Let’s watch the rats squirm now:
The Bush administration Tuesday threatened to veto the fiscal 2004 supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan if a Senate-approved loan provision is accepted. “If this provision is not removed, the president’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” OMB Director Josh Bolten said in a letter sent Tuesday to House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders.
The Senate approved the amendment, despite vigorous White House and GOP leadership lobbying, to convert $10 billion of the Iraq reconstruction funds into a loan unless other nations forgive 90 percent of Iraq’s prewar debt. GOP lawmakers and aides said the provision would likely be removed in conference, as the House bill would provide its entire $18.65 billion Iraq aid package in the form of a grant. “The House will hold firm in support of the president and, in the end, I expect the conference report will drop the loan provision,” House Appropriations Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., said.
Good for Bush.
Dean
Prediction:
Those on the Left, even if they agreed that making money for Iraq loans rather than grants was a bad idea, will now condemn Dubya for “high-handedness” and “not taking the hint” and not handing the whole thing over to the UN, etc., etc., etc.
John Cole
Nah- they will te this die. As it is, there is very little chance the loans would get into the final bill, anyway, but I am proud of Bush for finally making a stand. Now start fucking vetoing other spending bills.
Kimmitt
You know, it would be nice to have some kind of discussion as to where all this fucking money is going to come from.
David Perron
That’s a rather odd question, Kimmitt. It comes from the same pot that Americorps came from.
Or is the question why are we putting money to good use, when we could be wasting it?
Kimmitt
The question is, “Now that we’re spending $50-150 billion a year for the next five to ten years to garrison and rebuild Iraq, what plan does the Bush Administration have to raise the revenue and/or which programs does he plan to cut?”
The answer, sadly, is: “Nothing; Bush is a craven political coward who will simply borrow the money, rather than expend political capital on good government. This will have a crowding-out effect on the US economy, leading to an ongoing slowdown — and a massive reduction in Social Security benefits. We need a grownup in the White House.”
David Perron
Good, Kimmitt. You converse with yourself rather well.
The massive reduction in SS benefits is non sequitur; it’s coming anyway, regardless of what Bush or anyone else in government does to the contrary.
Kimmitt
So we shouldn’t try to manage or minimize it?
Dean
Wow, so Kimmitt, what are YOU prepared to see happen?
Raise the retirement age?
Means-test the benefits?
Those two would DEFINITELY manage AND minimize the costs. Which Dem do YOU hear advocating these things?