House Republicans are preparing to vote en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For several years, the Bush administration, congressional Republicans, and a whole lot of political reporters were shocked, just shocked, when Democrats would vote against war spending bills. How, Republicans asked rhetorically, could Democrats possibly claim to support the troops if they're not willing to vote for the spending measures in the midst of two wars. Dems would try to explain their concerns -- giving Bush a blank check, for example, was a bad policy -- but to no avail. This was the single most frequently repeated GOP talking point when it came to the politics of military policy. Dems voted against the troops during a war, Republicans said whenever they were in proximity to a microphone.

It's interesting, then, that these very same Republicans are poised to do the one thing they said responsible, patriotic policymakers should never do.

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.

Oh, I see. When Democrats raise policy objections to military spending bills, and withhold support because of details they find offensive, they're unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers who can't be trusted on national security issues. When Republicans raise different policy objections to military spending bills, they're just doing their duty.

Again, this wasn't just some peripheral argument from the GOP -- it was the basis for countless speeches, entire ad campaigns, hours upon hours of Fox News broadcasts, and a series of angry attacks on the Obama campaign. Subtleties and nuances were deemed irrelevant -- if you supported the troops fighting two wars, you voted to fund them. Period.

It's interesting to see how the rules of the political discourse change, depending on which party is making the argument.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...9_06/018637.php

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah, enough is enough. It's time to take what's rightfully ours - Iraq's oil reserves.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

I thought they were doing it because there is an add on to this bill, billions to the IMF.

At least, that is what NPR was talking about tis morning...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Damn Republicans. They are just like so impossible to please.

[Peikko 1,575]

You didn't read the article

Yes, that's the reasoning. Back to my old point, stupid way to manage bills. Bills should be only about the policy in question, not dozens of unrelated addons. Shocking and intolerable system that creates division. Horrible.

[alienlovechild 75]

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.

That's not the sole issue but you wouldn't know it from the misleading OP article.

"A joint House-Senate committee meeting to finalize the bill almost collapsed, however, when Senate Democrats initially joined Republicans in insisting on a provision that would give the administration clear authority to withhold photos of abused detainees.

Also, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel rushed to Capitol Hill to assure them that President Barack Obama would ensure the photos would never be released. Then Mr. Obama himself called the lawmakers, making the same promise over a speakerphone. That persuaded the reluctant Democrats to sign back onto the deal. "I talked to the Senate Democrats—everything's fine," Mr. Emanuel said as he left the meeting.

After that bit of drama, the House and Senate negotiators reconvened and quickly finished the bill.

While the legislation is primarily for funding the wars, it also includes money for other purposes, such as $7.65 billion for flu-fighting preparations and $1 billion for a "cash-for-clunkers" program to aid the struggling auto industry. The measure would provide vouchers of $3,500 to $4,500 for people who turn in older gas-guzzling cars and buy new ones.

Mr. Obama requested $80 million to shut down the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, for example, but after lawmakers complained that the administration had no plan for placing the detainees elsewhere, Democratic leaders removed the money. They also acquiesced to a provision blocking the administration from transferring detainees from Cuba to U.S. soil.

Democrats responded to White House concerns Thursday by softening that language, allowing detainees to come to the U.S. for trial, but not to be imprisoned in the country for the long term.

Republicans offered several amendments in Thursday's meeting, such as measures to increase funding for the troops, remove the cash-for-clunkers provision as irrelevant to the underlying bill, and restore the original language on Guantanamo. All failed, largely along party lines.

Among the most contentious provisions was a measure authorizing $108 billion in aid for the International Monetary Fund to help poor countries hit by the global recession. The aid would take the form of a line of credit, and the government expects to get most of its money back, so the actual cost is calculated at $5 billion."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124477431225208919.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

update...

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is leading his caucus in opposition to funding for U.S. troops this week, based on money in the spending bill for the International Monetary Fund. To fund the IMF, the GOP leader says, is to support a "global bailout." It's interesting, then, to take a closer look at Boehner's record on the issue.

That wasn't Boehner's tune in 1998, when the Clinton administration requested $18 billion in IMF funding to ameliorate the effects of the Asian financial crisis.

"I have been as critical about the IMF as many, but given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership," the Ohio Republican told the [Newark, N.J.] Star Ledger in Oct. 1998. "The only real avenue is the IMF."

His comments were in keeping with the rest of the House GOP leadership at the time, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said the US had "an obligation to work with" the fund.

A Boehner spokesman responded that the "world of 2009 is very different from the world of 1998." That's true -- the IMF investment is more important now.

Indeed, let's not brush past that too quickly. Yes, it's ridiculous to see the House Republican vote against funding the troops during two wars. And sure, it's great to contrast his opposition to IMF funding now with his enthusiastic support for IMF funding a decade ago.

But Boehner's argument, in addition to being hypocritical and dishonest, is also wildly wrong and irresponsible. As Matt Yglesias explained earlier, "It now looks like [the global economy] might start getting better. But it's possible that some "other shoe" or two may drop -- most likely the meltdown of an Eastern European country -- and the IMF exists to stop that kind of thing from happening."

Boehner's failure works on several levels.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[GaryC 7]

update...

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is leading his caucus in opposition to funding for U.S. troops this week, based on money in the spending bill for the International Monetary Fund. To fund the IMF, the GOP leader says, is to support a "global bailout." It's interesting, then, to take a closer look at Boehner's record on the issue.

That wasn't Boehner's tune in 1998, when the Clinton administration requested $18 billion in IMF funding to ameliorate the effects of the Asian financial crisis.

"I have been as critical about the IMF as many, but given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership," the Ohio Republican told the [Newark, N.J.] Star Ledger in Oct. 1998. "The only real avenue is the IMF."

His comments were in keeping with the rest of the House GOP leadership at the time, including then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said the US had "an obligation to work with" the fund.

A Boehner spokesman responded that the "world of 2009 is very different from the world of 1998." That's true -- the IMF investment is more important now.

Indeed, let's not brush past that too quickly. Yes, it's ridiculous to see the House Republican vote against funding the troops during two wars. And sure, it's great to contrast his opposition to IMF funding now with his enthusiastic support for IMF funding a decade ago.

But Boehner's argument, in addition to being hypocritical and dishonest, is also wildly wrong and irresponsible. As Matt Yglesias explained earlier, "It now looks like [the global economy] might start getting better. But it's possible that some "other shoe" or two may drop -- most likely the meltdown of an Eastern European country -- and the IMF exists to stop that kind of thing from happening."

Boehner's failure works on several levels.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

They are not voting against funding the troops, they are voting against the IMF. If the dems would pass a clean bill the reps would vote for it. If they want an increase in the IMF then put forward a bill with that in it and debate that subject. Nice try at muddying the water Steven.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

You didn't read the article

Yes, that's the reasoning. Back to my old point, stupid way to manage bills. Bills should be only about the policy in question, not dozens of unrelated addons. Shocking and intolerable system that creates division. Horrible.

I was thinking the same thing.

Each bill should stand alone, to avoid this issue. Or at least group "like" bills together. How does IMF and Defense go together?

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, did the republican's put through 'clean' troop spending bills? Just asking, because it seems to me that this habit of tacking on all and sundry stuff onto bills is not confined to one side, and causes a lot of bitter bickering on both sides. It is not an aid to good government as far as I can see.

[Peikko 1,575]

You didn't read the article

Yes, that's the reasoning. Back to my old point, stupid way to manage bills. Bills should be only about the policy in question, not dozens of unrelated addons. Shocking and intolerable system that creates division. Horrible.

I was thinking the same thing.

Each bill should stand alone, to avoid this issue. Or at least group "like" bills together. How does IMF and Defense go together?

Seriously agreed. There needs to be some re thinking done on this. I presume, back in the day there was a reason for it that made sense, but today? It just seems like congress is being asked to drive a juggernaut with reins. (Does my analogy make any sense to anyone but me? )

[GaryC 7]

Gary, did the republican's put through 'clean' troop spending bills? Just asking, because it seems to me that this habit of tacking on all and sundry stuff onto bills is not confined to one side, and causes a lot of bitter bickering on both sides. It is not an aid to good government as far as I can see.

I don't care if the reps did it before. There should be a rule that unrelated things shouldn't be lumped together just to get a controversial bill passed. I don't like it if either side does it. I am just explaining that the reps are not voting against funding the troops as col batshit seems to think.

[Peikko 1,575]

It would have been nice if some on the right had suggested these reforms when they were in power. However, I don't really care that much one way or another as long as there is some consensus and movement to eliminate this horrible practice.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

You didn't read the article

Yes, that's the reasoning. Back to my old point, stupid way to manage bills. Bills should be only about the policy in question, not dozens of unrelated addons. Shocking and intolerable system that creates division. Horrible.

I was thinking the same thing.

Each bill should stand alone, to avoid this issue. Or at least group "like" bills together. How does IMF and Defense go together?

Seriously agreed. There needs to be some re thinking done on this. I presume, back in the day there was a reason for it that made sense, but today? It just seems like congress is being asked to drive a juggernaut with reins. (Does my analogy make any sense to anyone but me? )

Your analogy makes sense to me.

I think they do it so people get lost in the paperwork, so you end up with a pork bill funding "how do bugs mate when the lights are off" study in some Senators state.

[GaryC 7]

It would have been nice if some on the right had suggested these reforms when they were in power. However, I don't really care that much one way or another as long as there is some consensus and movement to eliminate this horrible practice.

The discussion about combining bills is a side issue. We agree that it is wrong. What I am addressing is the idea that col batshit is implying that the reps are voting against the troops, which they are not. It is just another example of his totally slanted rep bashing. He should be ashamed of himself for his blatant dishonesty.