The editors of the Washington Post exhort Senate Democrats to accept House Speaker Johnson’s proposal for preventing a federal government partial shutdown:
There’s much to dislike about Mr. Johnson’s plan for navigating the House Republicans’ internal divisions while preventing a shutdown, including its ungainly nickname, “a laddered continuing resolution.†As the moniker suggests, the plan would pass one short-term package to fund the military and veterans programs, agriculture and food agencies, and the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development until Jan. 19 and another to fund everything else until Feb. 2.
This sets up an ugly spending fight early next year, and it offers no additional aid for Israel and Ukraine — which the Biden administration urgently wants. Gimmicky as it is, though, Mr. Johnson’s proposed two-step increasingly looks like the best of many terrible options. Passing something like it averts a crisis and keeps the government funded at current levels through the holidays. It would also give the new speaker a very small victory as he gears up for tougher fights ahead. Getting the big funding bill done (for now) would let Congress use the rest of the year to focus on Israel and Ukraine. In short, it buys time for veteran lawmakers to try to find a way forward between two groups: far-right House Republicans, who say they will vote only for budget bills that slash domestic programs by at least 8 percent, and pretty much everyone else, who prefer to stick with the deal President Biden and Mr. McCarthy made in May. That agreement would keep spending essentially unchanged in 2024.
Senate Democrats are wise to express “openness†to this House GOP idea. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he supports it. House Democrats and the White House, at least behind closed doors, should do the same.
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues and the war between Israel and Hamas intensifies, the world needs U.S. leadership. Shutting down the government, even briefly, would create a distraction for the Biden administration and undercut this nation’s credibility. On top of that, the U.S. creditworthiness is at stake. All three of the top credit rating agencies have now cited U.S. political dysfunction — including repeated shutdowns or near-shutdowns — as a reason to think twice about the nation’s future ability to manage its debts. The last near-shutdown, in September, triggered higher borrowing costs for weeks. If Republicans truly want to cut costs, they could start by avoiding these crises.
The passage I would like to focus on is the one I’ve highlighted. Is that actually true? Can you provide an example since 1995 in which U. S. leadership was a critical factor in preserving justice or maintaining the peace? I can’t come up with one. I would like to think of the United States as a force for good in the world but, frankly, I don’t think that’s been the case for a while.
That’s not a rhetorical question. I would really like to be proved wrong.
The Somali pirates comes to mind. One wonders if China would have halted foreign travel through the South China sea absent the US or if they would have invaded Taiwan. Pretty sure Russia would have gone after the Baltic states absent NATO, which is really the US.
Steve
I think if it were not for US support, China would have invaded Taiwan by now.
More generally, I think it’s arguably the case that our dominant role in NATO keeps Europe from fracturing and in-fighting. I think it’s a similar case with many of our other alliances where our relationship and big stick provide some stability. We are allies with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt has been important in keeping the peace treaties between those countries intact.
The track record, however, on our more activist FP policy is not a good one.
No leadership in your example, Andy.
IMO contrary to what is so frequently claimed, the problem is an almost complete absence of followership.