As far as I can see, the case in favor of passing the “continuing resolution” that seems currently to be failing on Capitol Hill is (a) that Elon Musk opposes it, and (b) that it contains important funding for dealing with hurricanes and other natural disasters that ought not to be postponed. Here is a representative example of the genre:

I must ask: Is anybody buying this? I comprehend those who wish to pass the bill as it is because they like the bill as it is — although, as you might expect, I agree with NR’s editors that the bill is unlikeable and that we should not do that. But this stupid game, in which advocates point belligerently to one small part of the whole and pretend that it is all that’s at stake in the fight? Is that really persuasive to voters?

In their view, the editors argue that even the “disaster aid” provisions are “likely far in excess of any actual need months after the hurricanes have passed” and are structured in a way that would make “fraud easier.” I concur. But let’s assume, arguendo, that this were not true, and that the disaster aid elements were both perfectly crafted and immediately necessary. Why, in such a case, would Congress not pass that segment right now and delay the sections that are in dispute until agreement can be found? Clearly, Congress is able to do so: There is nothing in the Constitution that requires all spending to be rolled into a single must-pass behemoth, and, with modern technology it’s easier than ever to separate them out. One can just open the bill in the text editor, cut the relevant chunks, paste them into a new document, prepend a new name and number, and pass it through both houses. Bingo!

The line I keep seeing is that, by refusing their assent to the larger package, the holdouts are “holding disaster aid hostage” or “blocking disaster aid.” From my perspective, this is backwards. If there is a majority in Congress that is willing to vote for disaster aid, but not vote for the rest of the bill — and that does seem to be the case — then surely it is the people who are insisting on an all-or-nothing approach who are guilty of playing games? All democratic systems require some degree of trading, and, in consequence, the chance of us getting a discrete up-or-down vote on every major spending provision is slim. But surely — surely — there must be some room between that ideal and the piling of all government spending into a single must-pass vehicle? The Founders built a beautiful system of government that offers more than an annual Yes/No button for its optimal  operation. If we’re questioning motivations, we would do better to look at those who are trying to undermine that system, rather than those who hope to use it as designed.