Getting a budget done. Getting rid of Eric Holder. He, of course, is a person with an important position.

 

So, he didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and agree to cut spending to get a budget done?

 

Congress Sends Budget Compromise To Obama : NPR

 

Budget Compromise

 

More immediate, however, is the 2011 spending measure Congress passed to fund the day-to-day budgets of federal agencies through September. It combines more than $38 billion in cuts to domestic accounts with changes to benefit programs, like children's health care, that Congress' own economists say are illusory.

 

The measure was a compromise between Obama, Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that considerably smooths a much more stringent version that passed the House in February.

 

The bill cuts $600 million from community health programs, $414 million from grants for state and local police departments, and $1.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. Community development block grants, a favorite with mayors of both political parties, take a $950 million cut. Construction and repair projects for federal buildings absorb an almost $1 billion cut.

The part about putting themselves in a box is absolutely true. They have left no room for compromise.

 

Ordinarily I wouldn't mind a deadlocked Congress but given the storm coming 2013 due to their lack of working things out that is not the case now.

 

As of right now starting in 2013:

 

a) the tax rates 'automatically' rise

b) the deficit controls mandated by the failure of the 'super committee' kick in

c) AMT fix will likely expire further raising taxes on the upper middle class

d) more of Obamacare kicks in

 

None of these are a positive to the #1 issue today - the economy. But they all happen 'automatically'. So lack of action by Congress is bad.

 

Where are the leaders of Congress? Finding Reid, Boehner, Pelosi and McConnell doing anything of useful substance is hard now-a-days.

 

Any mystery to the approval rating for Congress?

The part about putting themselves in a box is absolutely true. They have left no room for compromise.

 

So is there anything on the table by either party? I have not heard that there are material bills or legislation that is in committee.

So, he didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and agree to cut spending to get a budget done?

 

Congress Sends Budget Compromise To Obama : NPR

 

Budget Compromise

 

More immediate, however, is the 2011 spending measure Congress passed to fund the day-to-day budgets of federal agencies through September. It combines more than $38 billion in cuts to domestic accounts with changes to benefit programs, like children's health care, that Congress' own economists say are illusory.

 

The measure was a compromise between Obama, Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that considerably smooths a much more stringent version that passed the House in February.

 

The bill cuts $600 million from community health programs, $414 million from grants for state and local police departments, and $1.6 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. Community development block grants, a favorite with mayors of both political parties, take a $950 million cut. Construction and repair projects for federal buildings absorb an almost $1 billion cut.

 

So, all parties have shown they can compromise?

 

That's a good thing. And all too rare.

I’m not sure what Republicans wanted in terms of compromise in 2009, which is cited here as the reason for their subsequent and unrestrained intransigence (there have never been more filibusters used by any Congress than this one, the debt ceiling debacle threatened the country’s financial standing to make a political point, etc.). While the Democrats were able to get a lot of their agenda passed through their supermajority, I’m not aware of any compromise offered by the Republicans other than the presentation of their own desires. Since the American voters had just swept in a Democratic president and majorities in both houses of Congress, it’s hard to argue that Republicans were negotiating from anything but a position of weakness. What I mean is that if voters wanted Republican policies to be enacted they would have voted Republicans in; therefore Republicans were going to have to tolerate Democratic policies temporarily.

 

But, that has never been an absolute thing. Though Democrats had a supermajority, they could hardly agree enough but to make the passage of policies a tentative affair. Republican votes would have been crucial. The art of compromise allows the minority party to get at least some of what they want in exchange for some support (i.e. “add X to this bill or remove Y and we’ll give you Z number of votes,” etc. If that occurred I hope someone will point that out to me). Instead, despite Republicans being invited to several summits - both public and private - with the president and majority leaders to air their views and to negotiate (and I only mention that to say that they were formally part of the process – I’m sure it was a political show for both sides), the only rhetoric I heard from the Republican camp was that of absolutism. In fact, Republicans vowed to wholly oppose all of Obama’s agenda before he was even inaugurated and went to considerable lengths to whip wavering moderate Republicans into opposition so Democrats couldn’t claim any amount of bipartisanship. Even though I think many (including many here) think that a divided government produces better policies because it tempers the indulgences of either side, I don’t think that is the case at the moment as there appears to be an unparalleled lack of productivity in the place of compromise.

 

Now, I don’t write all of this to bash the Republican party (though I don’t have many kind words for them), Democrats are generally more incompetent if not less extreme. But, I don’t agree with the notion that Obama is the catalyst for the amount of obstruction and petty bickering we currently see and I think an alternative view of events is worth being entertained here. This also means that I don’t agree that Romney will be the savior of reasonable politics. His proposed policies are just as doctrinaire as Obama’s are criticized for being.

 

Compromise has become a dirty word at this point in our history (unless one uses Clyde’s definition above) and there don’t seem to be many willing to put country ahead of winning than there used to be. I hope it’s just a phase, but there’s reason to believe it isn’t. I’m not sure Democrats and Republicans in Congress even fraternize with each other anymore. It’s hard to see the other side as human or worthy of respect when that’s the case (I think that’s also true of regular voters too).

Amen ...

A gaff in Washington is when someone tells the truth. That is exactly what Sen. McConnell did when he stated his highest priority. If President Obama had let Mitch McConnell write the health care bill with only one condition, that no one could ever know that he wrote it, Mitch would have opposed that bill.

Absolutely ...

One thing that I believe has led to all the obstructionism, on both sides, is that a bill anymore seems to be written and presented in such a manner to gain maximum political advantage rather than to actually accomplish something for the american people. It's more important to try to put your opponent into a box so that he/she will have to go on the defensive at the next election. The campaigning never stops.

The Republican's threw down the gauntlet when Mitch McConnell declared it was his mission (sic) to ensure President Obama was a one-term President. There couldn't have been any clearer indication of how the next four years were going to go than that. That's our leadership, folks...right there. The President (despite his party affiliation) will only get as far as Congress will allow. When Mitch made his feelings public, he ensured that the "other side" were going to dig in their heels. Add in the mix of Rand Paul and his ilk, and we've got no chance of compromise in Congress. The most moderate and willing to compromise HAVE to choose a side because there's no hope of anything getting done at all, whether we like what gets done or not, without a majority vote eventually.

The Republican's threw down the gauntlet when Mitch McConnell declared it was his mission (sic) to ensure President Obama was a one-term President. There couldn't have been any clearer indication of how the next four years were going to go than that. That's our leadership, folks...right there. The President (despite his party affiliation) will only get as far as Congress will allow. When Mitch made his feelings public, he ensured that the "other side" were going to dig in their heels. Add in the mix of Rand Paul and his ilk, and we've got no chance of compromise in Congress. The most moderate and willing to compromise HAVE to choose a side because there's no hope of anything getting done at all, whether we like what gets done or not, without a majority vote eventually.

 

I was thinking of this the whole time I have been reading ths thread. McConnell made his feelings very clear within a very short time, before the healthcare mandate came through.

That gauntlet was thrown down many years ago. McConnell simply was the first to verbalize what every opposition party has thought since who knows when. Don't forget, "the party of no" label has been around forever it seems. The problem is each congress seems to think it has to exceed the prior.

That gauntlet was thrown down many years ago. McConnell simply was the first to verbalize what every opposition party has thought since who knows when. Don't forget, "the party of no" label has been around forever it seems. The problem is each congress seems to think it has to exceed the prior.

 

I think that might be to simplistic a response. Tip O'Neil was from a Reagan Man but he worked with him to try and create and America he dreamed of. The same was true of an LBJ or even Newt Gingrich. They did not work openly with the main aim of unseating the President. They worked to save America and create the best of their vision for America.

 

Don't get me wrong, I too think this is not just an R or D issue, but I'm not sure I've seen it as extreme as it has been in the last 10 or so years.

I think that might be to simplistic a response. Tip O'Neil was from a Reagan Man but he worked with him to try and create and America he dreamed of. The same was true of an LBJ or even Newt Gingrich. They did not work openly with the main aim of unseating the President. They worked to save America and create the best of their vision for America.

 

Don't get me wrong, I too think this is not just an R or D issue, but I'm not sure I've seen it as extreme as it has been in the last 10 or so years.

 

I agree with you. Compromise in Congress, for the most part, was lost shortly after Bush vs. Gore IMO. To lay the blame solely at Mitch McConnell is naive. As 75center stated, McConnell simply put into words the thoughts of other Congressional leaders.

If you goggle 'Congress compromise 2009' you won't find much. When you have the White House, a 60 vote super majority in the Senate and control of the House you can pass what you want. And they did.

 

Now if you are going to stuff bad legislation down everyone's throat you should not be surprised the stuffee throws up after your done.

 

There is a lot of blaming McConnell - the MINORITY leader of the Senate. A position that is supposed to be the loyal opposition. Where is Reid? Where is Boehner? The are the MAJORITY leaders of each of the houses. Where is a budge plan from Nancy Pelosi? There is none. So how do you compromise with vapor?

 

There are lot of office holders who need to go in November from both sides. It would not hurt to start with the top 4. As a group they are not getting it done.

I agree with you. Compromise in Congress, for the most part, was lost shortly after Bush vs. Gore IMO. To lay the blame solely at Mitch McConnell is naive. As 75center stated, McConnell simply put into words the thoughts of other Congressional leaders.

 

Who solely blamed McConnell?

There is one thing in Washington worse than the lack of compromise - one party being in control of Congress and the Presidency.