I'm not entirely sure what my preference would be if the choice is between a bailout for both Boeing and the newly unemployed, or neither. Yes, I'd be angry. It would be an insult to my sense of justice. But in a choice between my sense of fairness and some kid's warm lunch, maybe the kid should get some food?

Which brings me to another criticism: This starts out as some appeal to bipartisan outrage. But really the core position is entirely identical to the Democrats' best-case scenario. The difference is just that the Democratic Party is (presumably) willing to make the sort of compromise I describe above.

Irregardless of these difference on the morality of such a trade-off, it appears just wrong, somehow, to treat the two parties with the same brush when the overlap with one of them is so large, and the entire problem is created by the other party's willingness to take hostage.

>I'm not entirely sure what my preference would be if the choice is between a bailout for both Boeing and the newly unemployed, or neither.

I think that's a false choice. We can take the latter without the former.

I think the point of the essay is what the rest of your comment speaks about. There's a clear distinction here between innocent parties and the groups who, frankly, fked up. All that's left is having the wherewithal to do what's right.