In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the first to suggest to Hill Democrats the outlines of the pending deal on war funds for Iraq. If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time
First priority - win the war. Second priority - cut spending. Looks like a good deal to me.
"The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a very relevant player," Hoyer said. "Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result."
Naaaaancy! Where's your whip?
The Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30 billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund the Iraq war.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then would allow Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50 billion short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but far less than the $196 billion Bush has sought. It's the WaPo. I couldn't read any more. Maybe the link will tell you where the rest of the money will come from. I only have a certain tolerence for WaPo drivel.