The headline of the editorial in the Everett Herald on Wednesday January 12, 2011 says
“A chance for bipartisanship”
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110112/OPINION01/701129975/-1/OPINION
then it goes on to say that eliminating the supermajority requirement for amendments to budget bills passed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee would now only require a simple majority rather than the supermajority required for nearly a hundred years.
It is the Herald’s view that even though budget bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee would still be controlled by the majority party being able to amend them with a simple majority would encourage bipartisanship because the vote threshold for passage would be lower. But the amendments would not address core problems, they would be window dressing on a bad bill to buy votes.
The reason the Democrats want to create the appearance of easy bipartisanship is to spread the blame when the legislature has to eventually balance their budget.
In my view, the differences between the core values of the parties makes it difficult to propose solutions at the amendment level. I believe that solutions Republicans might offer would probably require that the state step back to core services. How well we fund education, public safety and transportation will be determined by how many other pools of money we have to create for (perhaps) non-essential services.
In order to adequately fund essential state services we need to first identify those that are mandated by the constitution and those that are not. Then prioritize those departments or programs that are not mandated so we can begin eliminating whole departments and bureaucracies so there is funding for the services remaining.
Under-funding all existing departments just means we’re spending money to maintain management structures without fulfilling a mission. Maintaining a department that cannot deliver the product is just wasting money. These are our likely candidates for elimination. With these departments on chopping block, we need to have a vigorous debate about the cost/benefit of each then decide. If we are looking for bipartisanship, this is the level where it should come into play.
Certainly there will be Washington citizens that will be adversely impacted for the long term by this plan. Democrats object to this strategy since the “nanny state” promises they make require that citizens have something to hang their hope on. If you eliminate a whole department, the expectation of restoration is reduced and hope is lost.
It is not that I don’t have feelings for those folks, I do, but it has to do with fairness for everyone in our state.
If the Herald editorial board wants to encourage bipartisanship, they need to recognize the basis for compromise between the two parties won’t happen at the superficial amendment level on Ways and Means budget bills.
No Loss for Words 
Obama the Moderate? NOT!
by Steve DanaI don’t understand how folks in our country can expect the President to suddenly change his spots. If there was ever a politician that was predictable when he was elected, this one was that one. I think Obama is more committed to being a liberal progressive than being an effective politician. The impact of this president will be viewed by historians as the most crippling for our country twenty years down the road. We could not have elected a more committed liberal than we did with Obama.
The Democrats had a lot to say about Barack Obama when he was a candidate. Not a one ever characterized him as a moderate. He has always been on the left side of his own party.
During the first two years of his presidency he continually demonstrated his liberal intent. Combined with the overwhelming majorities and most liberal leadership in both houses of the congress President Obama trampled on the Constitution and the rights of most Americans without a lick of resistance. Two years of the perfect storm.
Remember when he reminded John McCain that he had won the election.
Even now, following the election, the balance of power has shifted in the House to the Republicans and nearly balanced the vote in the Senate but the President and his management team who run the bureaucracies continue to march with regulatory changes that will cripple efforts to create jobs for many years to come.
By itself the EPA will dictate our National Energy Policy by preventing our domestic energy resources from being exploited through lawsuits by watchdogs at every critical point in the permitting processes.
We won’t build any oil refineries or nuclear power plants or hydroelectric dams. Period.
They won’t even let some of the preferred Green Energy sources be developed with federal subsidies because of the lawsuits. Their campaign is to cripple, not develop better policies.
The Congress gave up closer oversight because it was easy. It takes a lot of effort to do your job and hold the President’s bureaucrats accountable. The Checks and Balances laid out in the Constitution were set up to prevent one branch from gaining too much power.
Having so many liberal judges in the Federal Court System, the courts have taken a more aggressive approach to legislation than we should be comfortable with. That would leave us with the weakest Congress in the history of our country.
Americans cannot be hoodwinked by a President who is trying to re-spin himself into a moderate. If the Republicans fall for any of his spiel, it will give him breathing space to regroup. The stakes are too high for America to lose our momentum now. Keep the heat on!
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »