"When the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it."
--House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.)
While the Democrats seemed willing to appease Bush by funding his war in return for increased domestic spending, they've now pulled their compromise offer.
So what made Obey change his mind?
Obey took the step after the White House and weekend news accounts suggested Democrats were willing to trade $50 billion-$70 billion in new Iraq war funds for just a few billion in domestic programs. He wants to break the perceived linkage, which had whipped up the liberal anti-war blogosphere.
Instead, they will push a spending bill with no money for Iraq or Afghanistan.
A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.
Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
After Republican threats of a veto and the White House's unwillingness to negotiate, House Appropriations Chair David Obey finally had enough.
"If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they're smoking something illegal," he said.
The new bill meets Bush's spending limits by stripping out nearly all hometown earmarks and cutting some of Bush's pet projects:
Obey's proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects. Not all of that money could be eliminated, however. The budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is parceled out as home-district projects, and Congress has no intention of eliminating the Army Corps.
Obey would not specify where the remaining billions would come from to reach Bush's bottom line, beyond saying the money would be shaved from the president's priorities. One possibility would be funding for abstinence education. Other targets could be nuclear weapons research and development in the Energy Department, NASA programs and high-technology border security efforts that have come under criticism for being wasteful and ineffective, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Some Republicans are pissed, as they might miss out on earmarks for the second straight year:
"There are a lot of people who were very disappointed last year when nobody got any earmarks. If they do it again for the second year in a row, it will be a very bitter pill to swallow," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), an appropriator who complained that he could lose $400,000 he needs for the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial celebration, slated to begin Feb. 12.
Rep. James T. Walsh (N.Y.), another senior Republican appropriator, took to the House floor to argue: "If the proposal is to split the difference, to reduce the amount of spending above the president's request by $11 billion, I would advise the president to take yes for an answer."
It looks like money for Iraq will be added in at some point, but it's nice to see the Democrats refusing to cave just yet.
UPDATE
Now it looks like Reid is (reluctantly?) on board:
Reid would not comment directly on Obey's plan, but later his spokesman hinted leaders would have no choice but to concur if there is no deal soon.
"When Americans wonder why there are fewer police on their street, fewer agents on our borders and fewer teachers in their children's classrooms, the answer will be painfully clear: The president and Bush Republicans are unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate in good faith," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.
And a stronger quote from Obey:
"In my view, it's time to fish or cut bait. I'm tired of debating table scraps, and it's clear to me that the White House does not intend to compromise; they intend to sit back like Buddha and keep expecting us to compromise with ourselves. I'm done with navel-gazing," Obey said. "I'm not going to sit here and enable them to chisel domestic money down, down, down, down, so you wind up getting $5 billion bucks in return for $50 [billion] or $90 [billion] or whatever the hell it is they want for the war."
Republican Jack Kingston illustrates why we can't afford to back down:
"The smartest thing for [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi to do is to realize the White House always wins these spending contests," he said, advising her to "cut your losses, get out of town and say Bush is still relevant" to the legislative process.
UPDATE 2
The AP story is up. Looks like Obey played Nussle perfectly:
Nussle had accused Democrats of "trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending," but Obey said the opposite is true — that the White House was willing to relent just slightly on domestic spending in order to obtain up to $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.