On Nov. 3, voters will decide who controls Congress while the war with Iran is still underway. What they will not decide is how that war gets paid for. Congress has scheduled that question for after they cast their ballots. My previous op-ed for the Washington Examiner asked who has the power to declare war. This one asks a quieter question: who has agreed to pay for it?
The answer describes a failure with no single villain, which is why it deserves a careful look.
What Congress did and did not do
The White House asked Congress on June 24 for $87.6 billion in supplemental funding.
In July, the House adopted a $95 billion budget resolution by a vote of 216-214, a party-line vehicle that would allow up to roughly $73 billion for the war. The House also passed the $1.1 trillion defense authorization bill, 216-212.
Neither has become law. Senate Democrats blocked the authorization bill, and Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has said the Senate lacks the votes for the $95 billion resolution as written, while floating the idea of repurposing it.
Then came the stopgap. On Sept. 1, the House passed a bipartisan funding bill to keep the government open through Dec. 11. It did not include the emergency war supplemental the Pentagon had requested. That expiration date falls five weeks after Election Day. In practical terms, the war-funding decision has been placed in the lame-duck session, after voters have made their choices and cannot react to them.
The meter keeps running
The war has not waited for Congress. The Pentagon has reported a cost of $43.6 billion as of Sept. 3, and has since set aside another $1.5 billion for fuel, bringing the figure to about $45.1 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office, using an earlier cutoff, estimated about $38 billion through Aug. 1. The gap reflects different dates and methods, but both point in the same direction.
Households are paying too, though not through the appropriations process. AAA puts the national average for gasoline at $4.49 a gallon, compared with $3.16 a year ago. Researchers at Brown University estimate consumers have absorbed more than $100 billion in additional fuel costs.
And the outlook is uncertain: President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s ceasefire proposal on Sept. 26, and the Wall Street Journal has reported that bombing could resume after the midterms, which would add to the bill.
Why the timing matters
Deferral is not neutral. According to Decision Desk HQ’s forecast as of Sept. 25, Democrats have about a 72% chance of winning the House and a 54% chance of winning the Senate. Forecasts move, and nobody should treat them as an indicator. But if control of either chamber changes hands, the lawmakers who write the war’s funding bill in December may not be the ones voters were asked to judge on it in November. That changes the incentives for everyone involved, and it makes a pre-election vote both harder to schedule and more valuable.
Deferral also narrows the choices. Every month without an approved plan is a month of spending that must eventually be covered by cuts elsewhere, new revenue, or added debt. Waiting does not make any of those options cheaper. It only postpones the moment when someone has to name one.
A controller’s view
In most organizations, a program that has spent roughly $45 billion without an approved plan for paying for it would trigger an escalation, not a recess. Finance professionals have a plain name for spending that outruns its authorization: a control failure.
Both parties have their reasons. Republican leaders want the war funded through a party-line process that the Senate has shown it will not accept. Democrats have used the defense bill to press for limits on the war, yet the stopgap they helped pass leaves the war’s funding unsettled. Each position is defensible on its own terms. Together they produce one result: a decision deferred until after voters have had their say.
Three questions for every candidate
Any candidate for the House or Senate can answer three plain questions before November 3:
1. Will you fund the war, and at what level?
2. From where: spending cuts elsewhere, higher taxes, or more borrowing?
3. Will you vote on it before the election, or after?
TRUMP WAS JUST THE BEGINNING: IRAN’S AMERICAN HIT LIST IS REAL — IS DHS READY?
Voters cannot weigh a funding plan that does not exist. A democracy can debate whether to fight, and it should. But it cannot claim to have consented to a war it has not agreed to pay for.
The ballot arrives Nov. 3. The funding deadline arrives Dec. 11. Accountability requires reversing that order.
Jose Navarro, MBA, is a financial controller and public finance analyst with 20+ years in public finance, nonprofit management, and government contract compliance. He is the founder of The Navarro Report, based in San Diego.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
