Pelosi steers spending debate to costs in Iraq

President Bush wants a fight about spending, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) plans to turn the tables to show how much money he is spending in Iraq.

{mosads}Pelosi and other Democratic leaders intend to spend the next month putting a price tag on the war, using legislation, hearings and talking points in an effort to drive home how much it costs Americans.

“Republicans say there’s excessive spending. We agree. Two-hundred billion [dollars] for Iraq is excessive,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Bush has repeatedly threatened to veto Democratic spending bills that come in higher than the budget numbers he has set.   

Pelosi expounded on the financial issue at her news conference last week, saying that “the cost of the war in terms of dollars is a very important issue for the American people, especially when you think that we can insure 10 million children in America for one year for 40 days in Iraq.”  
 
The comparison of Iraq and children’s healthcare has become a standard part of any Pelosi appearance. But in recent days, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have been filling in the details of their plan to line up a comparison on spending.

 On Tuesday, she put a widely supported bill to attack “war profiteering” on the House’s fast-track agenda for a vote. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is to follow up with a report on waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq.

The idea is to highlight that the Bush administration is not just spending money, but allowing much of it to be wasted.

On Oct. 24, the House Budget Committee will hold a hearing into the long-term costs of Iraq. Democrats hope to unveil a comprehensive figure from the Congressional Budget Office on the 10-year cost of the war. Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) says that the hearing will highlight the fact that the spending amount prompting Bush’s veto threat is miniscule compared to the tab for Iraq.

“The president wants the issue more than he wants anything else,” Spratt said in a briefing Tuesday. “He’s asking for two supplementals totaling nearly $200 billion. They’re making an issue out of $7 billion for non-defense discretionary spending. It’s hard for me to square these two things.”

Republicans say they are eager and ready for any debate about how much is being spent on the war. But they say Pelosi is turning to a financial debate because the case against the surge and for troop withdrawal is losing steam because of the success they cite in Iraq.

“There hasn’t been much more than a whisper on Iraq,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “That’s a recognition of success on the ground.”

Pelosi last week quickly nixed discussion of a new tax to pay for the war. But Democratic aides say that if there’s an upside, the tax talk will propel a discussion about how the country is paying for the war.

And while Pelosi rejected the tax, she did nothing to disavow the other tactic announced at the same time by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.): a vow to refuse any more money for the war until Bush changes course.

The financial focus on Iraq is starting as the planned series of Iraq-related votes comes to a standstill. Tuesday night’s vote on Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s (D-Hawaii) war profiteering was the last of the bills in the series that Pelosi has announced.

The lack of a clear next step on Iraq has led to some disquiet among liberals within the Democratic Caucus about Iraq.

“At the moment, it’s pretty freewheeling,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). “We had an April 2008 date. I think we should be building on that.”

But aides say Pelosi could announce another Iraq vote soon. And there are ongoing discussions about what the next bill could be. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who has been charged by leadership with vetting the 72 Democratic Iraq bills, said last week leaders could schedule another vote this year on the Iraq withdrawal bill proposed by House Armed Services panel Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.).

“I think that’s a very good possibility,” Larson said.

Other likely options coming up on Iraq include a measure ordering a “diplomatic surge” in the Middle East; revisiting the Iraq Study Group report; and another vote on the training and time-at-home requirements proposed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.).

“It’ll be a steady progression,” Larson said. “There isn’t one grand struggle. It’s putting forth legislation, much of which has been through the process before.”

Larson also defended the leadership against the charges that its July and September floor offenses on Iraq fizzled. There wasn’t a “vote a week,” but Larson stressed that five Iraq bills have passed, including the Skelton withdrawal bill and Tauscher’s “dwell time” bill.

“That’s a pretty good body of work,” Larson said. “By historic[al] standards,” he said, referring to Vietnam, “we’re moving at a rapid pace.”