EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senator Obama, Congress Has Many Options Besides Full Funding Without Withdrawal
One of the things that appeals to many progressives about Barack Obama's presidential candidacy is his background as a community organizer. It's not just that he can claim familiarity with the problems of the community that he worked in - it's that the experience of trying to organize people to confront such problems informs how you view the world.
How then to explain Obama telling the AP that Democrats would have little choice but to "fund U.S. forces in Iraq" without withdrawal timelines if Bush, as he has threatened, vetoes the supplemental?
The question here is not just what one predicts will be the outcome of the confrontation between Congress and President Bush. Obama, as a member of the Senate and as a leading Democratic presidential candidate, is a key protagonist in the confrontation. What kind of organizer confides to the media that when push comes to shove, his side is going to back down?
Obama's statement recalls labor leader Tony Mazzochi's saying about political bargaining: "If we bargained wages the way we bargain politically, we'd all be making five cents an hour." You don't go into a showdown announcing that if the other side hangs tough, your side is going to fold, unless you want to guarantee that your side is going to lose. This would be like a labor leader announcing to the media that his members weren't really prepared to go on strike if their contract demands weren't met. That wouldn't lead to a very good contract.
Besides, it's far from true that if Bush vetoes the supplemental, Congress has no option but to approve the same bill without withdrawal provisions, even if you take as a political assumption that Congress has to "keep funding U.S. forces," i.e., keep funding the war.
Consider what Congress has done typically in the past with regard to funding the government when there is a stalemate with the executive branch over the budget. The typical solution is to continue funding the government at current levels with temporary measures until agreement is reached.
Recall that the supplemental is ostensibly supposed to cover items not included in the regular appropriation that goes through the end of the fiscal year, on September 30. By October 1, the beginning of a new fiscal year, the next regular appropriation will be in place.
Congressional leaders "view mid- to late May as the deadline for completing the war-spending bill to avoid hardships," the Washington Times reports.
So, roughly speaking, to get to the next regular budget cycle - where Congressional leaders have been consistently saying that funding for the war should be happening anyway, Congress has to cover June, July, August, and September.
How much should that cost? A rough calculation: prior to the "surge" (which Republican leaders should now acknowledge that they have conceded is an "escalation" - if it were temporary, setting a deadline for the end of combat in 2008 should not interfere with it) the standard press estimate was that we were spending $8 billion a month for the war in Iraq. The CBO estimated in February that the cost of a four-month surge would be $14 billion. The Administration disputed that figure as too high, so for the purposes of this calculation, this is a conservative estimate. Therefore, $11.5 billion a month, or $46 billion, would cover the previous cost and the escalation through the end of the fiscal year, when the next budget would come into force.
So, if Congress wanted to continue funding the war without the withdrawal provisions, but continue to keep pressure on the President, it could provide $46 billion, about half of what is currently in the supplemental. This would shift the debate to the regular budget, where Congressional leaders have said they wanted it all along.
This is just one scenario. Congress could also appropriate $11.5 billion a month so long as the President refuses to negotiate. The point is that Congress has plenty of options besides total capitulation to the President.
Robert Naiman is Senior Policy Analyst and National Coordinator at Just Foreign Policy .
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
31 Comments so far
Show AllFacilitating an intelligent redeployment of US troops out of active combat in the occupation of Iraq obviously has many complex factors.
We are past "stay the course," "cut and run" and other slogans that oversimplify the many difficult problems involved.
Bipartisan cooperation on intelligent courses of action are needed to extricate US forces from the terrible mistake of the invasion of Iraq.
Additional food for thought on these subjects can be found in the article:
"Intelligence, psychology and human heart: All are needed for success in war and peace"
http://www.populistamerica.com/intelligence_psychology_and_human_heart
Obama is a definite insider, and has been for awhile. He's from the Clinton school of globalism.
LMAO!!!!!!!! HAHAHA!
If Obama was presidential material, which is to say, was competent to take the oath of office (an oath which so far remains dishonored by nearly all of our elected officials), what he would say is that it's time we took this president out... it's time for impeachment proceedings... it's time for those who have commmitted war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace to be held to account. It's time for The People to be heard... and what The People want is justice. But too bad, we don't have any members of Congress who have the guts to say anything like that.
Mark A. Goldman
http://www.gpln.com/acceptingtreason.htm
Democrat leadership (Reid, Clinton, Pelosi, Obama etc) are all complicit in this war, whether they were ever against it or have always voted for it. Those for it, like Clinton, were either fully aware of what they were doing or intensely intensely stupid. People like Obama will not raise the stakes. They could raise the argument but consistenly refuse to. Why is bush allowed to continually cut funding to the forces for items like body armor and food and medicine but when it comes to adjusting funding according to the times withdrawl he gets to take the Democrats to task? Because the Democrats are cowardly in two things - everything they do and everything they say.
The Democrats have no stomach for the fight. There are hundreds of areas to do with the war and other areas which they could beat the president on if they outlined the counter-arguments and yet they never go on the offensive. Even when they won back the House in November it was because they could mutter almost incoherently "we're kind of against this war" - the rest of it was down to the ineptitude of the Republican House and White House politicians.
Whether they have no stomach for the fight because they are so establishment that they cannot risk rocking the boat (eg Clinton, Pelosi, Reid) or because they supposrted the war all along and it looks bad for their presidential bid (Clinton) I don't know. I assume that it is because they are of Washington and therefore automatically corrupted and establishment.
Andrew, you are absolutely bang on! So is Mark Goldman. I, for one, will not offer my vote to ANY presidential candidate who does not come out not only for impeachment, but for our lost middle class, universal health care, alternative energy standards that adequately address global warming, and livable wages. I can say with total clarity that I am done playing the uniquely American game of picking the least of the chicken shits.
The time for slow change is over! It's time that this President - especially if he calls for bombing Iran - is taken out of the White House, by any means necessary. And if the Congress is too afraid to rock the boat, we the people must swim out to it and sink that son of a bitch ourselves. I hope the DOD, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc. are all monitoring this, because regular dissidents like myself should be the least of your worries.
And Sadam was our stooge.
It may be a little off topic, but I'd recommend checking out Dave Lindorff's recent CounterPunch article at http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04032007.html
He says, "If Democrats will not impeach this president, if they in fact actively undermine attempts to express the popular will of the party's grassroots membership, I quit.
"I'm giving my party notice. Effective immediately, I'm going to my local voter registrar's office and changing my registration to Green Party, and I won't be back to vote for Democrats until they take a stand of principle and begin impeachment hearings to remove President George W. Bush from Office. I will be sending word of my resignation to the Democratic National Committee, and to Speaker Pelosi.
"I urge every Democrat who cares about the future of the country and the survival of the Constitution to join me. It doesn't matter whether you join the Greens, the Socialists, the Populists, or just go unaffiliated. What matters is that you quit the Democratic Party."
He closes with:
"If you do decide to quit, and to notify party leaders of your decision, please also send me an email with just "I quit" in the subject line (no messages please!) at: I_Quit_This_Party@yahoo.com
"I'll be publishing the results at my site, www.thiscantbehappening.net, on a weekly basis, and if the numbers get large enough, I'll be going to the mainstream press and the DNC with them."
A similar idea is expressed by the folks at http://switch2green.org who state that "If 50,000 voters switched to Green registration tomorrow, there would be a "No to escalation" vote in Congress in a week, and Impeachment would be back on the table in two!"
Dedicated to that chewy piece of mocha political nougat the poet presents "Barak Obama Cha Cha Cha"
(sung to the tune of La Cookaracha)
Barak Obama, Barak Obama,
Smart, articulate, and clean...cha, cha. cha.
Barak Obama, Barak Obama,
Is he real or just a scheme?...cha, cha, cha!?
Barak Obama, Barak Obama,
Ran the Harvard Law Review, cha, cha, cha,
Barak Obama, Barak Obama,
Where he stands, we have no clue, cha cha, cha!,
Where's he getting all the money?
Don't you think it's kind of funny?
When asked a direct question,
He says he's thinking it through, cha, cha, cha!
Barak, Obama, Barak Obama!
Oprah did an interview! Cha, cha, cha!
Barak Obama, Barak Obama,
60 Minutes did one too! Cha, cha, cha!
Barak Obama, Barak Obama!
He sure is a handsome dude! Cha, cha, cha
Barak Obama, Barak Obama,
Don't you love his attitude? Cha, cha, cha!
Is he African-American?
Or American-African?
Hey, but what does it matter?
Don't you love the way he talks? Cha, cha, cha!
Update: Reid says not funding the supplemental is DEFINETLY on the table if Schrub vetos.
I am currently registered as an Independent. I may change my registration back to Democrat just so I can vote for Kucinich in the prelims just so I can send a message to this idiotic party. He's the only qualified Dem candidate, period. Then, after that I'll go back to independent and let the Dems know they are morons!
Obama is becoming more of a disappointment every day. His woobley stance on Iraq is unacceptable. And Hillary is just Bill incarnate. NO WAY JOSE!
We know that the Republican party regularly engineers cross-party voting in primaries to get rid of what Wellstone would have called "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party". See the film "Blackout" about Cynthia McKinney's ouster-- The R's did this number twice on her.
Now... why exactly does anyone imagine that the R's wouldn't try to run the same play on a national scale? That is, why would anyone suppose that the R's (and the "Powers that Be", media, etc.) aren't already attempting to engineer the Democratic nominee? Isn't it interesting that the two Dem so-called "front-runners" are a woman and a black? I'm neither racist nor sexist, but I am realist enough to recognize these two candidates have a handicap when competing for the votes of those who are.
Does no one else see the support coming into Hillary's campaign from Rupert Murdoch and wonder, "Hmmm... maybe someone's trying to nobble this race"?
Re Mark Goldman's and Leo Bixby's posts: Dennis Kucinich not only has the spine to call for impeachment, but last night in Eugene, OR, he said that Bush and others in his administration (now and previously) should be held accountable before the international criminal tribunal for their actions.
He is the only presidential candidate to have the courage to say that and call for single-payer universal health care and the creation of a Dept. of Peace and more.
For more info, see Kucinich.us and kucinich.house.gov
Spread the word and let's get him some viral publicity!
Obama is clueless.
Fund a withdrawal; and that's it. You say to the president, here is the money to fully fund a safe withdrawal while the U.N. comes in with forces.
The public wants us out.
George McGovern has already written up the exit plan in a suberb book.
Kucinich has already pointed out the U.N. can come in to take over.
The Congress is responsible for fully funding the withdrawal.
So, what is the problem, Obama?
Way to go, Rebel Farmer. I reregistered as a Democrat 4 years ago to vote for Dennis in the primaries and may do so again. Then, back to the Greens.
clarkkent, I wondered why we were ending up with such losers as candidates. But I also wonder why our conventions have turned into rubberstamp ceremonies. When I was young (a long time ago), they were really exciting. If a candidate wasn't chosen on the first ballot (and often wasn't), they became wide open. I don't know what happened.
I don't think we should insist on impeachment although there is certainly legal justification. We need Republican votes to get Bush out, and that's not going to happen.
I agree that we can fund in small amounts. Give 11.5 billion with justg a few restrictions. If Bush vetoes, pass the same amount with just ONE MORE restriction. He should get the message. Then as time goes on there will be more and more pressure for GOP legislators to cooperate with the Dems. We can wear him down; the people are with us.
An even clearer article in regards to our lovely Congress, including Barack:
http://www.counterpunch.org/behan03302007.html
All it goes to show is that introducing candidates for presidency is only a mere distraction from what our Congress and current administration are trying to slide away with when it comes to funding a war that is only set up to privatize oil from Iraq. Who cares who runs for president? It's not like they would change the course of any responsibilities we as the voting public place in their control.......
Mossad in Iraq
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=689217324327988215&q=Mossad+in+Iraq%3F
Obama hasn't said or done anything yet that impresses me. It would be hard enough to get a black man elected anyway.
Kucinich has a proven track record. He is tough and very intelligent and above all honest.
Kucinich is a nice, intelligent, good man with reasonable opinions on most of the issues. But there are hundreds of thousands of nice, intelligent, good people with reasonable opinions on most of the issues. Kucinich makes a fine Congressman, but what he is trying to do takes more than a nice, intelligent, good person with reasonable opinions.
To have any chance of real success as a progressive leader in this country, and by real success I do not necessarily mean winning the Presidency but at least changing the debate, one must be a giant, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., possibly a young Ralph Nader, or even a Huey Long. Progressives should not, and cannot afford to, choose someone as ordinary as Kucinich to be the standard-bearer. That is not meant to be cruel or demeaning, just a recognition of what should be obvious.
We need as may progressives as possible in order to shape the conversation. Kucinich is great, we're not looking for movie stars we're looking for rational pregressive leadership. We also have to support those willing to run. I would love to see Ron Dellums or Gore Vidal or Bill Moyers in the race but they aren't there. Kucinich is the best we have so far. Obama is media saavy but I don't see any content.
I think it was the great bard himself, Sean Connery, who provided the strategy that the Dems should be adopting to deal with Republican framing of debates to their own requirements:
"You wanna know how to get Bush? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Bush. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"
(Paraphrased from the Untouchables)
In the last Presidential Race Kerry did not respond with any effectiveness to one single thing Bush said. He seemed paralysed. I could not tell you one single thing about his policies at the end of a 12 month campaign.
If Bush says the Dems are threatnening troops, all the candidates have to say "No, Bush, it is you who threatens them by sending them to war without equipment." If he says budget restraints tied to withdrawla plan costs soldeirs lives then the dems must say, "No, Dickwad, YOU and your defence contracting croneys daily kill US soldiers by cutting body armor and other essentials." If he says the war is still justifiable becuase it got rid of Saddam then we should remind him that his father dealt with Saddam as an ally; if he criticises Pelosi for dealing with President Assad of Syria we should remind him that Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad twice in a year to offer Saddam help in 1983 and 1984.
Shooting down republican arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel. If only the dems would TRY it once in a blue moon!!
I wish people would stop buying the line that Obama is "different" from other Dems. In fact, he's just another DLC Democrat, lucky to have not been in the Senate during the war vote, and trying to make hay with it now--but at bottom, he's just as much into this war as every other DLC Dem. He certainly followed the party line when he gave the obligatory "pledge allegiance to Israel" speech to AIPAC.
Obama so far is not much more than a cardboard cutout, mouthing noncontroversial phrases and espousing noncontroversial opinions. Obama knows he could catch lightning in a bottle and become a real leader, even a real progressive leader, but he is afraid. He is not only afraid of losing his position in the chummy senate but could even be afraid for his life if he does become a progressive champion. I cannot blame him too much for that given what happened to Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy, and who really knows about Paul Wellstone.
Obama has great potential. He will probably squander it, but I think progressives should not dismiss him out of hand without giving him a chance to evolve into something special.
"...without giving him a chance to evolve into something special." Okay, Kivals, but when will this evolution happen? He has 12 months to become someone with a) substance and b) a person with substance that will ACHIEVE something other than 4 more years of corporate domination of America, policies geared solely to profiting the industrial-military complex, and more than that a general ethos aimed at turning the whole country around. To be honest I would be surprised if he wants to do this and doubly surprised if he has the ability.
andrewr,
My position is that progressives should try to work on Obama. We all know he is tied to the DLC groups and has been subjected to other poisonous influence, but he is an evolving human being, as all of us are, and there is no reason for progressives to give up on him. Hillary is clearly hopeless, and while Edwards is a work in progress and does offer some hope for progressives, Obama is young and extremely capable and appears to excite people like few have done, and the possibility remains he might be converted to the side of humanity, and against the warmongers, the mass murderers, the rapacious empire-builders, and the rest of the corporatocracy.
Dennis Kucinich is a nice and intelligent and well-meaning man, but he will never influence the mainstream debate while Obama has that potential.
The problem is the usual: several multi-millionaires are running for office to represent who? 100 million people on or below the poverty line, plus another 150 million people who are essentially scared that their $10 per week tax break is going to be taken away from them. There is no one who represents this 5/6ths of the population.
You cannot have a multi-millionaire running the country and it be a democracy. People confuse the presence of elections with the presence of democracy. Elections are made to be fixed. I don't mean fixed in the counting of votes as in 2000 and 2004, but fixed as in all the candidates are millionaires and therefore your choice is from a very limited band. They all represent the corporate interest.
Any of the candidates who is from a poor background or a ethnic minority backgorund but who is now a millionaire is probably worse - they think that if they got as far as they did then ANYONE can. They forget that their presence is the token or the aberration. They weren't suppose to get this far and are only tolerated by the forces of capital because they distract the voters from the fact that the election is rigged and it doesn't matter who "wins" on the day - the winner was decided a few centuries ago - it is capital.
Edwards being a work in progress is a statement of extreme optimism. He cannot represent poor people, whatever he says, because he is not poor. Will he instigate the kind of tax regime that will empower the poor? WIll he destroy the hold of corporate powers over all avenues of political decision making and social policy? Will he limit the kinds of legal reforms that would stop people like him making a fortune from other people's misery instead of having a systme of legislation that protects workers from industrial accidents? Will he say "no more" to Israel until they withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and allow a Palestine to exist. Never in a zillion-billion years.
Bobby Kennedy made greater strides than those which most progressives would require of Edwards. Kennedy's personal suffering resulting from his brother's assassination provided a catalyst for his transformation. Possibly the suffering that Edwards will go through because of his wife's cancer will guide him on his own journey of discovery regarding the most important human values.
Of course most politicians do not grow much regardless of the amount of personal tragedy they experience (Joe Biden is a good example), but the door is opened.
I'm not sure some of the above have ever really listened to Obama. The descriptions of him in the above comments sound like they are talking about someone entirely differnt.
Also to say a "woman or black man" could not be President, is a racist comment. Why can't they. Pakistan and India had women Prime Ministers. We are supose to be a great nation, but we can't handle a black man in high office. How progressive is that.
Also I don't understand the point of the little jingles and jokes in the above comments. How depressing to know that even progressives can resort to ethnic jokes.
As for Obama's pledge to AIPAC, that was disapointing. What didn't get much publicity or comments on "Common Dreams" was when Obama last week made the statement "Nobdy suffers as much as the Palestinian people". That took a lot of courage to say in Public.
As for Hillary, I'm sorry I can't find any defence for her.
Clarkkent, you said: "Does no one else see the support coming into Hillary's campaign from Rupert Murdoch and wonder, "Hmmm… maybe someone's trying to nobble this race"?"
They have a phrase for this kind of candidate in Britian: Tony Blair. After decades of supporting the divisive right wing, Murdoch turned to the Labor Party of Tony Blair, because he recognised that this was the NEW divisive right wing. The Sun's support for Blair in 1997 won him a hige majority and he has been toadying to whatever Murdoch wants ever since.
Look folks, this is not 2004. I don't think that the Repugs have a canidate out there that can even whip up their base let alone anybody else. I might even be possible that a lot of republican voters will sit this one out. Yep, their going to have the money and the machine, but what are they going to do with it? I know a lot of republicans sat out the last election in '04 because they just couldn't vote for Bush.
We can't fix the mess the Democratic Party has become. We are going to get a candidate that is the "lesser or two evils" and is "electable" like we always do. So the only thing we can do this time around is support Kucinich in the primaries because he so richly deserves credit for representing the people of this country with integrity. It will also send a message loud and clear to the Democratic Party about what we want to see in a candidate. And then after you vote in the primaries after Kucinich doesn't get nominated, re-register to any party of your choice or go Independent. The Dems keep track of this stuff. How do you think they are going to spin a mass exodus from the party?
Oh, and don't forget to work on election and campaign finance reform. Lots going on! Check out Common Cause and they can get you directed to other sites for national and state action.
Maggie, you are right to say that it is not impossible for a woman or a black man to be elected; on the other hand I think it is an issue for some racist and sexist people: if their choice is a woman, or if it is a black man they will not vote Democrat. It is not sexist or racist to say there is sexism and racism out there - it will be a challenge because of prejudice and because the Reps will use these dynamics in their ad campaigns.
On the other hand society, and the working people specifically, is always stymying the efforts of the ruling class by over coming its prejudices and doing things the elites hate, for example the rising support for same-sex marriage. If you had said in 1980 that majority populations in many States would support same sex marriage in 25 years time then people would have laughed. It is up to us to persist in these matters in order to make all these things areas where in question is raised. Fifty years ago people would have been shocked to see a feamle high school principal or a hispanic newscaster.