"Cut off"

If I may say so, I think the conventional formulation about "cutting off" funding for the war in Iraq is a little misleading. The embedded presumption seems to be that there is a continuing and infinite stream of war funding that continues to flow until either the president removes the troops or else the congress cuts the stream. The federal government does not, however, actually operate in this manner. Rather, appropriations are made providing finite quantities of funds for specific purposes, sometimes with the purpose including an intention to delegate some discretion to the executive branch.

There are some ins and outs, but the point is this the default path is for the government to run out of money. Absent additional appropriations by the congress, the war money will simply be spent and none will be left. Nobody needs to "cut the funding" -- all that happens, in legal/budgetary terms, is that no additional money is appropriated. In practice, obviously, it's not going to come to that -- even during the 1995 "government shutdown" they made sure military forces deployed abroad had money. The point, though, is that this is where the budgetary rubber hits the policy road. Bush has a policy he wants to implement. Sooner or later, he needs to come to congress asking for money. What you're going to want to see is a resolution that says, "of course we'll appropriate money for the war -- here's $X billion to pay for a withdrawal plan scheduled to end by Date Y after which no more of this money will be spent." Bush is going to want to argue that he should veto this bill and that anything other than an unadorned appropriation of money to be spent as he sees fits constitutes an abandonment of our troops in the field. Liberals are going to want to argue the reverse -- that failure to sign the appropriation with the withdrawal proviso constitutes abandonment of the troops in the field.

2/1/07 10:26AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

You've hit on what is, for me, the most frustrating wrinkle in this whole surge debate. The Democrats, even the ones who are otherwise saying the right things about opposition to the surge, have not made this clear to the American people. They're letting themselves be rolled by GOP doublespeak which somehow equates not accepting whatever funding requests are made by the executive branch as "defunding the troops."

I was reading a whole lot on TPM and other places about "bulldog" Democratic committee chairs who will be examining things line-by-line, and I'm hoping that those stories were accurate. When the next supplemental comes up, I hope we see actual scrutiny of the dollar amounts, instead of the typical acquiescence we've become accustomed to.

Posted by: Tony on February 1, 2007 10:54 AM

I had a crazy thought this morning. Is it possible that Bush actually WANTS the Democrats to cut off funding?

Josh Marshall had a good column about how Bush's objectives these days are at odds with the country's. If he's really looking for some way to salvage something of his legacy, maybe the best he can do is to be able to put as much blame as possible onto the Democrats for losing Iraq.

Maybe the old "stab in the back" accusation is, or will be, the last hope he clings to.

I don't think its actually come to that, but its a thought.

Posted by: Jim W on February 1, 2007 10:58 AM

Matt's focus on the political mechanisms of defunding the war effort leaves aside the most important questions:
What do we do if the insurgency come to power in Iraq?
Do you think the new Iraqi government will start a nuclear program?
And if the US has no troops in the field, then how does the US restrain Shia ethnic cleansing of the Sunni?

Posted by: Warren on February 1, 2007 11:00 AM

This approach from a Japanese Diet member in 1940 may be useful. As the "quagmire" of Japan's colonial war in China became apparent (to defend its failing Manchurian client state, n.b.), the military government kept trying to build the chaos outward:

"In 1938, with no end of the war with China in sight, the Japanese Diet enacted the National General
Mobilization Act to facilitate the mobilization of all national resources for the war effort. This law
gave the government the right to appropriate resources and labor without the approval of the Diet.
Moreover, freedom of speech was sharply curtailed and censorship became increasingly strict.
The war was lasting longer than expected, and there was no end in sight. Peacemaking attempts
were made, but they were disregarded in favor of the military’s hard-line policy that favored
prolonging the hostilities. In 1940, Diet representative Saito Takao (Minseito) posed the following
question to the Imperial Diet: “What is the objective of this war?” The government, however, was
unable to offer a precise answer to his question."

Posted by: mattsteinglass on February 1, 2007 11:04 AM

Warren,

Let me see if I can answer your questions.

"What do we do if the insurgency come to power in Iraq?"

Buy oil from them.

"Do you think the new Iraqi government will start a nuclear program?"

No.

"And if the US has no troops in the field, then how does the US restrain Shia ethnic cleansing of the Sunni?"

It doesn't.

I hope this helps.

Posted by: Jim W on February 1, 2007 11:07 AM

Remember when Newt Gingrich used to argue that slowing the rate at which funding is increased is not a "cut"? This argument is in the same vein.

I think when the Democrats send their hypothetical "funding with conditions" bill for the President's signature, they're going to be very clear that it's not a funding cutoff. Until that point, it's kind of a pointless discussion.

Posted by: Steve on February 1, 2007 11:08 AM

Remember that when Congress passes an appropriation and the President vetos it, it is Congress that shut down the Government, not the President. It least it was in 1995.

Posted by: Al on February 1, 2007 11:33 AM

Al is right in the sense that allocating the blame is a function of who plays politics better, which was also the point of MY's post, I think.

Al is clearly wrong on the more basic level of who caused the 1995 government shutdown, since the shutdown was caused not by Clinton's veto, but by the Republicans' refusal to present Clinton with a continuing resolution to keep the government afloat while the debate played out - which is how every other government shutdown gets averted.

Posted by: Steve on February 1, 2007 11:39 AM

Well, Steve, I assume that when Bush vetos Matthew's proposed plan to pay only for a withdrawal plan, Congress would respond with indefinite continuing resolutions to keep the war going on?

Posted by: Al on February 1, 2007 11:54 AM

since the shutdown was caused not by Clinton's veto, but by the Republicans' refusal to present Clinton with a continuing resolution to keep the government afloat while the debate played out

Actually, is that true? I don't think so. My memory is hazy, but I recall that Congress presented Clinton with a CR, and Clinton vetoed it.

Posted by: Al on February 1, 2007 12:01 PM

What Congress did was present a "continuing resolution" that actually included the text of their entire proposed budget. They never gave Clinton a real CR. I think, between us, we can agree that this was a clever political trick that might have worked, and it seems like a testament to Clinton's political skills that he was able to win the framing battle and convey the point that this was a BS maneuver.

As for the war, yes, I do think there will be some sort of CR if it all plays out the way we're discussing. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is some date certain on which the prior appropriation runs out and there's no money left to give soldiers their paychecks, provide food in the mess hall, buy new ammunition and so forth, I don't see any way the Democrats' plan would be to let that date expire and then blame Bush. It's an unthinkable notion and the Dems have already gone on record as saying they'll fund the troops in the field.

As for whether there would be "indefinite" continuing resolutions, I think it's clear the stalemate would have to be broken in some fashion one way or another. Although, don't I remember hearing about some state government that operated on CRs for a year or more due to a budget stalemate?

Posted by: Steve on February 1, 2007 12:27 PM

According to Woodward, and never denied by the White House, prior to the Iraq war this administration took funds explicitly budgeted by Congress for Afghanistan operations and diverted them to building up for Iraq. I think this is where some of the "cut off funds" conundrum comes from. If Congress again attempts to specifically target military funding, as they are Constitutionally empowered to do, the Bush administration will simply ignore them and spend the money as it wishes. President Bush will continue to ask, "What are you gonna do about it?" and a bold new Democratic Congress will respond by passing nonbinding resolutions that are acceptable to Republicans.

Posted by: mds on February 1, 2007 12:58 PM

MY makes an important point, which is only strengthened by a recognition that appropriations are positively compelling.

Nixon tried and failed with the gambit of "impounding funds" for programs he did not want to carry out.

If Congress appropriates a certain sum for a certain purpose, the entire sum must be spent. Real appropriations are enacted with an provisions predicated on good faith executive discretion. But, they don't have to be. A knowledgeable chair, like Jack Murtha, can fence the Administration into an excrutiating web. And, if Congress appropriates money for a withdrawal, then a withdrawal will have to take place.

This changes nothing about the political game of chicken, known as a veto. But, it does have implications for the manuevering, particularly over the "emergency supplementals" that Bush has preferred for funding the war to date.

Posted by: Bruce Wilder on February 1, 2007 01:09 PM

These are fundamentally political questions. It seems to me that with the new PAYGO rules there ought to be a clever way to a repeal of the most regressive of Bush tax cuts. For example, send up a bill that has a formula for making the war funding revenue neutral, paid for out of adjustments to the top rate.

Posted by: theCoach on February 1, 2007 02:00 PM

Congress's relationship to the President here is analogous to the American military's relationship to Iraq. Bush says as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down; Democrats say the only way the Iraqis will assume the burden of their own security is if we make it clear to them that they only have the benefit of our military until a date certain. Similarly, couldn't Democrats argue that as long as he is assured of funding, Bush will continue to wage this hopeless war indefinitely, and that the only way to get Bush to get serious about ending our involvement is if we tell him he only gets the money until a date certain?

Posted by: bobbo on February 1, 2007 03:06 PM

Bruce Wilder:

Nixon tried and failed with the gambit of "impounding funds" for programs he did not want to carry out.

How did he fail?

I heard a little about the controversy at the time. I was a teenager then and not the political junkie I am now. My impression has always been that the tactic worked.

Posted by: David Tomlin on February 1, 2007 05:21 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar