'Is there no problem with giving so much money to a foreign power engaged in a regional conflict, however justified, when there are so many human needs going unmet here in the United States?'
Is there no problem with giving so much money to a foreign power engaged in a regional conflict, however justified, when there are so many human needs going unmet here in the United States?
Such public debate among members of a political party is healthy and is a sign of a functioning democracy. It is therefore behavior that should be encouraged—particularly in a one-party state like Massachusetts. Not just the fact of a range of opinion on key issues by the Commonwealth's congressional delegation, but open and wide-ranging debate between its members in the agora of the press and social media.
Yet is there no criticism to be leveled by the Mass delegation against a $40 billion package that is going to pump far more cash into the treasuries of major American military contractors than it is into desperately needed humanitarian aid for the Ukrainian people? to give readers an easy way to understand what else the US government could fund with $40 billion right here at home—ranging from"$72,000 to every homeless person" to repairing"almost all of the 220,000 bridges in the United States that need to be repaired and replace all of the 79,500 that need to be replaced.
The Massachusetts congressional delegation is certainly one of the best fielded by any state when it comes to supporting human needs and human rights, but I think they really blew it with this uncritical vote in support of a highly flawed aid package to Ukraine—focusing more on military than humanitarian aid and spending too much money that should be going to help solve our many domestic humanitarian crises instead.