OMB Watch: Bush *doesn't need* supplemental to keep funding on for basic care of troops

[BurtWorm]

In other words, capitulation to Bush over timelines is not necessary:

http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/feedandforageact.pdf

Exploring the Scope of the Feed and Forage Act of 1861

Implications for FY 2007 Funding for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
May 22, 2007

Congress and the president are at odds over language in a supplemental appropriations bill that would provide funding to sustain military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House has warned that if an agreement is not reached soon, U.S. soldiers will lack funding to meet their needs.1

However, a prolonged stalemate may not necessarily generate funding shortages that would put soldiers in jeopardy. On May 8, 2007, National Journal published a column by budget expert Stan Collender that raised the possibility of the president invoking a relatively unknown law – the Feed and Forage Act – to pay for ongoing military campaigns even if an appropriations bill is not enacted.2 The authority granted under this law seems to contradict statements by the Bush administration regarding the harm to soldiers caused by a longer debate over war policy. Collender wrote:

Food and Forage turns the federal budget world on its head. The standard procurement process is for obligations to be incurred by a federal department or agency only after an appropriation is enacted. Food and Forage allows funds to be obligated before the appropriation is in place.

In other words, the deadlines the White House keeps using for the Iraq supplemental are irrelevant.
Indeed, the Pentagon may have already begun to obligate funds for this purpose while the debate on the supplemental is continuing.

Indeed, the Feed and Forage Act gives the Department of Defense (DOD) the unusual power to obtain goods and services prior to the enactment of an appropriations bill. Some restrictions apply, and the scope of the authority it grants is unclear. But these powers could be interpreted in a way that is sufficiently broad to sustain ongoing military operations for significant periods of time in the absence of enacted appropriations. So long as the president invoked this authority in a timely manner, the needs of deployed soldiers could be provided for even if negotiations over the supplemental appropriations bill were prolonged significantly....

[BurtWorm]

1. Apparently this post is a little too obscure for everyone?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

4. no no, it isn't

There have been two short-term cannibalisms of the Defense budget to keep the troops in basic supply. That won't necessarily cover other shortfalls which have plagued the forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. But, it does give Bush the option to limp our troops along without a catastrophe that might precipitate a decision by him to abandon his occupation.

But, again, it shouldn't be seen as some sort of substitute for what our Democratic majority expected for the troops to receive in their funding bills.

[BurtWorm]

6. But it would put them in a position of power over the direction of the war.

It would seriously cramp Bush's ability to carry on his fiasco with no consequences.

[bigtree]

8. I see it another way

I see it as a tool for Bush to continue without an appropriation. But, it doesn't begin to address the myriad of funding concerns that we've identified in our budget as essential for the troops' safety and well-being; like armor and vehicles, for example. I think it just covers the basics and nothing else. Bush can just limp them along in his occupation indefinitely, or for some time, no matter how long we tie up the funds he says he needs to continue.

*remember, our troops are facing an increasing resistance bent on their destruction. Will food and forage really address all of the needs necessary to protect these recruits?

[BurtWorm]

9. He can limp them along if he wants to face the consequences of it.

Giving him funding is denying him direct contact with the consequences of his abysmal "decisions."

[Rosemary2205]

2. I've said this like 400 times around here.

withholding the supplemental IS NOT GOING TO DEFUND THE WAR. Withholding the supplemental will not BRING SOLDIERS HOME.

We also have the situation where if Dems withhold the supplemental, Bush could very well order cuts in medical services in the war zone - meaning more soldiers will dies of their injuries. Bush would likely have them stop replacing equipment putting soldiers at more risk. He'd probably cut services to the soldiers, like laundry, internet connects to family, slow down mail service etc.

Now having said all that - I'm still mad at the Dems for posturing and then folding. They should have made the case to the American people and stuck their ground shown America that the funding is there already - that what Bush is asking for is pure gravy -- profits for Halliburton, big salaries for Blackwater -- more billions for "reconstruction".

[IChing]

3. I've read this before and put a link on it.

I'm so fucking tired of this support our troops shit when it is really support our military industrial complex.

The troops would not be left out of money and supplies.

[BurtWorm]

5. It would be interesting if the Dems pushed a bill requiring Bush to use Feed and Forage

Of course it would be just theater, but it might make it clearer in the public's mind that Bush's supplemental is necessary only to continue the war, not to feed and shelter the troops.

[treestar]

7. You're right, it's the public mind that is the problem - they 'll never

hear about the Food and Forage provision over the din of how the "Defeatocrats aren't feeding our troops."

People are massively against the war, but those troops are a sacred cow and Bushco will make it all about that to the point where people forget about how they didn't want the war.

I for one totally understand where the Dems are on this. We may be stuck in Iraq until after the 2008 election and that's why we really need a President willing to stop the war.

[librechik]

10. as long as the Media is blind to this, no one will ever know.

They don't teach history or civics in schools anymore. not in a generation.

[HamdenRice]

11. They can appropriate oats and hay if the troops get out of the humvees and get horses?

Food and Forage --it's kind of funny and given the date and title, it's pretty clear what it's original purpose was!

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Exactly what I've been saying, and you know Bush will bend whatever restrictions there are

So that he can fund the war.

This isn't going to be over until 2009 or until he's impeached and convicted (fat chance).

The only thing that pisses me off is that Democrats are throwing away an opportunity to turn up the heat on the GOP. Fund the war, but make Bush come back to congress and grovel for it every month, or hell every week.

[BurtWorm]

13. kick