Speaker Johnson finds perfect way to fund military aid for Israel, upsetting all the right people

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent Democrats into an uproar with his first major legislative proposal as leader of the House.

On Monday, Johnson unveiled a proposal to send Israel $14.3 billion in military assistance funding, consistent with President Joe Biden's request.

To pay for the military assistance, Johnson proposed rescinding an equal amount of funds appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service through the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed into law last year. The law, which did not actually lower inflation, aggressively expanded the IRS with $80 billion in funding over the next 10 years.

The proposal upset Democrats for two reasons.

First, they want to intertwine money for Israel with money for Ukraine. Second, they don't want Republicans to claw back money appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act, the president's biggest legislative accomplishment.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), for example, railed against Johnson for proposing "unprecedented offsets," accusing him of "playing political games." Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, accused Johnson of "setting a dangerous precedent" by offsetting the spending. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) accused Johnson of "politicizing" Israel with a "poison pill."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D), meanwhile, said he is "deeply troubled" by the "partisan and woefully inadequate package with no aid to Ukraine, no humanitarian assistance for Gaza, no funding for the Indo-Pacific." The White House released a statement outlining the same complaints.

The question is: If these Democrats want to support Israel with more funding as quickly as possible, isn't this the way to do it?

After all, rescinding aid appropriated to the IRS is not playing political games. For Johnson, it's about funding the military aid, not passing the bill to future generations. If the IRS is not currently using those funds, why can't Congress use them for something nearly every lawmaker supports?

Moreover, there is a significant problem with sending Ukraine tens of billions more in taxpayer dollars: government corruption in Ukraine. A top Ukrainian presidential adviser recently told a Time magazine correspondent of corruption in Ukraine, "People are stealing like there’s no tomorrow."

At the end of the day, it's unlikely that Johnson's proposal will become law. But he's setting a fiscally conservative precedent, making good on his promises.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!