One of the problems that has plagued the democratic party was how much to scale back the involvement in Iraq. All of the democrats in the house have been working to come up with a compromise on how to go about this as they all have different ideal points. The end result of this looks to be a resolution which would change the status quo by authorizing spending and troops if the Iraqis live up to agreements made with the president, including coming to political agreement sharing the nation's oil resources as well as reconstruction. Failure to comply on the part of Iraq would mean they would get less US troops to battleterrorism.
I think that this change in the status quo is needed-why should we stick our troops and tax money over there if they are not going to live up to their ends of the bargain. They need to work to improve their situation, the United States can not do it for them.
This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(218)
-
▼
March
(57)
- Rep. Dingell Balances Interests to Avoid Dingleberry
- karl rove rapping..for real at a fundraiser
- Senate Sets Stage For Iraq Face-Off
- Odds, Ends, and Misc. Things
- Comedian in Chief?
- House Democrats Tout Budget as Deficit-Reducing
- Edwards’s Cancer Has Spread Into One of Her Hips
- Democrats take another step forward in war legisla...
- McGee spends $10,185 to defend seat
- McCain's MySpace Page Hacked
- The March Madness Loophole
- My Fellow Americans: Pls Post a Comment!
- Congress Expands Scope of Inquiries Into Justice D...
- Democrats Pass Iraq Appropriations Bill
- A Brave New World of Political Skulduggery?
- need a partner
- 2008: March Money Madness
- White House issues veto threat on Iraq pullout bill
- "No" votes and not showing up to vote doesn't make...
- Just like a Broadway play, congressional hearings ...
- US legislation could set Iraq pullout date
- Dems Demand more Cash
- Hillary Invokes Proletarian Interests
- Hagel Stays Out of Presidential Race
- partner anyone?
- YouTube Sets Aside 'Channel' for Presidential Cand...
- The New Dean Political Plan
- Emanuel tells freshmen to avoid Stephen Colbert
- Democrat David Obey attacks "idiot liberals"
- Happy "Sunshine Week" Everybody!
- Veto players always get their way
- Legislator's love triangle implodes
- Dems to Russert, Wallace, and Sheiffer: You're on ...
- Dems optimistic about Iraq plan passage
- need a partner?
- Lantos Introduces Iran Sanctions Legislation
- Democrats Look to Scrap Spending Bill Riders
- Pelosi Reveals Who's Who On Global Warming Panel
- Paperless Ballot Ban
- Senators argue about Alberto Gonzales
- Ted Kennedy Talks: Do I Listen??
- Bush Asks Congress for Armed Forces Funding Shift
- Democrats’ Iraq Plan Draws Broad Support, Poll Shows
- House Dems Face Uphill Battle Over Iraq
- It's Like I'm On Crazy Pills or Something!
- Broad Support for Dems' Iraq Plan?
- Obama pays parking tickets...only took him 17 years
- Kohl pushes anti-trust issue
- Scooter Libby
- Two Freshmen Learn the Perils of Talking Too Much
- Senate to question Army on Walter Reed
- obama vs. hillary part 2393893
- Arizona's Other Senator Wants to Fix Leaks
- Children's Health Care on Agenda
- Democrats' plan: Meet goals or bring troops home
- Republicans United in Opposition?
- Democrats eye cuts to 2008 Iraq war request
-
▼
March
(57)
2 comments:
This issue is quickly appearing to be a majority rule voting cycle. Hinich and Munger (p. 38-42)showed that such cycle can occur when you have groups where preferences are not single peaked and they prefer either to win or go home instead of picking one or the other. Democrats may be using this win or go home kind of idea with their meet goals or go home idea. As a result, the issue may not be resolved as they might expect.
To the regular readers of my comments, I apologize for the somewhat formulaic order of my thoughts, but it helps me keep my logic and reference points straight when I use the same principles in class over and over to analyze the articles posted to earn my blog points. Anyway:
Given the edge of the president’s preferred-to set closest to the congressional median preference is the de facto status quo (reversion point) for every policy Congress might choose to be involved in, it follows that only a policy that garners a two-thirds supermajority of both congressional chambers will move the status quo (as then the president will have no choice but to work within the parameters determined by the bill for which the veto was overridden). Hence, a bill allowing for graduated troop withdrawal contingent upon increased Iraqi police involvement could indeed be the linchpin of a compromise that has enough support to withstand a veto.
Post a Comment