[NYTr] Shell game - step-by-step on the Hill

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP

World Socialist Web Site -- 11 December 2007
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/dems-d11.shtml


DEMOCRATS PROPOSE DEAL TO EXTEND IRAQ WAR FUNDING

By Patrick Martin

Leading congressional Democrats have outlined plans for a deal with the 
Bush White House that would continue funding the US wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan without any restriction, in return for a pittance of 
additional spending on domestic social programs.

The proposal was made public by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in a 
colloquy on the floor of the House December 6 and then elaborated in an 
interview with the editorial board of the Washington Post published
that night on the newspaper's web site
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR20071

Hoyer said that the ongoing deadlock between the White House and
Congress over appropriations for the current fiscal year could be
resolved if Bush accepted about half the $22 billion increase in
domestic spending proposed by the Democrats, in return for
congressional agreement to provide emergency funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan without any deadline or timetable for withdrawal.

The arrangement would be similar to that worked out last spring, when 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed two separate votes on an emergency 
spending bill that combined war funding with an increase in the minimum 
wage.  Democrats wishing to strike an "antiwar" posture could vote
against the military funding, which passed with Republican votes. The
majority of each party switched sides on the minimum wage rise, but the
sizeable minority of House Democrats who voted for both measures
ensured final passage.

This month's deal is, if anything, even more cynical in its betrayal of 
the antiwar sentiments of millions of voters who put the Democrats in 
control of Congress 13 months ago. The Post noted in its report on
Hoyer's interview: "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."

Hoyer was unabashed in his endorsement of the Democratic capitulation
to Bush.  "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," he told the Post. "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 House reportedly will vote Tuesday on an omnibus spending bill 
providing over $500 billion for various federal departments, including
$30 billion for the war in Afghanistan. The Senate will then take up
the measure, adding $40 billion for the war in Iraq, and then both
houses will approve the resulting bill and send it on to the White
House.

The outlines of this deal were first suggested by Senate Republican
Leader Mitch McConnell, and both Hoyer and Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid have given their approval, pending White House agreement.

The principal opposition to the deal comes not from Democrats claiming 
opposition to the war, but from House Republicans who are adamant
against any spending increase for domestic social programs and believe
that the Bush administration should reject any compromise with the
Democrats. Both House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Minority
Whip Roy Blunt met with Bush last week and urged him to veto such a
bill.

Blunt told reporters that the Democrats would cave in on war funding
and that no concessions on domestic spending were necessary. "There's
no reason to make a bad bargain," he said. "The president holds all the 
cards."

Congressional Democrats have already reduced the price of their support 
for continued funding of the slaughter in Iraq from $22 billion--the
total increase in domestic spending above the White House budget
request--to $11 billion.  The likely result of the backroom wrangling
among the two parties is an even smaller increase, perhaps only a few
billion dollars, less than one percent of the budget, in return for an
extension of war funding through the end of Bush's presidency.

This is not simply an act of political surrender--that term would imply 
that the congressional Democrats actually wanted to halt the war but
were overawed by the power of a president who is a widely despised lame
duck. The truth is that Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid & Co. had absolutely no
intention of ending the war in Iraq, let alone doing so through a
confrontation with the White House.

Hoyer spelled this out most crudely, telling the Post editorial 
board--like him, a fervent supporter of the initial US invasion of
Iraq, "We have to get to a point where the American public more clearly 
perceives our policy position and is not confused by whether or not the 
Democrats intend to support the troops that we've sent to Iraq. I don't 
think there's an option on that."

This is the umpteenth iteration of the grotesque falsification that 
"support"  for the troops requires spending countless billions to
continue their maiming and death in Iraq, while escalating the mass
killing that has already taken the lives of more than a million Iraqi
civilians.

Another leading congressional Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, endorsed the proposed deal Friday,
saying, in reference to the emergency war spending, "One way or
another, there, I believe, will be bridge funding provided, and should
be."

Speaker Pelosi, who has not signed off on the final form of the 
appropriation bill, acknowledged that the House would approve the 
additional spending on the war in Afghanistan, the first step in the
deal. "There will probably be some level of addressing Afghanistan,"
she told reporters.  She said a Bush veto of the bill would be
"reckless."

Pelosi and Reid issued a joint statement declaring, "America expects
this president to lead--that means working in a bipartisan way with
Congress to responsibly address our country's priorities rather than
issuing veto threats without even knowing what he is threatening to
veto."

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin
Democrat, said he might abandon the effort to split the difference on
spending increases and simply pass a budget that pays for the increases
by cutting congressional earmarks and Bush administration spending
priorities. He voiced the fear that a deal to fund the war in return
for a small increase in domestic spending might produce a political
backlash against the Democrats from antiwar voters, saying, "I don't
see how we have any choice but to go to the president's numbers on
appropriations to make clear that we aren't going to link the war with
token funding on the domestic side."

Whatever the outcome of the legislative maneuvers, the Bush
administration has clearly taken the measure of its nominal opposition
in Congress. Vice President Cheney expressed his contempt in an
interview Thursday with politico.com, in which he gloated that the
congressional Democrats "had lost their spines. They are not carrying
the big sticks I would have expected."

Noting the Democrats' failure to accomplish anything in relation to 
curbing the war in Iraq, he said, "They've produced absolutely nothing 
that I can see that's of benefit or consistent with the promises that
they made when they went out and ran for election."

                               ***

The Washington Post - Dec 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120702550.html

HILL CLOSE TO DEAL ON WAR FUNDS -- Democrats Would Drop Iraq Timeline

By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane

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.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the first to suggest
to Hill Democrats the outlines of the pending deal on war funds for
Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the first to
suggest to Hill Democrats the outlines of the pending deal on war funds
for Iraq. (By Susan Walsh -- Associated Press)

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 Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the
deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30
billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military
needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund
the Iraq war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M.  Reid (D-Nev.)  then would allow 
Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the
spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.)  is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50
billion short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but
far less than the $196 billion Bush has sought.

The Senate-passed bill would then go to the House for final approval.

McConnell was the first to suggest the outlines of the deal, which
would allow Congress to pass the 11 remaining appropriations bills for
fiscal 2008. Hoyer said Democrats are ready to accept that bargain.

But the deal has a long way to go before it can be enacted. Reid and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed last month to oppose any
additional money for the Iraq war that does not come with a timeline
for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In talks this week with White House
Chief of Staff Joshua B.  Bolten and White House budget chief Jim
Nussle, Reid signaled that he could accept the McConnell deal,
according to Senate Democratic aides.  But Pelosi is uncommitted,
spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

Republican leaders are badly divided on the plan. At a White House
meeting this week, McConnell presented the proposal to Bush, but House
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Whip Roy
Blunt (R-Mo.) urged the president to reject it.

Even as Bush's approval ratings have slid to historic lows, House GOP 
leaders have stood by him, twisting the arms of rank-and-file
Republicans to uphold his vetoes of popular legislation, such as an
expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program and funding
increases for health care and education.

White House acquiescence now to increased domestic spending would be 
viewed as a betrayal by House Republicans who are trying to reestablish 
their credentials as small-government conservatives.

"I am adamantly opposed to it," Boehner said Thursday. "I came here to 
hold the line on spending, not to raise it."

Blunt said yesterday that Democrats will give in on war funding, with
or without additional money for domestic programs. "There's no reason
to make a bad bargain," he said. "The president holds all the cards."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the first to suggest
to Hill Democrats the outlines of the pending deal on war funds for
Iraq.

McConnell has been more circumspect in his public statements,
predicting that an omnibus spending bill will pass only if Bush gets
Iraq war funding with no timeline strings attached to it.

"We made our bright lines very clear," said Don Stewart, McConnell's 
spokesman.

Behind closed doors, McConnell has expressed confidence in the
Republican negotiating position, telling his GOP colleagues Thursday
that, by holding firm, they had moved from a Democratic offer of no
money for the war to at least $30 billion, according to a Republican in
the meeting.

"We're just going to sit right here,"  McConnell told Senate
Republicans of the negotiating strategy, according to the Republican,
who made anonymity a condition for speaking freely about an internal
meeting.

Senate Republican leadership aides said an additional $11 billion in 
domestic spending, plus drought relief, might be a hard sell in the 
Senate. One GOP aide said that the Democrats made a bargaining mistake 
last month when Reid signaled that the Democrats were willing to halve 
their initial request of $22 billion in additional domestic spending, 
setting "boundaries"  for the current debate in which $11 billion
serves as the new ceiling.

Regardless of the spending increases for veterans, health care,
education and other domestic priorities, however, several House
Democrats have said they will vote against any bill that includes war
funding shorn of policy prescriptions. Pelosi will have to attract
considerable Republican support to get the deal through.

Democratic leadership aides expressed confidence that Boehner and Blunt 
will not be able to keep enough Republicans away from a bill that funds 
the war, popular domestic programs and their own pet projects, known as 
earmarks. With a long holiday break beckoning, few lawmakers will be in 
the mood for a protracted standoff.

Ultimately, it will be up to Bush to decide whether to accept the deal. 
Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House's Office of Management 
and Budget, would not say how the president will proceed.

"Until we have seen a piece of legislation, it's really hard to
speculate, because not only had [the Democrats'] strategy been shifting
constantly, but we can't know whether or not the House and the Senate
are even talking to each other," he said.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the president's position has not 
changed.  He wants the war funds without strings, and he wants Congress
to toe his line on spending.

Hoyer struck a pragmatic tone, pushing for Congress to adjourn for the 
year by the end of next week. He suggested that Democrats need to
divorce their goal of ending the war from the battle over funding.

"We have to get to a point where the American public more clearly 
perceives our policy position and is not confused by whether or not the 
Democrats intend to support the troops that we've sent to Iraq. I don't 
think there's an option on that," Hoyer said.

                              ***

The Washington Post - Dec 11, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001615.html?hpid=moreheadlines

House Democrats Pull Budget Offer

The GOP Is Negotiating In Bad Faith, Obey Says

A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange
for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused 
Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to
the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet
projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities.
It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"When the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell
with it," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey. He said he will
push a stripped-down spending bill.

"Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable 
compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president's 
numbers,"  Obey said. "I was willing to listen to the argument that we 
ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House 
refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in
our eye, I say to hell with it."

House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on
a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for 
domestic programs above the president's request, half of what Democrats 
had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion
for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added
billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.

But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director
Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a
long standoff with the White House.

"If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they're smoking 
something illegal," he said.

Obey's proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state
projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown,
vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group.
Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects. Not all of
that money could be eliminated, however. The budget of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is parceled out as home-district projects, and
Congress has no intention of eliminating the Army Corps.

Obey would not specify where the remaining billions would come from to 
reach Bush's bottom line, beyond saying the money would be shaved from
the president's priorities.  One possibility would be funding for
abstinence education. Other targets could be nuclear weapons research
and development in the Energy Department, NASA programs and
high-technology border security efforts that have come under criticism
for being wasteful and ineffective, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for
Common Sense.

Obey's proposal did not move the White House to negotiate, spokesman
Tony Fratto said.  "Different day, different Democrat, different
direction. Our position hasn't changed," Fratto said.

House Republican leaders would be happy to take Obey's offer on
spending, GOP aides said yesterday. But rank-and-file lawmakers from
both parties could revolt. Home-district projects -- known as earmarks
-- were stripped from the fiscal 2007 spending bills early this year,
after Democrats took control of Congress and hastily disposed of budget
bills their Republican predecessors had not passed. Earmarks were also
eliminated from the 2006 appropriations bill that funded labor, health
and education programs, the biggest domestic spending bill of the year.

"There are a lot of people who were very disappointed last year when 
nobody got any earmarks. If they do it again for the second year in a
row, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow," said Rep. Ray LaHood
(R-Ill.), an appropriator who complained that he could lose $400,000 he
needs for the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial celebration, slated to begin
Feb. 12.

LaHood is not the only Republican appropriator who is angry at the
White House and at GOP leaders who have refused to negotiate with
Democrats on domestic spending levels. In recent days, Rep. David L.
Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee in
charge of energy and water projects, had a heated discussion with House
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), arguing that Boehner should
come off his hard line.

Rep.  James T.  Walsh (N.Y.), another senior Republican appropriator,
took to the House floor to argue: "If the proposal is to split the
difference, to reduce the amount of spending above the president's
request by $11 billion, I would advise the president to take yes for an
answer."

But most Republicans are expected to fall in line, as the GOP
leadership pushes to regain the mantle of small-government
conservatism.  Rep.  Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), another member of the
Appropriations Committee, said Republican lawmakers will face no
political jeopardy for not bringing money home for their districts,
because they can simply blame Democrats.

"The smartest thing for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to do is to
realize the White House always wins these spending contests," he said,
advising her to "cut your losses, get out of town and say Bush is still
relevant" to the legislative process.

That still leaves the war-funding issue unresolved.  Democratic
leadership aides on Capitol Hill concede that at some point,
Republicans can add some money for Iraq as a stripped-down spending
bill winds through Congress. But plans for a quick end to the showdown
appear to be fading.

"It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent 
increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for
foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war while
asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally 
irresponsible,"  Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C.
Byrd (D-W.Va.) said.