1-30-08, 9:08 am

On the heels of Bush's state of the union speech Jan. 28 in which he offered no serious new proposals for economic recovery or a change of course in Iraq, Senate Democrats are planning a huge confrontation with Bush on these issues.

A proposal passed in the House and negotiated by the House Democrats and the White House would provide tax rebates of a few hundred dollars to many middle and income households. And Bush is still pressing Congress to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, a plan that analysts say won't stimulate consumption.

Senate Democrats say the negotiated plan simply does not go far enough. In his response to Bush's speech, Sen. Barack Obama, called for extending unemployment benefits. A Senate version of the stimulus package, with bipartisan support, extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks in most states, and by and additional six months in states with unemployment rates higher than six percent.


Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) offered an amendment to increase the size of the rebates in the House proposal by $300 and extending them to low-income wage earners and retirees as well.

To this, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) stated, must be added relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and federal investment in infrastructure, advanced technology and redevelopment project to create jobs.

'Our long-term economic growth requires investments by the federal government to create jobs and help our businesses grow and compete,' Levin told the press. 'Infrastructure and advanced technology should be our top priorities.'

Levin further argued that adequate funding for safety net programs like unemployment insurance, home heating assistance, and the food stamp program are critical types of economic stimulus for families hit hardest by recession.

Senate Democrats say that Bush's refusal to address economic difficulties on an institutional and long-term basis is suggestive of his lack of urgency and seriousness toward the underlying problems or to understand the hardships of working families.

On the Iraq war, Senate Democrats have signaled a coming battle with Bush over his proposal to legitimize long-term occupation and combat operations in Iraq with a 'status-of-forces' agreement.

The administration claims it doesn't need the approval of Congress to pressure Iraq into signing a long-term occupation treaty.

Legal experts and many in the US Senate disagree. Barack Obama told MSNBC that Senators would fight the proposal. He described it as 'tying the hands of the next president' and called for a real exit strategy from Iraq.

Sen. Jim Webb (D- VA) implied that the proposed agreement is irresponsible and provides no new security arrangements. 'There’s no exit strategy, because the administration doesn’t have one,” Webb told the New York Times. “By entering this agreement, they avoid a debate and they validate their unspoken strategy.”

The unspoken strategy appears to do an end-run around Congress and lay the basis for an occupation beyond the Bush presidency. In a letter to Bush last week, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) described the proposed agreement as one that could 'mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely.'

Bush has offered contradictory messages justifying long-term occupation in Iraq. On one hand, he said that the occupation is necessary because Al Qaeda poses a serious threat in Iraq and sectarian strife is ongoing, despite the fact that the military estimates Al Qaeda causes only a tiny number of violent attacks Iraq. On the other hand, he touted the 'surge' for reducing sectarian violence and making the long-term occupation a safer enterprise.

Critics of the 'surge' disagree about its success. In addition to the failure to produce a political reconciliation between the country's major regions and religious and political factions, the main stated goal of the 'surge,' many also point out that the violence has only fallen to pre-surge levels with about 4,700 violent incidents a month.

Limited security improvements in isolated places flow from new agreements for cash and arms with former insurgent groups who fought US troops.

These are mostly Sunni groups who have said they see the Democratic victory in Congress as a sign the US occupation is ending and view US military offers of arms and cash as a means to strengthen their own situation against Shia factions who now control the government.

US forces have been training and arming these groups over the last year, totaling about 80,000 people. Military analysts see these developments as unlikely to reduce sectarian conflict, pointing to intensified suspicion between groups over the past year.

Senate Democratic leaders have come to agree with most Americans who understand that bringing the occupation of Iraq to an end is the only basis for promoting political reconciliation in Iraq.

But it is increasingly clear, the Bush administration seeks neither stability or reconciliation, hoping that ongoing violence will serve to legitimize or force enduring occupation even after his departure from Washington.

The Senate has the opportunity to lead a serious and determined struggle against Bush/Republican obstructionism on economic recovery and bringing a change in course in Iraq. Let's hope the opportunity isn't wasted.

--Joel Wendland can be reached at