[NYTr] Blank-Check Demsocrats: The Great War-Funding Conspiracy

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

See also:

"And in the Real World, House Votes Nearly $700 Billion for Military"
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20071210/072878.html


Counterpunch - Dec 13, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12132007.html

Blank Check Democrats:

The Great War Funding Conspiracy

By RON JACOBS

Okay. I'm going to state the obvious here. After all, somebody needs to
say it. In fact, everybody who sees it needs to say it. Are you ready?
Then here goes. The men and women calling themselves Democrats and
sitting in Congress are the biggest bunch of liars this country has
ever seen. Given today's political situation, what with Bush and Cheney
running the White House, that's a pretty big claim to make.
Unfortunately for those who believed those men and women might actually
stop the war in Iraq and begin getting the US military out of there,
this is the only conclusion one can make.

I mean, take a look. There are more troops in Iraq now than there were
when the Democrats won (yeh, won) both houses of Congress a little over
a year ago. If my calculations are correct, more than $100 billion have
been spent to keep those troops there, keep them in supplies both
lethal and otherwise, and to top it off, more troops have died since
those elected "representatives" took their places than in any other
year of this loathsome war and occupation. Add to this list of
calamities the untold numbers of Iraqis killed, wounded and uprooted
from their homes. No matter how you look at it, there is no way this
can be called ending the war. In fact, not only could it be called
enabling this debacle to continue, the more truthful description would
be to call what the Democrats have done is conspire to commit murder.

Their partners in the conspiracy-the White House, the Pentagon and
their GOP supporters-have been true to their word. They promised that
they would stay in Iraq until their goals were reached, no matter how
many lives it took. Even without an elected majority in Congress, this
element of the conspiracy has received every bit of money, every single
GI and marine, and almost every bit of positive media spin they have
asked for. This could not have occurred without the collusion of the
Democrats.

As I write this, another alleged attempt by Congressional Democrats to
begin bringing home a sizable minority of troops from Iraq seems to be
going the way of every other previous attempt. That is, to the dustbin
of history. The reasons given this time by the Democrats are as
pathetic as those provided previously. You know the litany: they don't
have the votes, the GOP is threatening a filibuster if the troop
withdrawal limits are attached to the bill, they don't want to harm the
troops in the field, and so on. Now I don't know about you, but isn't
leaving the troops in the war zone more dangerous than bringing them
home? Furthermore, if the Republicans can filibuster a spending bill to
prevent the inclusion of elements in the bill that they don't like,
can't the majority Democrats also filibuster that same bill to make
sure those same elements are included?

I mean, we're not talking about halting funding for the war and
occupation and bringing the troops home starting tomorrow here, even
though that is what we should be talking about. No, we're talking about
a bill that essentially suggests to Mr. Bush that he take $50 billion
more for the war and start thinking about bringing some of the troops
home as soon as possible with the idea that a good number of them are
no longer in Iraq by December 2008. That's not a hell of a lot to ask
for. Yet, the Democrats are backing off from this lily-livered
legislation and planning on giving the White House another $50 billion
with no strings attached, not even the silly string of the
aforementioned withdrawal suggestion. To top it off, the Democrats are
telling the press that it's the Republican's fault that they refuse to
stand their ground.

"We've tried maybe a dozen times" to bring troops home, said Sen. Carl
Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "And
when we do try and we don't succeed, we still provide funding for the
troops." In other words, they still provide monies for the war. If the
Boston Red Sox had this attitude, they would never have made it to the
World Series in 2004 and 2007. But then again, baseball teams don't
conspire with their competition to get to the championship, they play
them harder than they are being played because they truly want to win.
If the Democrats truly wanted to end the war, they would stand up to
the challenges of the war supporters across the aisle and in the White
House. Instead, they hedge their bets, blame their opponents for their
failures, and vote for more war. All of which makes it harder for those
of us who truly oppose the war and occupation to vote for any of them.

[Ron Jacobs is author of "The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the
Weather Underground," which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay
on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music,
art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame
Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at:
rjacobs3625 at charter.net ]

                               ***

Sent by MichaelP

[Can't tell what this PHRASE means -- "The good news for Democrats is
that their concession on overall spending brings them significantly closer
to enacting into law a range of spending priorities." -M.]


The Hill - Dec 13, 2007
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-cave-on-spending-2007-12-13.html

Dems cave on spending

By Alexander Bolton

Senate and House Democrats backed down Wednesday from a spending
showdown with President Bush.

The Democrats’ capitulation Wednesday on the total domestic spending
level is the latest instance of Bush prevailing on a major policy
showdown. Bush and his Senate Republican allies have repeatedly beat
back efforts by Democrats to place restrictions on funding for the war
in Iraq as well as Democratic attempts to expand funding of children’s
health insurance by $35 billion.

Democratic leaders said Wednesday that they would keep total spending
at the strict $933 billion limit set by the White House. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also abandoned a proposal she supported Tuesday
to eliminate lawmakers’ earmarks from spending bills after she faced
stiff opposition from powerful fellow Democrats.  

Pelosi told the Democratic chairmen of the House Appropriations
subcommittees, the so-called cardinals, that earmarks would stay in the
omnibus and that Democratic leaders would accede to cut spending to
levels demanded by Bush to save 11 spending bills from a veto, said
sources familiar with a meeting that took place in Pelosi’s office
early Wednesday morning.

The Democratic cardinals rebelled against a plan suggested by
Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to save $9.5
billion by slashing earmarks. Obey hoped to use the money to minimize
cuts to domestic programs important to Democrats.

Pelosi emphasized in a press conference Wednesday afternoon that “we
don’t want the bill vetoed,” in reference to a massive omnibus that
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and House are in the midst of
negotiating. She said leaders would have a better understanding of the
bill’s details by mid-Thursday.

Although Democrats have accepted Bush’s spending ceiling, obstacles
remain to reaching final agreement. House and Senate Democrats are
pursuing different approaches to slimming the spending package.

House Democrats have elected to manipulate funding levels for various
government programs to reflect their policy priorities. The House
Appropriations subcommittee chairmen have been given substantial leeway
to decide which programs will be cut and boosted in the process.

The Senate is expected to adopt a straight across-the-board cut without
discriminating among Democratic and Republican favorites, said several
Democrats briefed on leadership negotiations.

As a result, even after House and Senate appropriators shave the
omnibus to Bush’s number, they will still have to wrestle over
differences in each chamber’s version.

House leaders are also planning to trim money from individual earmarks
but will stop well short of eliminating projects entirely, as Obey
proposed.

The good news for Democrats is that their concession on overall
spending brings them significantly closer to enacting into law a range
of spending priorities.

Pelosi highlighted several areas that would benefit from the passage of
Democratic-crafted spending bills, including children’s health and the
National Institutes of Health.

She said it is “immoral” that researchers are missing many
opportunities to advance health science because of insufficient federal
funding, noting that 1,500 Americans die every day because of cancer.

Another significant difficulty emerging for Democrats is a disagreement
over war funding. Pelosi made clear that a House-passed omnibus would
not include any more funding for the war in Iraq, although it may
include funds for military operations in Afghanistan.

One senior House appropriator said that plan means it will be left to
the Senate to decide how to package war funds in the omnibus. As
lawmakers scramble to recess before Christmas, there will be pressure
to add war funds without restrictions on Bush’s ability to conduct the
war. The president has vowed to veto any effort to withdraw troops from
Iraq or impose other constraints.

House Democrats may face the difficult proposition of considering a
spending package that includes unfettered war monies. Pelosi said she
would vote against such a bill but did not say she would prevent it
from coming to the floor, revealing a large measure of pragmatism as
the first session of the 110th Congress reaches its final days.  

In the final analysis, Democrats realized they would not be able to
muster enough Republican votes to override Bush’s veto. The president
vowed to reject any spending package that exceeded the $933 billion
limit he set.

Democrats made a final attempt to drive a wedge between congressional
Republicans and Bush by threatening to kill all lawmakers’ earmarks to
bring the cost of the omnibus to the level Bush demanded. Obey hoped
rank-and-file Republicans would pressure their leaders to accept a
Democratic-proposed compromise that exceeded the White House budget by
$11 billion, said a Democratic aide.

But that plan fizzled in the face of stiff Democratic opposition.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who served as the senior
Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development
subcommittee before becoming Senate Democratic leader, may have posed
the biggest hurdle.  

At a Tuesday press conference, Reid declined to endorse the proposal to
cut all earmarks and defended his right to steer funds to his home
state.

Pelosi also faced strong opposition from the Democratic chairmen of the
House Appropriations subcommittees, who in some cases had been waiting
through 12 years of Republican control to finally wield a gavel on
spending decisions.

Pelosi eased their concerns Wednesday morning by informing them that
earmarks would not be cut and spending levels would be pared to the
president’s levels to smooth the way for the omnibus to pass. Many
government programs have had to subsist on a yearlong stopgap spending
measure because Congress failed to pass a slew of spending bills in
2006. Many lawmakers want to avoid that from happening again.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), chairman of the House Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee, said he firmly opposed erasing the
earmarks he had hammered out with colleagues. He said rank-and-file
Democrats were tacitly promised earmarks for 2008 after they agreed to
forgo them for 2007 by accepting the stopgap measure.
 
                                  ***

The Hill - Dec 13, 2007
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/energy-cloture-vote-fails-reid-to-strip-taxes-2007-12-13.html

Energy cloture vote fails, Reid to strip taxes

By Ian Swanson

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday morning he
would strip a controversial tax package from an energy bill and seek to
pass it later in the day, after a cloture vote on a bill with the tax
provisions fell one vote short. 

Reid said he was disappointed by the 59-40 vote to end debate, but gave
his thanks to several GOP senators for making a “difficult” vote for
cloture. Most Republicans objected to the bill on the grounds that it
would raise taxes on oil and gas companies. 

Republicans voting for cloture included Sens. Chuck Grassley
(Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John Thune (S.D.), Norm Coleman (Minn.),
Susan Collins (Maine) and Richard Lugar (Ind.). Sen. Mary Landrieu
(D-La.), who faces a tough reelection bid next year, voted against
cloture. 

“I’m disappointed we didn’t pick up one more vote,” Reid said
in a floor statement immediately after the vote. “We’re going to push
the bill today if at all possible.” 

Dropping the tax package, he said,would still leave a bill that would
lift fuel efficiency standards by requiring an automaker’s fleet to
average 35 miles per gallon. “What we’re going to wind up with is still
historic,” Reid said. 

Seeking GOP support, Democrats have already dropped a controversial
provision from the bill that would have required utilities to get more
of their electricity from renewable sources. A bill that included that
provision won only 53 votes on the Senate floor a week ago, falling
seven votes short of cloture.