45 day kick the can down the road bill passed the House to avert a federal shutdown, with McCarthy getting Dem votes. No money for Ukraine. [UPDATED]
Forbes. AP. The renegade Republicans brinkmanship had McCarthy working to get sufficient Dem votes for passage. Sorehead renegades expected to seek revenge via a resolution to remove McCarthy from Speakership.
Emmer advancing? Enough Dem votes to keep McCarthy as Speaker, with bipartisan effort stymieing the soreheads? Something will give.
Ukraine? That's a separate question, big money pit, little promise of a resolution beyond a negotiated settlement with the current Ukrainian government saying NO to land for peace. For now, they say that.
We'll see.
These continuing resolutions must make the nation look silly to the rest of the world.
It is an adult action to fund the nation, on more than continuing resolutions.
The Dems saved McCarthy's reputation, he made concessions. Isn't mixed government supposed to function via bipartisanship? It is interesting they tried it.
UPDATE: Both Houses passed a bill withholding billions from Ukraine, and sonofabitch, he signed off on it. Isn't that how the narrative went? More or less?
President Joe Biden released a statement on Saturday calling the passage of a stopgap funding measure “good news,” but criticized that it had no funding for Ukraine.
“We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted,” Biden said in a statement.
He continued:
While the Speaker and the overwhelming majority of
Congress have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine, there is no
new funding in this agreement to continue that support.
…
I fully expect the Speaker will keep his commitment to the people of
Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this
critical moment.
[...] The CR not containing Ukraine aid was a victory for
conservatives who oppose more spending on Ukraine aid. So far, since
last February, the U.S. has approved sending $113 billion. The Biden
administration is pushing for $24 billion more, for a total of $135
billion. That money would last through the end of 2023, and does not
include any 2024 requests.
Biden’s Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, also called on Congress to pass more aid to Ukraine.
[...]
Why quote Breitbart? Whether any other outlet put the reporting of the kibosh on further Ukraine money in context of already spent amounts, Breitbarrt did. Without extensive web search, Breitbart was the only one saying it was a denial (postponement?) of $24 billion on top of $113 billion already sunk cost for the year.
What has that bought beyond harassment of Putin? What has kept sides from the negotiation table? One possible answer, $113 billion with promise of $24 billion more has not exactly put pressure upon Ukraine's Z to negotiate. A settlement presumably would cut off cash flow, and no news outlet has posted an audit of where the money went. Presumably the Biden government has no audit, or declines to release one if held, and there seems to be some degree of responsibility to account for that amount of money, given needs existing for spending here.
House Republicans holding firm on denying Ukraine further money with House Dems willing to go with a generally reasonable CR suggests there may be developing pressure from the Republicans over where has the money so far gone before more gets sunk, and over why is there insufficient pressure on the warring parties to negotiate.
Are the Russians adamant about not negotiating? If not them, who? It appears the Russians hold land across a former border without any real sign of their being moved from there. The suggestion is to settle on a "Green Line" to end fighting, especially given a 2014 ceasefire having its place in history.
What is the whole of NATO thinking about settlement vs a total Russian ouster. Both as to ultimate goals, and practical realities? Then, how does Repubican reluctance to further fund the adventure affect the remainder of the whole of NATO besides us?
Will France and Germany with others fund it alone? Or in major part? $113 billion seems a lot for nothing - so far. It suggests a cry, "What have we bought?" Then a cry, "When will it end?" And, "How much more or is it endless war, endless cost?"
If you are buying a limited war with Russia via surrogates, not our citizens losing their lives, you still should be concerned with loss of life on both sides, and with cost. Total loss of lives being the major human cost, money drain being our nation's major cost. It seems a Fix It time may be here or approaching.
Who in the US government has responsibility to account for where what we spend goes into, for what goal or purpose? Has that been a topic MSM has reported?
