I've often said the political polarization in our country among leading political figures occurs because our society and media rewards political leaders for rhetoric, not reason, for combativeness not cooperation.
Well there are 100 members of Congress, 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats, who I am going to try to reward for their cooperation and their reason.
These members of the House recently sent a letter to the so called deficit reduction "supercommittee" to simply consider all options, including new revenue, in helping to solve the federal deficit problem.
They also, wisely, recommended the budget committee trim the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, far beyond the mandate they have to trim $1.2 trillion.
Here's the story.
Here's the letter.
Of Minnesota's congressional delegation signing the letter were Tim Walz, D, 1st District, Collin Peterson, D, 7th District,
So thumbs up to them.
Not signing including Republicans Chip Cravaack and Erik Paulsen and Michele Bachmann and Democrats Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison.
And thumbs down to them.
Republicans signatories may have taken the larger risk in signing this letter. They face the wrath of not only the tea party, but of political kingpin Grover Norquist, who got several of them to sign his pledge not to raise taxes.
I admire the courage of Republican Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo who has tea party support and was a signer of the no tax pledge in 2008, but not last year.
She would prefer to solve the deficit she said, without raising taxes, but realizes there is more at stake her than ideology and we do not live in an ideal world.
Her quote from national story: "This is not an ideal world." She said the national debt is a problem created by Republicans and Democrats, and both parties must solve it. She said she is not "an absolute `hell no' person when it comes to considering all options.
"Grover Norquist is not in my district," she said. "I represent the state of Wyoming and its people."
Norquist seemed for one time in his life to be silenced. He didn't return calls to the Associated Press.
Many others signed the letter, many took political risks in doing so.
Reps. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, organized the letter.
Said Shuler: "I'll give up my election. I'll give up my seat" in exchange for an agreement to improve the country's fiscal future, he told the Associated Press.
Shuler gets on my A-list for most courageous political statement of the year.
Democrats signing the letter put entitlement reform and cuts on the line.
Democrat Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., "Those of us who are the strongest supporters of entitlement programs have to be at the table to guarantee sustainability," Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said in an interview. "If we stand on the sidelines, those programs will be in enormous jeopardy."
Finally, some Congressional action we can reward. Others would do well to take their lead seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Joe, I suppose if I follow this up with a third comment to one of your blogs, you’re going to think I’m targeting you. But that’s not my intent.
ReplyDeleteHere I just want to show how persons who consider themselves “middle-of-the-roaders” can let the middle ground be shifted far to the right.
Question: Why is it just good for Tim Walz to sign the letter but courageous for Republicans to sign it? You answer the question. But let’s look at it a little more. It’s courageous for these Republicans because the Party has taken an extreme no tax increases position (you know the percentage of Norquist signees), and they’re bucking the Party’s extreme position (enforced with considerable threats). But Walz is not acting courageously because he’s not bucking any extreme position of the Democrats (enforced with any similar threats). The extreme leftist correlate of Norquist’s tax pledge would be confiscation of all the wealth that makes people rich. But Democrats’ proposed tax increases are not anything like that (I might add, too, that Democrats do not take a no spending cuts position.). The most you can say is that their proposals are a little left of what some middle-of-the-roaders might consider to be a middle ground. It seems to me that your own use of the good-courageous distinction leads in this direction.
So what will happen when the Democrats and Republicans have to reach a compromise? In negotiations, the Democrats will be fighting adamantly for their position (which begins much closer to the middle ground), while Republicans will be fighting adamantly for their much more extreme right position. And, if the past pattern of recent years continues, at some point, the Free Press middle-of-the-road editorial board will come out with an editorial castigating both parties for not finding a “middle ground” between their positions. And that’s how supposed middle-of-the-roaders end up supporting solutions where the “middle ground” is being shifted far to the right.