How is this a winding the war down?
- Budget deal would give President Bush $70 billion in additional war funding
- Provision calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq by end of 2008 dropped
- Legislation would be passed by end of the year
- Amount less than $200 billion requested by the president
From UPI and CNN
Democratic leaders said a budget deal containing funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to pass without provisions for U.S. troop withdrawals.
Democratic lawmakers said Congress is likely to pass as much as $70 billion in war funding, but without measures calling for the redeployment of many of the U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of 2008, CNN reported Thursday.
Democratic leaders said the measure may spark controversy among the party faithful who have been outspoken against the war.
The base of the Democratic Party expressed concern of the lack of pressure exerted on U.S. President George Bush to change the Iraq policy.
Senate Republicans said they would block any budget deal that didn't contain at least some of the $200 billion in war funding requested by the Bush administration.
Democrats point to the measure as a victory that curtails the Bush administration's war effort.
"What is for sure is he will not get all $200 billion," said a senior Democratic. "Whatever number it is, it is much less than what the president asked for. For the first time in this war, he has received less than his request."
"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13
Monday, October 22
Bush Pushing for $42 Billion More in War Money
From CNN
The Bush administration on Monday asked for an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the 2008 request for total war funding to $189.3 billion.
The Bush administration on Monday asked for an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the 2008 request for total war funding to $189.3 billion.
President Bush says Monday he is requesting billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The request comes on top of $147 billion already sought for in the wars. Most of the money goes to Iraq, which is costing the Pentagon an estimated $2 billion a week.
"Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not -- and that is that America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people," President Bush said in an appearance with members of veterans groups at the White House.
Bush said the money will cover basic operating expenses, plus additional armored vehicles and countermeasures designed to protect U.S. troops from roadside bombs.
"Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need," he said.
The president also called on Congress to finish the appropriations bills that fund the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs before lawmakers' holiday recess, set to begin in mid-November.
The request is bound to kick off another debate on Capitol Hill over the course of the Iraq war. Bush's last supplemental spending request led to a showdown with the Democratic leaders of Congress, who pushed for a withdrawal of American combat troops in 2008 -- a demand dropped after the president vetoed the measure.
Friday, September 14
A Way Forward in the Senate
From FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Confusing "can't" and "won't."
Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.
The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.
As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):
Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.
This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."
This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:
If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war-legislation that has little chances of passing.
The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq-it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41-the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War-if they choose to do so.
The Democratic leadership may believe-rightly or wrongly-that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation-by confusing "can't" with "won't."
Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May (FAIR Media Advisory, 6/1/07), major media outlets continued to "explain" the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways.
The point made by these media outlets again and again is that the Democrats have little power to affect policy in Iraq because it would be difficult to pass legislation over a potential Republican filibuster, and even harder to pass a bill over a presidential veto. This sentiment is also voiced by many Democratic politicians, many of whom consider themselves opponents of the war. But passing a filibuster- or veto-proof bill is not their only option.
As the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz (9/10/07) put it: "Because of a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to shut off debate and 67 votes to overturn a veto, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid faced an almost impossible challenge. Even if all his troops stood together, he started with just 49 votes."
Newsweek's Howard Fineman declared that the Democrats' powerlessness was built into the constitutional system on NBC's Chris Matthews Show (9/2/07):
Politically, what the president has been trying to do is to keep discipline among the Republicans because as long as he can keep most of the Republicans in the Senate, in the House with him, there's no way to overturn the policy because of the way the Constitution reads.... I hate to keep coming back to the Constitution. Sixty votes to stop a filibuster, 67 to overturn a presidential veto in the Senate.
This sort of analysis was used to explain the Democrats' need to compromise with Republicans, watering down a firm withdrawal date in the hopes of winning bipartisan support. "Senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail," reported the New York Times' Carl Hulse (9/5/07). "Democrats would need to lure the 60 senators in order to cut off a likely Republican filibuster."
This approach was endorsed in an Associated Press report (9/11/07) by Matthew Lee:
If Republican support for the war holds, as it might for now, Democrats would have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal. But they remain under substantial pressure by voters and politically influential anti-war groups to settle for nothing less than ordering troop withdrawals or cutting off money for the war-legislation that has little chances of passing.
The problem with all these accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq-it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41-the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War-if they choose to do so.
The Democratic leadership may believe-rightly or wrongly-that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation-by confusing "can't" with "won't."
Tuesday, May 8
Dems War Deadline Moving to July?
It looks like the Dems are listening to the majority of people who want the war to change direction. According to Yahoo News
"House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.
If members agree to back the plan as expected, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early as this week. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., was first disclosed Thursday by The Associated Press.
White House spokesman Tony Snow on Tuesday called the approach "just bad management."
"We think it is appropriate to be able to give commanders what they are going to need, and also forces in the field, so that you can make long-term decisions in trying to build the mission," Snow said."
Speaking of "bad management" USA Today reports
Americans by nearly 2-1 disapprove of the job President Bush is doing, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. He scores a net disapproval rating in every area of the survey, including the economy and terrorism. His lowest ratings — 30% approval, 67% disapproval — were for his handling of the situation in Iraq.
"House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.
If members agree to back the plan as expected, a vote on the new war spending bill could come as early as this week. The proposal, pitched last week by Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., was first disclosed Thursday by The Associated Press.
White House spokesman Tony Snow on Tuesday called the approach "just bad management."
"We think it is appropriate to be able to give commanders what they are going to need, and also forces in the field, so that you can make long-term decisions in trying to build the mission," Snow said."
Speaking of "bad management" USA Today reports
Americans by nearly 2-1 disapprove of the job President Bush is doing, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. He scores a net disapproval rating in every area of the survey, including the economy and terrorism. His lowest ratings — 30% approval, 67% disapproval — were for his handling of the situation in Iraq.
Tuesday, April 3
Mission "Irresponsible"
From ABC
President Bush denounced "irresponsible" Democrats on Tuesday for going on spring break without approving money for the Iraq war with no strings. He condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, too, accusing her of encouraging a terrorism sponsor.
And now the (irresponsible?) irony...
Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain timelines for American withdrawal.
More irony:
The United States agreed yesterday (2/26/07) to join high-level talks with Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq, an abrupt shift in policy that opens the door to diplomatic dealings the White House had shunned in recent months despite mounting criticism.
The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.
"I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings," Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."
President Bush denounced "irresponsible" Democrats on Tuesday for going on spring break without approving money for the Iraq war with no strings. He condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, too, accusing her of encouraging a terrorism sponsor.
And now the (irresponsible?) irony...
Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain timelines for American withdrawal.
More irony:
The United States agreed yesterday (2/26/07) to join high-level talks with Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq, an abrupt shift in policy that opens the door to diplomatic dealings the White House had shunned in recent months despite mounting criticism.
The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.
"I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings," Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."
Monday, March 26
Howard Zinn Speaks: "Are we Politicians or Citizens?"
This is a great column from Howard Zinn --I particularly resonated to this: "When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them."
and this: "The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of fanaticism: If you find you're going in the wrong direction, redouble your speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that didn't work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats' proposal is to give more funds to the war, and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future."
and this: "The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of fanaticism: If you find you're going in the wrong direction, redouble your speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that didn't work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats' proposal is to give more funds to the war, and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future."
Thursday, March 15
Ain't Nothing But A House Party!
Okay, so I'm an old school J. Geils Band kind of guy...
The Gazette reports
Housing developments receive federal funds Two affordable housing developments in Johnson County have received nearly $5 million in federal money. The Housing Fellowship of Iowa City received almost $1.2 million from the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, Gov. Chet Culver said in a press release Wednesday. The Housing Fellowship will use the money to acquire and rehabilitate 14 units for family housing across Iowa City.
Harmony Development received $3 million from the same program and almost $800,000 from the HOME Investment Partnership program to build 30 units in North Liberty for senior citizens and seniors with disabilities, the release said.
The Gazette reports
Housing developments receive federal funds Two affordable housing developments in Johnson County have received nearly $5 million in federal money. The Housing Fellowship of Iowa City received almost $1.2 million from the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, Gov. Chet Culver said in a press release Wednesday. The Housing Fellowship will use the money to acquire and rehabilitate 14 units for family housing across Iowa City.
Harmony Development received $3 million from the same program and almost $800,000 from the HOME Investment Partnership program to build 30 units in North Liberty for senior citizens and seniors with disabilities, the release said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)