I said, I mean it, and I'm ready to take heat for it. Compromise is a dirty word, especially in politics. Name one instance since the New Deal where a compromise has ever resulted in smaller government. When pundits have said we need "bipartisanship" it simply means, we need more government.
Without going into the details, let's just put up a few examples, Social Security enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle, it's now bankrupting us. Same is true for Medicare and Medicaid, which not only are driving the federal budget off a cliff, they are the primary drivers of rising medical costs because they cover too many things that insurance was never intended to cover. (Sidebar, mandates in private insurance do the same, but I'll attempt to stay on topic).
The most recent bipartisan "success" of great note is No Child Left Behind. I said it the day the vote was cast, not knowing how wrong I would be about President Bush, but the thought went, "any time President Bush and Senator Kennedy agree, we're all in trouble." We now see cheating, sub par scores, and boatloads more cash in federal education coffers. Translation, compromise and a Washington success story means destroying America's wealth.
Now, it appears, President Obama and the leadership of both houses of Congress have struck some deal. It also appears that it is such a lousy deal, no side wants to commit the votes to bring it to the president. The deal is rooted in compromise, meaning, once again, we the people are stuck paying the addicts rehab bills.
I will take the less popular route in conservative circles and put a lot of blame on the many libertarian leaning freshmen in both houses. However, I blame them not for holding out or demanding more, but for not putting "radical" spending proposals out to make $4 trillion in cuts seem palatable. Senator Rand Paul took a swing months ago, and seemed to have some support from folks like Senators Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, and Jim DeMint. Then Representative Connie Mack came up with a plan to cut 1% from actual spending, not the baseline, and Senator Paul took up that fight in the Senate. These ideas had some teeth, and actually attempted to highlight just how bad the shape of the federal ledger is.
Instead, we get plans that call for $2 trillion in cuts, over 10 year, translation, $200 billion per year with a deficit of $1.4-1.6 trillion per year. Oh, and the cuts are back loaded while the debt ceiling is front loaded, so, it will fall to future congresses to actually sharpen their pencils and cut. Anyone that cannot find at least $250 billion in cuts for fiscal 2012 just isn't trying to find any. Again, Senator Paul identified $500 billion, which admittedly, still leaves approximately $1 trillion in deficit spending, but it "bends the cost curve down" as so many said about the health care law.
Next up, we'll actually do some analysis of the numbers, but as you can see here, compromise is an evil word when it comes to DC politics, and we need to hold our representatives feet to the fire to force them to identify cuts.
