Budgetary politics and government fiscal decision-making

Budgetary Politics

The United States of America has long grappled with the problem of drugs and has form time to time initiated measures to combat the usage and trafficking of drugs. It is common knowledge that the various wars that have been part of the combat program of several administrations have failed miserably despite the availability of a great deal of resources, added to the colossal funding process. This is in addition to the numerous governmental agencies that operate to curb the drug trade and trafficking. Though the threat of drug usage and illegal trade is looming large, the danger is not always as proportionate as it is painted.

A certain amount of exaggeration that goes along factual details so as to create a sense of grave emergency that would work out to political benefits. But it cannot also be regarded that the threat of drugs and their usage is illusionary. While there is a real and potential threat of the usage and trafficking of drugs, there is the need to crack down upon those practices. But the portraying of a picture that translates to mean a national emergency that needs to be addressed to with immediate effect is at many times more hype and hoopla than accumulation of facts.

The war on drugs, although initiated way back in the period of President Richard Nixon, gained momentum only with the beginning of the year 1980. It should not be assumed that no significant moves were made or strategic results achieved prior to this period. Illegal drug trade in the United States is attributed to a number of factors such as including consumer demand, sources of supply, the organizational strengths and adaptability of criminal groups, and the ability of law enforcement agencies to tackle and take apart drug distribution networks. The 1980s witnessed a rampant trafficking process that upset law enforcement agencies across the United States. A notable transformation in the drug trafficking within the United States was the unbridled growth of cocaine trafficking and abuse.

During the 1980s the supply of Cocaine was so huge and regular that it put off the demand for synthetic drug and phencyclidine or PCP. This era witnessed the consolidation of the cartels in Columbia, Mexico and Spain. In the 1990s Mexico emerged as a strong base for drug traffickers and abusers alike. It was also used as a transit route to smuggle drugs into the United States. This was a time period which saw the Columbian drug trafficking cartels increasing relying on Mexican and Dominican trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs into the United States. Back in Columbia a hundred and fifty odd groups had been traced during the period operating within and across Bogota and Medellin.

Apart from the cartels alone, terrorist groups in Columbia such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Army of national Liberation (ELN) also benefited from the drug trade. By the year 1998 Heroin from South East Asia dominated the East Coast heroin market. Subsequently, Mexico earned the distinction of having become the largest supplier of drugs to the United States. In the year 2002, many DEA identifies cocaine as the primary illicit drug of concern. The Southwest border of the United States has been identified as the weak link in terms of border security. Analyses indicate that over 60% of cocaine that comes into the United States makes its way into the mainland across the Southwest border.

It has also been noted that smuggling is being done in smaller loads as opposed to the conventional method of huge container traffic. Officials observe that not a great deal has changed in the pattern and method of drug trafficking in the light of the events of September 11, 2001. Drug trafficking has become relatively easier owing to technological change and the usage of the internet and other sophisticated communication devices that are virtually untraceable. While law enforcement agencies across the United States are engaged in a daily battle to root out the trafficking process and arrest the influx of drugs, traffickers on the other hand are usually a step further in having engineered new techniques that would ensure a smooth and safe trafficking operation which has evolved into a full fledged industry worth several billion dollars. (DEA Resources for law enforcement agencies, Intelligence Reports)

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is the premier institution in-charge of formulating and inking plans and strategies to counter drug trafficking and abuse. As per several statistics collected by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), federal spending on programs aimed at drug control have rise sharply from $1.5 billion in the year 1985 to a massive $18.5 billion in the year 2000. Given below are a series of tables illustrating the breakup of the federal drug control budget in terms of cost, function and local spending.

Table #1: Total Federal Drug Control Budget

Cost

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)]

In the above table, it can well be noted that the funding made by the federal government has been on the rise since the fiscal year 1981. Not at any point of time has there been a decrease in the funding no matter however insignificant though. The pattern has indicated a very sharp rise over the year from $1.5 billion in the year 1981 to a colossal $18.5 billion in the year 2000.

Table #2: Federal Drug Control Budget by Function

Area

Drug treatment

Drug prevention

Criminal justice

International

Interdiction

Research

Intelligence

South America

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)]

The above table indicates various heads, rather areas of function under which the federal government spent money. They can be identified as drug treatment, drug prevention, criminal proceedings and justice, international funding, funding to facilitate interdiction, research and analysis, intelligence gathering and funding programs in South America. The sum total spent on all these heads in the fiscal year 1999 adds up to a massive $17,711,200,000 while the amount spent on the same functions in the next fiscal year 2000 sums up to $18,455,000,000.

It is to be noted that in the year 1999, the federal government did not spend any amount on funding drug control programs in South America. Therefore a null figure has been provided as against that head for that year.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), $15.9 billion was spent by state and local governments on drug control measures and programs during the year 1991 alone. This figure is tagged to be a 13% increase over the $14.1 billion that was spent in the year 1990. Given hereunder is a table indicating the State and local spending for drug control.

Table #3: State and local spending for drug control.

Area

Justice

Police protection

Judicial and legal

Corrections

Health and hospitals

Education

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)] (Drug Control Budget: U.S. 1981-2000)

Given hereunder is a graph indicating the federal spending aimed at drug control measures and programs on a functional break up from the year 1992 to the year 2000.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)] (National Drug Control Strategy - 2001 - ONDCP)

In the United States, currently there are over 2.1 million people behind bars incarcerated due to drug related offences. In the year 2003 alone the Federal government spent $20 billion in its fights against drugs. Another $20 billion were spent by local and state governments in their crusade against drugs. In the United States a drug related arrest is made every twenty seconds. In the year 2003, drug related arrests in the United States have touched 1,579,566.

Despite these huge and appealing statistics from the government's own research that indicates that the taxpayer's money is being put to extensive use in fighting the war on terror even better than before, a simple fact remains bothersome and notable that the use of drugs has not yet been dissuaded. A study indicates that over 91 million Americans have used an illegal drug or related substance at least once in their lifetime. This is a representation of 41% of the population in the United States aged 12 and above. The African-American population of the United States which is estimated at 13% accounts for 13% of drug users.

However, due to a largely racist battle in the drug front, they account for 55% of drug related convictions. The drug war has of late taken a more racist turn and in the process has ended up destroying millions of American families despite a massive spending of a few billion dollars. Over time the government of the United States of America has spent more than $2.5 billion on combating the drug influence being exported courtesy Colombia. The program aims at reducing the inflow of drugs from the Colombian mainland into the United States territory. A huge amount of money and resources are systematically being exhausted on the program which comprises of spraying poisonous chemicals agents on fields that engage in the growing of coca plants in Colombia. While the program is aimed at destroying crops that produce illegal substances, on another front it is also responsible for the destruction of a large quantity of legitimate crops and livestock that are the chief providers of revenue to the Colombian people.

It has also been reported that the chemical being used in the process, Roundup Ultra, has made many people, especially children, sick with respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal diseases. Roundup Ultra is being manufactured by the renowned chemical giant Monsanto. It is the very same company that manufactured the infamous Agent Orange that was used in operations by the United States armed forces in Vietnam. The United States government being the chief buyer of Roundup Ultra spends millions of dollars acquiring it. Despite all efforts to contain the drug trade and proliferation, not a great deal has been achieved in curtailing the process back in the United States. This means that all the money and resources that are being exhausted in fighting the drug war is more of a waste than a measure that yields concrete results. (U.S. RI: Edu Column: What are we fighting for?)

The National Drug Control Policy of the United States formulated by the President of the United States and his administration is the foremost framework that oversees drug control programs and measures that are put in place. The National Drug Control Strategy for the year 2003 outlines a very ambitious and determined plan to reduce drug usage and proliferation by 10% over a period of two years and by 25% over a span of three years. It is also based on a new initiative funding of $600 million over a period of three years which aims at expanding contact to substance abuse treatment and at the very same time driving a renewed sense of accountability into the entire system. For the fiscal year 2004 the National Drug Control Strategy, proposes a budget of $11.7 billion aimed at drug control.

This latest budget is aimed at adhering to the Drug Control Strategy's three foremost priorities which are thus; stopping drug use before it starts Healing America's drug users and Disrupting the widespread drug market. This ambitious plan is intended to merge national leadership with community-level action to win the war on drugs. The President's budget thus backs up this goal with a $10 million increase in funding for the expanded Drug-Free Communities Support Program, along with providing $5 million for a new Parents Drug Corps. While there are new methods and measures in place, one can observe the increased funding allocation despite not having achieved many concrete results in the past.

It is ridiculous to assume that increased spending can aid to arresting the proliferation of drugs and their usage. Among other things, the strategy also calls for measures such as student drug testing in communities where parents and teachers consider them to be appropriate. A funding allocation for this program has been made at $8 million for the fiscal year 2004. In total, for the year 2004, the United States administration proposes $3.6 billion for drug treatment. This figure is an increase of 8.2% of that which was spent in the year 2003. In addition to this allocation, the fiscal year 2004 request includes a fresh funding of $200 million ($600 million over three years) for a program known as Recovery Now.

This program is aimed at providing drug treatment to people who may not be able to avail the programs already in place. While this can be regarded as a community assistance program, it is doubtless that the measure imposes a huge financial burden on the administrations funding mechanism and the exchequer of the United States. A further $2.1 billion for drug interdiction has been proposed in order to achieve border security and curtail influx. This is an increase of 7.3% from 2003. Apart from all the above, the Administration has put in a request for an additional funding of $731 million in dedicated funds in the year 2004 for the proposed Andean Counter-drug Initiative (ACI) to be applied in countries such as Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. An aggregate of all the requests put together may well exceed a few billion dollars. It is quite puzzling to note the legitimacy of this extravagant and at times exaggerated funding policy. (The National Drug Control Strategy)

Given below are two tables outlining the current administration's spending.

Table #4: National Drug Control Budget Summary. Drug Control Funding: Agency Summary. FY 2002-FY 2004 (Budget Authority in Millions).

Particulars / Departments in detail

FY 2002

Final

FY 2003

Request

FY 2004

Request

Department of Defence (1)

Department of Education

Dept. Of Health & Human Services

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

Total, HHS

Department of Homeland

Security

Border and Transportation Security (2)

U.S. Coast Guard

Total, DHS

Department of Justice

Bureau of Prisons

Drug Enforcement Administration

Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (3)

Office of Justice Programs

Total, DOJ

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Operations

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program

Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

Other Federal

Drug Control Programs

Total, ONDCP

Department of State

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement

Affairs

Department of Veterans Affairs

Veterans Health Administration

Presidential Initiatives (4)

Total, Federal Drug Budget

Footnotes:

1) Department of Defence: The FY 2003 funding level for the Department of Defense reflects enacted appropriations.

2) Border and Transportation Security: Drug Control components displayed includes the U.S. Customs Service and the Border Patrol.

3) Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement: The FY 2004 Budget proposes the merger of the Treasury ICDE account into Justice's ICDE account. This merger is reflected in a retrospective manner.

4) Other Presidential initiatives: This includes $5 million for the Corporation for National Service's Parents Drug Corps beginning in FY 2003 and $3 million for SBA's Drug-Free Workplace programs for all three fiscal years.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy - National Drug Control Strategy, The United States of America](The National Drug Control Strategy)

Table #5: Federal Drug Control Spending By Function. FY 2002-FY 2004. (Budget Authority in Millions)

FY 2002

Final

FY 2003

Request

FY 2004

Request

FY 03-FY 04

Change

Function:

Treatment (w / Research)

Percent

Prevention (w / Research)

Percent

Domestic Law Enforcement

Percent

Interdiction

Percent

International

Percent

Supply / Demand Split:

Supply

Percent

Demand

Percent

Footnote: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy - National Drug Control Strategy, The United States of America]

The above tables indicate a very sharp rise in funding of existing and newly created programs aimed at drug control. There are marked differences in percentages when compared to previous years. The administrations are bent upon increasing funding of the program and add new courses that are aimed to broaden the fight against drugs on different forefronts. While there have been extensive requests and their responses being extremely favourable, one wonders if there is any requirement of the extensively added list of functions and portfolios at all in the very first place. Apart from creating a sense of extreme urgency and widespread danger that needs to be addressed with no loss of time and resources, very little tangible results are known to have been achieved as a result of all these elaborately planned and funded operations.

All these long lists that have been created in the cozy comfort of the administration's stronghold are no doubt aimed at strengthening national security and addressing threats that are in fact detrimental to the American economy and society alike. With congressional appropriation subcommittees and other regulatory bodies sanctioning an increase in funds with the change of a fiscal year, one is forced to wonder if at all there has been an element of decadence in all these elaborate and sophisticated agenda of the government. Questions related to the massive failure of operations and the administration's inability to contain drug usage question the legitimacy of extended and increased funding.

While the administration calls for increased and renewed funding of its efforts on the war on drugs a look at some truly startling figures proves beyond doubt the ulterior motive of the people who run the government. A study has indicated that virtually every part of the federal government has benefited extensively due to the increased funding under the banner 'War on Drugs.' It seems that the annual average budget allocation of $20 billion goes along way and has extensive aims other than mere fighting off drug trafficking, proliferation and usage. The United States and the administration have an allocated annual spending of $50 billion on prisons.

It is estimated that a quarter of all prisoners are drug related offenders. Every year courts across the United States force more than 20,000 people into drug treatment programs. Statistics indicate that 37% of all drug treatments are warranted by the courts. Furthermore, 51.7% of marijuana treatment admissions are directed by the courts. While a staggering amount of $5.9 billion is being put to use in testing for drug usage, the results are flaccidly poor. Experts are of the opinion that the drug testing industry must be replaced with procedures of impairment testing.

Profits of the Pharmaceutical and Alcohol industries are protected by medical and social usage of marijuana respectively. Illegal money from drug trade has profited banks in a great deal. Apart from bankers, military suppliers and contractors profit extensively from the budget allocations made for the war on drugs. Manufacturers of herbicides and other poisonous chemicals, helicopters and other related material that are put to use in the operations against drugs enjoy a huge profit margin from the $2 billion spent annually by the United States administration in the name of foreign interventions which has now become a standard module of operations under the war on drugs. All this makes a person wonder if at all any concerted effort is being made on the front other than numerous and never ending requests to increase the allocation of funding.

The general attitude of policy makers and the administration is that more funding would help a great deal to root out the evils of drug trafficking, proliferation and usage. They are of the opinion that current levels of sanctioned allocations and funding are grossly ineffective to pursue their ambitions plans and operations that could almost certainly strengthen national security. In reality, the reverse seems to be true. Extensive amount of money and resources are being systematically exhausted in the name of drug wars. Every administration that has taken the responsibility of governing the United States seems to have a very clear and closely related opinion on the war on drugs which is the necessity for increased and extended funding. Why otherwise would the pattern of funding be on the rise for decades together? (Are we addicted to drug money?)

The Bill Clinton administration during its tenure in office implemented a new paradigm in the war on drugs. Rather than countering the influx of drugs in the streets of America, this new 'marvelously thought out' idea seems to have made an exactly opposite impact. Added to this blunder it also promised to reduce the teeming numbers of federal government enforcement personnel. With an additional funding of an 'extra' $300 million, the administration put in place a National Drug Testing System that has witnessed the federal funding triple since the year 1988 to about $2.5 billion annually. The irony was not the issue of funding but accessibility rather. During its time of operations then, it served very a little number of drug dependent individuals and has failed in its central agenda which is to reduce the population of drug addicts in the United States.

The inconsistencies of the Clinton administration were well noted and the University of Michigan published a report that detailed the alarming rise in the use of drugs by teenagers. Nine days after the publishing of that report, the administration swung into action and proposed a "new" drug strategy that was based on four major principles thus; Reducing hardcore drug use through treatment, Ensuring safe and drug-free schools by improving prevention efforts, Empowering communities to combat drug-related violence and crime; and Increasing international programs in source countries and reducing interdiction in drug-transit zones. With the 'new' proposition came the request for. No sooner had the drafts of the new strategy been released, a budget proposition had also come alongside promptly. A drug control budget request for fiscal year 1995 totaling $13.2 billion was made; this figure was $1.1 billion more than the $12.1 billion enacted for FY 1994 which was an increase of 9%.

The Clinton administration listed out areas where it sought increased funding. These can be identified as thus; drug prevention which needed $448 million, an increase of 28%, drug treatment needed an extra $360 million which was an increase of 14%, drug-related criminal justice spending supposedly required an additional $227 million which was an increase of 4%, funding for international programs needed $76 million, an increase of 22% and lastly; drug-related research needed further funding of $27 million which was a 5% increase. It is common knowledge that the Clinton administration did very little to counter drug trafficking and proliferation during its years in the executive office.

During the initial days of the administration, as early as days after the inauguration, President Clinton shifted the National Anti-drugs office in the White House to a backwater. It is indeed ironical that a President who had no concrete policy on combating the trafficking, proliferation and usage of drugs almost suddenly took a U. turn after a report published by a reputed university made waves in the media and opposition circles. What is more paradoxical is the request for increase funding allocation to the tune of over $1.1 billion. In truth the budget was more eyewash than a required combination of rationale and practicality. (How the Clinton Administration is abandoning the war against drugs)

In his state of the union address on January 2004, George W. Bush pointed out that the administration aimed at getting the American children to "just say no" drugs and illegal substances. He cited a considerable decline in the usage of drugs and illegal substances among teenagers in the United States. During the illustration he lost little time and opportunity in attributing this decline to the random drug testing program initiated by the administration. Subsequently, the President proposed an amount of $23 million to schools who may choose to use this 'result oriented' program. What followed was the introduction of the HR 3720 in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Peterson (R-5th/PA), thereby providing grants under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to all those schools that organize random drug testing of all students.

However, experts are of the opinion that proposals that drive the HR 3720 are based on rickety postulations and political impulse rather than concrete evidence and scientific study. Thoughtful examinations instead disclose that random drug testing does not actually discourage drug use; on the contrary it is known to alienate students. It is widely believed that this ambitious and hugely funded program may not altogether serve the very purpose it has been instituted for. A federally funded survey that was conducted in the year 2003 indicated comparisons between schools with and without random drug testing programs. The results proved to be quite astonishing although they were expected to be so. It was determined that there was absolutely no difference in the usage of drugs and illegal substances between students in drug testing and non-drug testing schools.

At present, only 5% of American schools employ methods of drug testing. It is thus widely believed that the Bush administrations illustrious drug testing program to be coordinated with the effort of school authorities is a failure in the making. Many schools which currently employ drug testing mechanisms find the practice to be exorbitantly expensive. For instance, School authorities of a school in Ohio have cancelled the program for want of cost effectiveness. They argue that of 1,473 students tested at $24 each, 11 tested positive, for a total cost of $3,200 per "positive" student. This has prompted them to cancel the program and with the savings the school has employed a full time counselor who provides prevention programs for all 3,581 students enrolled in the school. (AlterNet: No Silver Bullet)

There are a dozen government agencies with huge expendable resources that are involved in several thousand operations unified against the war on drugs. To name a few; The Drug Enforcement and Administration (DEA), Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), National Security Agency (NSA), United States Coast Guard (USCG), United States Customs and so on. It is indeed a shame to note than despite huge interagency cooperation and substantive funding, the war on drugs is yet to deliver any tangible result. What is thought of to be the government's inability to control the trafficking, proliferation and usage of drugs is in truth its utter disregard to counter the threat in the very first place coupled with its ulterior motive to benefit from the proliferation of drugs and their usage.

The issue current remains as to who really is profiteering from the war on drugs. According to experts, a great deal of governmental agencies who have little role in truth, created on a very make-belief basis are transformed into cash rich bureaucratic organizations and strong arms of the government in the crusade against drugs. This is the primary reason that is attributed to the continued 'commitment' to fight against the proliferation of drugs. Apart from that, the whole operation has a very conniving and devious agenda. The war against drugs is being fought against countries such as Colombia, Mexico and other Latin American nations. Fighting the war in Colombia is on a very different and secretive paradigm than what is actually portrayed. Drugs are truly not the only motivation to fight in the poverty stricken country that has a tumultuous economy.

In truth the United States in involved in the business of controlling the economy of Colombia and other Latin American nations by hard policies of Neo-liberalism. It is a known fact that countries such as Colombia are heavily indebted to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Added to the costly and cumbersome crusade against the war on drugs the economies of many countries have been drained with time. Draconian policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank state that subsidies for farmers are illegal and unfair. This is strangely unidirectional and applies to farmers in Colombia and not the United States where agribusinesses stand to receive massive public subsidies. These extremely biased policies have resulted in a process of "reverse land reform" in Colombia in view of the fact that poor Colombian farmers cannot compete with huge U.S. agribusiness.