They're an ally. It's no different than our offering a billion to Britain or Japan. We spent far more than that rebuilding Europe after World War II, and we'll spend that much rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Iran (when they finally throw off the mullahs). That's part of what government is for. I'd rather have them spending our tax dollars on important things rather than trying to force less than mediocre cradle to grave goverment-run socialism on everyone, whether they want it or not.

It's understandable that you would be upset by the VP making such a statement / promise, and in one sense it isn't "right", because the VP doesn't write checks: he can't actually deliver that money himself. However, as a representative of the Executive branch of the government, he does speak for "the public" when he states an intent to deliver aid of one kind or another, whether military, diplomatic, economic assistance of one kind or another -- or cash, in some cases. "The public" doesn't vote on every expenditure of the government, as is done in some (small) town meetings. Nothing would ever get done that way. Which may be a great argument in favor of doing more things that way, in fact. But it's no way to run a government. In the second place, Dick Cheney doesn't make such promises and declarations unilaterally. Even he would be out on his ear if he did. Dick Cheney is speaking "on behalf of" the president and the entire Executive branch. Finally, the Executive branch doesn't actually get to provide funds on an ongoing basis. That would be up to Congress to vote into the budget. As emergency or humanitarian aid, the Executive does have some leeway to provide funds and aid for such an extraordinary event as storm and natural disaster aid -- and invasion by a powerful neighboring country such as Russia.