Art of compromise returns

(PNI) The intensely polar, partisan nature of modern American politics has produced a lot of side effects, few of them positive.

Hostility toward Congress -- now "enjoying" an 80 percent disapproval rate, according to the Real Clear Politics average of top polls -- has reached near-historic levels. It has gotten so bad that many frustrated voters now include their own member of Congress in their "throw the bums out" appraisals. Once upon a time, the local guy got a pass. No more.

The partisan rancor has become so strong, in fact, that even in the face of a very lopsided House vote to pass the first federal budget in four years, the predominant post-vote storyline out of Washington is about conflict -- in this case, between House Republican leaders and their conservative "tea party" wing.

"They're misleading their followers," said House Speaker John Boehner. "I just think they've lost all credibility."

Tea-party conservatives have been a strong influence in the Republican Party since galvanizing against President Barack Obama's health-care reforms in 2010. They had successes in those early days -- including the near-historic turnover in the House in 2010.

But lately, tea-party-backed candidates more often have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Democratic senators from Indiana, Delaware and Missouri occupy seats that at one time seemed ripe for Republican taking.

So, yes. There is tumult in Republican politics.

But the lopsided, amazingly bipartisan nature of Thursday's House vote suggests something else important may be going on, too. Perhaps leaders of both parties simply have failed to do a decent job of appealing to the "better angels" of their caucuses -- which is to nudge them into accepting certain compromises based on their own political self-interest.

The numbers of Thursday's vote tell a fascinating story about those self-interests.

The overall vote itself, 332-94, is a stunner. But the deeper numbers are more so. As Politico reported, Republicans had promised Democrats 120 votes in favor of the package. They got 171 GOP votes. The same from the other direction: Dem leaders promised 100 and produced 163.

Those numbers strongly suggest that while congressional Republicans may be conservative and even tea-party-oriented, those ideological influences affect members on a sliding scale. Their leaders did not need the surfeit of compromise votes they collected. But they got them, largely from members whose districts are at least marginally competitive.

The Arizona tally reflects that. All four of Arizona's Republican members -- nearly all from strongly conservative GOP districts -- opposed the deal. So did Democrat Raúl Grijalva, one of the most liberal House members, who (not surprisingly) hails from a safely liberal district.

Among the 32 Democrats opposing the deal were liberal stalwarts like John Conyers of Michigan, Louise Slaughter of New York and Peter DeFazio of Oregon.

But the most stunning "no" vote came from a Democratic House leader: Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat. His explanation was even more notable, in that it could have been uttered by any one of the nay-saying Arizona Republicans:

"This agreement is better than the alternative, but it misses a huge opportunity to do what the American people expect us to do, and that is to put this country on a fiscally sustainable path."

All of those harder-line Republicans and Democrats were afforded the luxury of their "conscience" votes by virtue of the willingness of others to compromise.

That willingness to accept something less than ideological purity is in the nature of American politics. It is nice to welcome it back. We could do with more of it.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Fiscal compromise and broken promises

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON In a town of broken politics, the path to compromise is littered with broken promises. It's called governing.

The rush to avoid economic calamity on Jan. 1 has President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner out to cut a deal and sell it to their parties. The goal is a middle ground that would at least halt looming tax increases on virtually everyone, if not yield a far-reaching bargain to stabilize the nation's debt.

Yet, the political compromise the public wants is smashing into another political force -- the so-called iron-clad promises made to that same voting public.

Days after he won a second term, a beaming Obama reminded everyone about a defining promise of his re-election: The wealthy must pay more to help shrink the nation's ballooning debt. He insisted he would not go for a deal in which families making more than $250,000 are "not asked to pay a dime more in taxes."

Except now he would do that.

To get a fiscal deal with Republicans, Obama raised his bottom line to people making $400,000 or more. He is also now willing to raise taxes on the middle class by agreeing to let a payroll tax cut expire -- and by accepting a new inflation index that would, in addition to shrinking yearly increases for Social Security beneficiaries, push people into higher tax brackets.

Instead of holding firm on his oft-repeated pledge to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of taxpayers, Obama's plan would hit less than the top 1 percent.

And then there's Boehner.

He said Republicans were willing to consider tax revenue, but not by raising tax rates on anyone. "Instead of raising tax rates on the American people and accepting the damage it will do to our economy, let's start to actually solve the problem," Boehner said after the election.

And now? Boehner is willing to let tax rates go up on Jan. 1, as long as it is only on people making over $1 million and that other parts of the deal fall into place. The part about damage to the economy for raising taxes on anyone, including the richest people, has disappeared.

In the hardest of political times, the hardest of lines tend to fall away.

"That's the reality of Washington. You don't get exactly what you want, but you do it for the benefit of the country," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president of Third Way, a think tank that advocates for the middle ground in American politics.

The group's surveys find what so many polls have shown -- people want Democrats and Republicans to compromise. They want Washington to work.

Obama and Boehner know this. They are figuring out how far they can go without alienating voters or putting together a deal that has no chance of passing.

And they are bending or breaking promises, provided they can justify the broader result and claim they are not abandoning their principles.

The president can still say he would be extracting more tax revenue from the rich while preserving tax rates on families making $250,000 or less.

The White House dismissed the broken-promise label. Obama "has demonstrated a willingness to move towards the Republicans in order to achieve a deal," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Boehner is faced with tax rates going up on everyone regardless on Jan. 1. So by shifting his stand on tax rates, he is at least poised to get something out of it, including deeper spending cuts and a commitment to tax reform in 2013.

If a deal comes together.

Meanwhile, both leaders have to hold off the flanks of their parties.

Rep. Jim Jordan, of Ohio, the outgoing chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said Boehner's plan crosses a dangerous line by enacting higher tax rates. "I think it's a mistake for the Republican Party, so that's what I think a lot of members are struggling with," Jordan said.

Liberal groups denounced the White House's inclusion of a different inflation index for benefit programs like Social Security that would cut average retiree benefits. It was the White House, they point out, that suggested Social Security should not be included in the negotiations because it does not drive up the federal deficit.

"He's breaking a pledge that he would not cut benefits," said Eric Kingson, founding co-director of Social Security Works and a co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. "You can change the language, but people aren't fools. It's a cut."

The White House said any changes would include protections for the most vulnerable beneficiaries.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Boehner ready to compromise, but will GOP?

WASHINGTON

After Mitt Romney's defeat on Tuesday, John Boehner is the undisputed leader of the Republican Party.

Pity him.

President Obama's reelection and the Democrats' successful defense of their Senate majority have put the House speaker in a vise. Squeezing him on one side are the "tea party" conservatives and their ilk, dominant in the House Republican majority, who say Romney lost because he was too accommodating and moderate. Squeezing him on the other side is a Democratic president who campaigned for the rich to pay a higher share of taxes.

Boehner's first instinct on Tuesday night was to side with his House firebrands.

"While others chose inaction," he said at a Republican National Committee event, "we offered solutions." Americans, he said, "responded by renewing our House Republican majority. With this vote, the American people have also made clear that there's no mandate for raising tax rates."

After sleeping on it, Boehner appeared at the Capitol on Wednesday and offered a dramatically different message: He proposed, albeit in a noncommittal way, putting tax increases on the table.

"Mr. President, this is your moment," he said into the cameras, reading, sometimes with difficulty, from a teleprompter. "We're ready to be led, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. … We want you to succeed. Let's challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us."

Boehner left himself sufficient wiggle room, saying, "We're willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions" -- which keeps alive the possibility that the revenue would come only from economic growth (the old Republican position) and not from a higher tax burden.

Still, Boehner's new tone was starkly different from the one set two years ago by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who declared that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." McConnell continued that approach after Tuesday's election, saying, "The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term."

But the voters denied McConnell his top priority.

And exit polls Tuesday showed that a majority of them favored higher taxes on income over $250,000, as Obama has proposed -- something Boehner's Democratic counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made sure to point out in a news conference before the speaker's appearance.

The voters, Reid said, "want a balanced approach … and taxes are a part of that."

But Boehner's talk of common ground is likely to enrage the no-compromise wing of his House Republicans, who live in fear of the tea party, Grover Norquist, the Club for Growth and other enforcers of conservative orthodoxy. And tea-party leaders have convinced themselves that Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. The Tea Party Patriots, for example, attributed Romney's defeat to his being a "weak moderate candidate, handpicked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment."

More likely, the tea party itself bears the blame for Romney's loss -- just as losses by far-right candidates kept Republicans from taking over the Senate.

To survive conservative primary challenges from Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and others, Romney had to take positions that ultimately doomed him in the general election.

His tough-on-immigration stance, in particular, helps explain his loss of more than 70percent of the Latino vote, which sealed his defeat.

Boehner knows this, of course, and that is why he was so careful when he made his remarks Wednesday afternoon, taking the rare precaution of using a teleprompter.

He left without answering questions, and when reporters shouted queries at him, he only smiled.

"The American people have spoken," Boehner said somberly, his eyes glistening. "If there's a mandate in yesterday's results, it's a mandate for us to find a way to work together."

Although he was vague about what he was offering, his bargaining position was very different from 18 months ago, when he went to the Economic Club of New York and pronounced tax increases "off the table."

This time, he outlined the general framework of a grand bargain: "In order to garner Republican support for new revenue, the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up entitlement programs."

Boehner chose to make his post-election speech in the Capitol's Rayburn Room, named for Sam Rayburn, the late House speaker who is credited with saying: "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one."

Boehner sounds as though he's ready to pick up hammer and nail. But will his fellow Republicans stop kicking?

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Letters: Conservatives value control over compromise

How funny to listen to a conservative such as commentary writer Jonah Goldberg defend conservatives' willingness to compromise ("Column: 'Compromise' is not a dirty word").

By J. Scott Applewhite,, AP

Republican leaders: Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, right, and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

By J. Scott Applewhite,, AP

Republican leaders: Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, right, and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

After Barack Obama was elected president, I remember Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying his priority would be to work on getting Obama out of office. And I have seen many federal legislators on the right do nothing but dis just about every single thing the president has tried to do in his first term.

Clearly, conservatives don't care about our country. They just want to take over.

Lastly, I ask Goldberg, what about George W. Bush? Conservatives have buried the former president because they are hoping the voters will forget what he did to us during his two terms.

Patricia Alexander; Marietta, Ga.

Letters to the editor

USA TODAY receives about 300 letters each day. Most arrive via e-mail, but we also receive submissions by postal mail and fax. We publish about 35 letters each week.

We often select comments that respond directly to USA TODAY articles or opinion pieces. Letters that are concise and make one or two good points have the best chance of being selected, as do letters that reflect the vibrant debate around the nation on a particular subject.

We aim to make the letters platform a place where readers, not just writers representing institutions or interest groups, have their say.

GOP right to push debt solutions

Jonah Goldberg's Forum piece on compromise was right on! I could not agree more with his point that Republicans must hold the line against the Democrats to stave off our soaring debt. They cannot condone or risk higher taxation for fear that money, too, will be squandered.

Perhaps there used to be more compromise in Congress, particularly during the Clinton administration, when there was more wiggle room on our debt levels. Today, the situation is too dire to be pushed any further. What is the debt solution offered by President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi?

This election is not about race (I would vote for Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat) or religion. It is about economic policy and our inability to meet our debt obligations.

The Republican Party is the party of personal responsibility and believes in offering everyone the opportunity to succeed, but not giving handouts.

David Dale; Dover, Fla.

Obstructionist goals from start

How can Jonah Goldberg ask us to consider that the Democrats and, more precisely, President Obama are no more interested in compromise than Republicans?

As I recall, almost from the moment Obama was elected, the Republicans made it clear their agenda and priority would be to see to it that this president is limited to one term.

Given this, how can anyone with an ounce of political awareness really believe today's Republicans want anything other than to present obstacles to any deal that might give the impression that this president is an effective leader?

Richard Seidel; Chicago

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

View the original article here

Poll: If Debt Ceiling Compromise Not Reached -- Blame Republicans (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Political strategy is such that tactics are always used to advance the overall agenda or strategy of the party. When tactics or a particular tactic is not working, then said tactic (or tactics) is altered or ditched in favor of a more viable tactic. Since a political party's primary overall strategy is to stay in power in order to promote their own -- as opposed to an opponent's -- agenda, the altering of tactics is often done by engaging in increased compromise, diplomacy, and leverage, so as not to lose the particular goal of that tactic altogether. Such an alteration in tactics for Republicans concerning the debt ceiling may be in order, especially since a recent Pew Research Poll notes that most would blame Republicans if the debt ceiling were allowed to remain static and the federal government was forced to shut down.

According to the poll, 42 percent of Americans would blame the Republican Party if a compromise is not reached on the debt ceiling impasse by August 2, the date that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said is the absolute latest he can juggle marginal and postpone-able programs in order to keep the country running without borrowing money to do so. After August 2, the federal government will go into shutdown mode, with all nonessential programs closing down for lack of funding. Another 33 percent of the poll respondents say they would blame President Obama and the Democratic Party; 13 percent said that they would blame neither or both; and 11 percent said they did not know.

With independents in a statistical tie (36 percent to 34 percent would blame Republicans over Democrats), it is even more telling is that more Republicans would blame their own party if a compromise isn't reached. Members of the GOP would blame Democrats more (58 percent) but 22 percent would blame the members of their own party. The Democrats are more lopsided, with 72 percent of their number blaming Republicans while only 15 percent would blame Democrats.

Setting aside who would actually be to blame or if both parties should share responsibility should a compromise not be reached and the government be forced to shut down in August, the perception of who is to blame could have devastating consequences. It did in 1996 when a Republican Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling, forcing the government to shut down for the second time within a few months. The subsequent public backlash was far fewer Republicans holding public office after the Mid-Term elections. And it could happen again.

Since Republicans have recently embraced fiscal federal responsibility and national debt management, they seem to have taken a increasingly hard line on borrowing for government expenditures, not to mention the House of Representatives' stance as soon as Republicans took over in January 2011 to not allow legislation that costs taxpayers to not already have a built-in payment system included in the legislation. However, the debt ceiling is a limit set in place by Congress several decades ago that was hoped would curb government spending. It requires that Congress agree to raise the acquired debt limit in order for the federal government to borrow money in which to operate beyond its revenue intake.

Simply put: Republicans could find themselves blamed again. Talks are sluggish to stalled in Washington at present, according to NPR. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) walked away from negotiations Thursday, reportedly over talks of raising taxes (actually allowing tax breaks to expire) which Republicans feel is a deal breaker.

But shouldering the blame for a government shutdown just might cost Republicans control of Congress in 2012 if the backlash of public displeasure is strong enough. Then the recently embraced agenda of federal spending responsibility might be compromised as well. Besides, where is the responsibility in allowing loans to be defaulted on, not to mention allowing the all too possible damage to the strength of the dollar, which could find itself easily replaced as the world's most used reserve currency?

If the overall strategy of the Republican Party is to stay in power in order to enact their agenda, given the current public mood, some form of compromise on the debt ceiling needs to be considered. Alteration of tactics are often crucial in allowing the overall strategy to remain in play. Choosing a hard line could very well be costly for the Republicans, not to mention the entire nation with regard to its credit status and its financial obligations.

As more Americans become educated as to the what the debt ceiling is, the Republicans might find themselves in an even worse position. Thus far, most of the Republican support has been driven by fear of the rising national debt and equating not raising the debt ceiling to the U. S. not incurring more debt -- which is not the way either entity actually works. The national debt rises daily simply on the accumulation of interest on the loans already taken. The debt ceiling is just a legal limit the government imposed upon itself to curb government spending through profligate borrowing. It also imposes the added regulation that, without Congressional approval, more money cannot be borrowed. And since the government operates on borrowed money (because it spends more than it takes in via revenue sources -- where all those tax breaks and loopholes come back to haunt), Congressional approval of raising the debt ceiling is a must for the government to maintain its normal day-to-day operations.

Republicans at present are attempting to leverage a possible raising of the debt ceiling against fiscal spending cuts as well as future spending cuts and program defundings. Democrats have grudgingly allowed a few possible budgetary spending cuts but also want to reinstate tax breaks and eliminate tax loopholes that have decreased revenue over the past decade. The parties are at virtual impasse.

And the clock is winding down to a government shutdown. In the end, both sides will most likely give a little in order to reach compromise. However, if public sentiment continues to poll against the GOP as to blameworthiness, the legislators might want to begin looking into a little tactical correction.

View the original article here