 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
May 8, 2008 - 8:13am
Congressional Democrats are heading toward another confrontation with President Bush and this time they're hoping they might finally win one. Don't bet on it. Bush sent to Congress a request for $108 billion to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for this current year. He said he would veto any bill that exceeded his spending request, contained a timetable for pulling out of Iraq or contained new domestic spending programs. House Democrats will vote later this week, likely Thursday, on a bill that contains all three of those veto-provoking elements. It calls for $178 billion in spending, although some Republicans say the final tab is more like $200 billion. It does contain additional spending to continue fighting the wars in the first few months of 2009, a provision Bush might sit still for. But it calls for $16 billion in extended unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted theirs and it also calls for doubling of college aid for veterans. The Democrats are betting that Bush will shy away from being seen to stiff both veterans and the unemployed. The bill also calls for a significant withdrawal of U.S. troops by December 2009. This would give antiwar Democrats a chance to go on the record, but the Senate Republicans are likely to block the timetable before it gets to Bush. The bill contains some agreed-upon spending -- $5 billion for levees in New Orleans and $770 million in foreign food aid for 2009 -- that Bush had sought but also $650 million for this year that he did not. All this spending is basically borrowed money; the cost goes straight to the deficit. It's instructive how fast the Democrats fell into the openhanded ways of the Republicans they replaced. The bill was largely written by the leadership outside the normal committee process. And such heralded checks on spending like pay-as-you-go, requiring any new spending to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget, were casually waived. This should be the last war-funding bill of Bush's presidency. It promises to be a real fight.
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists and bloggers are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. Any registered reader of Capitol Hill Blue can have a blog. We also welcome comments on our stories, columns or blogs and we invite you to discuss stories and other issues in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. We believe in civility at Capitol Hill Blue and must insist that commenters avoid attacks on other readers, obscenities or threats. We reserve the right to moderate or remove comments that we feel violate our rules. Posts that contain racism, homophobia, bigotry or Antisemitism will be removed and the posters banned. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
|
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
I think, and I'm giving a
Submitted by old_curmudgeon on May 8, 2008 - 10:49am.I think, and I'm giving a lot of credit where I probably shouldn't, is that the dems loaded this up for the sole purpose of having Bush issue a veto just prior to the November elections. They've made it impossible for Bush NOT to veto.
The dems have no intent of having this bill pass. It's their best last chance to set the tone for November, as if the repubs need anything else on their bulleted list of accomplishments.