ABC:

Bush details $70 billion war funding request for 2009
Bush sends Congress details of $70 billion war request for 2009
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.

Friday's request fills in the details of the $70 billion placeholder that the White House asked for when it sent its budget to Congress in February. The money is for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

$70 billion? What happened to the $108 billion figure from the other day?

Confused? Here's the scoop:

The $108 billion is the figure Bush demands for supplemental spending. That is, spending on top of what was budgeted for fiscal year 2008 (FY08).

The $70 billion is the figure Bush demands be put in the fiscal year 2009 budget. FY09, as the article mentions, begins on October 1, 2008 -- 112 days before Bush's term ends.

And as we discussed the other day, it looks like Congressional Democrats would like to add extra money -- probably that $70 billion or so -- to the supplemental. Why?

Democratic leaders say they're likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections.

Dems don't want to be facing, well, you, just as they're voting on another $70 billion (on top of the $108 Bush is going to force out of them) for the war they're campaigning on ending. And they don't want the next president, assuming it's a Democrat, to have to do the same in his or her first months in office.

And so George W. Bush will put on his oversized foam rubber "fiscal conservative" cowboy hat for a while, and pretend it makes sense to draw the line on the supplemental at $108 billion and not a penny more (or he'll veto it, he says), even though he's about to ask for another $70 billion a few weeks later.

Take a good look at that situation, though.

What's more absurd, Democrats who want to end the war voting to front him (and the next president) an extra $70 billion more than he wants? Or Bush's ridiculous notion that it's somehow fiscally conservative to "budget" $70 billion for the war in FY09, when he's right now demanding nearly 55% more than that in supplemental FY08 spending.

What a friggin' crock.

Congress Daily, via Politico, reports some of the "how" regarding the Democratic leadership's plans to bring the next Iraq funding bill to the floor without going through the appropriations committee:

HOW THEY'LL DO IT: CongressDaily's Christian Bourge and Peter Cohn say Democratic leaders may be able to bypass the appropriations committees by using the "never-enacted FY08 Military Construction Appropriations bill as a vehicle for the war supplemental and other provisions. . . . The bill would function as a 'shell' that would allow Democrats to avoid the usual committee process in both chambers and a formal House-Senate conference. House Democrats could also avoid giving Republicans a shot at procedural motions on the bill during floor votes."

What procedural motions are they looking to avoid? Probably our old friend, the motion to recommit.

But whether they decide to use the abandoned hulk of the MILCON appropriations bill or not, the plan that seems to be gelling is to bring the proposed appropriations to the floor in three parts: one package containing the $108 billion demanded by Bush; one with the proposed Democratic restrictions aimed at bringing the occupation to a close, and; one with additional domestic spending, to help the medicine (or poison, as you prefer) go down.

That's supposed to make liberal Democrats feel good about facing their voters ("I voted against the war funding, but for a withdrawal!") and make conservative Democrats feel good about facing their own ("I voted for the war funding and against the withdrawal!"), with other mixed options thrown in for the people in the middle ("I voted for the war funding, but also for extending unemployment benefits!"). And of course, Democratic challengers get to run against Republicans who voted for the war funding, but against everything else. Which, oddly enough, is what a dozen or so incumbent Democrats are probably going to end up doing.

House Republicans are, predictably, outraged. Said noted crybaby and GOP appropriator Jerry Lewis:

"By doing all three — skipping committee markup, having a limited or closed debate on the floor, and skipping conference committee — the Democrats will effectively shut down any semblance of democratic process in this Congress."

It is terrible, isn't it? Except for a vote on whether or not to give the president the $108 billion he demands for the war, another vote on whether or not to wind the war down and withdraw, and a third vote on whether or not additional money ought to be added for domestic priorities, the Congress will barely have any semblance of democratic process at all!

But Lewis has a point. What Republicans will be missing out on is the opportunity to force a vote aimed at creating an embarrassing attack ad they can run against Democrats in the fall, and as you know, the troops really want that very badly. It's actually what most of them are fighting for, if you think about it. Or, perhaps, if you refuse to. Ever.

You do have to wonder, though, why Democrats at this late date are still having to consider a procedure that does an end-around to avoid a motion to recommit, and why they're doing it on this bill. Recall that last summer, we ended up saddled with the disastrous Protect America Act as a result of the House's inability to find a way around the threat posed by the motion to recommit. So if you're going to attempt a maneuver that has Minority Whip Roy Blunt sayingDems, "are threatening to burn the House down" (probably a better description of what Republicans will be doing in response, actually), why use it to fund a war Democrats say they don't want in the first place? And why not use it to stop a spying bill Bush was forcing down their throats?

Who knows? But that's what they appear to be getting ready to do. Burn down the House for the sake of passing another $100 billion+ in war funding. And maybe, just maybe, topping this off with the whipped cream of caving on FISA, of all things.

Seriously, dudes. One turd per toilet, please. If you're going to bend the rules this hard, all I ask is that you screw Republicans with them just slightly more often than you do Democrats. Is that really so much to ask?