Boy this is spot on. As Yuval Levin pointed out in National Review, it is almost as if the extremists see the legislative process itself (negotiating with the other side) as corrupting. But the purpose of Congress is for diverse people from every part of the country to elect representatives who will advocate, debate, and bargain on their behalf in an atmosphere of order and respect. No one gets to elect a representative to dictate on their behalf.
Agreeing to a CR rewards extortion. How has the pattern of CRs helped? In every case, it locks in outrageous spending boondoggles and makes them essentially repeal-proof The debts keep piling up, the administrative state keeps growing. Is that what you want?
When do you propose to change that? After the Rs win the White House plus both chambers? Well, they had that chance, and got petty (blame the TDS "across the aisle" types like McCain.) If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
I don’t like Continuing Resolutions either, but the same members who oppose that also made unreasonable demands on appropriations bills, keeping the House from doing the job it promised. Short term CRs are sometime necessary until Congress finally does their job. It’s the longer term omnibus bills that are the real crime.
It's a problem when a group says they want 12 individual appropriation bills to be considered, but then turn around and vote against allowing individual appropriation bills to come to the Floor, like they did yesterday.
Yes, I agree. But just because long term omnibus bills are worse, that does not mean we should capitulate on CRs, which have almost the same effect. Those continued appropriations tend to be folded into eventual omnibus bills anyway. When do we say no?
The deeper problem is that there is nobody making actual discretionary decisions on what we fund. The president has no line-item veto, so it is Congress that must make those discretionary choices. They've got all year to do it, but instead spend the first half or more of that on petty insider fights, then suddenly, faced with a deadline, the throw in the towel and say, "Aw the hell with it, let's just keep what we have." That is the cycle that must be stopped, and it if takes some abrasive mavericks to do that, ok by me.
Yes, some of their demands are unreasonable, and they can't seem to grasp compromises that are at least steps in the right direction. But the Rs won't win if they keep avoiding taking a stand against the outrageous proliferation of destructive programs (which is where too much federal spending goes) and centralizing power of the administrative state. On one point they are absolutely correct: they want to adhere to the compromise they reluctantly accepted in April, whereas the CR would simply override those limits. Why compromise, ever, if the deals reached are ignored as soon as the ink is dry? Why give in now to accept another half loaf, when earlier compromises are betrayed?
I get and even share much of your frustration, but Freedom Caucus malcontents were offered close to the deal you just outlined, with cuts and border enforcement, and a handful still said no (in fairness, several of them are negotiating hard, but in good faith). Your scenario is what Democrats would love to see happen, because they're ultimately win this battle. Just saying no is a strategy for defeat. Being a House member is a team sport.
Boy this is spot on. As Yuval Levin pointed out in National Review, it is almost as if the extremists see the legislative process itself (negotiating with the other side) as corrupting. But the purpose of Congress is for diverse people from every part of the country to elect representatives who will advocate, debate, and bargain on their behalf in an atmosphere of order and respect. No one gets to elect a representative to dictate on their behalf.
As usual an essential read.
Agreeing to a CR rewards extortion. How has the pattern of CRs helped? In every case, it locks in outrageous spending boondoggles and makes them essentially repeal-proof The debts keep piling up, the administrative state keeps growing. Is that what you want?
When do you propose to change that? After the Rs win the White House plus both chambers? Well, they had that chance, and got petty (blame the TDS "across the aisle" types like McCain.) If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Just say NO.
I don’t like Continuing Resolutions either, but the same members who oppose that also made unreasonable demands on appropriations bills, keeping the House from doing the job it promised. Short term CRs are sometime necessary until Congress finally does their job. It’s the longer term omnibus bills that are the real crime.
It's a problem when a group says they want 12 individual appropriation bills to be considered, but then turn around and vote against allowing individual appropriation bills to come to the Floor, like they did yesterday.
Yes, I agree. But just because long term omnibus bills are worse, that does not mean we should capitulate on CRs, which have almost the same effect. Those continued appropriations tend to be folded into eventual omnibus bills anyway. When do we say no?
The deeper problem is that there is nobody making actual discretionary decisions on what we fund. The president has no line-item veto, so it is Congress that must make those discretionary choices. They've got all year to do it, but instead spend the first half or more of that on petty insider fights, then suddenly, faced with a deadline, the throw in the towel and say, "Aw the hell with it, let's just keep what we have." That is the cycle that must be stopped, and it if takes some abrasive mavericks to do that, ok by me.
Yes, some of their demands are unreasonable, and they can't seem to grasp compromises that are at least steps in the right direction. But the Rs won't win if they keep avoiding taking a stand against the outrageous proliferation of destructive programs (which is where too much federal spending goes) and centralizing power of the administrative state. On one point they are absolutely correct: they want to adhere to the compromise they reluctantly accepted in April, whereas the CR would simply override those limits. Why compromise, ever, if the deals reached are ignored as soon as the ink is dry? Why give in now to accept another half loaf, when earlier compromises are betrayed?
Time to say "No buts: CUTS!"
I get and even share much of your frustration, but Freedom Caucus malcontents were offered close to the deal you just outlined, with cuts and border enforcement, and a handful still said no (in fairness, several of them are negotiating hard, but in good faith). Your scenario is what Democrats would love to see happen, because they're ultimately win this battle. Just saying no is a strategy for defeat. Being a House member is a team sport.