[Vision2020] GOP Balks at War Funding

[Tom Hansen]

“It seems like they’re putting the interest of the Republican Party and
the ability for them to develop a campaign narrative ahead of the interest
of the troops.”

Courtesy of "The Hill" newspaper (Washington, DC) at:

http://tinyurl.com/GOPWarFunding

------------------------------------------

In reversal, GOP balks at war funding
By Walter Alarkon

House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion
war-spending bill, a position once unthinkable for the party that
characterized the money as support for the troops.

For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who
voted against them of voting against the troops.

In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into
battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just
last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than
did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind
down the military effort in Iraq.

But Republicans say this year is different. Democrats have included a $5
billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid
nations affected by the global financial crisis. Republicans say that is
reason enough to vote against the entire $106 billion spending bill and
are certain voters will understand.

“Once the American people learn that the Democrats are using a war-funding
bill for a global bailout, they’ll know what to do,” House Republican
Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) told The Hill. “We’ll take the
message to the floor and to the American people, and I expect we’ll win
this fight.”

Republicans are gambling that voters will be able to decipher the nuances
of policymaking in Washington and reject campaign slogans that will accuse
GOP lawmakers of flip-flopping on what was once the party’s top priority.

Or perhaps they are reading the polls that suggest the war has dropped
from the America public’s radar. Six years after the invasion of Iraq and
nearly eight years after entering Afghanistan, the impact of military
action on voters has taken a backseat to the effect of the struggling
economy.

According to a Gallup poll taken last month, 47 percent of Americans said
that the economy was the country’s biggest problem. Another 14 percent
specifically mentioned unemployment as their top issue. Nine percent put
the situation in Iraq as their main worry.

The House will vote on a conference report for the supplemental war bill
as early as Tuesday. The Senate is expected to vote on a conference report
later this week.

The House initially passed a bill on May 14 by a vote of 368-60, and all
but nine Republicans backed the measure. But the House version did not
include the IMF funding; the Senate version did, and the conference report
adopted that provision.

A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) noted the
Republican support for the version that did not include the IMF funding
and accused Democrats of politicizing the issue by including
non-war-funding provisions.

“It is the Democratic leadership that is playing politics with our troops
by insisting on using them as leverage to pass over $100 billion in global
bailout money for the IMF,” said Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman.

However, Republicans also have used the supplemental war bills to advance
non-related priorities. In 2006, Republican senators included $4 billion
for farm programs and $700 million for a railroad project on the
hurricane-battered Gulf Coast.

Republicans also embraced the war supplemental in 2007 — advanced by the
Democratic-controlled Congress — that included an increase in the minimum
wage.

While the Obama administration has said that increasing the IMF funding is
crucial to the global response to the economic crisis, Republicans said
the money could end up in countries that are hostile to the United States.

Once the GOP votes against war funding, Democrats will seek to paint
Republicans as flip-floppers, just as Republicans did when Democrats
changed their position on a war-spending vote. The charge reached its peak
in the 2004 presidential election, when Democratic candidate Sen. John
Kerry (D-Mass.) was forced to defend his 2003 vote against the
war-spending measure after initially supporting it.

“Anytime there was a Democrat [who] raised concern on some of these
supplementals, he was tarred as being anti-troop,” said a House Democratic
leadership aide.

The Democratic aide charged House Republicans with “hypocrisy” for
opposing a bill because of the IMF funding, which amounts to less than 5
percent of the proposed spending in the legislation.

“It seems like they’re putting the interest of the Republican Party and
the ability for them to develop a campaign narrative ahead of the interest
of the troops,” he said.

House Republican leaders said that most GOP House members will oppose the
bill, just as they did with the Democrats’ previous big-ticket items,
including the $787 billion stimulus and the $410 billion omnibus.

“As written, if this bill is going to pass — with all of its troubling
provisions and funding — it will need to pass on the strength of Democrat
votes, which is why Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] continues to
pressure members of her own party,” said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown