[Peace-discuss] Democrats cave completely

[C. G. Estabrook]

Note the middle sentence in the penultimate paragraph:

"Democratic leadership aides on Capitol Hill concede that at some point, 
Republicans can add some money for Iraq as a stripped-down spending bill 
winds through Congress."


Michael Shapiro wrote:
> Does this mean that the Dems have not caved (yet)?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001615.html 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001615.html>
> 
> House Democrats Pull Budget Offer
> The GOP Is Negotiating In Bad Faith, Obey Says
> 
> By Jonathan Weisman
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, December 11, 2007; A03
> 
> A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange 
> for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after 
> House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused 
> Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.
> 
> Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to 
> the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet 
> projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. 
> It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> "Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable 
> compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president's 
> numbers," Obey said. "I was willing to listen to the argument that we 
> ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House 
> refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in our 
> eye, I say to hell with it."
> 
> House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a 
> $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for 
> domestic programs above the president's request, half of what Democrats 
> had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion 
> for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added 
> billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.
> 
> But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director 
> Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a 
> long standoff with the White House.
> 
> "If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they're smoking 
> something illegal," he said.
> 
> Obey's proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state 
> projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice 
> president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. 
> Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects. Not all of that 
> money could be eliminated, however. The budget of the U.S. Army Corps of 
> Engineers is parceled out as home-district projects, and Congress has no 
> intention of eliminating the Army Corps.
> 
> Obey would not specify where the remaining billions would come from to 
> reach Bush's bottom line, beyond saying the money would be shaved from 
> the president's priorities. One possibility would be funding for 
> abstinence education. Other targets could be nuclear weapons research 
> and development in the Energy Department, NASA programs and 
> high-technology border security efforts that have come under criticism 
> for being wasteful and ineffective, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for 
> Common Sense.
> 
> Obey's proposal did not move the White House to negotiate, spokesman 
> Tony Fratto said. "Different day, different Democrat, different 
> direction. Our position hasn't changed," Fratto said.
> 
> House Republican leaders would be happy to take Obey's offer on 
> spending, GOP aides said yesterday. But rank-and-file lawmakers from 
> both parties could revolt. Home-district projects -- known as earmarks 
> -- were stripped from the fiscal 2007 spending bills early this year, 
> after Democrats took control of Congress and hastily disposed of budget 
> bills their Republican predecessors had not passed. Earmarks were also 
> eliminated from the 2006 appropriations bill that funded labor, health 
> and education programs, the biggest domestic spending bill of the year.
> 
> "There are a lot of people who were very disappointed last year when 
> nobody got any earmarks. If they do it again for the second year in a 
> row, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow," said Rep. Ray LaHood 
> (R-Ill.), an appropriator who complained that he could lose $400,000 he 
> needs for the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial celebration, slated to begin 
> Feb. 12.
> 
> LaHood is not the only Republican appropriator who is angry at the White 
> House and at GOP leaders who have refused to negotiate with Democrats on 
> domestic spending levels. In recent days, Rep. David L. Hobson (Ohio), 
> ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of 
> energy and water projects, had a heated discussion with House Minority 
> Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), arguing that Boehner should come off 
> his hard line.
> 
> Rep. James T. Walsh (N.Y.), another senior Republican appropriator, took 
> to the House floor to argue: "If the proposal is to split the 
> difference, to reduce the amount of spending above the president's 
> request by $11 billion, I would advise the president to take yes for an 
> answer."
> 
> But most Republicans are expected to fall in line, as the GOP leadership 
> pushes to regain the mantle of small-government conservatism. Rep. Jack 
> Kingston (R-Ga.), another member of the Appropriations Committee, said 
> Republican lawmakers will face no political jeopardy for not bringing 
> money home for their districts, because they can simply blame Democrats.
> 
> "The smartest thing for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to do is to realize 
> the White House always wins these spending contests," he said, advising 
> her to "cut your losses, get out of town and say Bush is still relevant" 
> to the legislative process.
> 
> That still leaves the war-funding issue unresolved. Democratic 
> leadership aides on Capitol Hill concede that at some point, Republicans 
> can add some money for Iraq as a stripped-down spending bill winds 
> through Congress. But plans for a quick end to the showdown appear to be 
> fading.
> 
> "It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent 
> increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for 
> foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war while 
> asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally 
> irresponsible," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd 
> (D-W.Va.) said.
>