Iraq funding
Fighting29th highlights something rather interesting:
Reader Elmer sends today’s Corning Leader Opinion Page [pdf], which contains an op-ed from Randy Kuhl and a letter from Eric Massa.
Kuhl’s op-ed is a protest of the Democrats’ plan to bring the Iraq Supplemental up for a vote without committee action or much meaningful debate. At one point in the op-ed, Kuhl compares Nancy Pelosi’s conduct with that of “oppressive regimes”.
Congressional procedure issues are of little or no interest to most voters, so it is rather strange that Kuhl would devote so much space to it, but the underlying debate here is quite interesting Good government types (like me) were appalled by the manner in which Republicans ran the House when they were in charge. Thus, I tend to sympathize with complaints about heavy-handed majority rule, though it’s tough to have too much sympathy when House Republican leaders ask Democrats to “treat us as they would liked to have been treated.”
In any case, the Iraq debate is not like other debates. Bush and McCain want the United States to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future — for as many as a million years, according to McCain — and Congressional Republicans have pulled out every trick in the book to help make sure this happens. Congressional Democrats have erred on the side of compromise — some might call it “caving in” — on this issue. I support any efforts to get tough with Republicans about redeployment from Iraq. And I think most Americans feel the same way.
Actually, I think Pelosi’s move is a move in the direction of good government. See, if she didn’t do this, then the Rethuglicans would go ahead and use every trick they have in their arsenal to bully, distract, change the subject, mislead and frighten. Those techniques, well-known, and amply documented in many places, are not good government, but they are standard procedure for the Rethuglicans. By minimizing the Rethuglicans opportunity to pull these tricks, we actually will receive better government (although not as good as if the Rethuglicans would abandon their tricks and debate the subject honestly).
Note John R. Kuhl’s dishonesty and attempts to distract and mislead in his editorial. He compares the Iraq vote, where there really isn’t much middle ground and has never been bi-partisan agreement on anything, to the Farm Bill reauthorization, where there clearly is bipartisan support. One equals the other, according to John R. Kuhl. If the New York Giants can win the SuperBowl, they can win the World Series too! I’d have more sympathy for John R. Kuhl if he would, even once, admit that his party did exactly what he now criticizes Pelosi for doing. But we’re not going to hear that from Kuhl, we’re not going to hear from him an example of arguing honestly.
Massa makes some very good points. I especially like the way he ties Kuhl to Bush. “Under the reign of George Bush and Randy Kuhl…” More Democrats ought to do this. In fact, Massa’s letter ought to be a template for all Democratic candidates.
“The House of Representatives is the closest institution we have to the Politburo”
I can’t track down the source of the quote, but I think it’s a pretty wise observation. The inner workings of the House, no matter which party is in charge, often amount to a bullying majority crushing a whining minority. Massa is smart to confine his discussion to results rather than engaging in a debate about which party is/was more fair to the minority.
Most people don’t care if they let loose a barrel full of monkeys on the House floor if the end result is decent legislation.
I’d have more sympathy for John R. Kuhl if he would, even once, admit that his party did exactly what he now criticizes Pelosi for doing.
I agree with you. It’s funny — Boehner more or less has admitted this.
What is interesting is that the Iraq War is not part of the official budget or to the extent that these “supplementals” keep getting issued. That the war, an engagement, we all knew at least (as long as Kuhl has been in office) needed to be funded for the next few budget cycles.
Almost like this implies that Iraq is temporary. It is almost like oh, gee Iraq is costing money here is a supplemental bill.
Supplemental funding is for unexpected activity. The need for Iraq funding (regardless of one’s view of the war) is hardly unexpected on a year over year basis.