See other War, War, War Articles
Title: House Rejects $162.5B War Funding Bill
Source:
www.washingtonpost.com
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008/05/15/AR2008051502874.html
Published: May 15, 2008
Author: Jonathan Weisman
Post Date: 2008-05-15 17:49:28 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 141
Comments: 7
An unusual coalition of antiwar Democrats and angry Republicans in the House today torpedoed a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, eliminating, for now, the one part of the controversial bill that had seemed certain to pass. Instead, House members voted to demand troop withdrawals from Iraq, force the Iraqi government to shoulder more war costs and greatly expand the education benefits for returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict. The surprise on war-funding left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant and Democratic leaders baffled. House leaders had broken the war-funding bill into three separate measures, the first to fund the wars, the second to impose strict military policy measures opposed by President Bush, and the third to fund domestic priorities, including expanded education benefits and flood control work around New Orleans. But that legislative legerdemain became the plan's undoing. Democratic leaders knew that many members of their caucus, who have vowed not to approve another penny for the Iraq war, would reject the supplemental appropriation for the conflicts, but they expected Republicans to push it through. Instead, 131 House Republicans voted "present" on the measure, incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the war bill largely in secret. "We're playing political games on the backs of our troops," declared House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who asked Republicans to vote present. The measure would have brought the total cost of the wars since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to $752 billion, a figure that exceeds the cost of any U.S. war since World War II. Of that, $660 billion -- about the cost in today's dollars of World War I, the Korean War, the Civil War and the Gulf War combined -- has gone to Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service. The fate of the entire measure was always in doubt. The White House had reiterated its veto threat this morning, demanding a new version stripped of any policy prescriptions and domestic spending, including the bill's $52 billion expansion of veterans education benefits. That veto threat had launched a final clash between a president determined to pursue the Iraq war unfettered by congressional demands and a Democratic Congress that has been unable to shift course on an unpopular war. "In the House of Representatives, we have passed every resolution we have put forward to have a time certain or a goal for redeployment of our troops out of Iraq," Pelosi protested. "The Republicans in the Senate are guarding that desk of the president because they don't want him to have to veto another Iraq bill, knowing that the American people overwhelmingly disagree with the president's policy in Iraq." As approved, the House bill would require the United States to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding, dollar for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel subsidies it provides its own citizens. Troops would get more rest between combat deployments, and every branch of government -- including the Central Intelligence Agency -- would have to abide by the Army Field Manual's guidelines on interrogation, which ban actions that amount to torture. Those policy prescriptions passed the House 227 to 196, with a surprising eight Republican votes. On the domestic side, unemployment compensation would be extended for 13 weeks. Regulations the Bush administration hoped to impose to restrict access to the Medicaid program would be blocked. Funds would be provided for international food aid, levees around New Orleans, federal prisons and the 2010 Census. And the G.I. Bill passed after World War II for an earlier generation of veterans would be updated. That domestic portion passed 256-166, with 32 Republicans voting yes. The expanded G.I. Bill was expected to provide the House measure with the most momentum -- and political controversy. The provision, authored by Virginia Sens. James Webb (D) and John Warner (R) would cover the costs of attending even the most expensive state university and encourage additional student aid for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from private universities. The House bill would pay for it with a 0.5 percent surtax on incomes over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples. The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by Bush, who considers it costly and fears that its generosity could persuade service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, has proposed a less generous alternative that would save its richest benefits for service members who reenlist for multiple tours. But McCain's efforts have run into bipartisan opposition -- from lawmakers, veterans organizations and educators. Former Homeland Security secretary and Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for the Webb-Warner measure today. "I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can't figure out where he is right now," said Dartmouth College President Jim Wright, a former Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. "It seems to me our posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and women, 'We do not value you unless you reenlist.' That wasn't the contract they signed." The House's actions were a dream come true for the antiwar movement. "It is time now for Americans to be heard and for this Congress to move forward with the safe redeployment of our troops," exulted Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), who called on the House to use the $162.5 billion in war funds for domestic priorities. But the triumph is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its version of war funding next week and will have to find the money. Prescriptions on troop withdrawal and torture are likely to fall to a Republican filibuster. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal advocacy group, said the House's surtax would hit 0.3 percent of taxpayers and would reverse only a tiny fraction of the tax cuts those families received in Bush's first term. But Republicans argued that any tax hike is unacceptable, especially in a time of economic slowdown. Even Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will oppose the House's tax increase to pay for veterans benefits. More unclear is the future of the education benefits, as well as domestic spending that Bush has vowed to veto but that will receive broad bipartisan support. The Senate is also expected to go along with House efforts to force the Iraqi government to shoulder more of the cost of its reconstruction and self-defense.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: angle (#0)
*fyi ping*
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Talk about a Freudian slip....
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
They've had since 2001 to show some stones. Even after the 2006 victory Pelosi took impeachment off the table, even though holding hearings would have kept the issue in the spotlight. Why? Bush outmaneuvered and snookered them. If they go after him, their own role in enabling him comes out. Exhibit A? Diane Feinstein's husband, CEO of Parson, prime subcontractor to KBR Halliburton.
All it takes is a 'signing statement' to make things right...
Why? Bush outmaneuvered and snookered them. If they go after him, their own role in enabling him comes out. Exhibit A? Diane Feinstein's husband, CEO of Parson, prime subcontractor to KBR Halliburton. Sing it brother, sing it loud.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Its about time Congress exercised some authority here. We elect the Democrats to do just that and they spend two years farting around playing games. Now - ONLY because it is an election year - do they get off their butts. Neither party is worth the powder to blow them to hell.
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
#2. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
#3. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
"We're playing political games on the backs of our troops," declared House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio),
#4. To: ghostdogtxn (#2)
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
#6. To: swarthyguy (#4)
They've had since 2001 to show some stones. Even after the 2006 victory Pelosi took impeachment off the table, even though holding hearings would have kept the issue in the spotlight.
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest