Any effort to restrict funding for the war in Iraq will be framed as cutting support for the troops. The distinctions between various appropriations schemes that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid come up with to try and blunt the escalation funding will be lost on the average American.
So the problem is how to tie funding - especially for the escalation - directly to a target people can point to simply...
So, create a pot of money designated for the purpose of escalation. My model is the highway trust fund, paid for by gas taxes and used specifically for road construction and upkeep. The Escalation Trust Fund, paid for by a surtax on the capital gains from stock market transactions and their derivatives (such as options) on incomes in excess of $1 million. In other words, a CEO tax. By restricting to stocks and derivatives, farmers needn't worry if they sell off property, and Joe Sixpack needn't fret about excess taxation of his lottery jackpot he knows he's about to win. And by restricting to incomes over $1 million, ordinary investors needn't worry about selling stock to send the kid to college. When the wingnuts scream "class warfare", the $1 million threshold is a pretty clear marker high enough to easily deflect the charges. Who indeed does the Right care for - the troops or the CEOs?
It doesn't matter that much if the financials don't add up - if you can't squeeze $100 billion out of a (say) 15% surtax on CEO options. It's just a political device to force Bush to choose between his beloved war and his beloved "haves and have-mores". And if he vetoes the Fund, fine. Then the Congress is justified in appropriating zero for the escalation.
This is a way to disconnect the Democrats from being labelled as against the troops.
UPDATE Senator Kennedy is drawing a more stark line in the sand.