Tweet
Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, is committed to opposing a supplemental spending bill that includes $33.5 billion to escalate war in Afghanistan, unless the funds to pay for it are found.
On May 10th Senator Coburn wrote to his colleagues asking for their support for an amendment that would offset the new spending in this bill with cuts elsewhere. I spoke on Monday with Senator Coburn’s communications director John Hart who assured me that Coburn intends to oppose the supplemental spending bill unless such an amendment is passed.
Hart said that Senator Coburn’s position is that our nation is spending way beyond our means, that Congress has been violating PAYGO rules frequently (statutory rules requiring that all spending be paid for with new revenue or offsetting cuts). Hart said that Senator Coburn has frequently put holds on bills and believes this is justified in the current instance, regardless of whether he’s been completely consistent in the past. The PAYGO statute makes an exception for supplemental war spending, but — as Coburn points out — this spending blatently violates the spirit of PAYGO.
Coburn, Hart said, wants to give the Democrats a chance to pay for the war, something that some leading Democrats have said in the past year that they want to do. Senator Carl Levin and House Appropriations Chairman David Obey said six months ago that they would not pass any more war funding without creating a "war tax" to pay for it; they proposed legislation to do just that. Chairman Obey and President Obama are also among those who have previously vowed not to use "emergency" supplemental spending bills anymore.
Hart mentioned "a lot of waste in the Department of Defense" as a place to look for offsets, itself a remarkable position to hear a Republican senator promoting. More remarkable will be seeing a Republican filibuster of a bill that includes war funding, even if it is funding to escalate, rather than to maintain, a war, and even if the opposition is based purely on financial policy. Most members of Congress who speak against wars, usually Democrats, tend to fund the wars they "oppose" on the grounds that not to do so is to "oppose the troops." Republicans in the House dismissed this criticism last June when they all voted against the previous war supplemental. Coburn dismissed it as well in his May 10th letter, printed in full below:
May 10, 2010
Dear Colleague,
I appreciate your support for the effort to pay for the $18 billion cost of H.R. 4851, the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 approved by the Senate earlier this month. I am once again asking for your support to pay for the cost of legislation expected to be considered by Congress in the coming weeks.
The Senate is expected to consider yet another "emergency" spending bill in the coming weeks. The bill could cost as much as $70 billion and will contain the annual supplemental war appropriations as well as tens of billions of dollars for a variety of other unrelated purposes, none of which will be paid for with reductions in other federal spending. Without question, we must fully meet the needs of our military men and women with the equipment and supplies they need to win and return home. But we must do so responsibly, by offsetting the full cost of the war efforts with cuts to lower-priority federal spending.
As you know, on February 12, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act (PAYGO). In the weeks following its enactment, the Senate has repeatedly ignored the spirit of PAYGO by borrowing $173 billion to cover the costs of new spending rather than paying for it by cutting lower priority spending. Just over a year ago, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Today, it is $12.9 trillion, and every American owes more than $41,000.
With the federal government borrowing 43 cents for every dollar we spend, our spending is on an unsustainable course. I will, therefore, do everything I can to ensure Congress pays for the annual supplemental spending bill and plan to offer an amendment to offset the full amount of the legislation. I am open to all offset suggestions and would appreciate your support when the pay for amendment is put before the Senate for a vote.
Time and time again, Congress waits until the last minute to consider important legislation and then declares the billions of dollars in costs as “emergency” as a way to avoid making the tough decisions required to pay for the price tag. Congress can continue to borrow billions of dollars by declaring a bill an emergency to avoid paying for it today, but eventually the cost must be paid. Our nation’s $12.9 trillion debt is endangering our financial recovery, the future of our children and grandchildren who will be left paying for the bills we are incurring today, our national security, and the very freedoms of men and women in uniform are fighting to protect and preserve. That is why the real “emergency spending” is this type of irresponsible spending that is creating a true emergency for the future of our nation.
Again, I appreciate your support in the past and I hope I can count on you again as I do whatever I can to help restore fiscal discipline in Washington by forcing Congress to pay for the costs of all new spending.
Sincere Regards,
Tom A Coburn, M.D.
U.S. Senator
28 Comments
Pay for or not isn’t quite the issue, it needs to end. But yes, this will be a Dem war…
This is how the 1970s Democrats became the anti-war party after their own party’s presidents initiated and escalated the war: through funding discussions.
Which is of course why afterwards the Republicans and their conservative media allies demagogued the very idea of a future war funding cutoff so hard as to make it politically radioactive: They pretty much did another Dolchstosslegende variation, claiming that “We woulda beat the Commies except the Dems STABBED US IN THE BACK!!!!!”
I am up for ANYTHING and anyone that pushes back against the wars, the cost, and the insanity of “spending over there” instead of here.
Although I am a progressive lately I am leaning very heavily towards favoring tax cuts. I cannot be alone in this sentiment/impulse. The current tax system amounts to tribute ~ the general population pays in the tradition of supporting the “common good” but the “common good” which would most benefit those paying the taxes is deemed too expensive … all the while war spending and corporate bailoutws are deemed to be absolutely necessary!!!
And who makes the decisions? The moneyed elites who get tax cuts and the corporate elites who benefit from the bailouts while effectively paying NO taxes!!!
This is madness. Taxes are tribute. If they are going to take our money and spend it on themselves, then having them take less of our money at least makes things less unfair.
The insult to the injury?
Well said, reader, as well as, too true …
DW
If you’re in the bottom 95% of taxpayers, I’m sort of with you, though it costs money to run a country, I agree that their spending priorities are AFU. If you’re in the top 2%, then I don’t feel one jot of sympathy for you. We don’t need tax cuts. We need a hefty tax increase at least back to where it was before Reagan and the Bushs came along.
Taxation is one thing.
Not having any representation is the other.
Bet a snappy phrase would result if, somehow, they could be put together?
DW
Where was Colburn between 2001 and 2009?
Whenever people stand up and say stuff like this, I say the same thing.
Like I said in my last post, this country will get crushed under the weight of its own hypocrisy.
And once again, the left and the right have a common interest. I’d prefer the war end, but I’ll take massive defense department cuts, and I’ll take increased taxes on the rich, though I’d prefer to use those to redeem the Social Security trust fund.
Don’t go too far. I’m sure Coburn would be delighted to pay for the war with Social Security cuts.
“Don’t go too far. I’m sure Coburn would be delighted to pay for the war with Social Security cuts.”
Go to the head of the class. Whatever “pay as you go” proposal Coburn and his republican brethern come up with, you can bet it will feature cuts to programs that benefit the middle class and won’t go near the bloated military budget.
Increase taxes on anybody, not in this lifetime.
Yep – that is how Coburn operates. Many good suggestions above – ask Coburn to get rid of contracts with Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.
And ask Coburn to Tax the Oil Company profits from Iraq (what Iraq was all about anyway) – tax ALL Oil profits now – since Exxon did not pay ANY US taxes on its profits.
Coburn has taken donations from Oil & Gas – $448,113, – $105,700 in 2010 alone.
Ain’t that the truth. And where was this fool from 2001 to 2009? Worrying about Christianist causes and his status in the Zygote Caucus.
The Social Security Trust fund is fine -
Obama just set up his commission to allow his Wall Street friends to rob it blind.
End US corporate imperial occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq now.
Agree with OldFatGuy: where the eff was Coburn between 2001 and 2009, and how the eff did he vote on the Afghan & Iraq War?
I’m all for dialing down these 2 wars to nothing, but color me totally cynical to see Coburn doing this now, the creep. Nothing new under the sun.
And yes, our taxes are a tribute to the elites and the corporations, but whereohwhere was the Tea Party when all of this was initiated under Sainted Zombie Reagan and pushed harder by Bush the Dumber? Yeah, we voters are very definitely being screwed, but where was the Tea Party between 2001 and 2009, and how many of the Tea Party were 100% behind starting both wars and insanely increasing the DoD budget (which W “conveniently” didn’t show in the budget), and for that matter, given that Dick Cheney still freely and often associates Saddam with Al Qaeda, how many Tea Partiers still think that we *had* to go to war in Iraq bc of WMD and Al Qaeda?
Seriously, as much as I loathe the Barackstar, my loathing for Coburn makes my despising of BHO look like pre-school stuff. These cheap Republican hustlers are just…. you fill in the blank… I gotta do something about the steam coming outta my ears.
Oh, dear. “Where the eff was Coburn between 2001 and 2009, and how the eff did he vote on the Afghan & Iraq War? … color me totally cynical to see Coburn doing this now, the creep … These cheap Republican hustlers are just…. you fill in the blank…”
My, those Republicans sure are disgusting compared with virtually all the Democrats. Who could say anything similar about any significant percentage of them at all, let alone those stalwart progressives in the House who would NEVER compromise their beliefs for mere political gain…
And Obama – Oh, Oh, Oh! I’m getting all shivery! I SO understand why Coburn takes you to a whole new level of abhorrence by comparison.
This sure does highlight the differences between the two parties. Let’s all pile on Coburn for this crass attempt to make political points at the expense of supporting our troops. But I’m sure it will fail, because everyone knows that you make political points BY supporting our troops and the vital things they are doing over there to protect us!
I could just go on, and on, and on…
I can’t believe I’m saying this but woohoo for Coburn (on this)! Predictably, even when he’s doing the right thing it’s for the wrong reason but whatever gets a debate going about being in two elective wars.
Deficit hawk kabuki. This is about scoring political points in an election year.
And that is the really galling thing. It will work.
The Democrats did it to themselves. The anti-war platform was critical to the them in 2006 and 2008, and they’re letting it get stolen from underneath them. Coburn and Beck get to be anti-interventionist AND budget hawks, AND the war gets perpetuated because Jan Schakowsky will keep voting for it.
Democrats own it now.
Cut all defense spending in Oklahoma and then roll it out to the rest of the Republican and Blue Dog Democrat states. Let’s no longer bankroll their primitive economies.
Oh? And what does Coburn say about the $205m Obama just asked Congress to send to Israel for a missile defense system against Palestinian rockets? Are we sending any money to Palestinians to defend against Israel’s aggressive colonists and military? What are we cutting from the budget for that $205m or is that just a drop in the defense budget?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/14/obama-wants-funding-to-help-israel-build-defense-system/?fbid=TKd27iB90Ee
See, if Democrats had some balls, and weren’t deathly afraid of being called “weak” on “terror, I would call Coburn’s bluff on this and use that as a reason to stop funding the war effort.
“I will filibuster the war supplemental unless it is paid for under the established PAYGO rules” Coburn says with a smug grin on his face.
Democratic leaders – let’s use Harry Reid cause it’s easy – then say this.
“Well gosh, Tom Coburn is right. We can’t pay for this war. No war supplemental. Oh wait! We can’t pay our troops or
mercenariescontractors anymore. Let’s bring ‘em all home!”Coburn would then be forced to either be seen as not only a pro-war candidate (at a time when the majority of the public seems not to give a shit about the “war”) but as a huge flaming hypocrite if he – as I would predict would happen – would immediately turn tail at the “filibuster” attempt and start screaming about how we need to fight the war “no matter what it does to the deficit”, for example.
Ooh that would be delicious. Can we whip on this? Pretty please?
OK, Tom. I’ll see your raise and call: we’ll shut down Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City, Altus AFB in Altus, OK, and Ft. Sill in Lawton, OK. That should cover your bluff.
nice.
To bad the asshole didn’t think of that eight years ago.
Want to check Coburns votes since we went into these wars.
I’m sure the Media and the Dems won’t find the time to broadcast His voting record. on paying for the WARS.
Maybe instead of biching we all should push to show these people for what they are, before they rule us again, after November.
I know exactly where the money for escalating the war in Afghanistan needs to come from – the personal bank accounts of the esteemed senators and congress critters who vote for it. Period. No other choices.