OK, what'll it take?
The House Democrats would very much like to pass an Iraq funding bill that not only would end the war next year but also force the withdrawal of U.S. troops this year if certain benchmarks are unmet. Never mind that President Bush promises to veto any congressional measure that intrudes on the commander in chief's wartime powers.
A lot of House Democrats have a problem with their leaders' approach to funding or defunding the war. The "Out Now" folks want to bring U.S. forces home immediately and aren't all that interested in staged withdrawals and peekaboo benchmarks. Party moderates aren't keen on timetables, deadlines and a rush to the exits—and defeat in Iraq—that might not go over in swing districts.
How then to unite divided Democrats and pass something real, something more than a windbag nonbinding resolution, on the war?
House leaders had their work cut out for them. After all, the Iraq war isn't just any issue. It's a matter of life and death. It's an issue of conscience. And the vote on the emergency funding bill represents the first substantive House action on the war in the new Congress. So what did their leaders do to bring Democrats together? They made them an offer they couldn't refuse: pork.
Yes, cold hard Capitol Hill-style cash on the pork-barrel head. Money for their favorite projects.
Bush's initial request for emergency supplemental funds had $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and $3.4 billion in hurricane relief. In addition to their deadlines and benchmarks, House leaders saw Bush's $103 billion and raised him $21 billion.
Democratic leaders are not the first to lard up an emergency funding bill with non-emergency items. But didn't they pledge to bring back fiscal restraint to Capitol Hill budgeting after the GOP's end-times debauch? And isn't it crass to muck up the first real vote on the war with extra non-emergency spending items? Shouldn't there be a clean vote on the war rather than horse trading and package deals on the war and pork?
You want U.S. troops out of Iraq immediately? What'll it take to get you to vote on the supplemental's 2008 withdrawal date?
Will $750 million for kids health care do the trick?
How about $400 million for rural Northwest schools once dependent on federal timber sales?
Or an extra $2.9 billion in hurricane relief?
Let's make a deal.
You don't like funding wars with timetables and benchmarks? What'll it take to get you to vote on a 2008 withdrawal date?
How about $100 million in food aid to Africa?
Or $74 million in peanut subsidies?
Or $25 million in spinach subsidies?
Let's make a deal.
You want to see if the new surge strategy can work before considering withdrawing or cutting funds for troops in Iraq? So what'll it take to get your vote to withdraw and cut funds?
How about $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland hit by freezing temperatures?
A half-billion for wildland fire suppression?
Or $4 million for the Office of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration?
Or an increase in the federal minimum wage?
Come on, let's make a deal.
One lawmaker told The Politico that the Democratic leadership had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests for projects in his district if he did not support their measure. "I really resent this," he told The Politico's Josephine Hearn. She reported that California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said many of their liberal colleagues were caving under the pressure.
Some of this spending may be worthwhile. Some may even be legitimate emergency spending. None will happen under this bill, because its war conditions and extra spending will bring a Bush veto. ("This bill, as it's constructed, will never become law," says Oregon Republican Rep. Greg Walden.) Still, piling all this on an emergency funding bill to achieve a particular position on the war, no matter the position, is obscene.
Give the surge a chance. Or give peace a chance. But give pork a chance? Please.
