Proud of Our Congress; Proud of Speaker Pelosi and Company

There's a lot to be proud of in what the House of Representatives did today. The Democratic leadership and their supporters deserve a big round of applause, as do all those who voted for them, and all those who argued that they would be more responsible fiscal stewards than the Republican clown show has been:

SEC. 405. PAY­AS­YOU­GO POINT OF ORDER.... It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year... relative to... the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget Office...

SEC. 402. RECONCILIATION.... It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon that contains reconciliation directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that specify changes in law reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the [next] five fiscal years... or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the [next] ten fiscal years...

SEC. 403. APPLYING POINTS OF ORDER UNDER BUDGET ACT TO BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED UNDER SPECIAL RULES.... With respect to measures considered pursuant to a special order of business, points of order under title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall operate without regard to whether the measure concerned has been reported from committee...

SEC. 404. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM...) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution... unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request... for each respective item included in such list)...

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_Hres6.pdf

Comments

[pgl]

My office wall has a new picture. I clipped the CNN caption of Speaker Pelosi holding the gavel with the subtitle about ethics reform. Above this I typed in PAYGO in big letters. I could care less that my boss is a conservative Republican because at least he's smart enough to know what my wall picture means - real governance has returned to America this week.

[bad Jim]

I want to see the next supplemental appropriation for military operations in Iraq accompanied by a commensurate surcharge on the incomes of the wealthiest Americans.

[Porlock Junior]

They actually DID that? Along with the ethics rules and the conference rules? Think I'm gonna stand up and sing the Star-Spangled Banner.

Next thing that happens, when the 100 hours are up: Grandma Pelosi, having shown the kids she means business (and so much for the Softie Grandparent stereotype), becomes sweetly reasonable, so long as they behave. I mean, of course, procedurally reasonable, which this rules-fest was obviously not. The real danger is of her getting reasonable on substantive matters, but who can now think that's likely?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/world/middleeast/06prexy.html

January 6, 2007

Bush Facing a Deep Divide With Democrats Over Talk of Increasing Troops in Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — The new Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House warned President Bush on Friday against sending additional troops to Iraq, setting the stage for what could become a major confrontation over a new war strategy.

Mr. Bush is expected to call for more troops in a speech as soon as Wednesday, as part of a renewed effort to secure Baghdad. But Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, dismissed that approach as a strategy “that has already failed.”

“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,” Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Bush. “We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq,” they added, urging Mr. Bush to begin a “phased redeployment,” or gradual withdrawal.

Not all Democrats agree with the position their leaders staked out in the letter on Friday, just days before Mr. Bush is expected to announce a broad strategy involving more troops, accelerated training of Iraqi forces and a large increase in economic and reconstruction aid to Iraq. But the release of the letter suggests that a major political battle may be brewing....

[dubblblind]

Hear Hear for bad Jim, and yet with the poorest Americans paying with life and limb for the tragedy that is the Iraq war it still seems woefully inadequate that the wealthiest Americans would only feel the pain of paying higher taxes.

But it's a start. The Dems should put Bush in a box by forcing him to tax his wealthy buddies in order to pay for his war.

[Dan G]

While these are an extremely weak form of the paygo rules, it's far better than the republicans ever did. The dems have won over the independents.

BTW: Anne, the comments you type are often insightful, but most Delong readers probably get the NYT as well.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Putting on a show is easy.

Governing is tougher.

Time will tell.

[anne]

"Pay As You Go" can be a trap that Democrats must avoid. The Presiudent is asking for $170 billion this year for the occupation of Iraq and a small contingent of troops in Afghanistan. Also, the President wants to increase the size of our armed forces which will add about $8 billion to the budget.

There is $178 billion needed so far just for the military. Then, there is a terrible indirect cost of occupation which involves the growing numbers of variously wounded and disabled soldiers.

The Veterans Administration expects 400,000 American soldiers will apply for disability support on retirement. Some 200,000 soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated by the Veterans Administration.

The cost beyond the suffering is great and growing. With Pay As You Go, the Democrats may be limiting any hope for much needed domestic programs such as broadened health care insurance and increased tuition assistance. I am worried.

[anne]

For every fatility in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. Nearly 1 in 5 soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been at least partly disabled as a reult of service.

We are in the midst of war, and when we think of deficits we need to think of how much of the deficit war represents.

Republicans have decided there must be guns and butter, so we are spending $14 billion a month for occupying Iraq along with having lower taxes. The President will resist any effort to raise taxes. What are Democrats to do?

[anne]

So, when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi urge the President to limit forces in Iraq, when John Murtha urges the President to leave Iraq immediately, there is little hope the President will attend. Iraq will continue to be a fierce direct and indirect economic burden. What then is a Democratic Congress to do? What can "pay as you go" mean if Democrats wish to support our domestic needs or attend to needs in Africa or Latin America?

[anne]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bilmes5jan05,0,3457599,print.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

January 5, 2007

The Battle of Iraq's Wounded: The U.S. is poorly equipped to care for the tens of thousands of soldiers injured in Iraq.
By Linda Bilmes - Los Angeles Times

THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two.

That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 11, 2006

Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims
By SCOTT SHANE

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged....

[dale]

I wonder if there will even be a thought to look at the overall military budget- about 1/2 Trillion per year when all is added?

If it is decided that the army needs more combat troops- there is little need to add funding to an already bloated and imperialistic military budget. Paygo here could better be seen as making the not so hard choices of diverting funds from other parts of the military to the ground forces.

The same with the Iraq appropriations. If Murtha can stop the special appropriations and force Bush to spend from the general defense budget- that will force a sort of paygo- in the sense that no extra deficit borrowing will be available for the Iraq escalation.

[r m flanagan]

Perhaps oddly I am proud that Nancy Pelosi
has NOT denied Alan Mohallan of a committee
chair because of his being under investigation-for which she is being criticized over at Talking Points Memo.

With GITMO as poster boy of how the Executive Branch is trashing the principle that you are innocent until proved guilty why should we want her to extend that flawed practice to Congress ?

OBTW the principle also applies to William
Jefferson and therefor I should have objected to how she treated him. In practice , I was inconsistent and didn't object because I thought that might tip a few marginal seats to us.

I was wrong.

[FreakyBeaky]

I would imagine that if PAYGO turns out to be unworkable due to domestic needs, House rules could be (quietly) rewritten in two years or four years. In the meantime, let us put an end to war on credit. I am reluctantly won over by the arguments of those who say we should not be defcit hawks in the near-to-medium term, but not in the case of the war(s).

(So far so good, Nancy - I do hope you are as good at this as I am trying not to hope you are ...)

[prostratedragon]

I just found a promising toddler of a blog for daily news from the House:

U.S. House Digest ushousedigest.wordpress.com

[anne]

Yes; I understand and sympathize, but finding $170 billion this year directly for the occupation of Iraq, let alone covering the indirect costs of the occupation, will mean limiting military spending elsewhere at a time when we are expaning the military or cuts in social benefit programs or a tax increase.

[Bupa]

The indirect costs of the war such as disability compensation should be transparently brought on budget and incorporated into the CBO’s projections. If that means raising taxes or cutting other spending, that is the reality we face. The only other alternative is to not fund it and project larger budget deficits. The latter is not the direction to go.

This Administration has obfuscated fiscal policy for too long. The cost of this war has been the least transparent component of the Administration’s fiscal policy.

Don’t wince from increasing taxes to pay for the war, Anne. If Congress can’t stop the $178 billion from being appropriated they have a responsibility to transparently find the funding for the expenditure. It will make the cost of the war clearer to the public, further undermine public support for the war, and quicken the end of the war.

[Jim W.]

PAYGO is a nice first, largely symbolic step. However, in itself, it doesn't accomplish much. In the House of Representatives, bills typically come to the House floor under rules established by the Rules Committee, and these rules typically waive points of order, including budget points of order. So it remains to be seen whether the House will be able to contribute to an improvement in our fiscal policies.

[anne]

Yes; I am completely sympathetic to budget responsibility and pay-as-you-go, and especially so for the $14 monthly in direct costs for the occupation of Iraq and increasing indirect costs such as for veterans medical care. I am also sympathetic for initiatives such as Eliot Spitzer's and Arnold Schwarzenegger's intent to see that all children in New York and California have health insurance coverage. American children must have health insurance, not to mention adults. There needs to be much tuition assistance for American college students as well.... So, I want "butter" for the tragic "guns" we are being told to buy.