Top House Democrats, frustrated by President Bush’s threats to veto anti-war legislation and spending bills, announced Tuesday they are proposing a surtax to pay for the Iraq war.
They also said they will not consider Bush’s $190 billion supplemental war-spending request until next year at the earliest, and only if the president begins cooperating with their efforts to end the conflict.
“I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee any time this session any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., a staunch war opponent.
Public opposition to the war has eased recently in the wake of reports the troop surge has been somewhat effective in restoring order and reducing violence in Iraq. The number of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed last month dropped to the lowest level in more than a year.
That has left Democrats with far less leverage to move bills aimed at bringing home the troops and thus more vulnerable to criticism from their anti-war base.
“We are having success in Iraq and that is obviously driving the Democrats crazy,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
The proposed surtax, Obey said, would pay for the $150 billion annual cost of the war by raising the tax bills of low-income earners by about 2 percent and adding up to 15 percent to taxes on the wealthy.
The plan stands little chance of clearing Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she opposes it, and Senate Democratic leaders said they would not even consider it.
Obey’s promise to delay Bush’s war supplemental request, which would provide money for the troops to fight in Iraq through most of next year, is more serious.
According to Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., the troops could be funded through March 2008 by passing a short-term spending measure or by transferring money from the non-war Defense spending bill.
Some of that money, Murtha said, could be contingent on Bush agreeing to several anti-war measures that he has threatened to veto, including an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would increase rest time for troops between deployments.
Murtha did not rule out cutting off funds for the troops entirely, which many in the Democratic caucus and most Republicans would oppose. But Democrats are gambling that members will start to support more drastic legislative efforts to end the war as their re-election bids approach.
“It could come to that,” Murtha said.
