Image a conversation between an offensive football lineman, whose assignment is to open hole in the defensive line so the running back can score touchdowns, and the defensive lineman whose assignment is to prevent that from happening.
Or consider a conversation between a baseball pitcher trying to get a batter out and the batter trying to hit a home run, or a basketball player wanting to drive to the basket for a layup and the defensive center intending to block that attempt.
What kind of conversations could this be? What do Democrats say to Republicans who are committed to the defeat of Democrats next year? How does any team negotiate with an opposing team? It's not possible. Can you imagine how the conversation is going between Democrats and Republicans concerning the President's budget? Does the commitment to making Obama a one-term president enter the discussion? Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans have become not a first and second team of an American team but different teams. Once the party out of power was like a second team which wanted to play but pulled for the party in power because it wanted to win more than it wanted to be in the game.
Well, that's what the President and Democrats face in dealing with Republicans: Republicans will not give in to anything that will allow Obama to succeed in effecting a successful economic recovery. Remember, they must make him a "one-term president." They don't even give him credit for those things that have been successful. Everything Obama has recommended Republicans have called either a failure or a job-killer--even when then weren't. They do this because they believe the American people won't know the difference.
The Republican threshold for compromising on anything will be the point where they are reasonably sure that the President will be perceived to be a failure. Democrats' line in the sand must be considerably short of that point. Republicans are trying to get the president involved in the funding debate, but funding is the job of Congress. He must stay uninvolved until they come up with funding he feels meets his threshold for being able to act with reasonable certainty on behalf of the American people.
The prospect of compromise would be better were the difference of opinions was merely philosophical. Give and take could be win-win for both parties. But this conflict is not about win-win but about victory. Voters need to decide if they have sufficient reason to place their trust liars.
There is good reason to believe that Republicans will shut down the government unless they get what they want. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is an example of how the Tea Party picked to run--and subsequently elected--egotistic congressional representatives with fringe beliefs and one-track minds.
It's time for the American people to determine if they want the President to decide what is the best mix of spending cuts and taxes, or if they think House Republicans can best do that. Maybe it's also time for Democrats to throw into the compromise mix making the tax cuts for the middle class permanent and extending unemployment benefits for the unemployed to Jan. 2013. Offer Republicans a concession of $30 billion in spending cuts. That would put the ball in the Republicans' court to make a better offer.
The President reserves the responsibility to veto any spending cuts that prevent him from having the mix that he feels offers the best chances to hasten the present recovery as well as minimize the chances that this kind of recession will ever happen again. The American people believe that President Obama is the person best qualified to do that. That's why he was elected president. And none of the Republicans who are trying to promote Obama's failure is sufficiently qualified or trustworthy to make even the very long list of potential Republican presidential candidates in 2012. The President, however, likely will have no bill to veto.
Despite Jesus' saying not even the angels in heaven will know when the end of the world will come, it's being predicted by certain members of the Christian community that the end will come in May of this year. Nostradamus has predicted that the end will come at the end of next year. If either is true, that's too close for comfort. But whether the end of the world occurs in May or not, Tea Party Republicans could bring at least be bringing the United States, as we have known it, to an end.
Consider the effort of Texas Republicans to change the practice of limiting the class size of public elementary schools to 22 students. They claim a change that averages 21 students per class is necessitated by the need to cut the state budget.
I haven't heard the explanation, though, why having 21 students per class would cost less than having 22. Five teachers teaching 22 students each teach110 students, whereas, five teachers teaching 21 students each only teach 105 students. How is that less expensive? Maybe the answer rests beneath the surface. You see, there are several ways to achieve a 21-student per class average.
Of course having 21 students in every class averages 21 students per class. But so does having five classes with 30, 30,15,15 and 15 students average 21 students per class. The difference, in the latter example, is that some students could be in classes with as many as 30 students while other students are in classes with as few as 15 students. Which students do you think will be in the classes with 15 students? And which teachers do you think will be teaching them?
The world may be coming to an end. And Texas, Wisconsin and Tea Party Republicans provide more evidence that a lot of Americans still may not be ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment