[Peace-discuss] Democrats cave completely

[John W.]

At 11:56 PM 12/11/2007, Michael Shapiro wrote:

>I think this shows some Democrat's true colors -- they are willing to 
>spill the blood of Iraqis and Afgans to get some concessions for domestic 
>issues.
>
>"A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for 
>additional domestic spending"
>
>This bargain is pretty insidious, deviant.


It's a Mephistophelian bargain.  And it's Politics As Usual.  Ask Dick 
Durbin next time you talk to him whether he finds anything unusual or 
objectionable about it.



>I do not think Kucinich is part of this deal ... is there anyway to know 
>which legislators were involved in this "deal"?


There is when the vote goes down.

John Wason



>On Dec 11, 2007 5:28 PM, Michael Shapiro 
><<mailto:mshapiro51 at gmail.com>mshapiro51 at gmail.com> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071212/b1d18930/attachment-0001.html