| Page 4 of 5 < > |
Crunched by The Numbers
White House budget director Rob Portman recently unveiled a proposed 2008 budget of nearly $3 trillion.
(Dennis Brack -- Bloomberg News)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
A reporter asked him if the $50 billion in 2009 was just a "place-holder" number.
"I think we call it an allowance," Portman said.
The numbers created some consternation at a recent hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrat Jack Reed asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, how many troops will be in Iraq at the start of the 2009 fiscal year.
Pace: Sir, I do not have a projection of troops, per se. Have a projection of continuing to spend about $7 billion a month on the war.
Reed: Well, if I do the math, $7 billion a month is about -- what? -- $84 billion. And that's a little more than $50 billion.
Pace: Yes, sir.
Reed: So there seems to be a huge disconnect between your plans and what your OMB is showing as the cost.
Pace: Projections, sir; not plans.
Thus the message seemed to be if you multiplied $7 billion a month by 12 and then rounded down to the nearest 50 you'd get $50 billion.
