Posted on 10/19/2010 12:14:04 AM PDT by RC Clayton
Republicans on the campaign trail are bashing the president and his agenda and some are vowing to shut down Washington if they don't get their way. Behind the scenes, key party members are talking a different game.
A number of House Republicans, including some who are likely to be in the leadership, are pushing a post-election strategy aimed at securing concrete legislation, with the goal of showing they can translate general principles into specific action.
Among the ideas is to bring a series of bills to the floor, as often as once a week, designed to cut spending in some way. Longer term, GOP leaders say they recognize they may have to compromise with Democrats in tackling broader problems.
If they recapture the House, Republicans say they are wary of following the example of the class of 1994, which shut down the government in a standoff with President Bill Clinton. Top Republicans contend that passing legislation, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, will earn them more credibility with voters than refusing to waver from purist principles.
"It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). "They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree." GOP leaders stressed that this depends on the willingness of President Barack Obama to compromise as well. And some say if the post-election atmosphere is especially toxic, such compromises may be difficult.
The approach stands in contrast to the Senate, where Republican nominees including Kentucky's Rand Paul and Nevada's Sharron Angle more clearly represent the anti-establishment instincts of the tea-party movement...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Compromise, ....there can be no compromise
Only Wicker and Barrasso deserve no primary opponent IMO.
Concrete legislation. That's RINO-speak for pork barrel spending.
Screw concrete legislation. Gridlock is good. Make President Bohica veto your legislation. That will give you something to run in 2012 on.
Hah?
No, Darrell. Actually, we expect the gridlock to continue.
The less "agenda" you advance, the more perfect the union.
Whoa. I think I have my next Tea Party sign.
I couldn’t of said it better myself. Oh, Happy Birthday Darkwork377. In a couple of weeks, I will be hitting the same milestone.
Happy B’Day !
I’m with you. I just don’t understand how people can talk about “compromise”. This isn’t like two people who want to go to different restaurants for dinner. This is a matter of plain historical facts: Socialism doesn’t work as well as free markets. Government one-size-fits-all solutions do not work as well as millions of people making their own choices amongst unlimited options. Murder is wrong, and a mother shouldn’t get a free pass.
When people talk about “compromise” I’m reminded of the 1897 attempt by the Indiana House of Representatives to change the value of pi to 3.0 because 3.14159 was too hard to remember. Reality doesn’t compromise.
“How about adding a big, across-the-board tax cut to the next increase in the minimum wage? “
Funny you should mention that. I’ve often thought there would be overwhelming support for a 10% flat income tax. Such a tax would collect almost exactly the same revenue as the current multi-bracket, deduction and loophole-ridden progressive income tax. Of course, liberals would scream that it would be “Regressive” and hurt the “Poor”. But what would their argument be if we said, “Fine. We’ll raise the minimum wage by 10% at the same time, so the working poor will end up with no net tax increase.” Employers would save more on their own lower taxes than the 10% raise for minimum wage workers would cost them.
“We are all asking the winners to CHANGE the status quo of spend spend spend.”
I’m actually a little disappointed that this has become the main message for this Republican return to power. While spending cuts are important, realistically there is not more than 10% of spending that can be affected — unless you are willing to tackle Medicare, Social Security, and Military expenditures.
I don’t think support for cuts in those areas is strong enough to accomplish much from the top down, or “across the board”. I think quietly moving from the bottom up, good people could cut costs in those programs by reevaluating staff and vendors. I would do it by linking government employees’ raises to how much they can reduce costs compared to the previous year. This would put the onus on the people actually spending the money — the bureaucrats who authorize purchases and payrolls would suddenly be personally affected by their spending decisions. They would no longer spend every dime budgeted in order to justify a larger budget and grow their personal empire for the next year.
Overall, I don’t see spending cuts happening quickly. More of a freeze and then gradually discovering department by department and agency by agency that their mission can be accomplished for less each year.
I wish more focus was being placed on making America more competitive on the world stage. We can afford the current level of spending if the GDP doubles. A Republican Congress should focus its efforts on doing that. Getting people to accept spending cuts is harder than getting people to support growing the economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.