The Missing ‘W’ in the News

Context and background matter when in comes to understanding some of today’s news

Journalism is tough these days, especially for the credible media that seek to be objective, complete and accurate. Operating with small staffs and limited newspaper space or broadcast time the iconic five W’s of good reporting often get slimmed down to four - who, what, when and where. The fifth W, “why,” often is given short shrift.

The “why” of a news story provides context, and that often is complicated and sometimes subjective and, therefore, controversial. Yet, it is critical to understanding today’s events. With that in mind, here is a bit of context behind three current news stories.

The Government Shutdown

On the surface, the debate over the federal budget seems to be a partisan stare down. But if policy disagreements were the only stumbling blocks, it’s likely a compromise could be reached.

That’s especially true on the central point of disagreement, extending subsidies for ACA (Obamacare). For example, the ACA subsidies have a 10-year cost of $350 billion. An estimated $50 billion of that amount goes to households with incomes at least five times the federal poverty level ($160,000 for a family of four). Reducing the subsidy at the top end of incomes and using the savings to restore some Medicaid cuts would allow both sides a legitimate claim to victory.

That compromise might solve the policy problem. It doesn’t solve the political problem for Republicans. The temporary budget (called a continuing resolution or CR) passed the House in September with a slim margin. Only one Democrat voted for the bill and two Republicans opposed. The House then adjourned and has yet to return.

If the Senate makes any changes in the CR, it would have to return the bill to the House for another vote. That’s a problem on many levels for Speaker Mike Johnson. The very conservative Freedom Caucus Republicans are loathe to include any Democratic priorities in the budget. It is this internal GOP conflict that cost Speaker Kevin McCarthy his job two years ago. The last thing Johnson wants is to take up a new budget bill that has Democratic fingerprints.

Then there is the on-going Epstein matter. On Sept. 23, Arizona voters elected Adelita Grijalva to fill the open seat caused by the death of her father, 12-term member Raul Grijalva. A Democrat replacing a Democrat in a safe blue district was no surprise. But here’s the rub. Rep.-elect Grijalva is committed to being the deciding vote on a discharge petition that would force Speaker Johnson to release the Epstein files. Consequently, Johnson has refused to swear in the new member, using the House long-term recess as an excuse.

Trump already has called the Epstein files a Democratic “hoax.” Republicans who give in to it are “stupid” and “foolish,” according to Trump. Johnson hardly wants to be on the receiving end of Trump’s anger.

Senate Leader John Thune could force a change in the Senate rules that require 60 votes to consider most bills, including the CR. Trump on more than one occasion during his first term and in his 2024 campaign has pushed for this rule change to advance his agenda.

Republicans already have shown a willingness to comply. Last month, they changed the rules to allow groups of presidential nominees to be confirmed with a single, simple majority vote, undermining both the spirit of the constitutional requirement for the Senate to advise and consent and making it harder for the opposing party to object to individual nominees.

Thune could exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and cross the final line that protects the rights of the Senate minority. Requiring only 51 votes to pass budget bills eliminates the means for the minority party to force deliberation of issues like the ACA subsidies. A dangerous step, one that may well haunt Republicans in the future, but one that Thune could take to resolve the budget and re-open the government.

Or, the Democrats and Republicans could reach a compromise on ACA and Medicaid and pass a new CR. And let the fireworks begin in the House.

About those Narcoterrorists…

U.S. military sank another vessel in the Caribbean Sea last week, claiming the boat was transporting illegal drugs to the U.S. Unlike the first five attacks, there were survivors of this sinking.

“There were four known narcoterrorists on board the vessel. Two of the terrorists were killed,” President Trump said in a Truth Social post three days after the attack. Trump said the survivors, one from Ecuador and one from Colombia, would be repatriated for “detention and prosecution.”

Trump calls the alleged drug runners part of an “armed invasion” of the U.S. and a terrorist threat to the security of the country. He uses the claims to justify not just attacks on boats in neutral waters, but for CIA covert operations in Venezuela and potentially for increased hostile actions toward Colombia and other South American countries.

Here’s the contextual question: If, as Trump claims, the U.S. is in a drug-fueled terrorist war, aren’t the survivors of the boat enemies of the state? In fact, Trump has called those on the targeted boats “unlawful combatants.” Rather than returning them to their home countries as protocol dictates when drug traffickers are captured outside the U.S., shouldn’t they be held in U.S. custody for interrogation and punishment?

Doing so, though, risks a spotlight on Trump’s actions. A military trial of the two survivors would require Trump to justify his use of the military to wage an undeclared war. Less likely but certainly possible, the survivors could cast doubt on whether they were running drugs at all. Better for Trump to gag them with repatriation.

Why South America?

Why is Trump ramping up hostilities against South American countries? The simplest answer is because he can. What’s the point in renaming the Defense Department the Department of War if there is no war to fight?

But the larger question is that the drug causing the most serious problems in the U.S. is fentanyl. The chemicals come from China and most of the drug is manufactured in Mexico. Multiple government assessments, including those done by Trump’s first administration, confirm that most illegal drugs are entering the country through legal ports of entry. A wall on the southern border isn’t a barrier to the transport of most illegal drugs and, as we have seen in recent months, isn’t even needed to stop the flow of people entering the country illegally.

Going after Venezuela plays to Trump’s worst instincts. It reinforces the “warrior ethos” mentality that appeals to the President; besides, once they get beyond comparing hair products, what else do Trump and Secretary Pete Hegseth have to discuss?

More significantly, though, it reflects Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long-time hawkish policies toward many countries in the region, including Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

And, of course, if Americans are talking about the CIA in Venezuela, they aren’t talking about stupid and foolish topics. Like the Epstein files. Or rising food, electricity and health care prices. Or, how Trump once again is being played by Russian President Vladimir Putin and probably Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.