Online Only: Power of the purse

An interesting thing happened this week. And no, it wasn't realizing that we might be going to war with Iran. It was discovering that Democrats are planning to do something about Iraq. First, there was Sen. Hillary Clinton's call for troop redeployment before President Bush left office. Her rationale was that it was "irresponsible" to pass the war onto the next president. And Clinton voting for the Iraqi invasion wasn't? Next, there was the "symbolic" vote that the Democrats were planning in order to highlight their opposition to troop escalation. Did I mention that the vote is nonbinding and carries no force of law? \nWhile many people would agree that sending more troops is wrong and serves no purpose, I question the success of such bills. If the president can chip away at a hallowed document like the Constitution, who can guarantee that he is willing to accept resolutions from poor old Congress? The president has made it clear that he will act without Congressional approval and attempts at curbing the emperor in chief's powers will not be expected to erase the man's hubris-- which is why the new buzzword among Congress members should be funding. \nUnderstandably, cutting funding for the war is an issue people find themselves torn on. How do liberals conduct an honest debate about the ridiculous costs of this war without being labeled as "troop haters"? It might help to examine a piece of legislation proposed by one of the few liberals left in Congress, Sen. Russ Feingold. According to CBS, under the senator's plan all troops in Iraq must be redeployed "except for those needed to target counter-terrorism operations and provide security for U.S 'infrastructure and civilian personnel.'" \nIn addition, Sen. Feingold proposes that the decrease in funding would take place six months after the legislation goes into effect. This gives the administration ample time to get its act together and realize that there will be consequences to incompetent policies. \nSen. Feingold already has his work cut out for him. When he introduced a resolution to censure the President for his illegal wiretapping program, almost every Democrat distanced themselves from him. How then, does one make a case for such legislation? There needs to be a clear distinction between cutting funds for the war and cutting funds for the troops. Money will still be used for personnel forces that are present for security purposes. Also, the notion that soldiers will not be equipped with enough armor is ridiculous. \nBefore Republicans start throwing around a word like "traitor," they should be reminded of instances when they have cut funding for the war. For instance, in April 2006, the Republican Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment that Democrats opposed, to cut $1.9 billion from the wartime budget. \nInstead of descending into a debate about who loves the troops more, Congress should seriously consider Sen. Feingold's proposal, even if the terms seem harsh. Unfortunately, desperate times call for desperate measures.