Barack Obama ran for the presidency promising to reach across the isle to seek bipartisanship and end congressional deadlocks. He said the people wanted an end to political gridlock. Ending deadlocks meant both Democrats and Republicans must consent to compromise, and must seek and find contentment in common ground. Even though Americans which helped him become President of the United States knew that Obama was not elected king--and, therefore, would not be able to bring an end to congressional gridlock all by himself--there was to be increased voter frustration with Obama's failure settle gridlocks by decree.
The voters seemed to recognize that the president would need congressional help when they gave him the necessary congressional support by giving Democrats control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. But the majority in the Senate was not sufficient to overcome the reluctance of conservative Democrats--and one contrary liberal Democrat--to solidify Democratic congressional leadership and control. Nevertheless, voters made a good attempt: They gave Obama a good start. However, despite the political successes under Democratic control, these successes were for the most achieved without the support of Republican politicians. The potential for deadlock was still there. And the enthusiasm which brought American voters (especially Democratic voters) to the polls during the presidential election of 2008 was not there in for midterm elections of 2012, when members of congress were vying for congressional positions.
Without the enthusiasm which accompanies elections when the president is on the ticket, Democrats lost the House of Representatives. Democrats were the blame for not giving the midterm elections the same amount of attention, and not communicating to voters the importance of their returning to the polls to strengthen the Democrats' control of congress--and as it turns out, the need to strengthen Democratic influence in state governments. I'm not aware of the number of Republicans who voted for Democrats during the 2008 and 2012 elections. But polls have indicated that Americans of all political persuasions opposed congressional gridlock. Most Republicans also believed in compromise. Unfortunately, Republican members of Congress made their goal making Obama a one-term president. No matter how important or good his ideas were, they would vote against them. It was obvious who were the stumbling blocks, but Republican voters chose candidates who were committed to promoting exactly what the wanted President Obama to help end. Their politics became more important than what they believed was in the best interest of the country and themselves. People who wanted an end to gridlock essentially voted to continue it--in fact to extent it to the point of crippling government's ability to government.
So, itt's gridlock time again in Washington. Republicans are so sure the American Obamacare is a bad ideas for the American people that they are willing to shut down the government--and punish fellow Americans--in order to punish President Obama for trying to help people who need access to affordable health care, and for trying to cut the cost of health care in the United States. Republicans say the don't want to shut down the government; they only want to delay the funding of Obamacare until appropriate changes can be made. But what do Republicans want to change and what would they replace those element changed with? Is that to be determined later? Indefinitely later? Gridlock is still here. But Obama is not to blame.
Republican had input into the development of Obamacare. They had chances to make suggestions for change before the final instrument was voted into law. They refused to accept compromise by demanding changes which the President was not disposed to accept. Establishing the Affordable Care Act was the idea of Democrats. Hillary Clinton made an attempt during the Clinton presidency, and she a Barack Obama debated the issue during the 2008 presidential primaries. Hillary had argued for a mandate that would force young people to participate in purchasing insurance. Obama argued that they will buy health care insurance if it is cheap enough. As president, Obama agreed with Hillary Clinton--and past Republicans--that the mandate was the better idea, and necessary to keep the insurance affordable for most Americans. But because President Obama is now for the mandate, a reach across the isle, Republicans are no longer for it.
Democrats have opposed the President's desire to compromise with Republicans about entitlements reforms in exchange for Republican concessions about raising taxes on wealthy people. That was another attempt to reach across the isle. So whether its health care, Syria, attempts to grow jobs, increase middle class incomes, or fix Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Obama has reached across the isle--and angered the leadership of both parties. But it has become no longer a debate about the merits of positions on issues, but about some politicians' having their own way or fulfilling promises not to cooperate, not to compromise.
The American people got what they say they wanted in a president. They have to decide if the people they are sending to Washington and to our state governments to represent them have gotten the message. The problem is that the people voters would like to represent them too often either won't run or aren't permitted to run.
When history should ever record how The United States of America became the late United States--and the world was cast into economic chaos--it likely will record that it began in 2013, an evidently bad-luck year, when congressional politicians refused to compromise on either on balancing spending and taxing or adjusting the Affordable Care Act, the only areas where common ground exist and can be found.
Ronald
Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net
Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner
No comments:
Post a Comment