No Pork For Us, No Money For Troops: Democratic Blackmail

Cross posted from Wake up America by request from Beth.

Pork is a nickname for earmarks and earmarks are spending items inserted by Congressmen and are usually specific to a Congressional district.

The other day we showed you that an omnibus bill that was being talked about by Steny Hoyer to Wapo, a bill that would lump the 11 appropriations bill that Congress is three months late in getting done, part of which is funding for our troops, all together into one massive bill, as well as adding 9,500 "earmarks" into the bill, totaling almost $9.5 billion dollars, which would have made the total around $522 billion for the omnibus.

We said it was the beginning of the end of the war funding fight.

Today, David Obey (D-Wis.), is whining to Wapo about those nasty Republicans not agreeing to all the pork and not allowing the Democrats to blackmail them with their ridiculous threats that our troops will not be funded if the Dems do not get their pork.

A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Absent a Republican willingness to sit down and work out a reasonable compromise, I think we ought to end the game and go to the president's numbers," Obey said. "I was willing to listen to the argument that we ought to at least add more for Afghanistan, but when the White House refuses to compromise, when the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it."

House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for domestic programs above the president's request, half of what Democrats had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.

But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a long standoff with the White House.

"If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they're smoking something illegal," he said.

So, because his attempt to blackmail the Republicans and the President didn't work, he is going to take his toys and go home?

One of the best descriptions I have seen about this Wapo article quoting David Obey, is from Strata-Sphere who likens Obey and Co. to children throwing a temper tantrum, pouting and stomping their feet.

Only a seriously self-obsessed fool would threaten the lives of our military overseas to get his way on a budget deal. But the Dems are not capable of leading. They cannot stomach the compromise required to get bills past a divided Congress. They can’t give up anything - they would rather pout to the cameras and cripple our government.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.)has already made one thing very clear:

"We have to get to a point where the American public more clearly perceives our policy position and is not confused by whether or not the Democrats intend to support the troops that we've sent to Iraq. I don't think there's an option on that," Hoyer said.

He said that as he was testing the waters to see how the public as well as the politicians would react to this omnibus bill.

Evidently it isn't working out so well.

The problem for them, one they don't seem to "get" yet, is they cannot publicly hold our troops hostage to their pork aka earmarks.

Blackmail, especially when it is our troops that are threatened by the blackmail, is not going to come out well for them at all, in the eyes of the public.

The ramifications of Congress going on their Christmas recess without funding the troops is well known already, as has been told to the public by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

All this leaves the department only with undesirable options to continue operations in the absence of a bridge fund. The path we believe is least undesirable fiscally and militarily would involve the following. The military would cease operations at all Army bases by mid-February next year. This would result in the furloughing of about 100,000 government employees and a like number of contractor employees at Army bases.

These layoffs would have a cascading effect on depots and procurements. Similar actions would follow for the Marine Corps about a month later. By law, we're required to notify certain union employees 60 days in advance, so appropriate notices would have to go out starting in mid-December.

By law, they are required to notify certain union employees 60 days in advance, which means that Congressional inability to do their jobs will have "pink slips" handed out for Christmas.

This 60 day notice law is not new, certain contracts have required it for years and Congress has been well aware of it.

Democratic politicians can make any statements to the press they want but it doesn't negate the fact that commanders have already been giving the following letters, sent on Nov. 26, 2007: (Doc. file here)

From: Cody, Richard A GEN VCSA
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32 PM
To:

VCSA SENDS

TO ALL COMMANDS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Contingency Budget Planning

REF A. SecDef Memo, 16 NOV 07, Subj: Contingency Budget Planning

REF B. SecArmy and CSA Memo, 20 NOV 07, Subj. Contingency Budget Planning

REF C. VCSA Email, 26 SEP 07, Subj. Outlook for Funding in FY 2008


1. The FY2008 DoD Appropriations Act did not provide funds for the Global
War on Terror (GWOT) and we do not know at this time when or if the GWOT
funds will be approved by Congress.

2. References A and B directed that we take immediate action to begin
planning to reduce operations at all Army bases. This message provides
instructions for developing these plans. Send your initial plans through
your RM channels. They are due on 4 DEC 2007. Your plans will be reviewed

by a G3-led task force here at HQDA.

3. This is a planning effort, repeat, a planning effort to reduce OMA
funded operations to the minimum mission essential level. Your initial
plans will identify the weekly cost to continue those OMA funded minimum
mission essential activities allowable under Feed and Forage after 23
February 08 and will include the amount of OMA funds available for return to
the Department when all other services and functions are discontinued.

Guidance in reference C stands; take no action at this time to slow any
program. Continue to execute your approved programs and do not implement
any spending restriction or reduction in the scope and pace of operations
until notified. Continue following existing guidance to review civilian
hiring actions and contracts.

4. Include these assumptions in your plans:

a. On or about 22 February 08, all distributed Operation and Maintenance,
Army (OMA) funds will be fully obligated or committed.

b. On 23 February 08, installations and commands will move to a "warm base"

status and all OMA funded activities will cease except those noted in
paragraph 4 below.

c. Civilian furloughs may last more than 30 days and therefore require a 60
day notice.

d. Military manpower, if available at your location, will be authorized to
replace civilian and contractor workforce. Military personnel other than
those preparing to deploy should be considered available.

e. Only direct funded OMA activities are affected. Programs, projects and
activities funded with other than OMA will continue as planned.

5. Your plans should identify the minimum mission essential activities
along with their estimated costs that are permissible by Feed and Forage (if
approved by OSD) and the impact of discontinuing all other services and
functions effective 23 February 08. For these planning purposes, consider
the following as minimum mission essential operations:

a. To protect the life, health and safety of occupants and residents of
Army installations.

b. To protect and maintain assets vital to the national defense.

6. Your plans should also provide a separate estimate of the weekly minimum
essential costs in order to determine what is permissible under Feed and
Forage:

a. Support forces deployed overseas including Europe, Korea, Japan and
COCOM activities.

b. Prepare forces for deployment to include recruiting, individual training
and unit training.

7. The ASA(FM&C) will provide a reporting format through RM channels. You
should be prepared to report the following information:

a. Life, Health and Safety. Those activities and services and their
estimated weekly cost that must be continued to protect occupants and
residents of Army installations to include military, civilians and Family
members.

b. Training. The amount of OMA funds by week necessary to support training
activities for deploying forces.

c. Quality of Life. Those activities and services for Soldiers and
Families that will be impacted and/or terminated once all existing OMA funds
are fully obligated or committed.

d. Depot Level Reset. To the maximum extent possible, plan to work off FY
07 carry over and new orders received from customers funded with other than
OMA appropriations. Identify the amount of OMA (both base and GWOT) by week
necessary to fund only the organic depot work required to keep production
lines operating and the total amount of OMA Reset funds available for
return.

e. Recruiting: Report the minimum weekly cost to continue to recruit the
force and train the load.

f. Mobilization and Demobilization: Provide the weekly cost to continue
mobilization and demobilization activities to support rotations into and out
of theaters of operation.

g. Field Level Maintenance: Plan to suspend all field level maintenance
except that necessary for life, health or safety or to support the war
fight. Provide the weekly cost for the latter.

8. In the report, you will be asked to break out the activities in
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 into these categories:

a. Civilian Personnel. Identify the number of minimum mission essential
(Life, Health and Safety) and non-mission essential civilian personnel
funded through direct OMA appropriations. You should anticipate that the
Department will issue furlough notices to civilian employees with sufficient
lead time to implement a furlough on or about 23 February 08. For foreign
national personnel, provide the equivalent of furlough procedures under the
respective Status of Forces Agreement. Identify the weekly payroll cost of
mission essential civilian personnel. Furlough dates will be provided for
US Civilian personnel by G1.

b. Contracts. Identify the total amount of OMA funds needed for minimum
mission essential contracts. Also identify the amounts that can be returned
to the Department when all other services and functions are terminated or
suspended on or about 23 February 08. Factor in termination costs before
reporting the amount available for return.

9. DoD is considering the use of other authorities, Feed and Forage for
example, to continue essential operations as directed. The ASA(FM&C) will
issue instructions on these special funding authorities. The G1 will
provide additional guidance on civilian furloughs.

10. POCs are:

The DoD, December 4, 2007:

Some members of Congress have responded by saying the Pentagon has funds to continue operations through March, but a Pentagon spokesman today said furlough notices for Army employees could start going out the middle of this month. The employees would not be furloughed until after Christmas, but some contracts require a 60-day notice if the furlough will be longer than 60 days, Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters at the Pentagon. The department is using fiscal 2008 funds – not part of the supplemental funding needed – to keep operations going in the war on terror, he explained.

“Anyone who thinks that this is not a serious situation is simply misinformed or is ignoring the facts. We have tried to be as matter of fact as we can on this, but the reality is that we are using our program budget for FY 08 … to fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Whitman said.

DoD is using its readiness funding, or operations and maintenance accounts, which typically pay for training, supplies, and maintenance of weapons and equipment.

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates requested to shift $3.7 billion from Navy and Air Force payrolls and an $800 million excess in the working capital fund to Army and Marine Corps operations.

If funding continues to be delayed, it could affect as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors, DoD officials reported earlier.

They go on to report some of the actions that will have to be taken, but you can see a visual of most of them for yourself, right here.

From Federal Times, just today we see this reported:

The last thing anyone wants for Christmas is a furlough notice. But that’s just what hundreds of thousands of Defense Department civilian employees and contractors are facing.

The Defense Department is warning it may lay off employees, mostly in the Army and Marine Corps, because it will run out of money unless Congress and President Bush agree on an emergency war supplemental spending bill. The Army expects to run out of operations and maintenance funding by Feb. 23, the Marine Corps, by March 24.
As many as 200,000 Army civilian contractors and employees could be furloughed then; the Marine Corps says up to 24,000 civilian employees are threatened. The Army expects to send 60-day advance notices to affected employees the week of Dec. 17, and the Marine Corps said it must notify union leaders about planned furloughs by Christmas Eve.

“Neither contractors nor civil servants should be pawns in this process, but that’s the result of a political appropriations process,” said Alan Chvotkin, vice president of the Professional Services Council, which represents contractors.

Nice lump of coal Congress plans on sticking in those folks stockings huh?

Congressional leaders need to understand, if they do not do their job and get these funds to our troops and these layoff aka furlough notices go out, then Congress will suffer the consequences of their inaction.

If they think they have the lowest Congressional approval ratings in the history of polling for congressional approval, now.... just wait and see how much worse it gets for them.

.

Sphere: Related Content

GREAT News for Memorial Day!

"W" stood firm and our troops are the winners over pull-out pelosi, kowering kerry, al-jazeera murtha, and ridiculed reid.

You wouldn't know it from the MSM, but the time to celebrate is here--and the MSM just can't stand good news for the troops.

As I noted yesterday, defeat is the name of the game for these surrender monkeys. If it's not bad news, they don't want to hear it. They suck up bad news like sponges, rejoicing in each little tidbit. And, in their blind BDS, they refuse to acknowledge W is indeed man enough to stand up to them and force them to back down in their ridiculous schemes.


From Vanguard.org:

MEMO

From: Rod D. Martin, Chairman, TheVanguard.Org
To: TheVanguard.Org Members and Friends
Date: May 25, 2007, 11:07 AM
Re: Victory! You Stopped Pelosi's Preemptive Surrender Bill!

Dear [Redacted],

Over the past several weeks, tens of thousands of you have helped us fax, call and write Congress to stop the Pelosi-Murtha Preemptive Surrender Bill.

Well, yesterday you won. And so did America.

In the face of all your opposition, Democrats blinked, selling out their MoveOn buddies. Senate and House leaders caved to reality, pulled Pelosi's "Preemptive Surrender Bill", and instead passed a bill that funds the Iraq War through the end of the fiscal year and does not include a withdrawal timetable.

Famed columnist Bob Novak put it this way: "Democrats felt they could not afford the risk of letting a war in progress run out of money. The Democrats' problem is that this demonstrates conclusively that they are all talk on the Iraq War -- a fact that their base will quickly realize."

The votes were 280-142 in the House, and 80-14 in the Senate. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against funding our troops in the field, even while most of their peers voted right.

Why did they do that? Simple: they're terrified of MoveOn. They know that their far left "friends" will do all they can to ruin their Presidential hopes if they don't sell out American troops to al Qaeda. The "Blame America First" crowd's appetite for defeat is insatiable, and they have the power to pull Presidential candidates' strings.

Because of this, the fight is far from over. The Democrats have squandered their majority in the months they've had it -- passing only 26 bills in five months, half of which were to rename federal buildings -- but they will continue to come back again and again on this because they are beholden to the net hippies. We will have to fight them repeatedly if we want America to really win instead of just tuck tail.

But we will fight. And like this time, we will win.

So the bottom line is simple. The extreme left cannot have its way with America if you stand up. We can win. And what we can win in Washington, we can win across America and overseas as well.

Thank you to everyone who did anything in this fight. You made the difference. Not for us, but for America. When we stand together, there's nothing we can't do.


For Victory,
- Rod, Tom, Sherri and all TheVanguard.Org team


P.S. Be sure to pass this along to your friends. Our side needs a lot of encouragement these days, and this is a big win, for all of us. And tell them this: we're still in beta! Just think how much we'll be able to achieve once we go live. :)

Keep up the pressure so this fight NEVER gains ground!

Sphere: Related Content

Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline

If true and if it survives in both the House and the Senate then it is about time.

This comes from the Associated Press so take it with a grain of salt until we can confirm it through other sources.

WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities later this year to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict.

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party's rank and file later in the day.

Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.

Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose.

Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush's desk by week's end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.

Bush vetoed one bill this spring after Democrats included a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, and Republicans in the House upheld his rejection of the measure.

The House then passed legislation to provide war funds in two 60-day installments. Bush threatened a veto, and the measure was sidetracked in the Senate in favor of a non-controversial bill that merely pledged to give the troops the resources they need.

That set the stage for the current House-Senate negotiations on a measure to send to Bush.

The Democrats' attempt to draft war funding legislation occurred after an inconclusive meeting on Friday involving White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress.

Democrats criticized the administration for rejecting calls for a troop withdrawal timetable even if Bush has the power to waive it.

For his part, Bolten criticized Democrats for persisting with an approach that had already sparked one veto. He noted the president had already said he was willing to consider legislation that included so-called benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

Both the House and Senate have approved legislation raising the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour in three separate 70-cent increases over 26 months. The measures both included modest tax breaks, mainly aimed at helping businesses that hire low-skilled or handicapped workers.

White House officials have said Bush is amenable to accepting an increase in the minimum wage, although they and key GOP lawmakers favor larger tax cuts to accompany the measure.

Guess these polls scared them a bit when they realized that they were losing their own supporters by not funding our troops and that their highly touted "majority" actually wants us to succeed in Iraq and find it important.



Click image to enlarge for better reading.

All that wasted time and finally the morons are starting to see that America will not tolerate the betrayal of our troops that say they are succeeding, they are seeing success and they can win.

.
Cross Posted from Wake up America

Sphere: Related Content

Madame Speaker Meet General Petraeus

This is an excellent piece from Townhall.com (trackbacked below), sent to me by my friend Cassy.


Madame Speaker, Meet General Petraeus
By John Boehner
Saturday, April 21, 2007

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.


General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.


Too busy? The only thing that could be more important than hearing from the top general in a war effort that is critical to America’s long-term national security would be providing our troops the resources they need to succeed. But Democrats certainly haven’t been busy doing that.


Instead, Democratic leaders pushed through a pork-laden surrender bill that would undermine General Petraeus and our troops on the ground. In an editorial titled “Do We Really Need a General Pelosi,” the Los Angeles Times said the Democrats’ plan is “an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.”


After that, House Democrats left Washington for the first two weeks of April in no apparent hurry to begin negotiations with the Senate on providing our troops with the funding they need. Such delays in funding, says the Secretary of the Army, “carry consequential effects, including substantial disruption to installation functions, decreasing efficiency and potentially further degrading the readiness of non-deployed units.”


Lawmakers often receive information that is filtered through media reports, bolstered by suspect polling data, or drummed up by ideologically-driven activist groups. When it comes to America’s commitment to fighting al Qaeda, this information-deficit can have real consequences.


For example, in a March press conference, General Petraeus insisted that “military action is necessary to help improve security” in Iraq. He also said military force alone “is not sufficient,” a reflection of his new strategy which relies on military, political, and diplomatic force alike. But as is their way, liberal special interest groups seized on that single phrase – military force “is not sufficient” – and presented a false portrait of what the General was saying to give cover to politicians who would rather abandon Iraq to al Qaeda than see it through to victory.


That’s why General Petraeus’ visit to Capitol Hill is so timely – and so important. Members of Congress not only need to hear about the need for a clean troop funding bill, they need to hear from America’s top commander in Iraq about the realities on the ground. Petraeus has said we will make progress even if there are setbacks along the way, and that is exactly what is happening.


The deficit of on-the-ground information has caused some Members to go so far as to outlandishly suggest the war effort is “lost.” That’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters earlier this week, igniting a firestorm of criticism from veterans groups and others who recognize the danger of demoralizing American troops and conceding defeat to al Qaeda.


I would like to challenge my colleagues to not only attend this briefing by General Petraeus, but to come with an open mind. The General has been entrusted with an historic task; he deserves not only our full faith and support, but the courtesy of acknowledging that he knows better than 535 Members of Congress how to succeed in a war effort.


The questions for each member of Congress to consider after Senator Reid’s recent comments are real and they go to the heart at the battle against our enemies:


Do we support our troops? Or do we starve them of resources?


Do we put politics aside during a time of war? Or do we “bleed” America’s military forces in an attempt to derive partisan benefit?


Do we fight to win? Or do we preemptively declare defeat?


The most important question, however, is this: will Members of Congress listen to General Petraeus … or to Democratic leaders who believe they know best?


John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.

Page link here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnboehner/2007/04/21/madame_speaker,_meet_general_petraeus'

Sphere: Related Content