I just saw an article in the LA Times with the tagline: “House Speaker John Boehner flatly rules out a potential short-term deal to reopen the government, saying it would amount to ‘unconditional surrender.'”
Excuse me?
Since when is this a war? Since when does the process of running the government mean that one side must win completely, and the other side must lose completely? Mr. Boehner, if that’s what you think that government is, please go back to 4th grade civics class.
The job of Congress is to pass legislation that a majority (or perhaps a super-majority, depending on the bill) must approve. In both houses. Your job, in the House, is to come up with legislation you can convince the Senate to support. Ignore the President in all of this. Come up with something that can get through the Senate. Newt Gingrich, your hero, said just as much: It has to pass the Senate. The Senate is not going away.
Most important, please remember that compromise means you give up something, and the other side gives up something. You can also look at it as both sides getting something they want, but not everything they want. However, I’m not seeing any evidence that the GOP understands this. They seem to want only what they want, and if they can’t get it, they want more. Already the proposed deal has moved from delaying or defunding Obamacare to delaying or defunding Obamacare AND major budget cuts. That is not compromise. I haven’t seen the House propose a single thing that could be viewed as a plus for the other side. No, saying you’ll cut Obamacare less is not a plus, because you are still cutting it. That’s like saying I’m only going to cut off one hand instead of both.
[Additional Exercise Thoughts: A compromise is shared pain — each side hurts equally, and the other side knows it. The GOP wants the other side to give up (delay or defund) the Affordable Care Act — something very dear to them. In exchange, is the GOP willing to give up on a position equally near and dear to them? Are they willing to agree to make changes in tax laws that increase revenues? Are they willing to pass the Dream Act or help with immigration issues? Are they willing to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion? Are they willing to pass a law making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal? Any of these would be big concessions from them, potentially equal to asking the Dems to delay or defund the ACA? Are they willing to do this? Looking from the other side, what the President is proposing — a clean bill at last years levels — is shared pain. The Dems don’t get increases in revenues or increases to support programs, and the sequester cuts remain. The GOP feels equal pain by not getting things they want. One last exercise related thought: If the GOP believes the “shared pain” is the Dems getting the country running again, this is saying that the GOP is putting party principles over the welfare of the nation — they believe that defunding or delaying the ACA is more important than anything else in this country. What does that say about them as a party?]
I’m not saying the Senate is doing much better at negotiation, but there’s not much that they can propose that the House would accept short of completely gutting Obamacare. That’s not going to happen, so they need to figure out something else to negotiate on.
I’ve got this feeling I’m going to have a lot of time to work on the highway pages. 1934, you’re next.
