This oddly mirrors the debate about the Iraq War spending. Republicans want to pass a law that would ensure that the government does not shut down in the event that appropriations bills are not passed on time. Here’s how they justify it:
Republicans say that without a guarantee against a shutdown, big spenders have an advantage. They argue that lawmakers who might otherwise oppose expensive bills are cowed into supporting them by the prospect of a shutdown.
Let me just change around some nouns…
‘Democratic activists say that without a guarantee against a shutdown of the war, war supporters have an advantage. They argue that lawmakers who might otherwise oppose supplemental war funding are cowed into supporting them by the prospect of the troops running out of money.’
This is a bit awkward, as Democratic activists are not really calling for a guarantee against a shutdown of the war but, rather, against accusations that they are calling for shutdown of troop funding. But, the point is that many Dems would be more inclined to let funding lapse if they didn’t have to fight off accusations that they are putting the troops at risk. Faced with the prospect of a war shutdown (for lack of funds) many Dems are cowed into authorizing the money.
The Republicans clearly understand this, as they suffered a stinging defeat in 1995 when they allowed the government to shutdown rather than compromise with the President. By forcing the Dems to shutdown the war without any agreed on plan for withdrawal (and over the objections of the commander in chief and his party) they are putting the Dems in the position of forcing a catastrophe and then having to live with responsibility for the outcome.
Many Dems see this as political suicide. And, so, the war will continue until the Republicans crack.
