Sunday, September 05, 2004
$87 Billion Flip Flop?
Over and over and over again John Kerry has been accused of flip flopping on supporting the troops in Iraq. Kerry's unfortunate statement, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," has led to all sorts of gleeful disingenuous attacks from his critics. Republicans have said Kerry has voted against body armor for our troops and for reinforcing armor for Humvees. They have presented a laundry list of things he voted against as if they were separate bills when in fact they were all included in the same $87 billion funding bill.
Like all measures this bill had to go through the House and the Senate and be worked out in a conference committee before it went to the President. Kerry, along with many others including Republicans supported amendments to this bill. Key amendments involved making a portion of the reconstruction funds included in the bill a loan rather than a grant. To many people this seemed reasonable since shortly after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration said that reconstruction costs would be minimal (estimated at $1.7 billion!) since Iraq was a country rich in oil resources and could therefore pay for its own reconstruction. The White House contacted wayward representatives and said that the president would veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if all money was not in the form of a grant rather than a loan.
The Senate also passed an amendment to the bill providing an:
additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
Once again the President threatens to vote against body armor for our troops!!
The third major sticking point was how to pay for this bill. Since before the Iraq invasion had begun the Bush administration refused to budget anything for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and they belittled anyone who suggested that there would be significant financial costs associated with Iraq. Kerry, again along with many other lawmakers, felt that the responsible thing to do when fighting a war was to not just vote for funding but to face the need to actually allocate revenues to the war, especially since the country was running a record deficit already. He therefore supported an amendment to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (whose taxes Bush had recently lowered substantially) to pay for the funding package. Again Bush threatened to veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if Kerry and his fellow lawmakers dared include language raising taxes on anyone. Bush by the way is the first leader in written history who lowered taxes during a war. (In fact Bush is raising taxes on all of us, he is just deferring these huge tax increases to a later unspecified date since it is easier to get reelected that way.)
After a head count revealed that in fact the bill would pass and soldiers would in fact not be denied body armor (though why 40,000 troops were sent by Bush into a war zone without body armor in the first place is a good question to ask) Kerry voted against the measure in large part because of the three items above not making up part of the final bill.
On the effort to make the reconstruction funds a loan it struck me at the time that the Iraqi provisional government was unhappy about not having any control over reconstruction funds. They would be especially unhappy in the event that these funds would have to be repaid. They might even insist that Iraqi firms actually get awarded contracts instead of having so many no-bid contracts go to Halliburton. Could this be why Bush would rather have our troops killed than make Iraqi's pay for their own reconstruction? It would be cynical for me to suggest such a thing.
The Rethuglicans would have Americans believe that Kerry voted against this bill because he hates America, our troops, apple pie, free enterprise and capitalism. He is a weak kneed Massachusetts effete, french looking girlie man who doesn't have the guts to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to defending the homeland. Kerry is a closet Marxist who is still rooting for communist domination of the earth and Bush represents good old fashioned red meat lovin, god fearin' manhood in all its glory.
Zell Miller should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the Senate.
Over and over and over again John Kerry has been accused of flip flopping on supporting the troops in Iraq. Kerry's unfortunate statement, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," has led to all sorts of gleeful disingenuous attacks from his critics. Republicans have said Kerry has voted against body armor for our troops and for reinforcing armor for Humvees. They have presented a laundry list of things he voted against as if they were separate bills when in fact they were all included in the same $87 billion funding bill.
Like all measures this bill had to go through the House and the Senate and be worked out in a conference committee before it went to the President. Kerry, along with many others including Republicans supported amendments to this bill. Key amendments involved making a portion of the reconstruction funds included in the bill a loan rather than a grant. To many people this seemed reasonable since shortly after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration said that reconstruction costs would be minimal (estimated at $1.7 billion!) since Iraq was a country rich in oil resources and could therefore pay for its own reconstruction. The White House contacted wayward representatives and said that the president would veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if all money was not in the form of a grant rather than a loan.
The Senate also passed an amendment to the bill providing an:
additional $1.3 billion for improved medical benefits for reservists and veterans. OMB Director Josh Bolten wrote to the Congressional Appropriations' Committees, stating, "The Administration strongly opposes these provisions, including Senate provisions that would allocate an additional $1.3 billion for VA medical care and the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE Program. ...If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
Once again the President threatens to vote against body armor for our troops!!
The third major sticking point was how to pay for this bill. Since before the Iraq invasion had begun the Bush administration refused to budget anything for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and they belittled anyone who suggested that there would be significant financial costs associated with Iraq. Kerry, again along with many other lawmakers, felt that the responsible thing to do when fighting a war was to not just vote for funding but to face the need to actually allocate revenues to the war, especially since the country was running a record deficit already. He therefore supported an amendment to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (whose taxes Bush had recently lowered substantially) to pay for the funding package. Again Bush threatened to veto the bill (vote against body armor for our troops!!) if Kerry and his fellow lawmakers dared include language raising taxes on anyone. Bush by the way is the first leader in written history who lowered taxes during a war. (In fact Bush is raising taxes on all of us, he is just deferring these huge tax increases to a later unspecified date since it is easier to get reelected that way.)
After a head count revealed that in fact the bill would pass and soldiers would in fact not be denied body armor (though why 40,000 troops were sent by Bush into a war zone without body armor in the first place is a good question to ask) Kerry voted against the measure in large part because of the three items above not making up part of the final bill.
On the effort to make the reconstruction funds a loan it struck me at the time that the Iraqi provisional government was unhappy about not having any control over reconstruction funds. They would be especially unhappy in the event that these funds would have to be repaid. They might even insist that Iraqi firms actually get awarded contracts instead of having so many no-bid contracts go to Halliburton. Could this be why Bush would rather have our troops killed than make Iraqi's pay for their own reconstruction? It would be cynical for me to suggest such a thing.
The Rethuglicans would have Americans believe that Kerry voted against this bill because he hates America, our troops, apple pie, free enterprise and capitalism. He is a weak kneed Massachusetts effete, french looking girlie man who doesn't have the guts to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to defending the homeland. Kerry is a closet Marxist who is still rooting for communist domination of the earth and Bush represents good old fashioned red meat lovin, god fearin' manhood in all its glory.
Zell Miller should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the Senate.
Comments:
Post a Comment
