The Dems think they see an opening on this issue.
Democrats Challenge Bush's Priorities
Funding Sought for Iraq Offers Opening
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 11, 2003; Page A04
Emboldened by President Bush's recent request for $87 billion to fund the military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional Democrats have launched a concerted attack on the president's international and domestic priorities.
For months, Democrats have tried -- with modest success -- to chip away at the president's popularity by attacking his handling of foreign policy and the economy, with special emphasis on tax cuts and the rising deficit. But the massive Iraq spending request has provided them with a political opening to portray Bush as a politician with a misguided agenda and a dangerous disregard for balanced budgets.
Lawmakers from both parties predict the president's spending proposal will pass, but Democrats are reminding voters that it dwarfs what Bush plans to spend on education, transportation and other domestic initiatives.
"The question is, are we getting some of our priorities screwed up?" said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. "People can see the [president's] priorities are the education, job and infrastructure needs of Iraq."
Democrats are still shaping their strategy in closed-door meetings, but some lines of attack have emerged. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) has drafted an amendment to cut off funds for Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of October if the administration does not tell Congress how it plans to "win the peace," Kennedy spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.
In the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) has had a proposal for months that would require the government to spend a dollar domestically for every dollar it spends in Iraq. In the past week, about a dozen members -- including one Republican, Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (Tenn.) -- have signed on.
The fact that the administration "finally put a number on the table," Emanuel said, has galvanized members around the issue. "You can't have a more generous and promising vision for Iraqis than for the American people. You can't go home and say, 'We don't have money in the budget to finish this highway; we don't have money for after-school programs,' and then say, 'Here's what I'm envisioning for Iraq, and I'm voting for $87 billion.' "
Some congressional Democrats are citing the $87 billion request as they renew their call to suspend the scheduled tax cuts for upper-income Americans. Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (Tenn.) and Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), for example, want to suspend the tax cuts for those earning $1 million or more a year, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) is considering a similar plan. "We have far more unity on this than we've had in a while," Ford said.
Bush, speaking yesterday with reporters, defended his plan. "I heard somebody say, 'Well, what we need to do is have a tax increase to pay for this' " he said. "That's an absurd notion. . . . Lower taxes will help enhance economic recovery."
John Pitney, a professor at Claremont-McKenna College, said the debate will turn on which party is better at defining the other's motives. Democrats, he said, "are trying to shift the focus from support of the troops to supporting the taxpayers. If Bush can cast this as supporting the troops, he wins. If they can cast this as foreign aid, Bush will have a much tougher time."
Bush's request covers $20.3 billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including $5.1 billion for water projects, sewer systems, roads and other public works. The bulk of the remaining amount is designated for military needs.
In some ways, the Democrats' criticism of the emergency request is a role reversal, since traditionally the GOP is the party that objects to heavy foreign aid spending on schools, roads and water systems. But Democrats say they have heard a constant refrain from voters. As Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) put it on Tuesday, Americans want their own needs addressed with the same "urgency" as Iraq's reconstruction needs.
Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said it makes sense that Democrats are seizing on Bush's request as a target. "When you spend a lot of money, and a lot of money overseas, and people are out of work or worried about being out of work, then suddenly it looks like a very delicious political issue," he said.
Congressional Republicans say the complaints amount to empty rhetoric because many Democratic lawmakers plan to vote for the emergency spending request. At least three Democratic senators running for president -- John Edwards (N.C.), Bob Graham (Fla.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.) -- have said they will support the measure.
"Eighty-seven billion for national security means the president's undercutting domestic priorities? I don't quite understand that," said Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.).
Still, Republican leaders are concerned enough that they have launched a counteroffensive. House GOP leaders yesterday held a news conference featuring several members who recently returned from Iraq with positive reports.
"The American people still overwhelmingly support what we're doing in Iraq. It's not something we're going to start and not finish," House Republican Conference Chairman Deborah Pryce (Ohio) said. "We just need to get the information out to people about what's really going on. The president needs to do that, too, and he's starting to do that."
Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said questioning money requested for the troops is not wise if Democrats hope to win in the next elections.
"I don't think they will get much traction, because we have men and women fighting for the country who we need to protect," Forti said.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
