Print
If you actually read the entire text of H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007–which can admittedly be a daunting task since the table of contents alone goes on for more than 100 lines–you will find about two-thirds of the way down, sticking out so it is hard to miss, Title III: Agricultural Assistance. Below this are the following: crop disaster assistance,livestock assistance, spinach, milk income lost assistance, and peanut storage costs among other entries. At this point you have to be shaking your head, as I was, wondering what the heck spinach and peanut storage have to do with troop readiness and Iraq?
A lot of other people also want an answer to the same question, including George W. Bush, who has made the spinach provision the punch line of his speeches pledging to veto the bill. In tracking the answer, you face serious questions about the Democratic Party, the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and the question of whether this bill, which probably received as much press and blog coverage as any piece of legislation in the last year, really is a good bill?
There is little question this bill has more garbage in it that a large municipal landfill. Admittedly, this was an appropriations bill, which for Congress has often been a bit like handing someone the keys to a bank vault and saying, “Take all you can.” But this one is a real eye-opener.
A run down the table of contents finds provisions for the Fish and Wildlife Service (for avian flu detection–maybe that will aid veterans’ health), the National Park Service (for the same), The Forest Service ($400 million for wildfire management–wouldn’t want veterans to get caught in a forest fire), the Public Health and Social Services Fund ($969 million to prepare for a flu pandemic–maybe in Iraq), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ($60 million for relief for fishing communities–fill in pun of your choice), and on and on. In fact, the question anyone should have after reading this incredible piece of legislation is “Who didn’t get something?”
Tracking the whys of the bill starts with examining the Democrats who did not vote for it. If you don’t know by now, there were fourteen of them. TPM Cafe, which has had some of the best blog coverage of the vote, made it easy for me to find them. The link takes you to the entire list. An analysis of the lists shows an interesting dichotomy. Half of the nos were principled liberals like John Lewis, who did not believe the bill went far enough in ending the war. In voting his conscience yet again, Lewis demonstrated that he may be the last true liberal left.
The other half of the no votes came entirely from members of the Democrats’ Blue Dog Caucus, a group which had made passing the bill difficult from the beginning. Back in December, shortly after the election, I blogged that the results showed “Essentially, without the Blue Dogs, whose group discipline is legendary, the Democrats will be unable to govern.”
In case somehow you have forgotten the Blue Dogs, they style themselves as “promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes” according to their web site. First formed in 1994, the group gained a reputation for pushing for fiscal conservatism, particularly a balanced budget, but in recent years their economic focus has enlarged to take in issues such as immigration and drilling in ANWR. A Washington Times review of key votes in recent years shows how they have contributed to the Republican majority on a host of issues.
Who are the Blue Dogs is an interesting question. Their web site lists 42 members, of whom 17 come from Southern or border states, 11 from the Midwest, two from mountain states, and seven from California. Quite of few of the California Blue Dogs represent suburban districts based on the addresses of their home offices.
The discussions leading up to the Iraq debate provide an interesting insight into the Blue Dogs. Fox News, ever on the lookout for trouble in the Democratic Party, ran a story, “Blue Dog Democrats Flex Muscle on Iraq Plans,” noting “the Blue Dogs have played a key role in halting an emerging plan to place strict conditions on war funding. ” “It should be obvious that very little is going to pass in the House that a majority of Blue Dogs do not support,” said former Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, who led the group when he was in Congress and keeps in close contact with House Democrats. As for Iraq, Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla), told Fox, “Some of us are really uncomfortable playing general.”
If the Blue Dogs essentially stand for fiscal conservatism, yet also expressed reservations about a withdrawal timetable from Iraq why did we end up with a garbage bill full of spinach? Since California is the nation’s major producer of spinach and seven Blue Dogs come from California, one might assume the spinach provision was aimed at them.
Unfortunately that was not the case. The “Spinach Man” was none other than Sam Farr, who represents the district where 75% of the nation’s spinach originates. In fact it is often known as “the salad bowl of the world.” Farr, who had been an opponent of the war inserted the spinach clause into the bill, in what many viewed as essentially a deal to win his vote. “It’s very disappointing,” long-time peace activist Sherry Conable, who lives in Farr’s district, told the Inter Press Service News Age. “There was a lot of jubilation after the Democrats took back Congress that Sam had finally stepped forward in the leadership and was really trying to bring the war to an end, and I think this vote is just very disturbing.” Farr’s actions won him the “Porker of the Month” award from Citizens Against Government Waste. Farr is not a Blue Dog.
An attempt to link Blue Dog members to specific provisions of the bill ran aground against the sheer volume of the bill. I invite my blogging colleagues to follow up on this lead, for the question remains why would a majority of the Blue Dogs support the bill? The only answer at this point may come from John Lewis. By that I mean the bill may have been watered down enough to earn their support. And who knows what deals lurk down the road?
Along with “Spinach Man Farr” was Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon who voted “yes” after Congressional leaders added 400 million dollars in funding for rural schools. “That’s pretty vital for our district, so we’ll be voting for the bill,” his spokesman Danielle Langone told the website Politico.com
These examples of pork barrel politics controlling the Iraq Bill, lead Citizens Against Government Waste to issue a condemnation of the entire bill. Pointing to Democratic congressional leaders’ pledge to cut back on budget-busting earmarks, CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “It seems the commitment to reform was short-lived, as Congress fattens up the emergency spending bill with special-interest goodies.” “Members of Congress will pay a price if they go back to the usual pork-barrel politics. Taxpayers must demand that Congress remove the waste and bloat from the final bill and stop the routine abuse of emergency spending,” Schatz concluded.
All this leads to the question of whether spinach for an Iraq withdrawal date was really worth it? By trading votes for pork barrel projects, the Democrats fell into a Republican trap yet again. The pork will allow the GOP to again resume their characterization of Democrats as big spenders and captives of special interests. It will also allow the President Bush to veto the bill not because of Iraq, but because the spending went too far. Finally, it yet again paints the Democrats as a Party that puts expediency over principles. The Iraq Bill has triangulation written all over it.
You could also color the bill blue for the Blue Dogs, who supported compromises that resulted in a`flawed bill. In systems terms, by playing coy with their votes, the Blue Dogs forced the Democrats to cater to people like Farr and opened the doors to a fire sale for votes. Plus it remains unclear what price Pelosi may have paid for the Blue Dogs’ cooperation.
The worst part of this is that there was another way, one that would have remained fiscally sound while putting Bush in a corner. That alternative would have made further funding of the Iraq War contingent on cutting back the Bush tax cuts. Then the Democrats could have said to the president, “If you want to have your war, then all Americans need to share equally in the burden.” This also would have helped to flush out the Blue Dogs, for it is still unclear whether their so-called fiscal conservatism masks beliefs that have more in common with the Republican Counterrevolution than they do with Liberal America.
This also would have helped to recover the Party’s lost role as the supporter of a level playing field for all Americans. They could have even revived the “guns or butter” argument the GOP used during the Vietnam Era. Most of all, though, they could have pointed out that this war has not demanded equal sacrifices from all Americans. It is morally wrong to pursue a questionable war on the backs of budget cuts for poor people in a country where the very rich can afford $60,000 backyard fireplaces and $20,000 bottles of wine while people go without heat or food and the rest of us struggle to balance our own personal budgets.
But Pelosi and others wanted their withdrawal date, one that will prove meaningless when Bush vetoes it and could prove detrimental when he makes an issue of trading earmarks for votes. This war is wrong and it is wrong because it violates all that this nation has stood for. We should not cheapen those values by selling them for the equivalent of roast pork and spinach.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
