A Bad Deal
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Congress | Policy | The Appropriations Process | White House — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm against this:
House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.
In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.
Read on.
If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.
"The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a very relevant player," Hoyer said. "Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result."
The deal is primarily being driven on the Republican side by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, whose plan would give the military $70 billion of funding--more than the Democrats' proposal of $50 billion but less than the White House's desired $196 billion. I think that Congressional Democrats are under more pressure to pass an appropriations bill that gives American troops the support and funding that they need than the Administration is to approve $11 billion more in domestic spending than they have called for. The President should work to ensure that Republicans did not sign on to this plan and that a clean funding bill--one independent of the $11 billion in extra spending--was passed. And if you read further in the story, you will find that the House Republican leadership is urging the President to do just that.
« Bank of America's Bailout Bill — Comments (13) | Democrats' War on American Jobs — Comments (2) »
A Bad Deal 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Pejman, you are a real [expletive deleted — rah]. I can't believe you're complaining about spending $11B more domestically instead of $100B more for the war
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Good riddance.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Eh, I'm against it, but the troops come first. If he needs it to spend on the troops, and he can't get it without delaying what they need, I'd sign it.
I don't know the ends and outs of how the funding works. If he can veto it and still force the D's to pass a troop funding bill, then great, if not, he's gotta bite the bullet.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
in it for the Iraq War until Jan 09. I do not want to hear Reid or Pelosi on this subject ever again until the next President is seated.
They are weasely and disgusting and having to go through this "drama" every 4-6 months is to much for the public to bear.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
...to contribute here?
If not, I suggest you move on to a site more your speed! Kos, MyDD or DU -- you pick...
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Fair enough, Steve, I will try to be more constructive with my comments in the future. But I do have to insist that it is overly melodramatic when someone says that a political drama is 'too much for the public to bear.'
You were already banned once, then you made a new account. I don't see a "next time" in your future.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Fund the war one week at a time. I'd LOVE to see the dems back down and lose 50+ more times. It's more entertaining than anything hollywood is coming out with right now.
==== 13 ====
Bush is suggesting that he'll cave on 11 billion in exchange for less than half of what he requested for the war.
If he's going to make a compromise by giving away something in order to get what he wants, he should at least get all of it. Right now the Democrats have much less leverage to get their spending than the President does to get his - so he should insure that he gets the full (or nearly the full) amount he asked for before he starts accepting more domestic spending.
I enjoy seeing the Dems go down in flames every few months.
Its as if no one in their party ever bothered to read The Prince. Instead of getting the pain over quickly and in one short order so it can be forgotten about, they have chosen to prolong it and make certain the wounds fester.
To borrow from Napoleon "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There's no reason to let the Dems off-the-hook that easy. They made this bed...
Given the apparent success of the surge and the recent turn-around in Iraq, insisting on a clean funding bill for the troops may not be the most expedient path, but it will certainly be the most politically advantageous for the troops, the president and the GOP.
The Democrats' position in untenable, and their anti-war base is the ultimate loser in this battle
President Bush should tailor his future request for supplemental spending so that this battle is fully engaged in October 2008.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
but every place I've been, from Georgia to Arizona, has been in a "drought" for my entire life. Do people need to adjust their expectations? Is this a result of population growth? Bad statistics?
I'm not impressed by the mortgage crisis or the federal response either.