Will David Obey de-fund the war?

David Obey, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee and therefore arguably the most important figure in terms of supplemental funding, just held a very interesting press conference, in which the key quote was this:

“As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."

The truth of this is a little more complicated. But the baseline of what Obey's saying is, at least for now, he won't let a blank check out of committee. If the White House will not submit any alternative, that's de-funding the war.

Let's look at the full context of Obey's remarks:

“I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.

-- "Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009."

-- "Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments."

-- "Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region."

“But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.

"Establish as a goal" is pretty weak tea, as we all know. It's of a piece with the Abecrombie-Tanner amendment being debated today, which does nothing but ask for a report on withdrawal rather than its implementation. And the Webb Amendment, while vital, is more of a slow-bleed than anything that will lead to a rapid drawdown.

But here's the thing. The White House won't accept this, and they believe this is a fight they can win. Of course they do, they've won it in the past. They just won it in the Senate:

Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote was 92-3.

The Senate bill doesn't guarantee that the money be spent; only a separate appropriations bill will manage that. And so what we're looking at is an impasse in the House Appropriations Committee. Will Obey shut it down, or will he just roll over? Well, maybe he can be flooded with the results of that new poll showing that Americans want to see the funding cut.

Most Americans oppose fully funding President George W. Bush's $190 billion request to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while a majority supports expanding a children's health care program he has threatened to veto, a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.

The poll published on Tuesday also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress, partly because of the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy, The Washington Post reported.

Only about 25 percent of Americans support the administration's $190 billion war funding request; 70 percent want the proposed allocation reduced, the Post said.

We aren't likely to see the allocation reduced, but surely the Democrats can manage to remove their heads from their posteriors enough to understand that the public wants bold action and doesn't mind a combative stance. Obey's statement is the first step toward that. If he's willing to use his power of the gavel to force actual policy changes, that's a real change.

There's also this bit of controversy:

“If the President really is concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation which will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs that are related to our military actions in Iraq.

“We are choosing not to offset costs associated with our efforts in Afghanistan, because we believe that those are legitimate, because our Afghanistan effort is aimed at eliminating the Taliban who gave shelter to al Qaeda, and that action will benefit future generations. But those future generations should not be saddled with paying for an ill advised war in Iraq that seems to be never ending.

“If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for.

“We know that this proposal is going to be controversial – I don’t expect to get the support of our leadership or the support of our caucus at this point – but by putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the President’s bluff on fiscal responsibility.

I highlighted the part where Obey doesn't expect the support of the leadership on the war tax. The truth is that he doesn't need it. He holds the gavel on Appropriations, and nothing will pass without his say so.

I'm not convinced that Obey has the wherewithal to really cut the funding. But he's certainly moving in that direction.