Bipartisanship is not a magic word
Jeb Bush caused a stir this week when he said partisanship in Washington had gone too far. If that doesn’t sound like news, what really drew attention was the former Florida governor’s apparent belief his father and Ronald Reagan would find it difficult to become the GOP nominee these days.
I say “apparent” because Bush’s statement, in an interview with Bloomberg, included one enormous qualifier. Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have trouble with today’s GOP, the younger Bush said, “if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”
Well, that settles that!
The notion that Reagan, at least, would be spurned by the contemporary GOP is odd. In 1980 he was considered far more conservative than the elder Bush, who succeeded him as the Republican standard bearer. Nothing about nominees Bob Dole (1996) or John McCain (2008) places them to Reagan’s right. Even George W. Bush was less aggressive than Reagan on taxes, and his spending, given that unlike Reagan he had a fully GOP-led Congress to work with, is less forgivable.
Yet, Bush didn’t mean Reagan was too conservative for the 2012 GOP.
Until cloning technology allows us to re-create Reagan in the flesh, however, this is just a parlor game. The more pertinent matter is whether Bush was correct to point the finger at partisanship.
Or, even better, whether bipartisanship is the cure for what ails us.
Bipartisanship gave us the No Child Left Behind Act, which both sides now criticize (for different reasons). There was significant support from each party in Congress to authorize the Iraq war, which the left eventually disowned and of which the right grew weary.
The same goes for McCain-Feingold — formally, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — which sought to get “soft money” out of elections but instead led to super PACs.
That’s just in the past 11 years. Back in the Reagan era, when the president struck those bipartisan deals of which Jeb Bush approves so much, “working together” brought us tax cuts but only unfulfilled pledges of reduced spending, and amnesty for illegal immigrants without the promised border enforcement to prevent future illicit border crossings.
I could go on, just as Bush or others could point to good laws that passed with bipartisan support: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance.
The point is that being “bipartisan” doesn’t necessarily make a bill good.
Obamacare wouldn’t have magically become good law if a few Republicans had voted for it. The handful of GOP votes for the Dodd-Frank financial reform didn’t prevent it from enshrining “too big to fail” into the law or squeezing credit markets.
A common argument today is that the problem has more to do with obstructionism, that too often one side stands in the other’s way to forestall legislative progress.
The left trotted out this argument back in the health-care debates of 2009-10. In fact, very liberal Democrats spent several months trying to bully moderate Democrats into supporting very liberal policies before Scott Brown’s election to the Senate gave Republicans enough votes even to be obstructionist.
Lately, the GOP-led House and majority-Democrat Senate have disagreed about long- and even short-term plans for taxes and spending. The bipartisan solution being urged is for Republicans to accept higher taxes in order to get lower spending. That happens to be the exact kind of arrangement, economists now warn, that would lead our economy off a “fiscal cliff” in 2013. But at least we’d be holding hands as we took the plunge!
When “bipartisan” means taking the best ideas from both sides, it’s not such a bad thing. If this happens less frequently these days, I chalk it up to two things.
First, while there’s an apparent cry for compromise, there’s very little consensus about what’s an acceptable compromise. We want other people’s taxes raised, or spending that affects other people cut. Politicians don’t advocate splitting things down the middle, because there’s no sign of a constituency for shared pain.
Second, even when combining ideas is practical, the results tend to be smaller than the kind of Grand Compromise we think we need for our toughest problems. But in some cases — health care comes to mind — it’d be better to take several nibbles at problems than to go whole-hog.
Making both sides mad, or happy, too often is just an excuse for not making sure to make good law.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
268 comments Add your comment
MarkV
June 14th, 2012
12:33 pm
Dusty @11:48 am
I understand that you want to run from what you have written. That is what the Republicans like to call “taking personal responsibility.”
What has that got to do with the national debt?
“How many TRILLIONS have been added to the national debt since OBAMA took office? Now, no “cute fudging”. Just straight figures.”
National debt:
5.7 trillion 12/31/2000
10.7 trillion 12/31/2008
15.1 trillion 12/31/2011
Any questions?
md
June 14th, 2012
12:37 pm
Yep, 15.1 trillion the private sector must come up with on top of what it takes to do business and care for the public sector………sounds like a winning formula for growth.
DannyX
June 14th, 2012
12:38 pm
“The Tea Party began as a protest against Oblamercare and the stimulus and the record deficits both of those caused.”
Rafe, what is the Tea Party plan to pay for the 2 unfunded wars, the unfunded socialist Medicare Part D, the unfunded Dept of Homeland Security, that were handed out with massive tax cuts?
Where were they? Still under their “deficits don’t matter’ spell?
Republicans of any sort, Tea Party, Reagan fans, neo-cons, conservatives, suddenly showing concern for the deficit is very amusing.
What’s the plan? Surely there is a plan to clean up your mess, if not sober up.
That Black guy
June 14th, 2012
12:38 pm
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer’s ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
12:21 pm
Danny
I don’t ever remember a Tea Party member say that deficits don’t matter. The Tea Party began as a protest against Oblamercare and the stimulus and the record deficits both of those caused.
The out of context quote you mentioned was not uttered by a Tea Party spokesperson.
___________________________________________________
He knew that, but a chance to lie is…
a chance to lie.
Kinda hard to resist for some people.
DannyX
June 14th, 2012
12:44 pm
The Tea Party motto is “Republican deficits don’t matter.”
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 14th, 2012
12:53 pm
Bush didn’t veto the spending proposed in the 2007 Nasty Pelosi budget because of the mandate the dummycrats won in the 2006 elections. The true spirit of bipartisanship. He could have vetoed those spending bills and locked down the government. He didn’t.
And now they blame him for their spending.
You think we learned our lesson?
md
June 14th, 2012
12:54 pm
“what is the Tea Party plan to pay for the 2 unfunded wars, the unfunded socialist Medicare Part D, the unfunded Dept of Homeland Security, that were handed out with massive tax cuts?”
The dems controlled the whole shebang for 2 whole years and had the choice…..key word again……to end any and all of those programs/wars/departments………last I checked, they didn’t and instead added another huge program to those that folks are saying we couldn’t afford……yep, that makes sense.
SBinF
June 14th, 2012
12:58 pm
Hey Kyle, maybe you need to call up Scott Walker and explain to him what Jeb meant. It seems he’s confused:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/scott-walker-jeb-bush_n_1596326.html
WASHINGTON — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) told reporters Thursday morning that he disagreed with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s assessment of the state of the modern Republican Party and the need for the GOP to support economic policies that go beyond tax cuts.
Bush said Monday that both his father, President George H.W. Bush, and President Ronald Reagan would have trouble meshing with the current Republican Party.
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
1:01 pm
Black guy you can only blame yourself for President Obama, it was him or Clinton, McCain’s chances were simular to Cain’s –zero.
The private sector is fine, much better than in 2008.
md
June 14th, 2012
1:05 pm
“The private sector is fine, much better than in 2008.”
Better than very bad does not equate to “fine”……..
That Black guy
June 14th, 2012
1:10 pm
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
1:01 pm
Black guy you can only blame yourself for President Obama, it was him or Clinton, McCain’s chances were simular to Cain’s –zero.
The private sector is fine, much better than in 2008.
_________________________________________________
True, since I voted for him in 2008.
“The private sector is fine, much better than in 2008″ – “Aimee Copeland reached another major milestone this week. Doctors Hospital in Augusta, where she is being treated, upgraded her condition to serious from critical.”
I guess that means Aimee is doing “fine”.
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
1:10 pm
Then its fine with me.
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
1:11 pm
I was not talking about Aimee, BTW.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
1:12 pm
Danny
Tea Party Plan for deficit……………………………stop the spending, get the economy (i.e. private sector) growing so tax revenue improves, reform entitlements, extend Oblamers Tax cuts, repeal Oblamercare, implement rules to tie future spending to a percentage of GDP (in case we ever make the mistake of electing another Oblamer), develop private sector solutions for health care, and other things you have obviously heard about, but do not acknowledge.
Jefferson
June 14th, 2012
1:14 pm
The tea reps plan won’t work, should be shelved. If you don’t admit the revenue problem, you can’t solve the revenue problem. Same can be said of spending. Both have to give.
DannyX
June 14th, 2012
1:14 pm
“Better than very bad does not equate to “fine”…”
You are in denial. The economy is doing a hell of a lot better than it was 3 years ago. Just how fast was Obama supposed to immediately get us out of the Great Bush Recession ? 68% still blame W a great deal for the problems we still have with the economy, how fast was Obama supposed to clean up W’s mess?
Our labor force was hit with massive layoffs caused by corporate mergers, loss of real estate jobs, outsourcing, manufacturing jobs lost to China, technology gains that allowed businesses to employ fewer people, and Bush and his Republican friends were building bridges to nowhere.
How do you fix that in 3 years?
DannyX
June 14th, 2012
1:26 pm
“Tea Party Plan for deficit”
You mean the Tea Party would not raise payroll and gasoline taxes like Reagan? The Tea Party would not favor Reagan’s tripling of the deficit, (”deficits don’t matter?”) The Tea Party would not be in favor of the Earned Income Credit that Reagan expanded? The Tea Party would not be in favor of 22 million more illegals being given amnesty thus giving them access to tax payer dollars? The Tea Party would not favor Reagan’s expansion of Medicare?
You Republicans are all over the place. The Tea Party would have little in common with Reagan, no matter how hard you try to change the record.
HDB
June 14th, 2012
1:35 pm
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer’s ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
8:42 am
“Speaking of compromise, how many Republicans were consulted, before Oblamer decided to purchase those helicopters from Russia.
America’s everywhere are trying to buy “made in America” merchandise and Oblamer is buying Russian helicopters. With 8.2% unemployment I wonder what the workers at Bell and Secorski are thinking.”
Have you thought about the ILLEGALITY of exporting military secrets to a foreign nation?? Even when we sell military aircraft to Israel, it’s not the American version due to additional technology that can’t be exported!!
JDW
June 14th, 2012
1:56 pm
@ Kyle…”That’s a cute document you’ve got there, but a) federal budgets are done in fiscal years, not calendar years, and b) the appropriations listed for each year in your document are a couple of hundred billion dollars less than actual federal outlays during that time. So, even if we ignore the fiscal/calendar issue, either your document is incomplete, or it demonstrates that actual spending was in fact far higher than what presidents requested.”
You can thank the Library of Congress for the document (note the verification seal in the lower left). My guess is that the difference you see is the difference between budgeted vs. off budget expenses (mainly Social Security) and the fact that it is in constant dollars apparently around 1980 or so. Fiscal vs. calendar year is really irrelevant over an 8 year timeframe.
“”How much higher? If we assume your document is right about presidential requests, then the requests in the calendar years Reagan was in office — 1981-88 — totaled $4,587.4 billion. Actual outlays in FY81-88 totaled $7,089.2 billion. That’s a difference of $2,501.8 billion or 55%. The gap is even wider if we assume Reagan had more to do with the FY82-89 budgets.”"
Apparently the raw dollar numbers were in aggregate $7,357.6 requested and $7,554.9 spent but when the spent total is adjusted for budget items that are estimated in the original submission (unemployment, interest etc…). If you adjust for those numbers as the House Appropriations Committee did when they conducted a study that compared Reagan’s concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed you find that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
So as I was saying…this myth that Reagan was mislead on spending or that Congress was responsible is HORSE HOOEY…the man got $29.4 Billion or 4% LESS than he requested.
You can read more analysis than I have time to give you here.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
JDW
June 14th, 2012
1:57 pm
@Kyle…and while I am on the subject of HORSE HOOEY…lets go for that bit that Reagan’s policies raised tax collections…
Average Real Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President4
Average
President Annual Growth
Roosevelt 121.3%
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%
NOPE
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/5Debt.htm
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
2:08 pm
JDW: So average annual growth of 2.4%, after adjusting for inflation, doesn’t count? Only in the minds of those who want Washington to have loads more money to spend.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
2:14 pm
Somewhere along the way, I fear, JDW and I got to having one conversation on two threads.
JDW
June 14th, 2012
2:18 pm
@Kyle…my bad on the two threads…I back posted by mistake.
As for the 2.4%, sure it counts but it was tied with Eisenhower for the third to the bottom. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford and Carter all did better. That tells me that what Reagan did worked worse than that which came before him.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
2:19 pm
Danny
How do you fix that in 3 years?
To put it in the man’s own words, something to the effect, if I don’t get it turned around we are looking at a one term proposition. Well, now is the time to admit defeat and step aside, I’d say.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
2:25 pm
JDW: It’s only “better” if you want more money to spend. If you want to restrain government, 2.4% real growth is rather generous. If you can accomplish that while cutting marginal tax rates, I’d call that “better” than the rest.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
2:28 pm
HDB
I share your concern about military secrets, having worked for the DOD for 20 years, however, I don’t think Barry Oblamer cares that much based on all the leaks from the WH. Leaks intended to cause others to heap praise on the anointed one.
If he cared as much about military secrets as he did his college records there would be no leaks.
BTW, we sell aircraft all over the world. The Saudis fly F-15’s, as do the Israelis. We have helicopter manufacturers here, I can think of two Skorsky and Bell, both I’m sure could make a helicopter acceptable for sale to the Afghan government.
He bought the helicopters from Russia as part of his “Reset” era (error) of good feelings, he thinks he can create with Putin.
Putin has to be laughing uncontrollably that he is selling the American’s helicopters. They will probably all have built in flaws that will render them useless in less than 2 years. Putin is putting one over on Barry, so what is new there. We never get anything in return when Barry makes a deal with the Russians.
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
2:29 pm
Oh my, did someone say that the national debt in 2011 was 15.1 TRILLION???
The USA OWES 15.1 TRILLION $$$$$$$$ Really? 15.1 TRILLION? Now it is MORE in 2012?
And President OBAMA wants to add $$$$$$ with another “stimulus”?
EEiiiyyyyyiii That is hard to believe but it is true. Would someone tell the Democrats that there is a PROBLEM!!! Seems they haven’t noticed.
.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
2:39 pm
Bush and his Republican friends were building bridges to nowhere.
I don’t think it ever actually got built, but assuming you are correct, then I would say well at least we got a nice bridge out of the expenditure, surely it has some purpose, as a home for wildlife, structure for the fishes and it provided some construction jobs. Oblamer would call that Stimulus.
But, with Oblamers green energy programs all we got was a few very temporary jobs and a lot of missing government money. It was not just Solyndra, there is a whole list someone posted the other day, all failures, all very expensive failures.
As for a Reagan, we can disagree on how he fits today, but that is wasted effort, as Dusty says let dead Presidents be. Different times, different problems, different solutions, so, all you can look at is there overall ideology and try to guess how that would work today.
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
2:42 pm
Rafe, 2:28
Maybe the president forgot and decided to stimulate the Russian economy instead of ours. He was whispering something to the Russian president at the White House when he thought the microphone was off.
The Russians should send a bit of caviar along with the helicopters. And some vodka! We should get something out of this “deal”.
JDW
June 14th, 2012
2:42 pm
@Kyle…”It’s only “better” if you want more money to spend. If you want to restrain government, 2.4% real growth is rather generous. If you can accomplish that while cutting marginal tax rates, I’d call that “better” than the rest.”
And therein lies the crux of the Republican fallacy…Reagan did not restrain spending and when you slow revenue growth and not spending growth you get deficits. Duhbya is the poster child for this. Killed revenue exploded spending.
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
2:44 pm
JDW @ 2:42: “Reagan did not restrain spending”
Which brings us back full-circle to the original argument.
Former Reagan Republican
June 14th, 2012
2:45 pm
In Washington and Atlanta the definition of Bipartisanship is…..the other party does exactly what we want them to do. No compromising with Demopublicans
HDB
June 14th, 2012
2:49 pm
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer’s ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
2:28 pm
There’s another possibility here that many may not see; remember that the Afghans primarily had Russian equipment when the mujahaddin fought the Russians in the ’80s….and they came to the US when the weapons weer ineffective!! I’d rather them buy Russian weapons systems that are ineffective and can’t be fully used against American systems! Also remember that the Afghans don’t have the infrastructure to maintain American equipment! Note how the Iranian Air Force went down after they couldn’t get parts for the F-14s they had from us!! We all know the airworthiness of Russian equipment…only those in Aeroflot can enter US airspace! Could be a strategic move in play here……
JDW
June 14th, 2012
2:50 pm
@Kyle…”Which brings us back full-circle to the original argument.”
What was spent was what Reagan asked for…he did not restrain spending. It’s just a fact. Republicans try to spin that by laying the blame on Congress but Reagan actually seems to have gotten 4% less than he asked for.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 14th, 2012
2:51 pm
all about that right wing brainwashing machine:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/weve_been_brainwashed/
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 14th, 2012
2:53 pm
at least we got a nice bridge out of the expenditure, surely it has some purpose, as a home for wildlife
several million dollars for a very small wildlife refuge?
tree hugger!
@@
June 14th, 2012
2:54 pm
To put it in the man’s own words, something to the effect, if I don’t get it turned around we are looking at a one term proposition. Well, now is the time to admit defeat and step aside, I’d say.
There’s a black contributor on “Your World With Neil Cavuto, who said the very same thing. I figured he must be a racist.
schnirt
Perhaps an Uncle Tom?
Anyhoo, LUV that guy. I’m gonna make a point of catching his name one day.
A little further from home:
Egypt court rules entire parliament illegally elected, orders body to dissolve after unconstitutional vote
eeeeeYOW!
Kyle Wingfield
June 14th, 2012
2:59 pm
JDW: The numbers from 2-3 decades ago haven’t changed in the past 50 minutes. They still show what they show, which is not what you want them to show, but still.
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
3:06 pm
Wow, is it possible to get a sunstroke while sitting inside? I can’t help but wonder about some here.
HDB @2:46
HDB thinks USA buying helicopters from Russians may be a STRATEGIC move.
Yes, indeed, but only for Russians.
JDW @ 2:50
Reagan spent money!!!! ( Psttt….he’s dead!)
Finn @ 2:51
Finn refers to a brainwashing machine. Yes! Musta been right after he fell into his washing machine.
———-
See what I mean?
@@
June 14th, 2012
3:08 pm
To my way of thinking, there are only two people capable of dealing with Putin…Dick Cheney and/or John Bolton.
I used to fantasize about Dick Cheney and Vladimir Putin in a confrontation. Was there ever such a moment?
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
3:08 pm
HDB
Any strategy that would enhance the Russian economy while disenfranchising ours, would only be considered by some out of touch, naive, unprepared, and outwitted person like Barry.
If we are paying the freight for the helicopters, then we make the rules, not the Afghans. Those people have not demonstrated that they could adequately operate a sun dial, so why we are buying them helicopters is something that I can’t figure out anyway. I thought Oblamer was getting us out of Afghanistan, not starting another deficit adding entitlement program.
@@
June 14th, 2012
3:09 pm
Sorry, Kyle.
My mind wanders.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
3:13 pm
Finn
several million dollars for a very small wildlife refuge?
Yeah, you are right, too much for a wildlife refuge. I have an idea, lets take some of those solar panels that Solyndra stuck the bankruptcy court with and place them on the bridge. Now, it is a power plant. There were solar panels, weren’t there?
JDW
June 14th, 2012
3:14 pm
“The numbers from 2-3 decades ago haven’t changed in the past 50 minutes. They still show what they show, which is not what you want them to show, but still.”
They show that Reagan’s policy of reduced tax revenue coupled with spending increases led to deficits…about $2.4 trillion in 2005 dollars. But more importantly his policies have culminated in the situation we face today…save the Clinton years the gap between tax collections and spending have continued to widen and are now the largest in history.
So should we do more of the same or should we try something different?
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
3:15 pm
@@
You have to be bare chested and armed to deal with Putin.
JDW
June 14th, 2012
3:15 pm
@Dusty…”Reagan spent money!!!! ( Psttt….he’s dead!)”
Problem is the Republicans of today are still following that old disproven handbook.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 14th, 2012
3:17 pm
JDW
So should we do more of the same or should we try something different?
You convinced me, lets get rid of Oblamer, the gap seems to be getting worse. Maybe a new person can improve the gap.
Hillbilly D
June 14th, 2012
3:17 pm
I used to fantasize about Dick Cheney and Vladimir Putin in a confrontation. Was there ever such a moment?
That’s a little bit too much information. (IWH)
MarkV
June 14th, 2012
3:18 pm
md @12:37 pm
“Yep, 15.1 trillion the private sector must come up with on top of what it takes to do business and care for the public sector…”
Another fallacy from the public-sector basher.
Dusty
June 14th, 2012
3:22 pm
@@ 3:08
Vladimir couldn’t go one round with Cheney Dick’s got a new heart!!