Compromise is one of those loaded terms that always seems to generate a 'warm and fuzzy' feeling among the electorate. A common complaint of voters today is that they disapprove of the 'do nothing' congress, and how they wish that both sides would compromise. When it comes to compromise, I believe there are times and categories in which it is inappropriate. Most notably, when in relation to principles. Compromising on some numbers here or there is one thing, compromising on principle is wholly different. I'll give you an example, an extreme one, but a very apparent one nonetheless. Suppose the following bill was being discussed:
Side A: "Why can't we come to agreement on the resolution to kill babies? We understand you don't like killing babies, and we're willing to compromise on how many babies we kill. So why can't you agree on some compromise so we can get something done?"
Side B: "There is no compromise to be made on killing babies. It is against our principles, and killing even one baby is to far for us to go."
Here you see an example of a refusal to compromise. Side B stands against killing babies in principle, and thus to compromise on this would be to compromise the very beliefs that are fundamental to their world view. Side A offers to lower the amount of babies killed, but this doesn't change the fundamental disconnect between the two sides. Its a total loss for side B to compromise on the killing of any babies at all. Thus, they are justified in standing on principle and cannot be attacked for 'obstructing progress'. Perhaps you disagree with their views, but you can't attack them for 'not compromising' as a supporter of A, should your side compromise on principle, you'd likely not care that they 'compromised' the degree to which they let their principle slide.
Objection: Killing Babies is a far to extreme example, what example of such a principle could be found that can show such a disconnect between the parties?
I offer, that the principle in question, is spending. The Democrats and Republicans have a vastly different view on spending, and thus, it becomes hard to compromise on this subject. The Democrats have repeatedly offered to increase spending less, but still increase it. This is no compromise for the Republicans, as they view the spending situation in this country as untenable and any increase at all is harmful. The fact that you may increase it a little, but still increase it, doesn't solve the problem.
Now it is true that the Democrats have offered a solution to the spending problem: raising taxes. This is however another topic, as I feel we should remain focused on the issue of spending itself. The reason is, if raising taxes is the solution, you still have the problem of not capping spending. If you raise taxes, you can spend more, but then you need to raise taxes again, and again, ad infinitum. Despite the fact that this is politically unpopular, as we have seen in Greece, the hair of the dog can't out run inflation. Eventually you have to pay the piper.
Example: Medicare
I will now give an example of how the spending disconnect manifests itself in policy. Entitlements are inextricably linked to spending as they require funding. A large majority of the spending of the United States Gov't is on Entitlement programs. The resulting dispute is that Republicans want to lower spending, and that means cutting Entitlements, Democrats feel that since people rely on these programs, it is wrong to cut them. I offer that not cutting them is tantamount to harm for those depending on them, as well as the fact that people depending on these programs is harmful in itself as it perpetuates the problem of their needing a haircut.
It should be common knowledge by now, that medicare only has 12 years of solvency left. This means that unless it starts bringing in the required amount to operate as well as an additional 12th of its deficit a year, it will go bankrupt in 2024. Now given inflation projections for the next 12 years, it is highly improbable that any increase in revenue will save it. So our other option is: Cut spending in Medicare.
Objection: People Depend on Medicare, so cutting it will harm them.
My contention agrees with this statement. However, with this being true, we have two options:
- Don't cut medicare, and it goes bankrupt: if this happens, then no one has medicare, this I believe is far more harmful than the current enrollees having to deal with less for a few years.
- Cut medicare, enrollees have less, but it remains solvent: This option rarely gets a good listen. There are several options available for cutting medicare, and I'm not endorsing a specific one. Its either one of these, or loose medicare.
In Conclusion: Putting it all together
We have seen an example of how compromising on principle is not a good thing. We have also seen an example of a principle that manifests in policy. Now the only question is: How does this relate to Claire McCaskill and Her ad? It does so in this way:
McCaskill brags about compromise in a principally divided congress. So either you're fine with her not having any principle to stand on, or else, you agree that spending isn't a problem in spite of the evidence otherwise. If you think spending isn't a problem, then its fine that McCaskill doesn't stand on a principle in relation to it, its fine that she does whatever is necessary to pass a bill, regardless of contents. I personally Find her position untenable, and would rather have a dopey-minded Republican voting on principle, than a highly educated Democrat who lacks on altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment