The Man Purse
President Bush vetoed the last military spending bill passed by Democrat-controlled Congress because it had included target deadlines leading to an end to funding the war in Iraq. CNN reports that he plans to veto the bill under vote in the House that includes similar deadlines, but that he would be open to a bill that had "benchmarks." They report this as if he is offering some sort of a compromise, as if Congressmen should be encouraged at the possibility of reaching an agreement. I have a slightly different opinion.
A deadline is a fixed date that will cut off funding. This idea of a benchmark means absolutely nothing. A bill without fixed deadlines means we will be there until our job there is done (which will be an indefinitely long time). So what should Congress do, faced with a President that won't let them pass the bill they want?
Nothing.
(Now this is not what I want Congress to do, but it is what they should do if they have any stones.)
Normally, when Congress passes a bill, and the President vetoes it, the onus falls back to Congress. If they really want the law made, they need to find a compromise with the President or override his veto. This one is different.
If I offer to give a friend $5, and he says, "No thanks, give me $10 instead," I will say, "Here's $5, you can take it or leave it."
Congress passed their bill authorizing military spending. If Bush wants the funding for our troops in Iraq, he can take it or leave it.
President Bush, as Commander in Chief, gets to decide how to command the military. But Congress has the power of the purse. That doesn't mean they have to be the woman of this relationship. Call it the power of the European carryall if you need to.
Bush should listen to former Sec. Rumsfeld. As you know, you go to war with the budget you have. It's not the budget you might want or wish to have at a later time.
A deadline is a fixed date that will cut off funding. This idea of a benchmark means absolutely nothing. A bill without fixed deadlines means we will be there until our job there is done (which will be an indefinitely long time). So what should Congress do, faced with a President that won't let them pass the bill they want?
Nothing.
(Now this is not what I want Congress to do, but it is what they should do if they have any stones.)
Normally, when Congress passes a bill, and the President vetoes it, the onus falls back to Congress. If they really want the law made, they need to find a compromise with the President or override his veto. This one is different.
If I offer to give a friend $5, and he says, "No thanks, give me $10 instead," I will say, "Here's $5, you can take it or leave it."
Congress passed their bill authorizing military spending. If Bush wants the funding for our troops in Iraq, he can take it or leave it.
President Bush, as Commander in Chief, gets to decide how to command the military. But Congress has the power of the purse. That doesn't mean they have to be the woman of this relationship. Call it the power of the European carryall if you need to.
Bush should listen to former Sec. Rumsfeld. As you know, you go to war with the budget you have. It's not the budget you might want or wish to have at a later time.
posted by Dorshorst at 12:21
2 Comments:
That's an interesting idea, although Republicans will try their hardest to make it look like an obstructionist do-nothing Congress.
I like the changes to the Rumsfeld quote, too. Hilarious.
I'll admit that I wrote the post just to set up that last line.
Post a Comment
<< Home