Compromise and Democrats: a very bad deal

The big news from D.C. is the fight over funding the Federal Department of Homeland Security past the February 28 deadline. The House of Representatives passed legislation funding all of the Homeland Security Department, but prohibiting expenditures in furtherance of President Obama’s illegal executive actions creating amnesty. As this bill reached the Senate all 44 Democrat Senators and both of the two ‘Independents’ filibustered against it. Their action will effectively strip Homeland Security of all funding starting March 1. A minimum of five Democrats and one Independent had expressed concern over the illegality of the President’s amnesty. Yet despite their principled concern, they joined to form the 100% solid Democrat bloc. Details here and here.

This has happened time and again. Democrats act in unison, while Republicans almost never form a solid bloc. If there is to be compromise, the Democrats have the advantage. Ideally in compromise, each side brings forward the issues most important to it that might be acceptable to the other party. The result is a kind of win-win for the country. But when one party will not give in to the other, compromise means the Democrats get the permanent change they crave, while Republicans can barely manage to get something they want and then often only on a temporary basis. With the news media biased in favor of Democrats, they can now dishonestly claim regarding Homeland Security funding the Republicans are shutting down the government and perhaps win the opinion-poll wars. [See note 1 below.] Over time this leads to a ratcheting effect, with the Federal government drifting inexorably leftward. With a progressive President in power and the ability of the Federal government to bully states and localities by threatening to withhold Federal funding, we have a very dangerous situation. Congress should stand its ground.

In our view, the Republican Party needs to change. Not drastically, but substantially in several respects.

First, it needs to exercise its cojones and stand up to the threat posed by the solid Democrat bloc. Put our opponents on the defensive. It needs to scream from the rooftops that Democrats cannot be trusted, despite their promises. Their lack of principle and cynical manipulation of their supporters needs to be constantly drummed into every communication. No risk, no reward. We have to accept the possibility of tactical defeat in order to win the war to regain our country. We need to believe and trust that good old, intelligent American ideas can in the long run overcome lie, deception, and liberal mythology. [Note 2.]

Second, the Republican Party needs to shift its center of gravity away from Big Business, Big Hospital, Big Law Firm, Big Anything, Big Government,  and towards ordinary people, those of us who represent no special, but the general interest. Politicians like Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Jindal, and Kasich – even Jeb Bush with all his faults – realize this. Obama’s reelection campaign proved that small campaign contributions from middle Americans can be very substantial. Big Special Interests will tack between Democrats and Republicans in pure rent-seeking, selfish behavior. Without the support of hospitals, AARP, and the insurance industry, ObamaCare could not have passed Congress. Obama the Democrat with all his mega-rich cronies has been called President Goldman Sachs. This message needs to be hammered home relentlessly to and through the media. The Republican Party must move away from the ‘establishment’ and towards the ‘tea party’ and the unaffiliated. The sniping between these two wings must stop if the Democrat juggernaut is to be defeated. Libertarians need to get on board before they throw more close elections to Democrats. Ending corporate welfare could be a winning issue. Trimming wasteful social programs –another Big Special Interest – could come along for the ride.

Third, power and money should be moved out of Washington, D.C. and back to the states. For example, move the Department of Homeland Security out of D.C. to some place like Colorado or Missouri. It would be safer there from enemy attack, as well as more influenced by the outside-the-beltway culture. And move out the money as well, cutting back Federal programs and taking less from the states. This would involve Republican legislators reducing their own power and influence. Without cojones strengthened by firm principle, this might be a tall order.   Troglo


Note 1. We note that the use of the power of the purse by the legislative body has a very long tradition. It goes back to the Magna Carta, which bound the King of England to obey the rule of law. And Parliament, the law creating body, retained the power of the purse. This system was intended to protect the people from depredations by the King – exactly the situation obtaining today with Obama’s illegal executive orders and the House of Representatives stripping funding for those illegal orders.

Note 2. A possible example of what Republicans should do based on current news: go after Brian Williams for lying about being in a helicopter hit by enemy fire in Iraq. He is a poster boy for Democrat influence in the media: good looking enough to make Obama women swoon and leftie enough to make Dan Rather blush. We should keep saying questions need to be answered and let others call for his dismissal. Just bring forward what he reports and more importantly stories embarrassing to Obama he does not report. This should quickly lead into incriminating NBC News as well, since they will attempt to cover up the evolving story. Their bias can easily be made clear, giving their history of dishonest reportage, e.g., editing an audio recording to make it appear George Zimmerman was a racist. Without evidence the Democrats trumpeted the myth that Mitt Romney was against women. And it worked. In this case we have the evidence. We just need to keep hammering away. We might also call for the networks to purge themselves of journalists who are former political operatives, usually Democrats like George Stephanopoulos and Chuck Todd. Joe Scarborough would also qualify. We could frame this as an ethical issue, because it raises concern about objectivity.


One thought on “Compromise and Democrats: a very bad deal

  1. The fight over funding is one of the few differences that I can see between the Republicans and the Democrats. While the Democrats have no fiscal responsibility, the Republicans don’t have the political will to push back on the budget and will likely continue to kick the entitlement problem down the road until they all kick the bucket. Why should we expect Congress to use the power of the purse? The proverbial purse has too many purse strings attached to it due to what Thorsten Polleit calls”collective corruption”, the natural result of government intervention in the production of money . The only hope for stopping the deficit spending is to stop borrowing by the federal government and the only governor that can be applied to the throttle of that speeding train it is to rein in the printing of fiat money by the lender of last resort, the Federal Reserve. Who out there believes there is any chance of that? Willibia Freeman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s