In a rare show of bi-partisan glad-handing, the House and President Bush have agreed on a so-called economic stimulus package that consists largely of “tax rebates” to be given to individuals earning < $75K per year and couples making < $150K.

From this perspective the plan could be called a tax cut and therefore be considered a good thing. However, the NY Times says that “the stipend of at least $300 would be paid to all workers receiving a paycheck, even those who did not earn enough to pay taxes last year.” (more…)

Watch the video at Crooks and Liars for Representative Patrick Henry declaring the war on earmarks / excessive spending. He talks about how they have to look at the worthiness of projects: only the most important projects should be supported, etc.
SFGate:

The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved $153 million in pet projects, rewarding both powerful and not-so-powerful lawmakers alike with 377 cherished “earmarks” for their home districts.[..]

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., won $129,000 for the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project, an economic development initiative in economically distressed Mitchell County. The money would double retail space available for a gift shop selling products - typically made by former factory workers whose plants have been shuttered - such as Christmas tree ornaments, handmade soaps and pottery.

McHenry is a vocal conservative and burr in the side of Democrats running the House. He’s not popular with some Republicans; a senior GOP member of the Appropriations Committee pointed McHenry’s earmark out to reporters, calling it “interesting.”

Well, if the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project, isn’t a “worthy” project I do not know what is…

Thank God I am not American, so I do not actually have to pay for… “worthy” projects like that.

Umh… that’s just sad (video).

“I didn’t come here to be a congressman — I came here to do something,” the Ohio Republican said as he choked up with tears in his eyes on the House floor. “And I think at the top of our list is providing for the safety and security of the American people. That’s at the top of our list. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?”

“Ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t do it now, if we don’t have the courage to defeat the enemy, we will long, long regret it,” he added.

Very, umh.

Tough.

The US Senate approved the Iraq war spending bill, calling for US troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as July 1.

I am still waiting for the Democrats how they think a mass slaughter can be prevented once the US withdraws.

It seems that Democrats and Republicans are working towards a compromise.

Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers began to weigh alternatives to the legislation’s most contentious provision, the binding withdrawal terms. The goal is to be more flexible but still restrain how Bush conducts the war…

The provision most likely to survive the next round is a set of political and diplomatic benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The language all but certain to be dropped, or at least diluted, would require troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1. Another sticking point is the bill’s $21 billion worth of domestic spending, which Bush and some Republicans have protested as pork.

A significant number of Republicans support the benchmarks — possibly enough to override a second veto, should Bush resort to that. The measures would prod Baghdad officials to build up military forces, crack down on militias and sectarian violence, protect minority rights and manage Iraq’s extensive petroleum reserves.

Meanwhile, General Patraeus said that “espite an increase in troop levels, the overall violence in Iraq has not declined, and he warned that U.S. casualties may increase in the coming months.”

He added: “This effort may get harder before it gets easier. It is an endeavor, again, that is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time.”

There is one major problem: the ‘enormous commitment’ isn’t there. Democrats, and quite some Republicans, and the majority of the American people so it seems, do not want to be in Iraq for much longer.

I wish that the debate would be about what’s best for Iraq. They are talking about “getting our troops out,” okay, fair enough, I understand that, but… what about all those Iraqis who do not want the violence to continue but cannot stop it all by themselves? What about those Iraqis who did not ask the US to invade, but the US - leading a coalition of the willing - did so anyway? What about them? Are these people suggesting abandoning them?

“Our troops can’t get in the middle of a civil war,” is one of the things one hears quite often. Perhaps it is time to remember those who say this that without US intervention there would be no civil war. Whether you opposed the war or supported it… one has to look at the situation today.

I am repeating myself, I am aware of that, but the reason for that is that I find it increasingly worrisome and frustrating. They are talking about the US troops, about the US military, about the US deficit… but they are not talking about the Iraqi people anymore. My point? The tone of the debate is wrong. They are leaving one important aspect out of the entire debate.

Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne wrote an interesting column about the war in Iraq for today’s Washington Post. Dionne writes:

This is not really an argument over the “surge” of troops into Iraq. It is a fight over whether we want to make an open-ended commitment to keeping combat forces in Iraq for many years or whether we anticipate pulling most of them out within a year or two.

Even if the surge succeeds in a narrow sense — by reducing the number of Iraqis killed in sectarian violence in Baghdad — there is no guarantee that the overall situation in Iraq will be any better, no guarantee that Iraqi leaders will take the political steps necessary to end the internecine killing and create a stable government, no guarantee that we will make progress against al-Qaeda.

Very, very true and ‘we’ should way the risks against the potential for success very carefully, ‘we’ should include all major factors, but one of those factors that has to be included is… yes, the Iraqi people. Dionne too, does not mention them in his column.

Also read this article at NRO by Joseph Morrison Skelly.

The AP reports that the US House of Representatives voted in favor of a bill, yesterday, calling for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. If Bush were to accept the bill, the US would begin withdrawing troops this fall.

Of course, there is no chance in hell that Bush will allow this to happen: he will swiftly veto this bill.

I have to say that I find it to be increasingly worrisome that I do not truly hear the Democrats about what will happen to / in Iraq once the US starts withdrawing forces. They can be anti-war and believe that it is a horrible mess in Iraq right now, but today’s situation is nothing compared to what will happen once there are no, or virtually no, American troops in Iraq left.

What about the humanitarian crisis that will cause?

The only thing I hear every now and then is that “our troops” (meaning US soldiers) shouldn’t be “in the middle of a civil war.” Guess what - if the US would not have invaded Iraq, there would be no civil war right now. Granted, a ruthless dictator would then be ruling which is horrible as well, but fact of the matter is that the US has a responsibility to bring about stability to Iraq, no matter what, and / or how long it takes.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the 75,000 troops plan is a good one, better, the least bad one. Also - the attitude of the Democrats is starting to worry me. They act as if they care about the fate of the Iraqi people, and I am willing to believe them, but I cannot help but notice that they seem to care less about the Iraqi people, than about scoring points at the home front.

I would like Democrats who votes in favor of this bill to answer this question: what will happen to Iraq once the US withdraws and how to prevent mass slaughter from happening?

This post is worded a bit blunty, I am aware of that, but this is a serious issue and these questions need to be answered.

More at The Moderate Voice (great post about the political implications), The Newshoggers (I haven’t forgot about the post about terrorism / radicalization in Europe), The American Street and Blue Crab Boulevard.

Also keep an eye on Memeorandum.

The FBI raided the home of Representative John Doolittle yesterday. The reason: the ties between the Doolittle family and Jack Abramoff. Think Progress has more (links). Also more at the Washington Post.

Rep. Doolittle said in a statement, “My wife has been cooperating with the FBI and the Justice Department for almost three years and that cooperation is going to continue in the future. I support my wife 100 percent and fully expect that the truth will prevail.”

Well, lets hope that the truth will prevail indeed. Somehow, though, I fear that ‘the truth’, won’t make everyone involved happy, to say the least.

It is quite saddening that these raids are necessary, but it is good to see that those who are investigating this, continue to do their important work.