In a thread in GD, a question was raised about whether or not Congress could cut funding to the troops in Iraq, there by forcing the President to bring them home. There is a lot of back and forth happening in the thread, but a distinct lack of real facts. I did some research and came to the conclusion that…I have no idea. Looking at the DoD budget and what the President can and can not do, it SEEMS like he could fund the troops out of the budget, at least in the short term. Does anyone know a definitive answer, or even a good place to look for this info? COULD Congress cut funding to the troops (assume for a moment that one party or the other has the power to do so)? Would this have the effect of forcing the President to bring the troops out? What options would the President have?
Actually, I you’ll probably get a better discussion in the GD thread, because the issues are more political than legal or constitutional.
Be careful when you say “funding the troops”. The troops would be “funded” no matter what–the size of our armed forces hasn’t increased that much as a result of the war, and even if we leave Iraq tomorrow, most of those troops will still be on duty and “funded”. So yes, in that sense, the President could keep the troops “funded” out of the ordinary defense budget.
But of course, funding for combat is much more expensive than funding for barracks duty in Germany or Korea. That’s why the war requires a supplemental appropriation of about $150 billion per year. If Congress were to reject that supplemental, the money to continue arming and supplying the troops, in the field, wouldn’t be there. It’s not like the President could find $150 billion in a slush fund somewhere and move it around.
Who knows? It’s a political question. It would be a game of chicken:
Congress: “The supplemental funds combat in Iraq only through June 30, 2007. If you keep the troops there past that date, they won’t be armed or supplied.”
President: “I’m the Commander in Chief, and I think it’s unsafe for them to leave by June 30. They’re staying. If you refuse to pass the supplemental, Congress will be responsible when the troops don’t get fed.”
Congress: “We’ve given you fair warning. The funds stop on June 30. If you, as Commander in Chief, fail to order their withdrawal by that date, you will be responsible when the troops don’t get fed.”
Some of this supplemental funding may also be stuff directly related to Iraq, such as training and equipping (and replacing broke parts of said equipment) of the Iraqi police we’re supposed to be training to take over when we leave.
There is also money used for repairing and replacing whatever infrastructure that may still need fixing. (Water treatment plants, schools, roads, radio towers, power lines, etc.)
There is the direct costs of ammo, medicine, food, and fuel that the US forces need to use while there in Iraq, that is over and above the normal peacetime requirements.
This supplemental funding is what could, or would, get the axe, not the US soldier’s paychecks.
I read an essay arguing that one way to defang this issue would be for Congress to fund the withdrawal of the troops. They could pass a specific bill that would cover all costs of getting the troops home, and not authorize any further combat funds.
Of course, Bush just wouldn’t sign such a bill, so …
I’ve not had time to dig into this much, but this article from the Center for American Progress appears to supply a nice overview: Examples of Funding and Authorization Limitations Enacted into Law. The article also includes a section on 'Troop Caps Enacted Into Law".
I’m sure we are thinking of the same thread. Its been a lot of back and forth but not a lot of facts cited thus far. I’ve been doing some reading, and I can’t seem to get anything definitive as far as an answer goes. You’d THINK that the question would be answerable…and maybe it is. I just haven’t found an answer thats definitive. I was rather hoping someone here would just say “Oh, yeah…thats easy. Here is the answer…”
Haven’t had time to go through Squink’s link yet though…its possible s/he’s got it (Squink is usually pretty good about this kind of thing :)).
The question of “funding troops” isn’t so much of a question of how many dollars Congress appropriates, but rather legal restrictions that Congress may put on the use of funds. If an insufficient amount of money is appropriated for national defense, the military may use the Food and Forage Act to use other monies to buy necessities for troops (food, clothing, etc.). Keeping in mind that it will cost probably tens of billions of dollars to withdraw troops and equipment from Iraq, appropriating an insufficient amount of money will not accomplish anything.
However, Congress often places restrictions on the use of funds. So, for example, Congress could pass a law which reads, “No funds may be used for the deployment of more than 140,000 troops to Iraq.” If the President attempted to deploy 140,001 troops to Iraq, he would be in violation of the law.
How it plays out from there would really be a political question. A funding limitation of this type was the heart of the Iran-Contra scandal. If the President violated a legal restriction on the use of funds (assuming it is enacted over his veto), the issue would probably end up in the courts, or – I just hate to say this – it could be an issue the would be a matter Congress uses to initiate impeachment proceedings.
As a practical matter, cutting the payroll for our troops could be a very bad idea. Fucking with your own soldiers is one of the best ways to incite a military coup. When you give 100,000+ people access to the most advanced weaponry that has ever existed, you don’t not pay them.
