Journal pudge's Journal: Buying Votes 4
Many people, in both parties, think that the legislative act is one of buying votes. From beginning to end.
They make sure you vote for the bill by putting something in it you want, whether it's a Bridge to Nowhere, the "Cornhusker Kickback," the public option, individual mandates, or whatever.
They don't seem to consider that some people will vote against the bill for what is in it, rather than what is not in it.
We saw this in display all day long with Obama and the Democrats saying over and over again that they have and would put in the bill what the Republicans want, and all the Republicans need to do is accept what the Democrats want. In this way, we have compromise, and there would be peace in the land.
But if what the Democrats want is something the Republicans are philosophically opposed to, then it's not compromise: it's surrender. And the Democrats know this. They know the Republicans cannot support an individual mandate, for example.
Real compromise involves subtraction, usually moreso than addition.
If the Democrats really cared about bipartisanship they would not try to add things to the bill to buy Republican votes, but they would offer to remove things from the bill that prevent Republicans from supporting it.
I am not implying the Republicans are perfectly principled and wonderful people. You wouldn't respect me if I did. I wouldn't respect myself. But there are lines they won't cross; the Democraic proposal has some of them; the Democrats know this; and they insist on Republican agreement anyway.
Now, I do accept the idea that this all could be part of the process, and the Democrats will eventually work with the Republicans by dropping the things that the Republicans will not support. But it doesn't look like it that's going to happen.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Never happen (Score:2)
This is all for show on the part of Obama and the liberals in Congress. They do not have and have never had any intention whatsoever of coming to the conference table honestly to compose a bill that has some of what both parties want leaving behind some that they want. They're making a show of including the Republicans without ever having any intention of including anything they want nor excluding anything they don't want.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the VAST majority of the Democrats in Co
There are two meanings of compromise (Score:2)
One is we will add the crap you want to the crap we want. Result, big bloated expensive all-controlling government. Great for the politicians (who have more opportunities to give out lucrative favours) and the well-connected (more lucrative favours to receive) but bad for everyone else, and the general welfare.
The other is we will remove the stuff you hate and the stuff we hate. Result, in theory at least, lean and minimal government. Good for the general welfare. Not all that good for the politicians and t
Re: (Score:2)
Dilbert (Score:2)
The CEO and the Senator
Dogbert: It wouldn't be legal for me to bribe you.
Dogbert: So I hired your wife as a consultant despite the fact that she thinks "present value" is some sort of gift card.
Dogbert: And I wrote some legislation for you because you're a lazy thief.
Senator: Ha ha! Lets call that "access."