Gridlock? Yes, Please!

Gridlock? Yes, Please!
We’re hearing a lot these days about how our politics are broken and Congress is paralyzed. This Associated Press article titled “Congress’ dysfunction long in the making” is typical:

How did it get this bad on Capitol Hill?

Why does Congress barely function today? …

[V]eteran lawmakers and scholars use words such as “unprecedented” to describe the current level of dysfunction and paralysi..............

"PrintEmailShare:Posted on October 1, 2011 by John Hinderaker in Economy, Obama administration
Gridlock? Yes, Please!
We’re hearing a lot these days about how our politics are broken and Congress is paralyzed. This Associated Press article titled “Congress’ dysfunction long in the making” is typical:

How did it get this bad on Capitol Hill?

Why does Congress barely function today? …

[V]eteran lawmakers and scholars use words such as “unprecedented” to describe the current level of dysfunction and paralysis.

Of course, during the first two years of the Obama administration, when the Democrats controlled Congress as well as the White House, we didn’t hear anything about gridlock, dysfunction and paralysis. During those years the Democrats passed Obamacare, the “stimulus” bill, cash for clunkers, increased regulation of the financial industry, and much more. They ran up trillions of dollars in new debt while driving unemployment higher. No paralysis there; not in Congress, anyway–it was the economy that the Democrats paralyzed.

Then came the Republican sweep in the 2010 elections. Voters elected Republicans precisely in order to stop the hemorrhaging of legislation, spending and debt in Washington. The voters wanted rollback but were willing to settle for gridlock, at least until 2012. What it is that Congress is failing to do, so as to merit constant cries of “dysfunction” and “paralysis?” It is declining to pass the President’s latest stimulus package, which would add another half-trillion dollars to our debt while, like Stimulus I, accomplishing little or nothing. That is precisely what the voters wanted when they sent Republicans to Washington.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... er+Line%29

neptunechimney wrote: That is precisely what the voters wanted when they sent Republicans to Washington.

If this is precisely what they voted for, then why are the approval numbers for congress so low? I thought they sent all those Republicans/Tea Party members to congress to create jobs, and cut spending, and get this economy moving.
I don't think that doing nothing right now is our best option, but that's just my opinion. I have always been in favor of a split government, when one party is completely in power we usually don't like what we get, but when there is a balance we have historically gotten some good legislation, and if no one is ecstatic about it, at least something gets done that both parties had a part in. That just isn't happening now.

I know the conservatives think they have all the right answers to how this country should be run......and the liberals think they have all the right answers to how this country should be run, but the reality is that we do best when both parties work together on legislation, incorporate ideas from both sides, and aim for a more moderate approach. Is "moderate" such a dirty word now that there can be no meaningful legislation that moves this country .....not left, or right, but forward?

Moderate IS a dirty word. Moderate is left of center, not right of center.

Moderate is only a dirty word to a fanatic.

Or a person who thinks that we should be making incremental moves to the right, not the left. Liberals always win in compromise. Always.

Arlen wrote: Or a person who thinks that we should be making incremental moves to the right, not the left. Liberals always win in compromise. Always.

Which is just another way of saying you believe that all the compromise should be by the other side. The viewpoint of a fanatic.

The moderate approach is exactly why we find ourselves in the current situation. Compromising on increased entitlements to get increased defense spending, allowing the Dept of Education to continue to secure tax code revision, doubling the tax and amount of income subject to the tax for SS to buy more time to fix it, allowing taxes to be raised now on promises of future spending cuts, trading amnesty for illegals in return for a promise of future border security, and the list goes on and on. "Progressives are only interested in compromise when required to seize power a little at a time instead of having a big enough majority to seize it in large chunks.

This is pretty much what I expected when I used the word "moderate"....it has become a dirty word. Look at the Republican slate of candidates, if the word "moderate" is used to describe any one of them they are automatically labeled as unable to appeal to the Tea Party faction of the party. Even though they may be long time Republicans, and very conservative. Same, pretty much with the Democrats, only they don't have an entrenched faction like the Tea Party to deal with.

I think gridlock will be the new way business is done in Washington....or business is not done. Yet, I believe most Americans are actually moderate in their views, and would like to see the two parties compromise. If you look at the poll numbers Congress is not particularly popular right now, don't you think gridlock and letting the business of running this nation languish while they fight is part of the reason? I do wonder if the voters will get so fed up with this that the next election will find them voting in moderates who pledge to work with the other party and not radicals who have shown they have no intention of working with the other party, but are instead holding the nation hostage to their ideals. And yes, that is happening on both sides of the aisle, but the Tea Party Republicans are more vocal about it and have a higher profile because of their rhetoric.

PrintSmith wrote: "Progressives are only interested in compromise when required to seize power a little at a time instead of having a big enough majority to seize it in large chunks.

And when is the hard right interested in compromise?