Cost Of Iraq War Filters Down To States And Cities

Apr 8, 2007 3:33 pm US/Mountain

by Steven K. Paulson, AP Writer

(AP) DENVER The cost of the Iraq war is filtering down to state and local budgets, forcing cuts in transportation funding, Medicaid, education and other federally subsidized programs, according to analysts and lawmakers.

Just how big that impact has been is unclear. What state lawmakers do say is that the $456 billion already spent or appropriated for the war could have gone a long way toward helping them balance their own budgets.

In Colorado, lawmakers expect to lose about $200 million in federal funding for the next fiscal year, forcing the state to cut back on programs that receive federal money.

"These are funds that we aren't going to receive. Low Energy Assistance Program, $9.8 million, gone. Head Start, $3.7 million, gone. Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1.1 million. Community Development Block Grant, $13.5 million. Special Ed, $8.8 million," House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said during a debate Thursday over a state resolution opposing the escalation of the war in Iraq.

"Also, we're not going to get the Criminal Alien Assistance Program to house criminal aliens, $5 million that was promised and now isn't coming," Madden said. "This is why it's important to take a stand. The more money that's spent over there means our citizens in this state aren't going to get services they need."

Joy Wilson, director of health policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C., said the war in Iraq is affecting state and local government spending, but it's impossible to tell how much. She said other factors are influencing the federal budget, including President Bush's pledge to balance the budget by 2012, rising health care and fuel costs, and tax cuts that Bush has refused to rescind.

"That said, Iraq is certainly a part of the mix," Wilson said, noting other states are also being forced to cut back because domestic spending has been almost flat for the past two years.

According to the Colorado Municipal League, Bush's proposed 2008 budget includes only a 1 percent increase in nonmilitary and homeland security programs. The league said the budget proposal cuts Community Development Block Grants nationwide by $735 million, education by $1.5 billion, the Individuals with Disabilities Education act by $291 million, and $107 million from Head Start. Social Services block grants would be cut nearly in half to $1.2 billion, and Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance would see a $400 million cut.

The league said funding for the Department of Homeland Security would be slashed, including a 63 percent cut for training and exercises, while federal assistance to state and local law enforcement would be cut by more than half. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund would be cut $312 million over the previous year.

Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, said 24 hospitals in Colorado risk losing federal funding after Bush issued an executive order changing the definition of public hospitals to reduce Medicaid spending, cutting $128 million in federal aid that could force a major hospital in Denver to close. The Colorado Legislature is debating a resolution asking Bush to restore that funding.

Keller said the state also is losing about $48 million in federal funds for transportation, money the state was promised.

She said the cost of the war is trickling down to local governments, with cuts to federal funding for homeland security.

"We're bearing the brunt of the federal cuts. There's no other reason than the war," Keller said.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, disagreed.

"She can't draw a direct connection to that. Federal funds go up and down every year," May said.

May said transportation funding is based on a formula, and funds for homeland security were cut because huge startup grants were no longer needed.

He said every department in state government had an increase in federal funding and that it was the increases that were cut back.

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Outsource the Cabinet? : THOMAS FRIEDMAN - Israeli Vision Gaffe

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Outsource the Cabinet?

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 28, 2007

Israel’s leadership seems to have blinded itself lately with all sorts of bizarre and criminal behavior.

Yes, it’s true, a picture is worth a thousand words — but some are worth a whole dictionary. I came across one the other day on BBC.com. The story was headlined “Israeli Minister in Vision Gaffe.”

Next to it is a picture showing Israel’s defense minister, Amir Peretz, inspecting troops on the Golan Heights alongside Israel’s military chief of staff, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi. Both men are peering into the distance through binoculars, but with one big difference: Mr. Peretz was watching the maneuvers through binoculars with the lens caps still on. ...

“According to the photographer,” the BBC reported, “Mr. Peretz looked through the capped binoculars three times, nodding as Gen. Ashkenazi explained what was in view.”

Oh my, I’d rather misspell “potato” on national TV than be remembered for that.

***

“Tom, I never saw in the streets of Israel such a total contempt for the government by almost everybody — the poor and the rich, the Jews and the Arabs, the left, the right and the collapsing center. This is the essence of our situation — a contrast between the ‘you never had it so good’ economy and the ‘you never had it so bad’ government. This is the spring of our discontent."

--MORE--

A state with temporary borders would spell the end of the Palestinian cause and rights

Once bitten

Mustafa Barghouti

---

Every now and then it is useful to take a closer look at the nature of the ongoing struggle in Palestine, for it is easy to miss the forest for the trees. The general idea is simple. The Palestinians are fighting for a fully independent state on all the land occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and demanding recognition of the rights of Palestinian refugees. Meanwhile, Israel, which wants to create a system of apartheid and domination, is trying to get the Palestinians to accept a state with temporary borders, minus Jerusalem and other areas, and minus independence. Israel's recent decision to build a new settlement in the Jordan Valley is a case in point.

Shall we have a comprehensive and final solution to the conflict, or a temporary and interim one similar to that of the Oslo Accords? This is the big question facing the Palestinians today. A long-term transitional deal is what Israel wants. The Israelis want to force the Palestinians to give up large segments of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and abandon refugee rights as part of an interim solution. But such a solution is likely to be permanent, not temporary.

Also, Israel wants the Palestinian Authority to remain ineffective and shorn of sovereignty. It wants the authority to act as Israel's bodyguard while Israel maintains all economic, political and security power.

Israel is pushing for an interim solution because it doesn't want the Palestinians to benefit from opportunities the US debacle in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East has created. With the Baker-Hamilton report calling for a solution to the Palestinian problem and with international community increasingly critical of Israel's policies, the tide is turning. Who would have imagined that a former US president, Jimmy Carter, would conclude that apartheid is worse in Palestine than it ever was in South Africa? The pressure on Israel is mounting, as is evident in the Spanish-French-Italian call for an international conference and a final settlement of the conflict. Europe wants a lasting solution to the Palestinian issue, and Israel -- fully cognizant -- is buying time.

Israel is trying to weaken the drive for genuine peace in the Middle East. In particular, it is trying to stop US officials from altering their policy in a way that could be beneficial to the Palestinians. And the Israelis are yet again using the Palestinians to avoid the consequences of a just and comprehensive settlement to the 40-year-old conflict.

Here is what Israel is doing. First, Israel is trying to portray the Palestinian scene as part of a battle between good and evil, a battle between those who belong to the so-called "Axis of Evil" and those described as moderates.

Second, Israel is trying to portray the conflict between Fatah and Hamas as a power struggle over who controls the occupied territories. The debate has thus been shifted to the nature and composition of government and to the terms under which Israel and other international parties would approve of the Palestinian government. This mustn't go on. The Palestinians need a unified national command, one that is capable of managing the conflict and breaking the siege.

Third, Israel is trying to get Fatah and Hamas to haggle, through international brokers, over partial and interim solutions. This also must stop. Fatah and Hamas should discuss their differences over the final peace settlement rather than waste their time on who is to negotiate a partial deal. It is essential for all Palestinian parties to denounce any partial deals and never accept a state with temporary borders.

The Palestinians need a unified position and strategy. They need a unified command, something that has been missing for almost three decades now. The last thing the Palestinians need is for domestic rivalries to distract them from managing the conflict. Let's keep in mind that political plurality can be a blessing or a curse. It would be a blessing if the Palestinians insist on a comprehensive solution. And it would be a curse if divisions weaken our negotiating position.

We need a government of national unity and we need it soon. More importantly, we need a unified command that can organise and coordinate action among the three components of the Palestinian people: those living outside Palestine; those living in the occupied territories; and those living in Israel, who are currently 22 per cent of the Palestinian population.

Opinion polls suggest that a majority of Palestinians and Israelis want a comprehensive solution. But the so-called Israeli peace movement has become inactive since talks shifted to partial and interim solutions. Israel must come to the realisation that apartheid is a non-starter and that the only way ahead is that of comprehensive peace. We've tried Oslo once. Let's not try it again.

* The writer is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online