..out of the dark

But this is about funds which people like Murtha are signing off for on additional funding- bills and appropriations connected (at least through the bills) to the war, among other things. Currently there are some billions that cannot be properly audited, or which is impossible to really trace. So "properly" here means something like relatively unambiguous and clear, not "auditable" as in: "these funds have been, spent, you know, on stuff, like".

But because of this, I am very certain that several senators would be a bit unwilling to do anything about it, as they would not be rewarded for cutting the legs off their state's various associated programs - just because they want to "defend the terrorists who are being tortured for our safety". Or probably.. "because they hate Bush and america". Or even "for their liberal niceties".

On the other hand, misappropriations and serious waste is usually the result in the end, so it should be in everyone's interest to actually end this eventually.

I.e, your senators need some encouragement to do that. So the question, really, is whether you will give them that. And for the time being, the opportunity is still there.

(...)

" "I.e, your senators need some encouragement to do that."

I'm another person who can't make out what you feel "that" is, or quite what you're saying, other than the general sentiment that Congress Should Do Better On This (withdrawal/winding down American military involvement in Iraq)."

(...)

- I'm just saying that if Congress is supposed to have the power of the purse, they need to know where the money goes first.

And ending the supplemental bills, as well as the current practices with the DOD's budget (..perhaps in an attempt to move some ways back to what the national security act says, what would I know) might be a small step in the right direction. Since then the congress would actually be able to control where the money goes, as well as what the money would be used for.

At that point Murtha could be demanding facilities to be closed on certain conditions, or, say, predict no more funds for troops and supplies /in a predefined scenario that funds were previously appropriated for/ if no justification for an increase would be offered.

Otherwise, this is doomed from the beginning, since congress is reduced to "forbidding" certain specific facilities, particular operations, etc. Pinning the tail on the donkey, more likely. And doing that, either in a broad sense (should not torture, no more open- ended war on molerats), or in a detailed and more specific sense(close Bhagram detention facility, do not attack Iran), is undoubtedly going to dig into the president's war- powers anyway, or can be worked around.

Meaning that threatening with the "power of the purse" is an empty threat in the current scenario. Or, the current reality. Most likely for years to come.

And I'm just saying that you should not expect the democrats or the congress to jump at the opportunity to change any of this. Because they all benefit from the way things work at the moment - with open- ended budgets, ceremonial bills and loads of supplements and ear- marks for the well- connected. As does anyone who are supported by funds appropriated through these bills connected to the war on terror.

Because that's how things work. That's how it's done. Jobs depend on it, etc. And changing this, imo, is going to be as appealing as forcing 435 children to eat their meals properly by appealing to their good moral sense.

So before anyone starts to expect Murtha to stare down the Bush- administration.. and convince them of the error of their ways.. upon which they vow to tear down the Whitehouse and replace it with a garden.. and a ceremonial tipi where the Rose- garden used to be... just be clear on how much will have to be turned around before these threats about cutting funding will have any weight. Or what kind of constitutional crisis would happen if a confrontation on actual appropriations (rather than rhetoric) were to happen.

But it should, in my opinion, not be very difficult to see the point of why the tentative steps taken by the democrats so far has to lead to some serious reform - as unauditable budgets, impossible, semi- official projects, etc, is not going to mean your tax- dollars are well spent.

I mean, I, as someone who does not live in the US, of course sees this as an imperative because the foreign policies are becoming more insane than usual, lately.

And I'm obviously completily blind to whatever details about corruption and so on that has to be done away with - along with such things as conforming the rules for supplements, committee- work, or public records, etc. And of course see this as a mere coincidental bonus along with stopping the Bush- administration from blowing up the world, and so on...

(...)

" "Meaning that threatening with the 'power of the purse' is an empty threat in the current scenario."

This seems quite inaccurate to me, I'm afraid. The crucial factors seem to me to be the political calculations of the Democratic Congressional leadership, and how they respond to popular desires amongst the public -- not some technical or legal inability on Congress's part. (I'm quite sure that a crucial part of the leadership's calculations is their fear that what's popular now -- drawdown/withdrawal -- might conceivably come back to bite them and be much less popular in four or six years or so; such fears might or might not be entirely in error, but I'm pretty sure some folks have them.)

Of course, perhaps you are right."