From Politico:
As key senators met Monday evening on a bipartisan deficit reduction plan, President Barack Obama faced increased pressure to articulate a strategy for himself and his party, already so edgy about spending cuts that many Democrats seem prepared to ignore the consequences for policy.
Indeed, Obama and House Republican leaders share this much in the coming budget wars: Both are racing to catch up with the train. And just as the president must contend with panicky Democrats, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) faces tea party freshmen wanting to more than double the $32 billion in reductions now proposed by the GOP for the last seven months of this fiscal year.
Showing posts with label bipartisanship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bipartisanship. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Friday, February 5, 2010
Defining Bi-Partsanship
From the Washington Post:
. . . most people in Washington have forgotten what bipartisanship means in practice, if indeed they ever knew it.
The most common misconception is that bipartisanship means finding common ground and focusing on the things most everyone agrees on. In reality, that turns out to be a pretty small set of ideas and proposals that, taken together, would not address the major challenges before us. Certainly, that is the obvious place to begin, and it would be an improvement over the current gridlock, but it won't add up to effective governance.
After all, if the only things the party in power can accomplish are those that the minority power can agree with, then what is the point of having an election? No matter which side won a majority, "common ground" -- the things they all agree on -- would still be the same.
The only way a democratic system like ours can work is if the majority party acknowledges that winning an election means winning the right to set the agenda and put the first proposal on the table, though not the right to get everything it wants. By the same logic, if members of the minority party want to influence that policy, they have to understand that it will require them to accept some things they don't like to get some things they do.
We can also file this under "Is Congress Broken?" Has animosity between the two parties made it impossible for anything to be accomplished legislatively?
. . . most people in Washington have forgotten what bipartisanship means in practice, if indeed they ever knew it.
The most common misconception is that bipartisanship means finding common ground and focusing on the things most everyone agrees on. In reality, that turns out to be a pretty small set of ideas and proposals that, taken together, would not address the major challenges before us. Certainly, that is the obvious place to begin, and it would be an improvement over the current gridlock, but it won't add up to effective governance.
After all, if the only things the party in power can accomplish are those that the minority power can agree with, then what is the point of having an election? No matter which side won a majority, "common ground" -- the things they all agree on -- would still be the same.
The only way a democratic system like ours can work is if the majority party acknowledges that winning an election means winning the right to set the agenda and put the first proposal on the table, though not the right to get everything it wants. By the same logic, if members of the minority party want to influence that policy, they have to understand that it will require them to accept some things they don't like to get some things they do.
We can also file this under "Is Congress Broken?" Has animosity between the two parties made it impossible for anything to be accomplished legislatively?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Nonsense
The man who brought you the Laffer Curve, and very possibly our $10 trillion debt, slams the stimulus package.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)