“Congress breaks without passing war spending bill”
Source: Los Angeles Times – 11/17/2007
Thoughts: As predicted, Senator Harry Reid was not going to get the votes he needed to pass his version of the War spending bill with the inclusion of a time table for withdraw. On the flip side, the Republicans did not get their War spending bill passed either, which had a higher price tag. So what does this mean? It means we probably won’t see a spending bill passed until January, requiring the military to begin making plans to reprioritize their operational budgets.
The bill sponsored by the Democrats failed to reach the 60-vote threshold with a vote of 53-45, while the Republican bill failed with a vote of 45-53. Neither party were able to make a significant dent into the opposition in order to get their bills passed. With both bills being different between price and troop withdraw, there should be enough room between the two for compromise. In the best case scenario, the Senate will pass a bill that is addresses the urgent needs of the military (probably using the Democrats dollar value of $50 Billion) while allowing our military to determine when troops can be redeployed (from the Republican bill). With the recent good news coming out of Iraq, it would be prudent for us to take advantage of that by keeping our troops in place to ensure the gains made on the ground are sustained.
Article: “Congress breaks without passing war spending bill”
By Noam N. Levey
WASHINGTON — Congress left for its Thanksgiving break Friday without passing a bill to pay for the war in Iraq after the Senate deadlocked over a Democratic demand that the measure include a call for most troops to be withdrawn by the end of next year.
As they have all year, Senate Democrats failed to muster the votes to consider a proposal to condition further spending on a timeline for withdrawing troops. The $50-billion bill, which narrowly passed the House on Wednesday, failed by seven votes.
And Republicans in the narrowly divided chamber fell short of a majority for their alternative proposal to send President Bush $70 billion without restrictions.
“We’re in the middle of a war, and playing political games,” said Oregon Sen. Gordon H. Smith, one of the few Republicans who has consistently backed Democratic withdrawal legislation. “It’s all politics, all the time in this 110th Congress.”
Smith, like several senators, expressed disappointment with party leaders, blaming them for being unwilling to work out compromises on the war.
(Read the rest of the article here.)
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
