The Ukraine Aid Package Isn’t DOA, but It’s on Life Support

This morning, the Democrats in the Senate, combined with a pack of Biden Republicans, forced through the combined foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. (But mostly Ukraine.) Even with that accomplished, the prospects for the bill look dim at best in the House. It’s unclear if there would be enough GOP support to put the bill over the top in a floor vote. And the question can’t even be put to the test unless Speaker Mike Johnson agrees to bring the measure up. Unlike the doomed “bipartisan border security” bill, Johnson hasn’t pronounced this one dead on arrival. But he clearly isn’t sold on the measure, either. Last night he criticized the bill for not doing anything to ensure actual border security, calling that “the most pressing issue facing our country.” In a moment, I’ll address both the practical and political ramifications. (AP)

House Speaker Mike Johnson late Monday sharply criticized a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other countries, casting serious doubts about the future of the package just as Senate leaders were slowly muscling it ahead in hopes of sending a message that the U.S. remains committed to its allies.

The Republican speaker said the package lacked border security provisions, calling it “silent on the most pressing issue facing our country.” It was the latest — and potentially most consequential — sign of opposition to the Ukraine aid from conservatives who have for months demanded that border security policy be included in the package, only to last week reject a bipartisan proposal intended to curb the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border

The advancement of this bill and its eventual fate demonstrate some of the shortcomings in the way Congress currently conducts its business and the unserious nature of this debate. At the same time, it unfortunately provides a convenient talking point for Democrats and their willing scribes in the legacy media. Let’s tackle those items in order.

First of all, if we were going to seriously address pending issues of foreign aid, it could have been done in a transparent and accountable fashion without much delay. The foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan could each be written up as standalone bills that would each easily receive a vote in both chambers. The bill for Israel would sail through with only a relatively small number of Squad members voting against it. The Taiwan bill would likewise be similarly successful. Even the Ukraine bill might make it through if it included some provisions for audits and oversight.

Sadly, the cowards inside the Beltway are always ready to write themselves a note excusing them from accountability. As with so many other projects in Congress, they prefer to combine multiple priorities into one toxic stew that satisfies almost no one. Wavering Republicans give themselves the chance to say, ‘I really didn’t support the Ukraine funding, but goshdarnit, we had to have the money for Israel.’ Pro-Hamas Democrats can tell their supporters, ‘It wasn’t my intention to help the Zionist genocide, but we can’t allow Trump and Putin to abandon Ukraine’s border security.’ This way nobody has to go on the record with a vote on each proposal and risk being held accountable by the voters in the next election.

Moving on to Mike Johnson’s problem, it’s largely one of ugly political optics. He rightly calls out the urgent need for actual border security, but he’s caught himself in a trap. The last “border security bill” was a complete joke that would have codified Biden’s open border policies with a GOP stamp of approval. It was correctly rejected. But by saying that the foreign aid bill doesn’t contain any border security provisions, he opens the door for Democrats who will say, “We just gave you a border security bill and you rejected it!” (They’re doing that already on CNN this morning.) Johnson also correctly and repeatedly pointed out that we don’t need any congressional action to close the border because Joe Biden could do it this afternoon with nothing more than a wave of his pen. So he undermines his own argument by basing his objection to the foreign aid bill on that premise.

Stop combining all congressional priorities into massive hodgepodges. There shouldn’t be any “must-pass” bills, including those dealing with the budget. Aid to each foreign entity should receive its own vote. Each department of our government should be funded by a standalone bill. Let all members in each chamber cast their vote on each one and stand behind their record at election time, allowing the voters to have the final say. Sadly, that type of courage and accountability apparently no longer exists in Washington.