The Sellout on Iraq Funding Nears Completion

The delay of consideration of the FISA bill was a great victory for progressives to show that they can wield some institutional power, but as I said at the time, Harry Reid undoubtedly pulled the bill because he didn't want to mess up his plan of providing money for endless war in exchange for little.

The Senate on Tuesday night passed a spending bill combining funding for 14 Cabinet departments with $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By a bipartisan 76-17 vote, senators approved the massive bill, which bundles 11 annual appropriations bills funding domestic agencies and the foreign aid budget for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

Earlier, by a 70-25 vote in the Senate, President Bush and his GOP allies won a major victory in passing a measure providing $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — without restrictions that Democrats had insisted on for weeks.

This was a renege on a promise not to take up Iraq spending until after the first of the year.

The budget battle actually ended up not being as severe as once thought; Democrats did end up reverting a lot of spending to their priorities (cutting all funding for new nuclear warheads, for example), and they used some "emergency" spending measures to keep in funding for veteran's issues that would have come under the knife. In the end the President did not stick to his budget number. And while I would have liked to have seen the pork removed, all pork is not created equal. "Pork" is sometimes a convenient code word for conservatives who really don't want any social services spending at all.

Democrats succeeded in reversing cuts sought by Bush to heating subsidies, local law enforcement, Amtrak and housing as well as Bush's plan to eliminate the $654 million budget for grants to community action agencies that help the poor.

That all, you see, is considered "pork."

But of course, the Iraq giveaway shocks the conscience. Especially because it used the FISA battle almost as misdirection, so that it could be snuck again with a minimum of effort. The Democrats got their spending bills done, but really got nothing major for this effort, like SCHIP, as they should have. This comes at a time when practically all of the factions in Iraq want us to leave, believing that the military invasion is the root cause of the security breakdown. So the Senate in their infinite wisdom signed the bill to keep us there indefinitely. And look at this little stab in the back from "I'm With McCain":

Twenty-one Democrats and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman — who stood with Republicans at a post-vote news conference — voted with every Republican but Gordon Smith of Oregon to approve the Iraq funding.

I'd like to see him "stand with Republicans" permanently; can we get that to happen.

Dianne Feinstein, our West Coast Lieberman, took a powder on the vote - she was the only Senator not campaigning in Iowa to miss it. Even McCain managed to get back to cast his vote.

Now THAT'S leadership!

The continued funding of endless war, especially with nothing all that meaningful in return, is very dispiriting. It's hard to argue with a portrait of Democrats as a sort of placeholder, the Washington Generals to the Republican/corporate axis' Harlem Globetrotters, a safety valve so that people still believe they have some access to the system. And while I don't go as far as this writer, I do think this is an important historical note to keep in mind:

For progressives to take over the Democrats would be an unprecedented departure from the party's character. To understand this, one must first recognize that the sole Dem claim to being progressive is rooted almost entirely in the New Deal, itself a response to a unique crisis in American history. FDR recognized that to avert the very real threat of massive social unrest and instability, significant concessions had to be made to the working class by the ruling class. Government could act to defend the weak, and to some extent to rein in the strong, but this was all in the longterm interests of defending the existing social order.

Before FDR, the Dem Party had no progressive record whatsoever; and after FDR, though the New Deal coalition survived until the mid-1960's, it did so with a record of achievement that was restrained compared to the 1930's. After passing Medicare in 1965 the party reverted to its longterm pattern, and since then, there has again been no progressive record to speak of. The party's progressive social reform was thus concentrated mostly in the 1930's, with some residual momentum lasting until the mid 60's. The party's "progressive period" was thus 1) an exception to the longer term pattern; 2) a response to a unique crisis; and 3) has in any case been dead for over 40 years.

I think it's important to remember that progressives are working against the tides of history. However, the naked corruption of this Administration and the trashing of the Republican brand has given an opening, however slight. Sadly, Democrats are doing nothing with that opening, which is why Ron Paul is sucking up so much oxygen among the hopeless, the marginalized, the Nader/Perot "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" caucus that could be actually a powerful cog in the progressive wheel. When Republicans offer authoritarianism and Democrats offer milquetoast in response, of course people will seek out a Diogenes and imbue him with saintliness.

This will take a generation to break, but the very fact of Paul's existence shows that it's far from impossible. Defeatism is powerful and has the benefit of never having to advocate for something, just against everything. I'm angry right now, but in the words of the labor leader Joe Hill, Don't Mourn, Organize.