Funding War with Supplemental Appropriations
Abstract
The United States has funded Global War on Terror efforts using supplemental appropriations (or separate titles within base appropriations) over multiple years. In the recent past major contingencies generally were funded initially with supplemental appropriations but later funded with base appropriations. The transition usually happened within a year or two once requirements became known or reasonably predictable. Congress has been pushing to shift war on terror funding from supplemental appropriations (and separate titles) to base appropriations as integral components. Yet the administration has sent signals it favors continuing to fund the war with supplemental (or emergency) appropriations. Consequently, there has been much debate over how to fund war efforts. How should our nation fund war efforts; should the nation fund wars with supplemental appropriations (or separate titles within base appropriations) or fund them with base appropriations? This paper explores this question by examining the debate over using supplemental appropriations how the nation has funded wars in the past the advantages and disadvantages of using supplemental funding and considerations when contemplating supplemental funding. It concludes that supplemental appropriations are useful for funding war when used appropriately.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Feb 27, 2008
- Accession Number
- ADA478408
Entities
People
- Bradley K. Dreyer
Organizations
- United States Army War College