Will House Democrats Oppose a Jobless War Supplemental?

[unhappycamper]

Will House Democrats Oppose a Jobless War Supplemental?
Sunday 25 July 2010
by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Report

The war supplemental for Afghanistan is expected to come back from the Senate to the House this week - without any kind of timetable for military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and without money to save teachers' jobs attached.

~snip~

Labor unions had strongly backed the House Democratic effort to attach money to the supplemental, to boost employment and avoid teacher layoffs. Will these unions now urge House Democrats to vote no on any jobless war supplemental?

Few expect that the House, in a freestanding vote this week, will reject the $33 billion request for the Afghanistan war, since until now there has been a solid block of more than 90 percent of House Republicans committed to voting yes on what they would consider a "relatively clean" war supplemental.

But what is in serious dispute is how many House Democrats will vote no on a jobless war supplemental. A large Democratic no vote would send a strong signal to the White House of House Democratic impatience with a blank checkbook for endless and fruitless war, while the administration insists that there is no money to save jobs at home, at a time of nearly 10 percent measured unemployment. A large Democratic no vote would also send a powerful signal of Democratic "no confidence" in the Pentagon's war plans, increasing pressure on the administration to vigorously pursue a political resolution to the conflict and to establish a timetable for military withdrawal - as desired by the majority of Americans and three-quarters of Democrats, according to a recent CBS poll.

Labor advocates and the majority of House Democrats now have two solid reasons to support a no vote. First, their efforts to add money to save jobs at home have been rejected by the Senate - with White House approval. Second, there is no timetable for military withdrawal embedded in the legislation - not even the July 2011 beginning of a drawdown that President Obama promised last year but which General Petraeus is now doing his best to undermine.

[Gaedel]

1. ARRRRGH

I have problems with the idea of attaching unrelated funding or legal riders to other bills.

I think that all bills should be "clean bills" and that each item should be passed on its merits rather than "riding" an "unkillable" bill.

Just the "good government" prude in me.