Posted by
arandomguy on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:15:28 PM
Recent press releases by Democrats show that they are willing to give President Bush the war spending he has asked for, without the withdrawal timeline insisted upon by many Democrats no less then Friday of last week. There are suggested benchmarks, but it is not obligatory that the Iraqi government meet them. However, as Democrats have pointed out, there IS a de facto timeline in the bill - it expires in September, and more importantly, multiple Republican senators have said they will not continue to support the war unless progress is clearly being made.
The final bill has yet to be released, but it would seem that the Democrats have caved to the presidents wishes (rightfully). However, there are greater political issues here. Many rabid anti-war activists have made it clear that they voted for Democrats - and encouraged others to do so - in 2006, so that this war would end, and now it would seem that Congress is giving the President what he wants - in reality, the ability to do his Constitutional duty - which they would see as rubber-stamping the president's "Stay the course" strategy (which this is not).
However, there are still many problems with this bill. I'm not sure that it would be politically wise to see the President veto this next bill - it does after all, contain what he generally wants on the wartime issues - however it still carries 4/5 of the original pork that was in the first bill, and that is another problem. This is an emergency war measures act, and much of the spending tagged onto this bill has nothing to do with military spending. Most of the spending could be supported, but NOT on a war spending bill - tagging it on there is just to make a point.
Furthermore, there is a minimum wage hike on the bill, something that I as an absolute free-marketer thing detestable. We need to abolish minimum wage laws, abolish government restrictions on the marketplace, and let the market sort itself out - workers will be paid what they agree to do by contract, and the owners would have incentive to pay them well to keep them on staff. Regardless, this has nothing to do with military spending and should not be on the bill.
I still detest the bill that has been created, but I think it is more important that we get the bill signed into law before memorial day, so our soldiers can quit worrying about whether the funds to support them will be cut off, and go back to doing their duty - protecting this country from evil people who wish to see us destroyed.