A $100 billion bill to fund U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is rapidly accumulating extra items such as money for military aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want and possibly a scheme to jump-start sagging auto sales.
The cars and planes are not directly linked to the U.S. war effort. But they are typical of Congress' penchant for loading bills with unrelated spending in hopes the funds will sail through on the strength of the main legislation.
President Barack Obama ... too sought more -- $4 billion extra to combat H1N1 swine flu and $5 billion to back credit lines to the International Monetary Fund, which is trying to help developing countries weather the global economic downturn.
The unrelated provisions have slowed the bill down, especially for the IMF because Republicans have argued the extra items should be vetted through the normal congressional process rather than jammed into an emergency spending bill...
While Republicans do not have the votes to block the bill, they have said they will oppose it and that forces Democrats to ensure most of their members back it...
"This supplemental was supposed to be about providing funding for our troops," one House Republican aide said. Instead, it has become a mish-mashed, taxpayer funded 'Christmas tree' bill that will propagate bad policies and unnecessary spending."
Some 51 anti-war House Democrats had opposed the bill but now are under pressure to switch to give Obama a victory. But a House Democratic leadership aide said Republicans will have to answer to constituents for opposing a war funding bill.
...
And lawmakers are also considering adding money for a plan to spur domestic car sales by offering up to $4,500 in vouchers for buyers to trade in their less fuel-efficient vehicles for ones that get better mileage, known as "cash for clunkers".
...
Democratic Representative John Murtha, who heads the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, managed to get $3.1 billion for eight C-17 and 11 C-130 military transport planes included...
The Pentagon did not request the aircraft but lawmakers want them to preserve jobs in their home states and Murtha disputes the military's contention that they are not needed...
"This is a dangerous game Republicans are playing by jeopardizing the well-being of our soldiers to score political points," the aide said. "The supplemental will be passed, but they will have to answer for their actions if they oppose it."There is some irony in Democrats requiring GOP support for a "war" bill they want to pass without co-ercing support from "anti-war" Democrats.
The politics here likely favor the GOP. Voters, today, are likely more concerned about out-of-control Government spending then insufficient support for troops.
More generally, it seems to me that the best strategy for Republicans trying to rebuild their "brand" would be to avoid offering a positive platform on policy issues. The Democrats, of course, retook Washington by rigorously critiquing Bush administration policies at every turn without offering much of a positive agenda of their own.
A more positive version of the strategy the Democrats used would be for the GOP to focus on process and transparency issues. Make clear that they understand that the American people, in their wisdom, have given virtually unchecked power to the Democrats and assert that they are not looking to obstruct the Governing Party's agenda. That their only concern -- one that the Democrats surely share -- is that the Government should be run in an transparent and accountable fashion.
To that end, the GOP should be offering legislation banning these sort of 'Christmas Tree' bills. They should also be demanding more transparency out of the recovery.gov site and from political donations on the internet. They could also demand that the government abide by the same sort of accounting and disclosure rules required of public companies. Increasing corporate, and similar, income taxes can be opposed in the name of transparency as Americans have a right to know their contribution, but while these taxes are, in the end, paid by ordinary Americans -- in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and reduced investment income -- its nearly impossible to attribute individually. Similarly, the GOP ought demand that voters be informed of the true costs of proposed, and existing, regulations. And, my favorite pipe dream: a truth-in-campaigning bill which held campaigning politicians to the same sort of truth-in-advertising expectations businesses are -- or Martha Stewart was -- held to.
No comments:
Post a Comment