Asking a Freedom Caucus member how they want to govern is akin to asking an arsonist about their favorite home improvement project. The question assumes a commonality of interests that is not present. Far right members of the House, like the new Speaker, believe in a very minimal federal government that provides fewer services at less cost. MostAmericans, and a majority Congress, oppose this vision. Speaker Johnson will face two tests in the coming month that will test his willingness to govern toward his goals or continue with the endless zero-sum brinksmanship that has dominated political debate this year - an emergency Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan/border security spending package (emergency package) and a continuing resolution to keep the government open while Congress passes a series of stalled budget bills.
As proposed by President Biden, the emergency package contains -
$61 billion for Ukraine
$14.3 billion for Israel
$10 billion for humanitarian assistance
$7.4 billion for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region
$13.6 billion for border security.
Each of these enjoys majority support, although Freedom Caucus has expressed a desire to separate the funding into different bills with a focus on killing Ukraine funding. To my surprise, I recently heard that the new Speaker has agreed to separate the funding and bring all the bills to the floor, although he personally opposes the Ukraine funding. As a practical matter, I expect that the numbers will change somewhat, with the humanitarian and economic assistance portions taking some cuts. Still, the willingness to put items the Speaker personally opposes up for a vote is a hopeful sign that he is interested in governing, not trying to enforce minority rule.
Although the funding proposed is largely to benefit other countries, it will mostly be spent in the US. The military portions consist largely of authorizations to donate existing US military materiel to those countries, backfilling US stocks through orders from US defense contractors. Put another way, the checks will be mostly going to US firms, not to overseas governments.
Keeping the government open is the second test. The Speaker and the Freedom Caucus have pushed to return to what is called “regular order” - passing unbundled budget bills in a timely manner as opposed to late budgets composed of omnibus bills funding several agencies. Unfortunately, the Freedom Caucus has traditionally been its own worst enemy, refusing to pass bipartisan budget packages in favor of their own packages that will not pass the Senate or receive the President’s signature.
Practically speaking, there is not enough time between now and the end of the current stopgap funding measure in mid-November to pass all of the agency funding bills individually, making another at least partial stopgap bill (also called a continuing resolution) inevitable. However, the deal negotiated to avoid a debt default requires across the board cuts to defense, veterans, and non-defense discretionary funding if all the individual funding bills are not passed by January 1, 2024. There is an escape hatch, in that the cuts do not themselves take effect until April. That makes it possible to work around the mandatory cuts by simply passing the bills without them, effectively supplanting the old deal with a new one.
Make no mistake - the Speaker and his far right colleagues want to make significant budget cuts. However, as these cuts are intensely unpopular, a deficit reduction deal is unlikely to be negotiated on short notice. It will take a long and public process to agree on the amount to cut when, figure out a mutually-acceptable mix of cuts and revenue, educate the public about the need and the compromise, and then pass the deal. It remains to be seen if anyone in DC has the stomach for that kind of hard work.
Somewhat to my surprise, I find myself somewhat optimistic that the new Speaker will navigate the coming few weeks successfully. His (reported) willingness to bring Ukraine funding to the floor and (hopefully) to continue funding the government while the budget bills are passed through regular order represent a significant retreat from the Freedom Caucus’s favored brinksmanship tactics. Perhaps having gotten their man for the Speaker, they will accept the need to govern. Of that I remain skeptical, but getting through November would be at least a good start.
A Note on Israel and Gaza
The rumor is that the new partners in the Israeli coalition government have (quite reasonably) insisted on the identification of an attainable political goal before a full-scale invasion of Gaza. This, along with the desire to avoid Israeli casualties, appears to have slowed the ground invasion down. Unfortunately, this pragmatism has not been matched with a concern for evacuating civilians from the conflict zone. Yes, Hamas does use human shields and violate the laws of armed conflict, including reportedly by locating their command center located in tunnels under Gaza’s main hospital. However, the Israeli government has not done everything that they must to help reduce civilian casualties.
It is always a mistake to conflate the people of a place with their government or a group within their community. The best way to think about Hamas is not as a political or military group, but rather as a gang of criminals. While some Palestinians support them, many do not, and do not deserve to die because of a criminal element in their midst.
Measure 110 Reform
When the hard drug decriminalization Measure 110 was on the ballot, proponents pushed it as a way to move toward the Portugal model of addressing addiction through non-criminal means. Unfortunately, the Measure did not adequately address two of the three pillars of Portugal’s model - funding for rehabilitation and civil consequences for continued drug use - nor did it address the public use of hard drugs. While the funding piece has made some progress in the last year and there is a movement to address public use, we still don’t have a plan to impose reasonable civil consequences for repeated drug use.
People who opposed decriminalization or who are simply fed up with the open public use of drugs have pushed criminalizing the use of hard drugs. A better alternative would be to fully fund and use the existing public guardian program to put more targeted and effective restrictions on people suffering from addiction. These restrictions could include requirements to complete a drug rehabilitation program or stay in a sober living or rehabilitation facility. This program presents a more humane, affordable, and effective alternative to the criminal justice system. However, as it is such a small program, it has not had the political advocacy it deserves. Let’s hope we can find our way to it and not repeat the mistakes of the past, which include both criminalizing addiction and eliminating all legal consequences for it.
I think that this approach of "Legalization" has worked for other Nations because they have UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IN THEIR COUNTRY! Most EVERYBODY has a Doctor and I have read that Addicts get referrals from their Docs when they get sick, or some other affliction associated with abuse! All we have is COPS arresting addicts and cold turkey in Jail and no REHAB! That's not a workable solution and I hope we are smart enough to provide the needed tweaks needed to help the Addicted PEOPLE and that means they need HOUSING just to get started towards recovery!
Thank you Marty for the thooughtful approach to some complicated problems facing all of us. As usual you are well researched and dedicated to the truth as well as the pitfalls that exist. I really appreciate getting your view on these topics, especially the Hamas/Isreal conflict.