 |
||||||||
|
2/21/2003 06:37:00 PM | Brad Plumer What's a poor budget to do? Mr. Waligore writes: "I would appreciate Brad telling me where he got that budget link (ie. was it what the President originally proposed), and how any of the evidence he presents contradicts anything Krugman said." Sir, believe me, no one was more surprised than me when I discovered that a fascist state like the US allows public access to its Office of Management and Budget. What I linked to was the Bush budget transmitted to Congress on February 3rd. Under the State Department section of the budget, you will note that the figures I quote for Afghanistan appear in various forms. You can find more exact figures here (go to page 3). But wait, there's more! I also managed to access the State Department website, which contains a transcript of Colin Powell's budget testimony before the House on February 13th. He claims that the 2004 budget has $657 million earmarked for Afghanistan. Sir, I am no economist, but $657 million sounds like a whole lot more than the zero figure Krugman claimed. QED. As for Tom White, I will concede. Leopold's account is, indeed, more convincing. And you should know that my facts are always negotiable. It is the burden I bear for being a moron. :) Update: I think I discovered the confusion. Go to the State Department budget for South Asia. For some reason, the document says that the 2003 request was zero dollars. Regardless, Krugman was explicitly talking about the 2004 budget (the one that just went before Congress), which certainly has plenty of money allocated for Afghanistan. Either there's a typo in the current budget, or the screwup occurred last year? Interesting... New update: Okay, I figured it out. Go to the actual FY 2003 budget for South Asia. It says that funding levels "have yet to be determined." In other words, the controversy occurred last year, and it wasn't that Bush never earmarked money for Afghanistan, it was that they were still trying to figure out how much to spend (eventually Afghanistan got about $300 million). Done and done. Krugman's wrong. Have a nice weekend. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.