[Goose]

Frustrating that despite broad majorities in both the Senate and House in favor of Ukraine aid, the way the house works and the weak position of McCarthy as speaker means Ukraine gets nothing.

I understand that POTUS still has some drawdown authority and there was some budgetary "error in your favor" that means another 5.5 billion exists, and yes future aid is still possible, but I'm not sure why the calculus will be much different for future bills. Ominous.

IMO the twofold way ahead for Ukraine aid (assuming a sufficient number of House Republicans continue to oppose it) is to  have the House pass a bill without Ukraine aid, have the Senate pas one with it included, and send the result to a conference committee to resolve the differences. As I understand it, the conference committee can approve the resulting bill without a vote in either the House or the Senate. The trick is to get a conference committee that will do that, but the Speaker has more power in that regard to appoint "his people". I think there are plenty of House members who for political reasons feel they have to oppose Ukraine aid "on the record" but who are just fine with it if it happens anyway.

The second way is to appropriate money for the DOD to buy weapons that can subsequently be sent to Ukraine as "surplus to requirements". This is dirty pool and probably should be impeachable if our country were working like it should. However, since the Democrats have enough Senate votes to make sure that won't happen (and probably some Republican support as well), that remedy is off the table. This path is a "last resort" because of the precedent it sets, but it has been done before. In a way, it would be Iran Contra "in public".

I do agree that the situation is ominous for Ukraine aid going forward. I point out the above possibilities as possible ways to continue aid going forward, but I would strongly prefer a bi-partisan bill containing Ukraine aid to go forward. Let's hope that can and does happen.

[Goose]

Frustrating that despite broad majorities in both the Senate and House in favor of Ukraine aid, the way the house works and the weak position of McCarthy as speaker means Ukraine gets nothing.

I understand that POTUS still has some drawdown authority and there was some budgetary "error in your favor" that means another 5.5 billion exists, and yes future aid is still possible, but I'm not sure why the calculus will be much different for future bills. Ominous.

IMO the twofold way ahead for Ukraine aid (assuming a sufficient number of House Republicans continue to oppose it) is to  have the House pass a bill without Ukraine aid, have the Senate pas one with it included, and send the result to a conference committee to resolve the differences. As I understand it, the conference committee can approve the resulting bill without a vote in either the House or the Senate. The trick is to get a conference committee that will do that, but the Speaker has more power in that regard to appoint "his people". I think there are plenty of House members who for political reasons feel they have to oppose Ukraine aid "on the record" but who are just fine with it if it happens anyway.

The second way is to appropriate money for the DOD to buy weapons that can subsequently be sent to Ukraine as "surplus to requirements". This is dirty pool and probably should be impeachable if our country were working like it should. However, since the Democrats have enough Senate votes to make sure that won't happen (and probably some Republican support as well), that remedy is off the table. This path is a "last resort" because of the precedent it sets, but it has been done before. In a way, it would be Iran Contra "in public".

I do agree that the situation is ominous for Ukraine aid going forward. I point out the above possibilities as possible ways to continue aid going forward, but I would strongly prefer a bi-partisan bill containing Ukraine aid to go forward. Let's hope that can and does happen.