Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Philadelphia Inquirer
April 15, 2008 The surging oil income would provide the basis for rebuilding the country's infrastructure.
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Iraq's financial free ride may be over.
After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest war foes to the most steadfast supporters of President Bush, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up the tab for rebuilding hospitals, roads and power lines.
"I think the American people are growing weary not only of the war," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, "but they are looking at why Baghdad can't pay more of these costs. And the answer is they can."
Nelson, a Democrat, is drafting legislation with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana to restrict future reconstruction dollars to loans instead of grants.
Their bill also would require that Baghdad pay for the fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement. Plans are to propose the legislation as part of a war bill to cover spending through September.
Finding allies Likewise, Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he wanted to add a provision to a defense-policy bill that would require the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country before U.S. dollars are spent.
These senators, well-known war skeptics, could find allies in lawmakers who support Bush's current Iraq policies.
In hearings last week, Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates whether Baghdad should start paying some U.S. combat costs, and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) raised the possibility that an anticipated Iraqi budget surplus this year could be used to help Afghanistan, whose $700 million in annual revenue is a fraction of Iraq's $46.8 billion budget.
A key difference Bush has suggested that Congress is preaching to the choir. Last week, he noted that Baghdad's latest budget would outspend the United States by more than 10-1 on Iraq reconstruction, with U.S. funding for large-scale projects "approaching zero."
On the surface, it does look as though Washington has about split the costs of rebuilding efforts with the Iraqis: Congress has appropriated about $47.5 billion since 2003 while the Iraqis have budgeted $50.6 billion. International contributions have totaled $15.8 billion.
However, there is a key difference. Whereas the United States has actually spent most of the money it has approved, Iraq has not, according to the watchdog agency that audits reconstruction efforts. In 2006 and 2007, for example, Iraq spent only $2.9 billion of its designated $16.3 billion capital budget, which is used to invest in reconstruction projects.
Administration and military officials say the lack of spending is not sinister.
"Part of it's a lack of expertise," Gates told Congress. "Part of it is a lack of trained people. And part of it, in the past, has probably been politics. We think they're making headway on all of those."
A primary cause of the unhappiness in Congress is the high price of oil. While Americans complain of gasoline prices, officials predict that Iraq is headed for a windfall because of the soaring price of oil and growing production levels.
With rebuilding efforts bearing fruit, Iraq's oil production had recovered to about 2.4 million barrels per day by late last year compared with 2 million earlier in the year and 1.3 million in early 2003.
Also, the country's 2008 budget of $46.8 billion was calculated based on earnings of $57 per barrel of oil, according to a report by the U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Since then, the market price has nearly doubled.
April 15, 2008 The surging oil income would provide the basis for rebuilding the country's infrastructure.
By Anne Flaherty, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- Iraq's financial free ride may be over.
After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest war foes to the most steadfast supporters of President Bush, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up the tab for rebuilding hospitals, roads and power lines.
"I think the American people are growing weary not only of the war," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, "but they are looking at why Baghdad can't pay more of these costs. And the answer is they can."
Nelson, a Democrat, is drafting legislation with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana to restrict future reconstruction dollars to loans instead of grants.
Their bill also would require that Baghdad pay for the fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement. Plans are to propose the legislation as part of a war bill to cover spending through September.
Finding allies Likewise, Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he wanted to add a provision to a defense-policy bill that would require the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country before U.S. dollars are spent.
These senators, well-known war skeptics, could find allies in lawmakers who support Bush's current Iraq policies.
In hearings last week, Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates whether Baghdad should start paying some U.S. combat costs, and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) raised the possibility that an anticipated Iraqi budget surplus this year could be used to help Afghanistan, whose $700 million in annual revenue is a fraction of Iraq's $46.8 billion budget.
A key difference Bush has suggested that Congress is preaching to the choir. Last week, he noted that Baghdad's latest budget would outspend the United States by more than 10-1 on Iraq reconstruction, with U.S. funding for large-scale projects "approaching zero."
On the surface, it does look as though Washington has about split the costs of rebuilding efforts with the Iraqis: Congress has appropriated about $47.5 billion since 2003 while the Iraqis have budgeted $50.6 billion. International contributions have totaled $15.8 billion.
However, there is a key difference. Whereas the United States has actually spent most of the money it has approved, Iraq has not, according to the watchdog agency that audits reconstruction efforts. In 2006 and 2007, for example, Iraq spent only $2.9 billion of its designated $16.3 billion capital budget, which is used to invest in reconstruction projects.
Administration and military officials say the lack of spending is not sinister.
"Part of it's a lack of expertise," Gates told Congress. "Part of it is a lack of trained people. And part of it, in the past, has probably been politics. We think they're making headway on all of those."
A primary cause of the unhappiness in Congress is the high price of oil. While Americans complain of gasoline prices, officials predict that Iraq is headed for a windfall because of the soaring price of oil and growing production levels.
With rebuilding efforts bearing fruit, Iraq's oil production had recovered to about 2.4 million barrels per day by late last year compared with 2 million earlier in the year and 1.3 million in early 2003.
Also, the country's 2008 budget of $46.8 billion was calculated based on earnings of $57 per barrel of oil, according to a report by the U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Since then, the market price has nearly doubled.