Rep. David Wu and Bruce Ackerman have an interesting proposal on war funding. They want to put a cap on the total amount of funding for the Iraq war. It is Congress's job to restore fiscal balance first, by placing an overall limit on Iraq war expenditures. Congress should limit this president to spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war -- and no more. An admirable policy- but how would they enforce such a cap? Congress would get a chance in the FY09 budget cycle to pass an appropriations bill that would push total war spending above $500 billion. The President may request a supplemental bill that would go over that cap, too. They do not explain how their proposal would prevent Congress from simply appropriating more money in other bills. Further, they evade the question that seems to me to be at the heart of the matter: what would the President do? While he may not like the limit (we don't either, but for the opposite reason), the president would have no choice but to sign this ceiling to get short-term funding for his war. Why would the President have no choice? He could just veto the bill and force Congress to either override it, pass a different version, or do nothing at all. How would Wu and Ackerman resolve a potential deadlock? The point is, going down the appropriations road would put Congress and the President in a high-stakes game of chicken. Who would give in? Why? Send this one back to the factory.