House leadership set to pass biggest war spending bill yet.

[lonestarnot]

1) On top of the $102 billion requested by the Bush administration, the Democratic Party leadership is proposing to offer an unsolicited, additional $70 billion to cover the first quarter war funding for FY2009. In other words, this will be a whopping $172 billion!

2) This funding will cover the rest of this fiscal year, which runs to Sept. 30th, and go well into the next fiscal and calendar years. This means this would be the last supplemental appropriation voted on before the November elections. If passed, this funding will also carry over into the next presidency and the new Congress.

3) There is speculation that the House version of the funding bill will be "clean" and not have any other items attached to it. If this happens there would be a straight up-or-down vote before it moves to the Senate where additional spending is likely to be added.

4) According to the Democratic leadership, this unconscionable allocation of $172 billion is an attempt to avoid a presidential veto. However, President Bush has promised to veto any war funding bill that exceeds $108 billion dollars.


2 Critical Calls to Make TODAY:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-0100

Chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee John Murtha at 202-225-2847


Tell them:

* Another blank check of $172 billion for this war is totally unacceptable.


* The most direct way to protect those hit hard by the recession would be to stop sinking billions more of our tax dollars into war and redirecting it toward providing for real safety and security -- jobs, healthcare, education, civil infrastructure, etc.

John Bruhns, Legislative Action Coordinator, UFPJ

[msongs]

1. will obamahillary once again vote to fund/support the occupation of Iraq?

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. You know they will.

[TooBigaTent]

2. I know my DLC-Congressslug will support this. And that is why she has not gotten

a vote from me since her election.

[Squatch]

3. Appropriations bills are NOT "blank checks"

The rule is that the expenditure of funds is proper only when specifically authorized by Congress, not that public funds may expended unless prohibited by Congress.

[spanone]

4. i'm tired of their bullshit...this is now the democrats war and they are continuing it

[lonestarnot]

5. It's been looking that way for a time.

[spanone]

8. you either fund it or you don't.....pretty simple to me

if you fund it, you endorse it

[lonestarnot]

6. There goes some more of the bread basket!

[truebrit71]

7. Much as I hate this it is a clever political move. It IMMEDIATELY removes a key repiglican meme...

..."Democrats don't support the troops"...

If we give those corrupt, morally bankrupt, hypocritical right-wing Lt AWOL-enabling bastards one less arrow in their quiver I am all for it.

We can start the de-gop-ification after Jan 20th next year...

The troops aren't coming home until a Dem gets in the WH and that won't happen 'til next year, this is a pragmatic and practical way to help insure that BOTH of those things happen...

[lonestarnot]

9. Then just give them a blank fucking check. Yeah great move.

[truebrit71]

12. Is there naything going on this Novemeber? Let me think....Ummm?? What can it be?

Oh yes! That's it! The GENERAL ELECTION...

If we remove a key plank from the rethuglican "we support the troops, the Democrats don't" election campaign, how can that be a bad thing?

The troops were not going to be home by Novemeber, and the funds were going to be needed, why give the fascists any more weapons then they already think they need?

Smart move imho.

[lonestarnot]

13. Oh and attach FISA and immunity for telcoms as well! Suck my ass!

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Lemons? Make lemonade.

[lonestarnot]

14. Sure give away the last fucking rivet!

[ladywnch]

15. I thought I read that the dems were going to attach an extention of

unemployment benefits to the funding bill? did that not make it?

[lonestarnot]

16. And the Grand Ole Party of Perverts wants FISA attached.

:shrug: