House Democratic leaders yesterday agreed to meet President Bush's bottom-line spending limit on a sprawling, half-trillion-dollar domestic spending bill, dropping their demands for as much as $22 billion in additional spending but vowing to shift funds from the president's priorities to theirs. [...]
The agreement signaled that congressional Democrats are ready to give in to many of the White House's demands as they try to finish the session before they break for Christmas -- a political victory for the president, who has refused to compromise on the spending measures.
And why should he compromise? He ALWAYS GETS WHAT HE WANTS!
The Senate is to vote today on the revised energy bill, and senators from both parties said proponents are close to reaching the 60-vote threshold. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) summoned from the campaign trail the five senators seeking the presidential nomination for this morning's vote.
The new version of the bill meets a key White House demand by stripping out a requirement that utilities move toward generating 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources. It also pares back tax increases on oil companies by exempting independent energy companies from a provision that would end a manufacturer's tax credit awarded in 2005. [...]
God forbid we more toward renewable energy sources while fighting a war over oil.
Bush may also veto the spending package, even though Democrats shaved $22 billion from federal domestic programs to meet his demands, said Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. He added, "And I think we'll have enough Republicans to sustain a veto."
And God forbid the Republicans ever fund domestic programs ... you know, things that actually help people.
Democratic leaders tried to put the best face on their surrender on domestic spending levels, promising that the final bill will reflect their priorities, if not their preferred funding -- "the president's number, our priorities," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She noted that the bill would increase funding for children's health programs, nutrition and medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
Democrats will also increase spending on heating assistance for the poor, health care for veterans, local law enforcement and border security, Democratic leadership aides said last night.
There is no way to "put the best face on their surrender." The most unpopular president in history always gets his way because he holds his breath and threatens to veto any bill that doesn't fall into lock-step with his demands. He NEVER NEGOTIATES, he ALWAYS DEMANDS ... and Congress always bends over!
To meet those goals, staff members on the House Appropriations Committee will probably target the president's "Millennium Challenge" international aid program, his abstinence-education efforts and the scandal-plagued "Reading First" education effort.Why is the failed "abstinence-education" funding even on the table? Strip that from the bill if Bush is hell bent on having it come in at a certain level.
Senate Republicans will seek to add as much as $70 billion in war funding to the bill, without strings on the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq attached. Pelosi indicated she would vote against the final bill if such funds are included but made clear that Democrats are ready to make the concessions needed to avoid a veto.Would someone please wake me in January 2009?
4 comments:
In all fairness (and trust me, I ranted a fair bit about the bend over Congress just last night), cutting spending is a good thing. The thing is, I would do Bush one better; I would cut about 70 billion off of the final bill...
The problem is not that the spending is being cut, it WHAT is being cut and what ISN'T being cut. Cutting social services, and NOT cutting funding for the war is unacceptable.
BAC
The question is why does the democratic leadership refuse to do their constitutional duty and impeach this son of a bitch. Does W have dirt on them? That sounds possible, but I think they think that they will win seats in 2009 by simply running on the "hey, we aren't republicans" campaign. And they will. But if they showed real leadership, I really believe that they would win in a landslide and the republican party would crawl into the corner for at least a generation. I guess they like things the way they are. And yes, I use they because the day after the NY primary I am reregistering as an unaffiliated voter.
I don't know what W has on them, but it must be something because they keep bending over for him. And THAT is why Congress has a lower approval record than the president.
They should force the Republicans to fillibuster, so the American public would see once and for all who is not acting in their best interest. Democrats were elected to end the war, Republicans are blocking that effort, but the public still BLAMES Democrats. Dems should make the Republicans show they evil hand once and for all.
BAC
Post a Comment