bush has requested hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for military operations and may request more later.
"may"? is there any doubt that he will? and he'll get it too unless the democratic-controlled congress starts using its power of the purse.
the budget is really the only place that the new congressional leadership can make a real difference. a couple of weeks ago, i was arguing with some other liberal bloggers over the various non-binding resolutions on iraq. while others were against the resolutions, i thought they were a good idea. why not put every member on record as being either for or against the president's iraq policy, or some specific part of it like the surge? as i pointed out in that argument (unfortunately, i can't remember where it was); just because there is a non-binding resolution doesn't mean there can't also be binding legislation as well. legislation like imposing strings on military spending or selectively cutting off funds. congress could do both binding and non-binding. one didn't preclude the other. the non-binding resolution could bring clarity to our elected representatives' position and the binding legislation could achieve results.
or maybe not. one weakness of the non-binding resolution plan is that if the vote on the resolution is stalled, it can be blocked. and that's what appears to be happening.
what i hadn't thought of in that earlier discussion is which side wins by default. that's an important factor to any debate. what happens if nothing happens? in the case of the resolution, blocking a vote means no resolution. the pro-resolution side has the burden of passing the resolution and if they fail, the anti-resolution people win. the other side doesn't have to vote it down, it just has to stop it from being voted up. stopping a vote entirely will work just as well, and so that's the route they seem to be taking.
which is fine. that's just part of the process and i accept that. but it's worth noting that the burdens are reversed when you're talking about the binding legislative opportunities for democrats. nothing gets funded unless congress allocates the funds. that means congress can write whatever funding cut-offs or funding conditions it wants into the spending bills. when it comes to the power of the purse, blocking the passage of a spending bill is effectively cutting off funding. you need an affirmative act to fund something so the default position is effectively a cut-off.
in other words, unless the democratic leadership gives the people who support bush's iraq policy an opening, they really hold the trump card when it comes to funding the iraq war. if the bush loyalists want to block democratic efforts to impose strings on war funding, the deck is stacked against them. pro-war delay tactics could end up cutting off funding for the war entirely.
as much as i am for the non-binding resolution, the spending bills is the more important fight. if there aren't any limits on the war in that, it's only because the democrats blew it.
