We learned in the last few days that president Obama's decision to ask Congress for approval of a strike on Syria is mostly a domestic political move; he wants to share the blame if things go wrong and complain if Congress says no. This is a cynical move when facing a tyrant who is repeatedly gassing his own citizens to death. Congress should authorize a strike, but it ought to add its own political considerations. Here is what I suggest:
The House should pass a bill that authorizes the strike and also contains a continuing resolution providing for spending for the Department of Defense for the rest of the year with an additional four billion dollars limited to covering the cost of any action in Syria. It would be hard for Obama to oppose getting authority to act AND the ability to pay for it. Think of the consequences were this to pass:
1. When we reach the inevitable confrontation on spending and debt levels, the pay of our servicemen will no longer be held hostage by Obama to a full resolution. Obama does not care about the people in the armed forces; he used them last time as pawns in the spending battles. It is just plain wrong, however, for those brave men and women who protect the country to see their pay possibly withheld because the "geniuses" in Washington cannot get their act together. Indeed, not only would the pay of the armed forces be taken off the table, but also all military expenditures. Obama could not hold our safety hostage to higher spending.
2. Congress could set a reasonable limit on spending in Syria that ought to help determine the nature of the American response. Obama says no American troops will set foot in Syria, but it is Obama, so who knows the truth. On the other hand, if there is only $4 billion to spend at most, there simply cannot be many American troops sent to Syria; there would be no way to pay for it.
3. In the inevitable confrontation on spending and debt levels, the spending focus would be on all those programs that the Democrats consider vital, thus increasing the leverage of Republicans in the negotiations.
The House should pass a bill that authorizes the strike and also contains a continuing resolution providing for spending for the Department of Defense for the rest of the year with an additional four billion dollars limited to covering the cost of any action in Syria. It would be hard for Obama to oppose getting authority to act AND the ability to pay for it. Think of the consequences were this to pass:
1. When we reach the inevitable confrontation on spending and debt levels, the pay of our servicemen will no longer be held hostage by Obama to a full resolution. Obama does not care about the people in the armed forces; he used them last time as pawns in the spending battles. It is just plain wrong, however, for those brave men and women who protect the country to see their pay possibly withheld because the "geniuses" in Washington cannot get their act together. Indeed, not only would the pay of the armed forces be taken off the table, but also all military expenditures. Obama could not hold our safety hostage to higher spending.
2. Congress could set a reasonable limit on spending in Syria that ought to help determine the nature of the American response. Obama says no American troops will set foot in Syria, but it is Obama, so who knows the truth. On the other hand, if there is only $4 billion to spend at most, there simply cannot be many American troops sent to Syria; there would be no way to pay for it.
3. In the inevitable confrontation on spending and debt levels, the spending focus would be on all those programs that the Democrats consider vital, thus increasing the leverage of Republicans in the negotiations.
No comments:
Post a Comment