Daily News Roundup, 11/21/07: Pentagon Mismanages Payroll, Blames Democrats

You know Republicans are starting to get a bit desperate for traction in the discussion over the conflict in Iraq when they have given up on their standard talking points and are now trying to paint Democrats as the "firing employees during Christmas" party.

In yet another attempt to get Democrats to budge on Bush's requested $196 billion in war funding, of which the Democrats basically offered $50 billion in exchange for an immediate beginning to troop withdrawals, the Defense Department has warned that if the funding does not pass, they may have to start laying off civilian employees at the Pentagon.

Senate Democrats were quick to point out the past duplicity of the Pentagon with matters pertaining to Iraq; Senator John Murtha called the Pentagon's reporting "irresponsible" and their attempts to scare people into submission "despicable." Senate leaders are confident that the Pentagon can continue operations at current levels — including the Iraq conflict — well into next year with the budget they currently have. And they also note that if money is so desperately needed, then Republicans should be more than happy to accept what's on the table:

Last week, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would keep operations afloat for several more months, but sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. After Bush threatened to veto the measure, Senate Republicans blocked it.

"If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is to call the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it," Obey told reporters.

Then again, one can't help but wonder: if not getting money for a war appropriation means they have to lay off civilians at the Pentagon, how did the beginning-of-year budgeting for Pentagon payroll get so far off that they now need to get an emergency appropriation just to keep people employed? Sounds more to me like we should be firing whoever manages the Pentagon's budget, not trying to bail them out with money that wasn't for domestic payroll in the first place. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Moving from mud being thrown in the federal government to mud being thrown in the presidential race, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama looked like they were again at each other's throats yesterday. Clinton was quoted in a speech as saying that "...voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face," pushing on the talking point of experience that she has been presenting against other candidates in the race. Obama replied that it gave him "some judgment and perspective around what other people think about America and how they might react or respond when we make some of the decisions that we make." But he didn't hesitate to then fire a barb of his own at Clinton: "I was wondering which world leader told her that we needed to invade Iraq." And Edwards' campaign couldn't help but join the fray:

"Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last debate," said Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis.

"Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

Out of the three, that's got to be my favorite zinger.

Irving's recent mass roundup of undocumented workers has hit a big snag. Due to the huge surge in reporting, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have declared that they would not look at cases of immigrants arrested for class C misdemeanors in most cases. This is estimated to drop their work load by over 60%, but Irving is a bit grouchy about all that. State Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving) was the most adamant about it, saying "I don't know why the feds are choosing to ignore the law." Others seem more understanding that ICE does not have the resources to deal with as many immigrants as Irving was reporting; the article quotes Irving Mayor Herbert Gears as saying, "We're cooperating in all the ways that we can to help them, and it's obvious they don't have the resources to get it done systemwide." Which brings up the question: if they can't manage the process for the number of people committing class C misdemeanors in Irving, how is the nation supposed to implement a real fashion to relocate the total 12 million undocumented workers in the United States as a whole? Somehow purging the United States of undocumented immigrants and their families has always seemed an untenable solution to manage, and I'm glad to see that we're learning this.

And finally, after seeming like they may just ignore the case, the Supreme Court has decided officially to take a look at the D.C. handgun ban that was struck down by a federal district court. From the article:

Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

As there is little in the way of recent jurisprudence, nobody really knows how the court would rule on the matter, and so everyone's a little concerned about what the ramifications could be of the Supreme Court finally making a ruling on whether Second Amendment rights are individual or collective. There are interesting arguments to be had on both sides, and it'll be interesting to see how the court rules. And for Supreme Court fans, the idea of getting to see a little bit of Supreme Court history is pretty exciting too.