Battles looming over ways to pay growing war costs

WASHINGTON - President Obama's decision to send more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan ensures what already was inevitable: The cost of the wars there and in Iraq is about to exceed $1 trillion.

And members of Congress are unsure how to pay for the conflicts.

The new Afghan strategy will cost at least $30 billion more than current spending, and the majority Democrats were divided yesterday on what to do.

Key leaders rejected a proposal from liberal members to impose a "war tax" that would hit workers earning as little as $30,000 year, but also offered no plan of their own on how to go forward.

The divisions were reflected in reactions from members of the Philadelphia-area delegation. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) came out bluntly against the Afghan surge, while Sen. Ted Kaufman (D., Del.) was supportive of the president's plan.

"This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit," Specter said in a news release. He added that "if al-Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?"

Kaufman, also in a news release, expressed his support particularly for "the president's emphasis on transferring control to the Afghan security forces."

A similar expression of support came from Rep. Joe Sestak, who is seeking Specter's Senate seat.

"After years of war and with economic challenges at home, the American people are justified in their concern about an increased commitment in Afghanistan. But the president has made the right call," Sestak said in a statement.

Before leaving for West Point, Obama huddled with about 30 top lawmakers from both parties at the White House, winning support from key Republicans for the new strategy.

"Republicans are going to be supportive of funding for these troops," Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said after the meeting.

But he rejected any calls for increased taxes and instead urged Obama to pare money going to federal agencies, many of which are slated to receive double-digit increases in funding for fiscal 2010.

Other Republicans called for using unspent stimulus funds.

GOP support could be critical to the new strategy's success on Capitol Hill, where overall cost concerns have grown in the run-up to Obama's announcement.

Congress is just days from approving the annual Pentagon spending bill, which already includes $130 billion in annual funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once that bill is approved, the Pentagon's total tab for the two wars will come to more than $1 trillion since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Just a third of those funds have gone to the Afghan front, but that region is quickly becoming the most expensive battleground. If the new funding is approved, the total cost for next year's operations in Afghanistan will come to $100 billion.

That's up from $43 billion for fiscal 2008 and $55 billion for fiscal 2009, according to the research service.

Obama's new proposal would place a total of more than 200,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. If troop levels remain at an average of 75,000 through the next decade, it will cost an additional $867 billion for the operations in the two countries - more than the $848 billion health-care legislation the Senate is considering.

While Congress has waged extended fights in previous years over paying for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan with supplemental funding legislation, more recently the costs have been included in annual defense-budget requests.

Obama's latest troop request is not included in the Pentagon's budget, which appears likely to open a new round of debate over funding.

Liberal Democrats, who largely oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, argued that the new troop deployment would crowd out funding for other domestic spending priorities.

Led by House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D., Wis.), they have vowed to force a new tax to finance the war, setting up a confrontation with other Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.), the House majority leader, vowed to find ways to fund the war effort but declined any specifics.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) promised antiwar Democrats last spring that they would not have to vote on another war-funding supplemental appropriation, something they were keenly aware of yesterday.