Iraq Spending Bill
National NewsSubmitted by CF
"When it comes to the supplemental Iraq spending bill being voted on in the
House on Thursday, is the liberal / progressive wing of the Democratic Party
letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
According to Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo Election Central,
progressives and the liberal wing won't vote for the bill because it
contains no mechanism for cutting off funding if benchmarks aren't met.
Here's what Sargent has to say.
"* The House Dem leadership has simply ceased reaching out to three of the
leading liberals opposed to the bill -- Reps. Lynne Woolsey, Barbara Lee,
and Maxine Waters. "There's been no interaction for days," one Hill source
confides. Another source suggests it's "because they're lost causes."
Meanwhile, Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Lewis, the Civil Rights icon, are
"beyond gone," a third source says, meaning there's no hope of winning them
over.
* These key liberals, for their part, have stopped reaching out to the Dem
leadership, too -- infuriating people in favor of passing the legislation
who insist that a deal would have been possible with a little more
flexibility on their part. Sources complain that none of these liberals --
who say the bill lacks a real mechanism for forcing withdrawal -- is willing
to reach out to the leadership because none wants to look prepared to
compromise with the leadership.
"None of them wants to be the one making a deal with `the man,'" one source
says ruefully. "None of them wants to be outflanked on the left. None of
them wants to be `outprincipled' -- being seen as the one who is willing to
compromise."
Despite all this, House Dem leaders are predicting that the bill will pass
by a razor-thin margin. Tune in tomorrow."
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/21/behind_the_scenes_tensions_among_house_dems_at_fever_pitch_over_iraq_vote
So what do folks think: are the liberals right to stand on principle, or are
they hamstringing the effort to draw down the war? And if they are standing
in Pelosi's way, what should she do in response?
While the House debates the course of the Iraq war today, the Senate has a chance to restore discipline to the federal budget, a first step in remedying years of damage from profligate tax cuts in the face of immense spending.
The Senate’s budget plan, now being debated, resurrects the so-called pay-go rule, which Congress allowed to expire in 2002. Pay-go, already adopted by the House, would require senators to pay for new spending on entitlement programs, like Medicare and farm supports, by either raising taxes or reducing other entitlement spending. It would also require Congress to make up forgone revenue from any new tax cuts by raising other taxes or cutting spending.
Some Republican senators oppose the pay-go rule on the ground that it would increase taxes, de facto, by forcing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled after 2010. That’s untrue. The plan says only that if the cuts are extended, they should be paid for. It’s hard to fathom why anyone would have a problem with that. Congress’s own budget agency has warned that if the tax cuts are extended without offsets, the nation will face crippling deficits and unprecedented foreign debts in coming decades.
Some Democrats’ discomfort with pay-go is not as indefensible, but still off point. The typical argument is that adopting pay-go now would make it difficult to finance vital programs that the administration and previous Republican-led Congresses have neglected, like health insurance for poor children.
The problem is that no politician wants to say what must be said: some taxes have to be raised, for the sake of the nation’s children, veterans and others who are paying too high a price for the White House’s spendthrift ways.
Now is not the time to begin a full-scale debate on the tax code. That will require a new president, one with a true sense of responsibility. But currently, the government forgoes some $800 billion in revenue each year via hundreds of tax breaks. Some, like the mortgage interest deduction, are politically untouchable. But some others are loopholes that Congress could close to raise money for pressing needs. On the spending side, lawmakers could free up tens of billions of dollars by curbing Medicare overpayments, a move that has been recommended by Congress’s own advisory committee on Medicare.
A pay-go rule does not have to threaten vital programs — if the Democratically controlled Congress is willing to exert the leadership and the discipline that President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress have not.
Posted By TRACY | 3/22/07 6:54 AM
MORNING MR.CF!!
For me, the takeaway line from your posting is this one:
"if the Democratically controlled Congress is willing to exert the leadership..."
This question unites the issues of pay-as-you-go and the Iraq funding supplemental bill. While Pelosi has impressed me in some respects, today's vote is really a crucial test of her ability to hold the caucus together. Likewise, pay-as-you-go will be a test of the Democratic commitment to fiscal discipline and transparency.
I'll be honest, and it'll probably alienate some of my left-wing compadres: Pelosi needs to bust some heads in order to get this bill passed. Yes, it's largely symbolic. But you've got to start somewhere, and ideological purity tests are NOT going to end this war. Rather, they reinforce the media's love of reporting about those squabbling Democrats, and it further disaffects an already-disaffected electorate.
To the contrary: Rove and company can rightfully ignore a majority-Democratic House that can't muster the votes to implement its policies.
Looking busy isn't enough. The Democrats need to pass this bill, and get to work on building the consensus for using stronger fiscal means for drawing down this war.
The American people are over whelmingly pissed off about the War. Most want to see a defined end to the war. No one really sees a scenario developing where the Iraqis will magically develop the capability of forming a stable, democratic country. If that is what we are waiting for, then we may as well move the Pentagon to Baghdad.
Bush is at a near low point in history for a sitting president. The Democrats should exploit that fact and ignore the son of a bitch. The appropriations bill should be written as the DEMS want it to be. They should pursue the investigation as THEY want to.
To Hell with what Bush or the Republicans want.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070322/...
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electionce...
At a tactical level, this is a victory for the progressives, since they don't become pariahs, and get to keep a seat at the table. This is also a big win for Speaker Pelosi, who has shown she can run a genuine big tent party.
Now let George veto a measure through which the people have spoken.
And yet, during the recent "surge", only half of the 2 Iraqi Brigades showed up at the required location!
And this is after 4 years. I wonder if, and/or when, these people are finally going to get fed up and rebuild their country.
Pathetic!
Sad to say, I think no matter what we do or leave them with, Iraq wil go to hell anyway!
Agreed. I think we're looking at the new Lebanon. Just how Iran likes it.
Way to go, Dick and George!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/iraq.fundin...
Loading....