According to the article below, the House Progressive Caucus is refusing to go along with Speaker Pelosi's plan to give Bush a $178 blank check for Iraq.

"People shouldn't have to choose between voting for food stamps for hungry people and for an occupation that is keeping our young men and women in harm's way," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Pelosi is trying to bribe progressive Democrats by packaging the blank check with "unemployment benefits, increased food stamps spending, more money for wildfire protection and new funds for federal infrastructure projects." 

Of course it's absurd for progressive Democrats to trade a blank check for Iraq for basic safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. Do Democratic leaders plan to let poor Americans starve unless progressives fund a disastrous occupation that 2/3 of Americans oppose?

Pelosi's speakership has gone from tragedy to farce. If I were Barbara Lee, I'd be organizing the Progressive Caucus to dump Pelosi and make Lee the Speaker.

Pelosi's Iraq Plan Starting to Take Shape
By: Jennifer Bendery and Ashley Roque Roll Call Staff and CongressNow Staff
Apr. 24, 2008 1:45 PM

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is "leaning toward" a three-pronged strategy to move the contentious Iraq War supplemental bill in the coming week or so.

That still-developing strategy involves advancing three separate legislative vehicles: one to exclusively provide emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; another aimed at stimulating the economy through a mix of domestic spending measures; and potentially, a third that would advance some sort of language on troop withdrawals.

From there, Pelosi is hoping to work out a deal with Senate leaders and the White House that would involve passing a supplemental bill with only a handful of domestic spending items in it.

A senior House Democratic aide confirmed Thursday that this is "loosely" the plan being crafted behind closed doors between Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

Such a strategy would at least theoretically address the conundrum faced by House leaders: how to pass a war spending bill when anti-war Democrats oppose any new funds without a change in Iraq policy. Further complicating matters, fiscally conservative Democrats could oppose a supplemental that is too heavily laden with domestic spending items and does not have to abide by pay-as-you-go budget rules.

Another problem is that the bill will ultimately require the support of some Republicans in order to make it to the president's desk. President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that costs more than the $108 billion request for emergency war funding.

For weeks, House and Senate Democrats have been crafting a war bill that would cover not only war costs, but possibly offer an extension of unemployment benefits, increased food stamps spending, more money for wildfire protection and new funds for federal infrastructure projects.

Although Democratic leaders had eyed the joint bill as a way to pick up votes on the controversial spending bill, pressure has been mounting for them to separate the initiatives.

Members of the anti-war Out of Iraq Caucus sat down with Pelosi on Wednesday night to urge her to separate domestic dollars from the war-spending bill, the senior aide confirmed. They did not want to be seen as having to support the war in order to endorse popular domestic spending items.

Furthermore, the caucus endorsed a letter sent to Pelosi with House Republicans pledging to oppose a pork-laden supplemental.

"People shouldn't have to choose between voting for food stamps for hungry people and for an occupation that is keeping our young men and women in harm's way," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

"The only money we should give for this president is for the protection of our troops and to provide for a safe and responsible redeployment."

Lee acknowledged that the forthcoming spending bill may be the only spending legislation passed this year, but said she is "firmly grounded" to having the measures separated.

GOP Members, meanwhile, are opposing any add-ons to the bill because they worry it could slow down getting money to troops. Republicans, however, say they will not oppose the bill if it includes additional fiscal 2009 war spending that is currently pegged at $70 billion.

Over in the Senate, Democrats are in a position where they must have GOP approval or face a filibuster - in which case the majority would likely fail to garner the 60 votes needed to advance discussion on the bill.

Pelosi is in a bind because she cannot get 218 Democrats to give Bush a blank check for Iraq.

The article below was written earlier:

Anti-war House Democrats raised their voices Wednesday against a plan to include domestic spending in a war-funding bill, adding another difficult calculus as Democratic leaders try to assemble a spending package.

Leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, which has more than 70 members, warned that they don't want party leaders to add domestic funding or any economic stimulus provisions to the bill, even though they support the non-war-related initiatives.

"We don't want the supplemental and economic stimulus linked in any way," said Maxine Waters, D-Calif., an anti-war leader.

That wish was at odds with comments by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, DMd., who indicated that the supplemental spending plan would almost certainly include funding for domestic programs. Hoyer said Democrats will not be deterred by President Bush's threat to veto any bill that exceeds the $108.1 billion he has requested to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of the fiscal year.

"I'm sure it will, contrary to the administration sending its tablets down from the mount," Hoyer told reporters when asked whether the cost of the supplemental would exceed the president's top line. "We're going to pass a supplemental that we believe is necessary and required by the facts as we see them in this country and abroad."

A House Democratic aide said Wednesday night that leaders are close to agreeing on a plan that would limit the amount of domestic funding added to the bill. They also are strongly considering adding a package of education benefits for veterans, a limited extension of unemployment insurance and language blocking Bush administration rules designed to reduce federal Medicaid costs. The Medicaid language would mirror a bill (HR 5613) passed by the House 349-62 on Wednesday. All three potential policy additions have at least some bipartisan support.

House Democrats have been trying to limit what might be added to the supplemental to prevent Republicans and the White House from accusing them of including unnecessary spending in a war funding bill. The aide said the Appropriations Committee has been going over the domestic funding to make sure the items can be defended as meeting urgent needs.

Senate appropriators have shown more interest in adding funding and do not appear as concerned about the administration's threat to veto the war spending bill if it includes added domestic funding.

But the stance of the Out of Iraq Caucus illustrates the problems even limited additions could cause.

Waters, fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey and other war opponents said they want any legislation dealing with the struggling economy to be voted on separately. In addition, they said they planned to tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that they want to offer a floor amendment to the supplemental that would call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

House defense appropriators, in their recommendations to leadership, have focused on three war-policy provisions that they hope will be included in the bill: a timeline for withdrawing troops; expansion of torture prohibitions to cover all government agencies, including the CIA; and mandated rest time at home for soldiers equal to the length of their overseas deployments.

Members of the Out of Iraq Caucus said they will support only funding that goes solely to protecting troops and redeploying them from Iraq.

Bush and House Republicans oppose any funding restrictions, meaning Democrats cannot afford to lose many votes from their own ranks if they want to include any war-policy restrictions in the bill. If adding domestic and economic recovery provisions won't attract votes from the strongest war critics, most of whom say they will only support a bill that directly leads to troops leaving Iraq, House leaders will be in a difficult spot.

"They want to do what's convenient for them," Waters said of leadership. "That's not my problem."

A floor vote on the war bill will likely be held late next week, but a final decision has not been made, said a senior House Democratic aide.

Democratic leaders have been wrestling with how much to add to the war funding bill. It has become an attractive vehicle for adding domestic spending, because it's considered one of the few must-pass bills during this election year.

The bill also may represent the best leverage Democrats have to get the president to accept such programs as increased unemployment insurance and infrastructure funding that they argue are needed to help the unemployed and create jobs during the economic downturn.

Hoyer said the supplemental is not necessarily being viewed as the vehicle for a second stimulus package, but he acknowledged it may contain funding that could be characterized as stimulative.

Democrats have yet to define what should be in a second stimulus package, leaving it unclear what items they could add to the war bill and what they will hold back.

On Wednesday, Pelosi wrote Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, to suggest Democrats and Republicans get together and decide what policies are needed to help the economy, as they did in January. Her letter came in response to Boehner's request that she outline exactly what Democrats want resolved before they will schedule a vote on the Colombia free-trade pact they indefinitely delayed earlier this month.

"As I said to the president, until we pass a legislative package for jobs and economic growth here at home, it will be extremely difficult to approve any trade legislation," Pelosi wrote.

Republicans have urged waiting until the stimulus package enacted in February ( PL 110-185 ) has time to affect the economy - tax rebates will be sent out starting next month - before deciding whether a second package is needed. The White House and its GOP allies on the Hill also remain angry at Pelosi's move against the trade bill and are in no mood to deal while that issue remains unresolved.

The administration reiterated that the president is ready for a fight on the supplemental.

"Majority Leader Steny Hoyer may have said today that he is sure that the cost of an upcoming war supplemental bill will exceed the president's request for $108 billion," White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said in a statement. "I would like to make clear that I am sure the president will veto it."

Liriel Higa, Josh Rogin and Chuck Conlon contributed to this report.

.