Much At Stake In IMF-War Funding Supplemental

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 13:14

1. Will the Progressive--Republican coalition hold? The reason this bill is in trouble is because of an alliance between House Progressives and House Republicans. The main objection from both camps is opposition to the IMF funding. Thirty-three House Progressives circulated a letter indicating that they would vote against any blank-check IMF funding, which was attached to the bill in the Senate. House Republicans have also reversed their once overwhelming support for the supplemental, due to the attachment of IMF funding.
   

   If the supplemental is defeated, it means that the war funding will have to be passed separately from the IMF funding. This would be the first successful defeat of Democratic legislation by a Progressive--Republican alliance since 1999. It would also signal a new path to Progressive Caucus influence over future Democratic legislation. As Jane Hamsher writes:

   Make them separate these bills so the IMF can come out from behind the war funding and we can have an honest discussion about whether we really need a $108 billion European bank bailout right now.
   

   I'm feeling more hopeful about a public plan, though. If Obama will make calls for this, surely he'll do so for healthcare.

   Progressives have been working to develop such influence for quite some time now. Defeating

2. Will the IMF status quo be changed? If the IMF is forced to be voted upon separately from the war funding, it might mean an end to the status quo of the IMF itself. This is because the same Progressive-Republican alliance can form to prevent IMF funding when it is considered by itself. However, House Progressives have indicated, through the above mentioned letter, that they would vote for IMF funding if certain strings and reforms were attached to the funding.
   

   The four bullet points outlined in the letter would effectively put an end to the era of the "IMF riot," and make a real dent in the so-called Washington consensus. It would mean that many of the demands made by anti-World Bank and IMF protests ten years ago will have been enshrined into U.S. law. That would be a truly remarkable progressive victory over international neoliberal economic policy, and really change the world.

No matter what happens, it is pretty impressive that a few dozen Progressives, and a coalition of blogs, managed to hold up White House approved legislation this long.