Mechanics of Iraq War Funding

[TromboneAl]

Although Congress has the power to cut off funding for the Iraq war, many are reluctant to do this since it would mean "not supporting the troops."

But if all funding were cut off immediately, wouldn't that mean that the troops would need to be withdrawn immediately?

 

[OldAgePensioner]

Nope,
Halliburton would pay, so they'd stay, .....

 

[lets-retire]

Nope. There'd be no money to bring them home.

 

[Mwsinron]

Just a song and dance the politicians are doing to get their pork passed.

 

[samclem]

Although Congress has the power to cut off funding for the Iraq war, many are reluctant to do this since it would mean "not supporting the troops."

But if all funding were cut off immediately, wouldn't that mean that the troops would need to be withdrawn immediately?

Yeah, I don't get that argument, either. The only way it makes sense is if you interpret it to mean "Cutting off funding will be a failure to support what the troops are fighting for."

Actually, redeploying from Iraq in a hurry would be a costly project--lots of equipment to tear down, put into mothballs, or leave there and replace. Possible big fees for early termination of contracts. That shouldn't drive the debate (since we'll be paying most of those costs anyway someday, and it costs a lot to stay there, too). It's just that "cutting off funding" is a little simplistic, since leaving will actualy require a short-term increase in appropriations.

 

[OldAgePensioner]

Mwsinron.
I find that Dulcolax works better than singing and dancing for aiding the passing of pork. But exercise is still beneficial to keep things active.

Our Congress deserves a large cleansing movement.

 

[FinanceDude]

Mwsinron.
I find that Dulcolax works better than singing and dancing for aiding the passing of pork. But exercise is still beneficial to keep things active.

Our Congress deserves a large cleansing movement.

New Bumper Sticker:

Give Congress a Colon Cleanse..........vote Recall Today!!!

 

[OldAgePensioner]

FinanceDude,
even with the bumper sticker I thing most would retain their seats, since most members are very retentive. Most could pass with flying colors.

None of the above means what it appears to mean.

 

[FinanceDude]

FinanceDude,
even with the bumper sticker I thing most would retain their seats, since most members are very retentive. Most could pass with flying colors.

None of the above means what it appears to mean.

I wonder if SS and Medicare would get fixed if the average age of Congress was 40 instead of 75..................

I think there should be term limits, and that's coming from a guy whose dad was a BIG Proxmire fan..................

 

[MasterBlaster]

I wonder if SS and Medicare would get fixed if the average age of Congress was 40 instead of 75..................

I think there should be term limits, and that's coming from a guy whose dad was a BIG Proxmire fan..................

I like the idea of having election day on April 15th. I'll bet that would change the mix in congress.

 

[saluki9]

I like the idea of having election day on April 15th. I'll bet that would change the mix in congress.

Nope, most of the people who understand the tax system sadly are the only ones who vote and yet somehow keep electing the same people.

If you really want to change what happens in congress, get rid of employer withholding for one year. Let everybody actually have to write a check for their taxes, that would change things

 

[FinallyRetired]

I doubt if Congress could cut off funds immediately, since military budgets run in two year cycles. Nor would that be a good idea, IMHO, since it would leave our military on the front lines with no support. If Congress were to pass such a law, my guess is that the military would shut down other programs to pay for whatever is required to protect the troops while they withdraw but, as I said, that would be pretty irresponsible of Congress. Almost as irresponsible as their acquiescence with little debate when the question of the Iraq war was being decided exclusively by the executive branch.

One law that might be brought to bear is the War Powers Act passed during the Vietnam war, but it's been used seldom if at all. That Act allows Congress to determine under what conditions the President can commit troops and remove troops, and only allows the President discretion for situations lasting no more than 90 days.

 

[MasterBlaster]

One law that might be brought to bear is the War Powers Act passed during the Vietnam war, but it's been used seldom if at all. That Act allows Congress to determine under what conditions the President can commit troops and remove troops, and only allows the President discretion for situations lasting no more than 90 days.

The war powers act was indeed passed however every president since then has stated that they beleive it to be unconstitutional. The courts have yet to rule on it. The reason that it may (or may not) be unconstitutional turns on the powers designated to each branch of government. Some think that congress may not legislate those rights reserved for other branches of government.

 

[FinallyRetired]

<Some think that congress may not legislate those rights reserved for other branches of government.>

You're right. The War Powers act is probably unconstitutional. About as unconstitutional as undeclared wars.