Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
From what I understand, approval of the funds is an action separate from the actual allocation of the funds. Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, announced he would delay action on the White House's war request for next year, saying he refuses "to continue the status quo."
Can someone explain to me what the reality of his position is, or is he just posturing?
|
Elph.....you have it right. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful positions in the House, because ALL spending bills go through his committee.
No spending bill can get to the floor of the House for vote unless or until he makes it happen.
In regard to Bush's latest war supplemental request of nearly $200 billion, he said yesterday:
“As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."
This is not cutting off funding, but rather delaying it until after the first of the year (making it a hot political issue for those Repubs as they start campaigning for reelection over the next few months). There is enough funding in the short-term pipeline so that this wont have any impact on meeting the current needs of the troops.
He also put conditions on the war supplemental appropriation:
“I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.
1. Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.
2. Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.
3. Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.
http://obey.house.gov/HoR/WI07/Newsr...talRequest.htm
Its not very tough or specfic, but it would force Republicans to go on the record to support (or not) a goal to end our occupation by Jan 09.
Where he was posturing was in his proposal for a surtax added to personal income tax to pay for the war. The point being you cant keep spending on a war (over $600 billion if/when this latest request from Bush is approved) without paying for it.
“We need to stop pretending that this war doesn’t cost anything.
“This war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we are shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long term energy problems and build stronger communities.
“If the President really is concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation which will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs that are related to our military actions in Iraq.
The idea of a surtax was political theater, but it did make a point that needed to be made.