Dems: Put you $$$ where your mouth is

[Neil D]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — President Bush asked Congress on Monday to approve $196 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other national security programs, setting the stage for a new confrontation with Democrats over the administration’s handling of Iraq.

Mr. Bush’s request increased the amount of the proposed spending by $46 billion over the $150 billion already requested this year. Much of the added spending would pay for new armored vehicles designed to withstand attacks by mines and roadside bombs, and a rise in operational costs because of the increase in the force in Iraq, now at more than 160,000 troops.

The spending request — declared an emergency under spending rules, even though the need for the money was never in question — comes in the middle of the White House’s fight with Congress over a series of spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. None of those bills has been completed so far.

Democrats on Capitol Hill, having failed last week to override Mr. Bush’s veto of an expansion of a children’s health insurance program costing $35 billion, reacted with dismay and anger that reflected a broader frustration over the war in Iraq. They also said they believed that Mr. Bush delayed his formal request to avoid unfavorable comparisons between his veto and the spending on the war.

House and Senate leaders have warned they would not take up the president’s request until they resolve differences in the spending bills that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto. Those differences amount to $22 billion, a fraction of the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Representative David R. Obey, Democratic of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Mr. Bush for pushing the extra financing even as the president attacked Democrats as spendthrifts.

“It’s amazing to me that the president expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science, which will make this country stronger over the long term,” Mr. Obey said in a statement.

“But he doesn’t blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where we were six months ago.”

Mr. Bush, appearing at the White House with veterans and relatives of soldiers, warned Congress to move quickly to approve the added spending, though he did not make his final supplemental proposal until three weeks into the fiscal year.

“Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need,” he said.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, criticized the tactic that allowed the White House to pay for the war with emergency spending, keeping the costs off the budget. “The entire war has been paid with borrowed money,” he said in the Senate.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said that the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq would pay for health-care coverage for 10 million children for a year.

The Democrats, however, lack enough votes to force any meaningful change in the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq or the way it is paid for.

While the bulk of the money requested would go to the Defense Department, the proposal also includes nearly $800 million to support a United Nations peacekeeping mission and elections in Sudan; $106 million for fuel oil under a deal with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program; and more than $400 million in assistance to the Palestinians as part of the administration’s efforts to nurture a peace treaty with Israel.

[Dr. Shane]

Sometimes when I want to buy something for my mother or even donate a healthy sum of money to a charity. my wife will say, "Well if you are going to do that you have to give me money too." Then I have to give her a little lesson in economics that it is one or the other. We can't do both.

Times of war are suppose to be times of sacrifice. During World War Two those on the home front went without sugar, rubber, nylon and a host of other products in order to support the war. If we don't want to fight the war on borrowed money... we have to reduce domestic spending. It doesn't taken an economics' degree to figure that out. The time to expand domestic spending isn't when our sons and daughters are at war fighting off those that wish us harm. The argument that the President can spend an extra $35 billion on a domestic program since he is spending $200 billion on the war makes no economic sense whatsoever. The contrary is true. The more we spend on the war, the less we can spend at home!

Quote:

Much of the added spending would pay for new armored vehicles designed to withstand attacks by mines and roadside bombs

We have discussed these vehicles here before. It is crucial for our troops to get as many of these as fast as they can. Congress shouldn't play politics with this bill. Every week we have more soldiers die that these vehicles would save. Anyone that supports the troops supports providing them with as many of these vehicles as fast as we can make them and ship them over there.

We can debate the war forever but as long as we are at war, and we are, we need to fund the troops. If Congress wants to pull out, they can call a vote on that. Of course, they don't have the votes to pass such a motion. Since they don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto, they need to at least provide the equipment to the troops that is needed to fight the war. This partisan bickering comes at the price of our soldiers' lives.

[Bravus]

But that's exactly the point: this war of choice means children go hungry, sick and uneducated at home. But Bush has no plans to end it, ever.

[Dr. Shane]

Looking at the Iraq War with hindsight it is easy to call it a "war of choice". However given the information we had at the time, the majority of Congress, along with the President and over 30 allies believed there was an immediate threat. So the choice seemed to be going to war or letting an oil-rich dictator who supported and trained terrorists gain further access to WMDs.

After we invaded we learned how inaccurate the intelligence was. However it was too late to turn around and go home. The oil-rich dictator is gone and the terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11 are there waring against efforts to create a peaceful Iraq. The anti-war politicians don't have the votes they need to cut off funding or stop the war in any other way. All they can do is delay funding which has a direct relation to more soldiers dying.

I don't know of any children going hungry, sick or uneducated at home. The food stamp program's funding has grown during this war. Public education funding has grown during this war. A new prescription drug plan for seniors was started during this war. Certainly the war is not coming at the cost of America's poor.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program is a small step toward universal health care. I favor universal health care but many do not. George Bush does not. His veto may have had little to do with funding and more to do about not taking the nation down the path of socialized medicine. I disagree with him but do not question his motives.