The GOP Just Screwed Ukraine Out of Billions to Hurt Obama

[DonViejo]

Michael Tomasky

Agreeing to IMF reforms would have helped him. So now Republicans’ mission to weaken the president is spilling over into foreign policy, too

You know those people who carry on all the time about how the United States looks weak to the world, and how we have to do everything we possibly can to help poor Ukraine stand up to the evil Vladimir Putin? Well, guess what they just did? They just made the United States look weak to the world—and they actually just reduced (yes, reduced) the amount of global aid that can flow to Ukraine to help it stand up to the evil Vladimir Putin.

The deal was this: The Obama administration’s aid package to Ukraine placed before the Senate included some long-sought International Monetary Fund reforms. These reforms, which the administration agreed to in 2010 with the leading nations of Europe, and which those nations have already signed off on, would have helped Ukraine get more money from the IMF after this quick tranche from the United States ran dry. It’s complicated, but in essence, the reforms shifted money from one narrow spending category to a broader one that could be tapped by countries for projects like building and sustaining democracy, of which Ukraine is in rather desperate need. So while there wasn’t a specific dollar figure on the table, the IMF reforms could potentially, a Senate Democratic aide explained to me, have led to several billion more in aid to the country.

What’s to object to? To Republicans, this: The reforms include an increase in the U.S. contribution quota to the IMF of $63 billion. They would also give more voice to emerging nations. Now, these two measures are offset by the facts that 1) the overall U.S. expenditure on the IMF wouldn’t go up, because the U.S. would be allowed to decrease other commitments by a like amount, and 2) the U.S. would still have enough voting shares at IMF meetings to retain the veto power it has currently.

But those points don’t matter on the right, of course. Over there, it all spells a diminution of American power, the hated global governance, like Pat Buchanan’s old warnings about sending our boys out to global hotspots donning light-blue (i.e. United Nations) helmets. John McCain and Bob Corker, to their credit, supported the aid with the IMF reform tacked on. But most Republicans didn’t, and even though the full package easily passed a procedural vote, Democrats were getting the strong sense that an aid deal with the IMF stuff included wasn’t going to make it.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/26/the-gop-just-screwed-ukraine-out-of-billions-to-hurt-obama.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. 63 Billion dollars?

There are as I type this over TWO MILLION laid off American workers that are losing everything because they have been denied unemployment extended benefits. These people are losing homes, apartments, cars and they are burning through their savings and cashing in 401k's with high penalties. The cost to fund these benefits until the end of the year is roughly 16 billion.

One could also argue that much of the money that is ostensibly marked as aid for other countries is given primarily to protect the interests of the 1%'ers who have loaned these countries money.

[phleshdef]

3. Foreign aid is a fraction of the budget. Its not the problem.

If you are against foreign aid on some principle, that's fine. But theres no serious fiscal reason to be against it.

[seabeckind]

4. Maybe you didn't see any fiscal reasons

in Vinnie's post, but read it again. There were quite a few.

If all our bills were paid and we had a few billion left over, maybe we might consider giving it to Ukraine but I sure wouldn't. There're still a whole bunch of other things we need money for.

It isn't necessarily percentage, it's priority. $63 billion would go a long way toward making life and treatment a whole lot easier for veterans who gave up so much and I think are more important.

We just had an gas explosion in Manhattan. Those pipes were over a hundred years old. I think making our cities safer is more important.

We have a fifth of our people living in poverty, many of them old people who built this country and might enjoy a meal that didn't depend on cat food.

We have children in Appalacia that have no shoes, no running water, no heat. I think they're more important.

We have people dying because bridges are falling apart. Hell, we don't even have enough to get enough inspectors.

How are these for some fiscal reasons?

[seabeckind]

2. Moral conundrum, isn't it?

How do you deal with the gop that sometimes does the right thing but for the wrong reasons?

Why should we give Ukraine anything? We need them to build some more bases? Maybe a pipeline or two?

For most of my life I dealt with the Ukraine as part of the USSR and managed to survive anyway. As did they.

Russia likes the idea of having a wide space between them and the Europeans -- as borne out by historical precedent. Ok by me.

I'm more worried about paying my state income taxes.