last, because it's important to note the projected $61 billion surplus is for the BUDGET in 2012 and not, as is inferred, wiping out the $8 trillion federal deficit we are currently saddled with. Now, it's going to take a while to get through all the source material, and truth be told I'll be relying on both conservative and liberal media to point me in the right directions, but this proposal is by all early accounts a very raw deal for New Jersey. Granted, the budget is months away from being complete, but I just can't believe in the early stages, with his support, Garrett is advocating higher property taxes and the extension of the AMT to more families in our area.