ACTION: Where do House Dems stand on defunding?

Somtimes this place truly pisses me off.  When it does, I try to do something constructive.

BTD has begun a series of "nightly diatribes against the Dem Congress" trying to push Congress to defund the Iraq War.  I disagree with his assumptions and conclusions, but they don't truly piss me off.  Nor do wrongheaded comments that the Dems won't deserve support in 2008 if they can't end the Iraq War now.

What pisses me off is that kvetching about what the Democratic caucus should do won't achieve much.  Is defunding your goal?  Then let's do this right.

That means identifying representatives' positions on defunding, assessing our status and, if defunding looks possible, figuring out whose votes we need to get and targeting those representatives for lobbying.  Without that, diaries slamming Democrats -- who need votes from Ellen Tauschers and Gene Taylors, not just Barbara Lees -- for failing to defund are just communal self-gratification.

We can nail down people's positions within a day or two.  You really believe in defunding?  Here is my challenge: fill in this chart in your comments.  I'll update it.  Let's act like goddamned activists.

Update:  Adding a column for the Murtha Plan, to honor Kagro X's diary.  Hey, why not?

What to do:

Call Democratic representatives in Washington and say this:

Democrats have a majority of votes in the House.  All appropriations must begin in the House.  Therefore, refusing to approve any additional funding for the war, beyond the costs of withdrawal by a date certain, is the one way that a united Democratic caucus could stop the war in Iraq without worrying about a filibuster, overriding a veto of legislation, or Presidential non-compliance with conditions on funding.

President Bush has already made a supplemental funding request and will offer another annual funding request later this year.  I want to know whether Rep. __________ supports funding for either or both of these requests beyond the cost of withdrawal.  [ADDED: I'd also like to know if Rep. _______ favors adding the restrictions Rep. Murtha had proposed to any funding authorization that may eventually be passed.]

(Note: I'm open to amendments on how to phrase the above.  At first blush, I think it does the job.)

If you plan to call certain reps, you might want to "lay claim" to them with a comment so we can avoid too much reduncancy.  People post your comments here, with verbatim explanatory quotes if you'd like, and I'll update them.  If someone would like to port this table into DKosopedia so everyone can work on it at once, that would be fine too.

Once we know where we actually stand, we'll be able to have a better discussion here about what the Democratic leadership -- which probably already knows the answers to these questions -- should be doing.  The table follows.

Making sense of the table:

"Yes" signifies favors funding
"No" signifies opposes funding
"Undecided" signifies stated equivocation
"N/A" signifies no statement available
"Leans" may precede "yes" or "no"
"SUPP" signifies upcoming supplemental Iraq War funding request
"ANNUAL" signifies annual Iraq War funding request (later in 2007)
I've entered fake sample data for Rep. Abercrombie to push the columns apart.

 

REPRESENTATIVE FAVORS FUNDING:	SUPP?	ANNUAL?	Pro-Murtha?
Neil Abercrombie (D - HI)	undecided	N/A
Gary Ackerman (D - NY)
Tom Allen (D - ME)
Jason Altmire (D - PA)
Rob Andrews (D - NJ)
Michael Arcuri (D - NY)
Joe Baca (D - CA)
Brian Baird (D - WA)
Tammy Baldwin (D - WI)
John Barrow (D - FL)
Melissa Bean (D - IL)
Xavier Becerra (D - CA)
Shelley Berkley (D - NV)
Howard Berman (D - CA)
Marion Berry (D - AR)
Sanford Bishop (D - GA)
Tim Bishop (D - NY)
Earl Blumenauer (D - OR)
Dan Boren (D - OK)
Leonard Boswell (D - IA)
Rick Boucher (D - VA)
Allen Boyd (D - FL)
Nancy Boyda (D - KS)
Bob Brady (D - PA)
Bruce Braley (D - IA)
Corrine Brown (D - FL)
G. K. Butterfield (D - NC)
Lois Capps (D - CA)
Mike Capuano (D - MA)
Dennis Cardoza (D - CA)
Russ Carnahan (D - MO)
Chris Carney (D - PA)
Julia Carson (D - IN)
Kathy Castor (D - FL)
Ben Chandler (D - KY)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D - MI)
Yvette D. Clarke (D - NY)
William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D - MO)
Emanuel Cleaver (D - MO)
Jim Clyburn (D - SC)
Steve Cohen (D - TN)
John Conyers (D - MI)
Jim Cooper (D - TN)
Jim Costa (D - CA)
Jerry Costello (D - IL)
Joe Courtney (D - CT)
Bud Cramer (D - AL)
Joseph Crowley (D - NY)
Henry Cuellar (D - TX)
Elijah Cummings (D - MD)
Artur Davis (D - AL)
Danny K. Davis (D - IL)
Lincoln Davis (D - TN)
Susan Davis (D - CA)
Peter DeFazio (D - OR)
Diana DeGette (D - CO)
Bill Delahunt (D - MA)
Rosa DeLauro (D - CT)
Norm Dicks (D - WA)
John Dingell (D - MI)
Lloyd Doggett (D - TX)
Joe Donnelly (D - IN)
Michael F. Doyle (D - PA)
Chet Edwards (D - TX)
Keith Ellison (D - MN)
Brad Ellsworth (D - IN)
Rahm Emanuel (D - IL)
Eliot L. Engel (D - NY)
Anna Eshoo (D - CA)
Bob Etheridge (D - NC)
Sam Farr (D - CA)
Chaka Fattah (D - PA)
Bob Filner (D - CA)
Barney Frank (D - MA)
Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D - NY)
Charlie Gonzalez (D - TX)
Bart Gordon (D - TN)
Al Green (D - TX)
Gene Green (D - TX)
Raúl M. Grijalva (D - AZ)
Luis Gutierrez (D - IL)
John Hall (D - NY)
Philip Hare (D - IL)
Jane Harman (D - CA)
Alcee Hastings (D - FL)
Stephanie Herseth (D - SD)
Brian Higgins (D - NY)
Baron Hill (D - IN)	undecided	undecided
Maurice Hinchey (D - NY)
Rubén Hinojosa (D - TX)
Mazie Hirono (D - HI)
Paul Hodes (D - NH)
Tim Holden (D - PA)
Rush D. Holt Jr. (D - NJ)
Mike Honda (D - CA)
Darlene Hooley (D - OR)
Steny Hoyer (D - MD)
Jay Inslee (D - WA)
Steve Israel (D - NY)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D - IL)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D - TX)
William J. Jefferson (D - LA)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D - TX)
Hank Johnson (D - GA)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D - OH)
Steve Kagen (D - WI)
Paul E. Kanjorski (D - PA)
Marcy Kaptur (D - OH)
Patrick J. Kennedy (D - RI)
Dale E. Kildee (D - MI)
Ron Kind (D - WI)
Ron Klein (D - FL)
Dennis J. Kucinich (D - OH)
Nick Lampson (D - TX)
James Langevin (D - RI)
Tom Lantos (D - CA)
Rick Larsen (D - WA)
John Larson (D - CT)
Barbara Lee (D - CA)
Sander Levin (D - MI)
John Lewis (D- GA)
Dan Lipinski (D - IL)
David Loebsack (D - IA)
Zoe Lofgren (D - CA)
Nita Lowey (D - NY)
Stephen Lynch (D - MA)
Tim Mahoney (D - FL)
Carolyn B. Maloney (D - NY)
Ed Markey (D - MA)
Jim Marshall (D - GA)
Jim Matheson (D - UT)
Doris Matsui (D - CA)
Carolyn McCarthy (D - NY)
Betty McCollum (D - MN)	Yes	Yes
Jim McDermott (D - WA)
Jim McGovern (D - MA)
Mike McIntyre (D - NC)
Jerry McNerney (D - CA)
Michael R. McNulty (D - NY)
Marty Meehan (D - MA)
Kendrick Meek (D - FL)
Gregory W. Meeks (D - NY)
Charlie Melancon (D - LA)
Mike Michaud (D - ME)
Juanita Millender-McDonald (D - CA)
Brad Miller (D - NC)
George Miller (D - CA)
Harry Mitchell (D - AZ)
Alan Mollohan (D - WV)
Dennis Moore (D - KS)
Gwen Moore (D - WI)
Jim Moran (D - VA)
Chris Murphy (D - CT)
Patrick Murphy (D - PA)
John Murtha (D - PA)
Jerrold Nadler (D - NY)
Grace Napolitano (D - CA)
Richard Neal (D - MA)
Jim Oberstar (D - MN)
Dave Obey (D - WI)
John Olver (D - MA)
Solomon P. Ortiz (D - TX)
Frank Pallone (D - NJ)
Bill Pascrell Jr. (D - NJ)
Ed Pastor (D - AZ)
Donald M. Payne (D - NJ)
Nancy Pelosi (D - CA)
Ed Perlmutter (D - CO)
Collin Peterson (D - MN)
Earl Pomeroy (D - ND)
David Price (D - NC)
Nick Rahall (D - WV)
Charles B. Rangel (D - NY)
Silvestre Reyes (D - TX)
Ciro Rodriguez (D - TX)
Mike Ross (D - AR)
Steve Rothman (D - NJ)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D - CA)
Dutch Ruppersberger (D - MD)
Bobby Rush (D - IL)
Tim Ryan (D - OH)
John Salazar (D - CO)
Loretta Sanchez (D - CA)
Linda Sánchez (D - CA)
John Sarbanes (D - MD)
Janice D. Schakowsky (D - IL)
Adam Schiff (D - CA)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D - FL)
Allyson Schwartz (D - PA)
David Scott (D - FL)
Robert C. Scott (D - VA)
José Serrano (D - NY)
Joe Sestak (D - PA)
Carol Shea-Porter (D - NH)
Brad Sherman (D - CA)
Heath Shuler (D - NC)
Albio Sires (D - NJ)
Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D - NY)
Ike Skelton (D - MO)
Adam Smith (D - WA)
Vic Snyder (D - AR)
Hilda Solis (D - CA)
Zack Space (D - OH)
John Spratt (D - SC)
Pete Stark (D - CA)
Bart Stupak (D - MI)
Betty Sutton (D - OH)
John S. Tanner (D - TN)
Ellen Tauscher (D - CA)
Gene Taylor (D - MS)
Bennie Thompson (D - MS)
Mike Thompson (D - CA)
John Tierney (D - MA)
Ed Towns (D - NY)
Mark Udall (D - CO)
Tom Udall (D - NM)
Chris Van Hollen (D - MD)
Nydia Velázquez (D - NY)
Peter Visclosky (D - IN)
Tim Walz (D - MN)
Maxine Waters (D - CA)
Diane Watson (D - CA)
Mel Watt (D - NC)
Henry Waxman (D - CA)
Anthony D. Weiner (D - NY)
Peter Welch (D - VT)
Robert Wexler (D - FL)
Charlie Wilson (D - OH)
Lynn Woolsey (D - CA)
David Wu (D - OR)
Albert Wynn (D - MD)
John Yarmuth (D - KY)
NON-VOTING:
Madeleine Bordallo (D - GUAM)
Donna Christian-Christensen (D - VIR. ISLS.)
Eni Faleomavaega (D - AM. SAMOA)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D - DC)

(Note: the table is adapted from Wikipedia and may have errors in its source or its transcription.  Please let me know of any errors and I'll fix them.)

•  Doin' it TPM style!

  This is how you get reps to take notice.  If you want other people to see it, please recommend.  Even if you don't, I'll still be linking to it as appropriate.

  I'm heading to sleep after a late night here on the Left Coast, so I'll leave you people for whom day has already broken to fend for yourselves for a while, if you wish.

  by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:12:10 AM PDT

  •  You're going to get a "yes" count

    About the size of the House Progressive Caucus, and probably not a single vote more, sadly.

    by andgarden on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:18:42 AM PDT

    •  Whatever results we get will be important

      Right now, we're arguing about directions without a map.  If the "defund the war" position is not marginalized within the caucus, that's really important to know.  That means people who are smart, cautious, and care about the party's future favor it, and that becomes an important response to people who consider it pie in the sky.  If it is as you say, then that would inform our discussion here in a different way.  Frankly, I'm rooting for the former.  Either way, I want to know.  I think we all should want to.

      by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:23:02 AM PDT

      •  Of course, Pelosi has the prerogative

        to refuse passing a budget at all unless Bush agreees to withdraw on a timetable. But that's some serious Hardball, and could easily cost us the Congress.

        by andgarden on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:28:02 AM PDT

        •  That is not going to cost us the congress

          If the story is correctly managed, you know "We are doing what the American public asked us to do, so we are responding in kind", there should be nothing but positives.  From our side of the aisle.  

          Wingnuts are not voting for our candidates anyway, and since they are about 35% of the electorate...I think we can chance doing what is right for once.

          by funluvn1 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:33:34 AM PDT

        •  That is Betty McColllum's view (MN 04)

          Last week, during the Moveon-sponsored letter drop at Ms. McCollum's local office, her aide stated that Ms. McCollum did not support de-funding the war because it would put in jeopardy a number of Democratic seats in the House in '08.  Ms. McCollum has been the staunchest of the staunch against this war from the very beginning.  If Ms. McCollum won't vote for taking away the funding, you can bet that almost nobody will.

          by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:34:00 AM PDT

          •  Then

            Ms. McCollum does not stand for ending the war.

            She may have good reasons in her mind, but that is the bottom line.

            by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:51:08 AM PDT

            •  If it makes you feel any better, there is a

              sit-in every single Tuesday in Betty's local office by constituents trying to convince Ms. McCollum to cut off the funding.  Maybe we will have some impact, but maybe not.  Sigh.

              by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:05:34 AM PDT

              •  See if this

                idea works for her.

                by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:22:36 AM PDT

                •  BTD, that's a good piece that you linked to

                  above!  Ms. McCollum shall receive a copy in her in box next Tuesday morning.

                  Here's my problem at the moment, though.  I am one of what many on this site call a "purist."  I am in favor of cutting the funding today, and redeploying the troops TODAY.  I do not consider myself a purist in this, I consider myself an optimist.  But I am getting less optimistic with each passing day.

                  How strong is opposition to the Iraq war in this country?  The lukewarm response for calls to action over the last four years is not exactly encouraging on that front.  So Ms. McCollum may be correct in her assessment that the majority of voters would like to see an end to the war, but aren't convinced that defunding it is the best way to do that, or indeed, that there is any urgency about ending the war, as long as we get around to ending it "sometime soon."

                  Let's just take one example of lukewarm antagonism to the war:  there was a very-well publicized protest against the surge in January.  It was nation-wide.  For the protest in St. Paul, MN, approximately 50 people showed up.  Within two miles of this protest are five private colleges.  The UofM is less than three miles away, with 40K+ students.  In fact, one of the private colleges, with a reputation for liberalism, is less than two blocks away.  Not one student showed up.  Not one.  99% of those protesting were over fifty years of age.  What are our senators and representatives seeing, then:  they are seeing a very, very small number of aging people who are upset about the war.  Very, very small.

                  It's discouraging.

                  by feelingsickinMN on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:55:28 AM PDT

          •  Gotta get over that Betty

            The American people want this war to end.  Nonbinding resolutions won't do that.  De-funding might.  

            by Mia Dolan on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:57:36 AM PDT

          •  I've marked her down as a "yes"

            More questioning of that her -- such as whether there are certain conditions under which she would support defunding -- might change that to a "leans yes."

            by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:38:44 PM PDT

  •  MA reps

    You have Ed Markey and Marty Meehan listed as being in Maryland.  I haven't checked the others.

    by Boston Boomer on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:32:53 AM PDT

    •  Thanks -- I put in the states by hand

      and knew I'd probably mess up the data entry somewhere.  Fixed.

      by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:46:18 PM PDT

  •  Barney Frank

    is also listed as being from Maryland.

    by Boston Boomer on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:34:13 AM PDT

    •  So's Capuano, Delahunt, etc.

      Actually, everybody with the exception of Olver.

      by brownsox on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Excellent. Recommended. n/t

    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:23:47 AM PDT

•  Any Congressional Democrat who stands...

  ...in the way of voting down the very next supplemental request will have the blood of the American soldiers who remain and die out there because of it, on their hands.

  They will have shown that, when push comes to shove, they are as much in support of the war as Republicans.

  by dov12348 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:38:16 AM PDT

  •  are you still paying taxes?

    have you been arrested yet? Have you even been out to protest? Did you help an antiwar Democratic challenger get elected last year? Did you donate to a quixotic antiwar challenger who didn't (who couldn't) get elected? (like Tasini in New York). Have you done anything except post dozens (hundreds?) of posts at Daily Kos lately about how Dems are just as bad as Repubs?

    Anyway, if your taxes are still funding the war, if you're still going to work every day instead of being arrested over and over, if you're  still filling up your gas tank, you, too, have blood on your hands, and you too have shown, that when push comes to shove, you are as much in suppprt of the war as Republicans. at least according to your logic.

    My Dem N.CA Rep Mike Thompson voted against the IWR, he introduced withdrawal legislation last year (including banning permanent bases and requiring U.S. to say they have no interest in Iraqi oil). No matter which way Thompson might end up voting on a 100% defunding measure, he is ABSOLUTELY NOT IN ANY WAY "as much in support of the war as Republicans."

    I don't buy your argument, I stopped buying it a long time ago, especially coming from those (a majority) whose commitment to end the war doesn't extend beyond talk.

    by jennifer poole on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:21:12 AM PDT

    •  My taxes are taken from me by force.

      So that's a non-issue.

      But a slight correction.

      Any Dem who shrinks from voting down the supplemental -- well, is not really like the Republican who does so.  We know what the Republicans will do.  The Dems were elected to end this thing -- not continue to fuck around and act cowardly.

      Talk -- on blogs like this -- that those who can do somthing about it, READ -- can and do make a difference.

      Funding = support = troops there longer = more dead troops.   Simple.

      by dov12348 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:36:47 AM PDT

      •  Joe Biden was NOT elected to end the Iraq

        occupation. Many of the Dem Senators who voted "Yea" on the authorization haven't even had a reelection challenge since they voted in 2002.

        The new Dem U.S. Reps from, say, Kansas, weren't elected "to end the war" either.

        yes, some Dems 'were elected to stop the war'; other Dems (again I cite Clinton) were elected INSTEAD of anti-Iraq-occupation challengers.

        Taxes are not taken "by force" (i.e., with guns) but by acquiescence to a threat of consequences (fines, losing assets, likely losing your job if your action means the IRS comes down on your employer) and, way down the line, possible jail time). There are a number of ways to do war tax resistance even if you get a paycheck with taxes already withheld, including not paying excise tax on your phone bill, and filling out your initial W-4 form with more deductions than you actually merit, thus minimizing withholding from your employer, then filing your form with the IRS with the correct information, and NOT paying what you owe. Here's a page with more information on "How to resist":

        http://www.warresisters.org/...

        I'm not suggesting anybody must take the revolutionary step of being a war tax resister to credibly speak out in criticism of the Iraq occupation; I am not a war tax resister myself. But neither am I the one saying that if an anti-Iraq-occupation Democrat won't vote to 100% defund the occupation, it means all the rest of their anti-Iraq-occupatiion talk/actions/votes are worthless, and they're as responsible as Bush for the carnage.

        by jennifer poole on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:59:34 AM PDT

        •  Hmmm...

          "At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun."

          -- Alan Greenspan

          It's true; think about it.

          Congress has a Constitutional duty to stop this thing by de-funding.  We shouldn't have to go through a near impossible and time consuming obstacle course to try and thwart the IRS.   And so I don't pay my war taxes.  And what effect will that have on affect this particular war supplemental?  Right.  Zero.  Zip.  Nada.

          No the rest of their talks aren't worthless. But whatever comes out of it, if they still pay for Bush's war, and Bush keeps waging his war, what have we gained?  More legislation that Bush will laugh at.  We should all know by now he'll just do whatever the hell he wants anyway.

          All he needs is one thing.

          The money.

          by dov12348 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:12:23 AM PDT

•  I wonder if all the support for funding just

  reflects the fact that all these Democrats in the House don't know how to counter the attack on them that they would betray the troops by cutting the funds for them. They fear their constituents. Has this all to do with not being able to direct funds exactly where they should go and that nobody has control over how the money is spent?

  Isn't there ONE good, hard hitting argument that this attack on the Democrats is complete bullshit.

  by mimi on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:39:24 AM PDT

  •  A possible response:

    That continued funding for the war = continued support for the war = continued support for the pointless death and maiming of our troops.

    Money is usually green.  This money would turn blood red really quick.

    by dov12348 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:33:51 AM PDT

•  Delahunt is MA

  rather than MD and I'll call him as soon as the offices open since he's mine.

  by sobermom on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:04:58 AM PDT

  •  All the MA reps

    except for Olver, are listed as (D-MD).

    Minor and esoteric quibble about a fine action diary.

    by brownsox on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:26:03 AM PDT

•  Good Diary

  Good point.

  Recommended.

  by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:49:47 AM PDT

  •  There is hope afterall!

    I agree :-)

    by Elise on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:11:49 AM PDT

  •  Only one response so far

    Please feel free to link to it in your nightly diaries.  This will need to be jump-started several times to get going.

    While I expect that people like Rep. McCollum are against defunding for a good reason -- my experience from the Carter campaign is that the national committees and party leadership bring a lot of pressure to bear to reject certain positions based on their extensive polling -- I do know that you may be right about all this, my preference for setting up a different battle notwithstanding.  And if you're right, let's undertake this in the most effective way possible.  Actually, even if you're wrong, this lobbying should take place anyway, as it opens the political space for them to move to the left.

    You probably know that my bottom line is that even if the Democrats can't cut their way out of this thicket, they are still our best hope in 2008 to reducing the overall harm, which is why I bristle at any assertion that they can possibly be considered as guilty as Republicans for maintaining the war.  Maybe they should pretend it's so, to keep themselves motivated, but I will never make that claim.

    Anyway, this is supposed to be an action item, so I will try not to debate further here.

    by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:57:33 PM PDT

    •  Will do

      Thanks for the work.

      by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:04:05 PM PDT

•  great diary. I hope you keep it up, adding

  information as you get it, making this one of the "continuing series" of diaries.

  "The Dems" are not monolithic. Inside Congress or out. and those who suggest Pelosi and Reid are useless (or worse, betraying the voters) because they can't order all their members to vote a certain way, seem not to understand representative government.

  Yes, we should continue to press Democrats in Congress to defund the war; yes, we should continue to work on explaining to voters that in the face of Bush's intransigence, defunding is the only way for Democrats in Congress to get what the majority of the people want, an end to the Iraq occupation before Bush leaves the White House.

  In March, we'll all have more opportunities to get out in the streets and protest the occupation -- I challenge every single "Dems suck" poster on this site to attend a protest, and bring 10 friends with them. March 10 - United for Peace

  by jennifer poole on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:36:59 AM PDT

  •  I hope I *get* more information

    This diary ain't going away; I will link to it in the future, as I hope will others.

    by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:58:24 PM PDT

•  IN-09 Baron Hill 'undecided' Blue Dog

  I wrote to Hill's office, pasting your block-quote question into my email, Major Danby.  I asked for a yes or no answer, or if undecided then some basis for understanding Hill's positon.  Here's what I got from Hill's press secretary:

  Congressman Baron Hill believes strongly in cost accountability in the war with Iraq. More than $400 billion has been spent on the war thus far, and little is known about where that money has actually been spent. The Administration must be held accountable for their spending, and businesses must be held accountable for improper conduct such as war profiteering. Part of cost accountability is requiring the Administration to submit their appropriations request through the regular budget process, instead of in the form of a supplemental bill.

  Cutting off funds for the war in Iraq does not necessarily spur an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Last week, a CRS (Congressional Research Service) legal expert spoke to the congressman and staff members about this issue. The struggle between Congress and the President over war powers has been going on since the Civil War. However, there is not a clear precedent from which to base a present judgment. For instance, even if Congress blocks additional funding for the war in Iraq, the President could attempt to obtain funds from other sources within the government. Plus, the President could object to Congress' actions as overstepping its bounds and managing the war and ask the courts to consider Congress' actions as violating its Constitutional powers. If the courts choose to consider the President's objection, the issue could take months to resolve, while our troops remain in Iraq. Also, we must remember that the funding for the war goes to other things besides U.S. troops, such as reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi soldiers.

  Congressman Hill wants to see a timely end to this war that preserves and maintains the honor of American troops. To that end, he is reviewing all legislation proposed by his colleagues about Iraq and conferring with military experts, policy experts, constituents and staff members.

  I've copied out the link you give above to BTD's article at Talk Left, regarding a kind of spending cap.  I'll send it to Hill's office.

  As I write this Kagro X has a front-page piece talking about Blue Dogs not wanting to confront Bush . . .. (sigh).

  And I suppose I'll have to raise the question at some point -- Hill's historically-poor southern Indiana district is set to receive $70 MILLION (up from $7 million last year) if the war spending planned last year goes through.  The funds would be allocated to a kind of 'training triangle' for National Guard troops, with troops based at Camp Atterbury and being air-dropped from the Jefferson Proving Gounds airfield to train in urban warfare at Muscatatuck (a deserted long-term care facility which once housed developmentally disabled).  The training is supposed to prepare National Guard troops very quickly for urban war.

  The wheeling-and-dealing to put this 'training triangle' in place was likely done during Sodrel's tenure as GOP Rep.  But voting against war funding would likely mean this huge chunk of change would not come to IN-09.  What's a Blue Dog to do?

  by CroneWit on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:14:53 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for the excellent information

    This helps us understand what we (and our Dem Reps) are grappling with.

    by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:19:12 PM PDT

    •  Hill has not seen funding bills yet --

      I had written back to Hill's Press Secy to confirm my understanding that Hill was 'undecided' re: the supplemental & annual funding.  The response --

      We havent seen the language for either bill so Baron cant make a decision yet.

      Which makes him, I guess, 'pre-decisional' . . ..

      You indicate, Major Danby, that the supplemental has already been put on the table -- do you remember when?  

      I really like your idea, Major Danby, about being methodical in finding out where our Reps stand.  But maybe the question(s) we're asking need to be different?  Such as --

      'Will you vote in accordance with the majority of Americans as shown in the recent Washington Post poll, which shows strong support for the Murtha plan?'

      Another way to go would be to take each of the points in Hill's second paragraph above, and debunk/refute them.  Here's the paragraph again,broken up with my questions/coments in [brackets]:

      Cutting off funds for the war in Iraq does not necessarily spur an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. [keyword 'necessarily'; what plans move toward immediate withdrawal?  And, is Hill's raising the 'immediate withdrawl' a hred harring -- your questions were about future votes for/against funding.]

      Last week, a CRS (Congressional Research Service) legal expert spoke to the congressman and staff members about this issue. The struggle between Congress and the President over war powers has been going on since the Civil War. [well, yes.]

      However, there is not a clear precedent from which to base a present judgment. [In the last week or so a front-pager refuted this by citing the GOP Congress with Clinton in Bosnia.]

      For instance, even if Congress blocks additional funding for the war in Iraq, the President could attempt to obtain funds from other sources within the government. [Not with Ted Kennedy's wording.]

      Plus, the President could object to Congress' actions as overstepping its bounds and managing the war and ask the courts to consider Congress' actions as violating its Constitutional powers. If the courts choose to consider the President's objection, the issue could take months to resolve, while our troops remain in Iraq. [I don't think I've heard this one before.  But the 'power of the purse' is well-established, and cutting funding in whatever form seems well within Congress' purview.]

      Also, we must remember that the funding for the war goes to other things besides U.S. troops, such as reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi soldiers.  [Yes, reconstruction which has been a multi-billion dollar boondogges, with billions misallocated or just disappeared -- or as Sy Hersch now suggests, used for black ops against Iran.  And as for training -- do we need to educate our Congresspeople on how much of a joke -- a wasteful joke -- that 'training' has been, and will continue to be?]

      OK, got into some pontificating there, sorry.  But my point (when I started this) was that maybe we should methodically gather refutations.

      by CroneWit on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:44:35 PM PDT

      •  I've added a Murtha column

        I think that the idea of picking apart Hill's response is a fine one.  Worth its own diary, actually, if you're disposed.  I'd be respectful -- as you know, he is in a tough district -- but the point is to show him how he does have a winning hand.

        by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:54:10 PM PDT

        •  Which would be easier if --

          -- there were a pre-existing list of 'counter' arguments/assertions (like Hill's above) matched with refutations (like the Bosnia bit).  Searching around to compile such a list is something I sure don't have time for right now.

          But maybe your diary, Major Danby, will flush out additional hesitations, the 'frames' that the 'no' and 'undecided' folks are caught in -- and can result in the compilation of refutations.

          by CroneWit on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:02:16 PM PDT

          •  That was part of my hope

            in posting it.  You've offered a good example of how it can pay off.

            by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:28:25 PM PDT

            •  Thanks. I wrote Hill's people again --

              Just now.  Here it is (and yes, I call them 'Folks' See my Feb 14 diary for background)--

              Folks, I appreciate Katie's quick response to my question about Baron Hill's stance regarding voting for/against the supplemental and annual funding bills for continued American presence in Iraq.  Although I will need some time to digest and fully consider Rep Hill's evolving position, I am glad to see that my Representative and his staff are studying all aspects of this difficult issue.

              I'm sure that Rep Hill would want his vote to reflect the will of the American people.  A recent Washington Post poll shows very strong support for withdrawal, and surprisingly strong support for the Murtha plan. --

              Majority in Poll Favor Deadline For Iraq Pullout
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

              Since Rep Hill, as a 'Blue Dog', places special emphasis on fiscal accountability, he may also be interested in this diary --
              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              which gives an excellent summary of this article --
              http://www.prospect.org/...

              on a kind of 'spending cap' that would use limitation of expenditures to force an end date to the American presence in Iraq.  In terms of fiscal accountibility, these two paragraphs seem particularly telling to me --  

              "We have already spent $350 billion there, so the president's proposal pushes our Iraqi costs close to the half trillion mark. At the same time, he is demanding a $100 billion cut in health care funding, falling most heavily on poor children, while he maintains his $200 billion annual tax cut, channeled mostly to millionaires.

              "It is Congress's job to restore fiscal balance first, by placing an overall limit on Iraq war expenditures. Congress should limit this president to spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war -- and no more.... [T]he president would have no choice but to sign this ceiling to get short-term funding for his war."

              I hope Baron Hill will add these to his reading list as he considers his votes in regard to funding our continued presence in Iraq.

              The quote above mentions the $100 billion cut in health care, but does not mention the proposed gutting of Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other social programs that impoverished Indiana citizens in IN-09 depend on for survival.

              Southern Indiana's historic poverty must make any budget or appropriation vote especially serious for Rep Hill.  There has not yet been much media coverage of the proposed influx of millions of dollars in military training funds that will flow into IN-09 if the conflict in Iraq continues (or if the conflict expands into Iran).  The National Guard 'training triangle' (Camp Atterbury, Muscatatuck, Jefferson Proving Grounds) will, under the plans made during Rep Sodrel's tenure, make a great financial impact on Rep Hill's district.  

              I can only imagine that this potential loss of Federal funds for his impoverished district must enter, in some way, into Rep Hill's considerations of voting for or against continued military action.  I beg Rep Hill to remember, as he makes his considerations, that every National Guard soldier who would go through the 'training triangle' is a father, a mother, a daughter, a son -- a teacher, firefighter, farmer or factory worker.  I would beg Rep Hill to remember that each American life that is lost or damaged beyond repair is worth more than dollars injected into a local economy, or than any purely expedient political stance.

              The majority of the American people, as evidenced by the Washington Post poll above, understand that this war is not a matter of 'American honor'.  Democrats were elected to end this war, and I hope Rep Hill will listen to The People's voice.

              Sincerely,
              [My Name]

              by CroneWit on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:00:31 PM PDT

              •  That is a wonderful letter

                You know what?  I'm sending this thread to Top Comments just so people can see how this sort of thing ought to be done.

                by Major Danby on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:16:55 PM PDT

                •  Wow. Thanks!

                  But right now I am so discouraged -- this morning's news is that House Dems are going to put forward a wussy 'Bush has to report to us' thing, and Murtha is going along with it.

                  After logging off last night, I re-thought B Hill's 'concerns' above, and wondered -- how do these differ from Republican talking points?  I could see no difference.  I also came up with the thought 'Blue Dogs = whipped pups'.

                  Why are they operating (seemingly) out of fear?  It's the kind of 'walking-on-eggshells' thinking one sees in an abused spouse:  'I can't do (whatever) because that would upset him.'  They ned to be playing offense.

                  But thanks.  Your good opinion of my effort means a lot to me.

                  by CroneWit on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 06:46:32 AM PDT