For some months, Democrats have been trying to force an end to the war in Iraq without being blamed by the public for cutting off funds for the troops. Given the resolve of President Bush to continue the mission however, it's clear that eventually the Democrats will have to choose. They must either force an end to the Iraq mission by not funding it, or admit to their base that they are unwilling to take that political risk. The suggestion from some House Democrats that they plan a short-term funding measure is clearly a step toward cutting off funds. Some may argue that this is a bridge to full funding, but this isn't the pattern that Congress uses in such cases.
If the Congressional leadership intends to fully fund... something, and face a deadline to do so, the bridge funding--typically a continuing resolution--is introduced late in the process, shortly before the deadline. This keeps the pressure on for quick action on the regular appropriations bill. Further, the CR is short term, to ensure that the pressure remains on to the greatest extent possible.
Thus, if House leaders intended to give the troops the support they need, there would be no talk (yet) of a short-term measure. Rather, House leaders would say that right after the first supplemental is vetoed, they will turn to work on a new version. They would not yet discuss the CR. Thus the very mention of a short-term measure confirms what ought to be obvious: House leaders are now considering cutting off funds.
But while the House may want to go this route, the president and the Senate are clearly not thrilled with it. From Roll Call ($):
The Bush administration is warning Democrats not to pass a short-term war spending bill following an expected veto of a long-term war supplemental later this week, arguing that doing so would wreak havoc with the military's ability to plan and prosecute the war.
Rob Portman, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, called the talk among House Democrats - but not their Senate counterparts - of a short-term bill "a major concern" that would tie the hands of Defense Department planners.
Portman noted that much of the spending in the president's request would fund longer-term contracts for new equipment and repairs.
"They would have to make some very tough decisions because they can't assume the full year funding is going to be there," Portman said in an interview last week. "How can you depend on it?..."
Moran said that having short-term spending bills would keep the pressure on the Bush administration and Republicans to change course in Iraq.
But Portman said, "This doesn't solve the problem, which is to provide the funding for the troops in an efficient way. It also puts off the inevitable. Are you going to provide the funding for the troops or not?"
Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) countered that the administration has a credibility problem.
"I respect Mr. Portman a great deal, but we know now that there is enough money until June and the White House said we would run out of money in April. The White House is 0-for-1 on honesty..."
Even if House Democrats seek to pass a short-term bill, the Senate isn't yet on board.
"I don't think that's the best approach," Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) said Friday. "I think it's too close to the end of the fiscal year for that."
Senate Democratic aides also downplayed the chances that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would agree to try to pass short-term funding bills for the war, noting that it likely would tie the Senate floor in knots and prevent Reid from bringing up other Democratic legislative priorities...
Some House liberals, meanwhile, are on board with a short-term Iraq spending bill. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Out of Iraq Caucus, voted against the war supplemental but said she would support a two-month funding bill. After that, Woolsey said, she would only support funding to bring the troops home.
"It actually could hold the president more accountable," Woolsey said of a short-term bill.
Emanuel will have to come up with a better defense of the House's actions. He seems to think that because he disagrees about the deadline for funding the troops, there is no deadline. He ought to be aware that Senate Democrats identified May 1 as the date by which the money is needed to avoid impacting Pentagon operations. So if Emanuel has a problem with Portman's credibility, he might want to correct Senator Byrd as well.
And while the loyal opposition's leaders on the Hill consider strategy, what is their base asking them to do? According to one liberal bellwether, Bush is treating U.S. troops as hostages, and Democrats must refuse to yield even an inch. Others are arguing that Reid and Pelosi simply need to make clear that after a given date, there will be no additional funding.
I suspect that House Democrats will be unable to win on their effort to kick the can down the road by offering a short-term funding measure. They'll then have to decide whom they will disappoint--their base, or moderate voters.
