Many observers and participants — including the entire GOP and Democratic leadership — are quick to cry gridlock and to blame inaction on some new awful hyper-partisan or ideological era.Discuss.
But there isn’t gridlock, which usually results from Democrats and Republicans sharing power and clashing over alternative positions. Gridlock slows things down — almost always a good thing — but it doesn’t stop serious legislation from happening. Welfare reform, balanced budgets, defense cuts and capital-gains tax rate cuts in the 1990s were all the product of gridlock that slowly gave way to consensus.
And today’s Congress is more than happy to pass legislation when it suits members’ interests. In just the past few months, for instance, the ostensibly gridlocked Congress reauthorized the Export-Import Bank program that gives money to foreign companies to buy U.S. goods; extended sharply reduced rates for government-subsidized student loans; re-upped the Essential Air Service program that subsidizes airline service to rural communities; and voted against ending the 1705 loan-guarantee program that gave rise to green-tech boondoggles such as Solyndra and Abound. None of these were party-line votes — all enjoyed hearty support from both Democrats and Republicans.
Another instance of budding bipartisanship is the pork-laden farm bill that extends sugar subsidies, maintains crop subsidies and creates a “shallow-loss program” that effectively guarantees incomes for farmers at a time when that sector is doing historically well. The bill passed the Senate with 16 GOP votes. Though the House version of the bill is still being worked out, no one doubts it will not only pass, but largely resemble the Senate version.
What we’re actually witnessing — and have been for years now — is not gridlock, but the abdication of responsibility by Congress and the president for performing the most basic responsibilities of government.
Another Perspective on Gridlock
Lately we've been discussing at VC the question of 'Gridlock good, compromise bad,' or 'Compromise good, gridlock bad?' The Hill proposes that both gridlock and compromise are good in their proper hour: what is bad is irresponsibility.
Ted Cruz commented this week that hardliners sometimes get it backwards: they engage in scorched-earth rhetoric against their opponents, but compromise their principles when the publicity heats up. He claims to favor the opposite approach: affability across the aisle, but a strong backbone on votes of principle. I'd like to think he would have been one of 16 "GOP" votes to support a porky farm bill.
ReplyDeleteI don't have much use for the term "gridlock," which merely signals to me a frustration with the inability to get enough votes to pass some lunacy or another. For some years now, the most important trait in a Congressman or Senator has been the courage to say "no" to a variety of initiatives. Look what happened as soon as we let the Senate Republican caucus drop below 40, especially with a handful of Republicans wearing round heels?
term limits.
ReplyDeleteWelfare reform, balanced budgets, defense cuts and capital-gains tax rate cuts in the 1990s were all the product of gridlock that slowly gave way to consensus.
ReplyDelete...as if by magic!!!
Except it wasn't magic, was it? There's a lot of behind the scenes work that goes into forging that consensus.
The President hasn't been doing his job - he hasn't seriously tried to work with Republicans. And as I've pointed out several times, the kind of bipartisan cooperation we need to pass a budget is now viewed as cowardice or worse.
It's not as though not having a budget is keeping the federal government from spending our money. It's not helping. All it does is make spending less transparent.
I agree that Congress has abdicated, and I don't think it's just Democrats who have done so. The failure to pass a budget for several years running is inexcusable.
It should be a major campaign issue, yet we hear very little about it.
That we're even discussing an article that brought it up is a sign of just how the Tea Party shifted the conversation politically, and how important it is. We weren't even really talking about it (as a nation) before. That's some small progress at least.
ReplyDelete"Congress reauthorized the Export-Import Bank program that gives money to foreign companies to buy U.S. goods" ... Soo... We're Giving money to Foreign business so they can use most of it to Buy our goods?... In what world does this make sense?
ReplyDeleteWilliam sends.
And yet that's the argument that I see constantly on progressive sites in the context of Germany's unwillingness to bail out the rest of the Eurozone. They look forward with glee to the day when Germany doesn't have any markets left and has to admit its selfish mistake. They genuinely believe that, if only Germany would prop up a bunch of insolvent states and permit them to continue deficit spending on public pensions and entitlements, the German taxpayers would come out ahead on balance, because of their magical view of monetary policy and "multipliers." And isn't it the same as "stimulus" theory in this country?
ReplyDelete