Go to Original
Blue Dogs Vow to Bite on Iraq Spending Bill
By Mike Soraghan
The Hill
Wednesday 07 May 2008
A small group of fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats is threatening to
block the emergency war spending bill over a program for veterans' benefits
not offset with tax hikes or spending cuts.
Because of that problem, and the efforts by House Republicans to stall floor
action with procedural motions, the vote on the carefully crafted supplemental
measure could be delayed until Friday or next week.
"Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency
spending bill, whether it's butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers,"
said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition
who serves on the House leadership team as a deputy whip.
The so-called GI Bill of Rights, authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), would give
veterans money for college and cost $720 million in its first two years. But
critics say that could grow to billions in future years.
House Democratic leaders attached it to the supplemental spending bill figuring
Bush wouldn't dare veto veterans' benefits. If he did, Republicans
would pay a steep political cost.
But that calculation is now causing heartburn for Blue Dogs, the same members
who have generally supported war funding. The fiscally conservative coalition
is split. Some members are willing to block the bill because "pay-as-you-go"
budgetary rules - offsetting new spending with spending cuts or increased
taxes - have been ignored one too many times. Others, like Rep. John
Barrow (D-Ga.), don't want to oppose benefits for veterans.
"It's a cost of the war," Barrow said.
Because of that division, there is no formal Blue Dog position on the bill.
But blocking the bill wouldn't require all 47 Blue Dogs; it takes only
15.
The supplemental was cut into three sections to allow members to vote against
withdrawal from Iraq, against war funding or against domestic spending without
blocking the entire bill. Each section is expected to get a majority. The withdrawal
section is expected to be stripped out in the Senate. The other two sections
will be merged and sent back to the House for final passage.
Blue Dogs could upset that balance by voting against the rule, the procedural
device needed to bring the supplemental package to the floor.
Republicans usually vote uniformly against Democratic procedural motions. Under
those circumstances, and with the relatively thin Democratic majority, it takes
only 15 Democratic defections to bring down the rule.
Asked if there were more than 15 members willing to oppose the rule because
of the GI Bill of Rights, Tanner said, "That's not an unreasonable
assumption."
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), another Blue Dog leader, also indicated there is
likely enough Blue Dog opposition to block the bill. Asked if there are 15 Blue
Dog votes against the rule, he said, "There's 47 of us, what do
you think?"
Boyd and other Blue Dogs said coalition members are meeting with leaders to
air their grievances.
"Hopefully, it will be worked out," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.),
a Blue Dog member. "There are conversations going on right now."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the Blue Dogs' concerns are
"legitimate," but added there's good reason to put the
education program in the emergency spending bill.
"Meeting the needs of our veterans is a cost of war," Pelosi
said. "On this bill, there's $200 billion for the war that's
not paid for, so it's OK to not pay for the education of our veterans."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story