Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
WAPO's appalling editorial -- and my response
Last edited Mon Sep 30, 2013, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)
There was a simply appalling editorial posted in the Washington Post yesterday titled, "U.S. Congress’s dereliction of leadership on government shutdown." It represents what is, to date, possibly the nadir of that publication's dishonest insistence upon a false equivalence between the tactics and actions of the two parties, suggesting that "both sides" are responsible and that both sides should compromise "for the good of the country." The harm inflicted by a government shutdown is not inconsiderable; but the greater, long-term harm will be inflicted on the constitutionally-prescribed process for legislatiion. My comment, posted to the site, follows the exceprt from the editorial.
[font size=4]U.S. Congress’s dereliction of leadership on government shutdown[/font]
[font color="gray"]By Editorial Board, Published: September 29[/font]
THE WISE heads in Washington seem to have agreed that we are headed for a government shutdown. Some folks have concluded that this outcome isn’t so bad, because it will make clear to the American people who the bad guys really are, or because once those mischievous legislators get the troublemaking out of their system they will settle down and steer the country away from even worse outcomes down the road.
Count us out of any such sophisticated complacency. Yes, defaulting on the U.S. debt would be worse than shutting down the government. But both represent such recklessly, breathtakingly, wastefully irresponsible derelictions of leadership that the people who run this town ought to be ashamed of themselves if either comes to pass. Moreover, we are not reassured by the argument that a shutdown would make a default, which could come in mid-October, less likely. As the habits of normal compromise and negotiation become ever more frayed, further deterioration strikes us as at least an equally plausible alternative to the hoped-for wake-up call that shocks the capital back to common sense.
The story by now is familiar, at least to the many Washingtonians whose livelihoods may soon be affected. Congress, unable to agree on a budget for next year, is trying to pass a temporary spending bill to keep the lights on until Dec. 15, or maybe just until Nov. 15. Republican Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, caving to a few dozen backbenchers who would rather blow things up than govern, has insisted that any such bill contain Obamacare poison pills that neither the Senate nor President Obama will accept. The Senate may say no, for a second time, on Monday, at which point the House can endorse a clean spending bill or let the government go over the cliff.
This prospect may not trouble some of the freshmen conservatives with few government workers in their district and little respect for what government does, but we would hope Mr. Boehner would have compassion for the thousands of moderately paid breadwinners who would find themselves in very difficult circumstances. We would hope he would be troubled by how a shutdown would disrupt research at the National Institutes of Health and safety inspections at the Food and Drug Administration, and by the lasting damage inflicted abroad as the United States comes to be seen as an unreliable laughingstock rather than a bulwark of its alliances.
< . . . >
[font color="gray"]By Editorial Board, Published: September 29[/font]
THE WISE heads in Washington seem to have agreed that we are headed for a government shutdown. Some folks have concluded that this outcome isn’t so bad, because it will make clear to the American people who the bad guys really are, or because once those mischievous legislators get the troublemaking out of their system they will settle down and steer the country away from even worse outcomes down the road.
Count us out of any such sophisticated complacency. Yes, defaulting on the U.S. debt would be worse than shutting down the government. But both represent such recklessly, breathtakingly, wastefully irresponsible derelictions of leadership that the people who run this town ought to be ashamed of themselves if either comes to pass. Moreover, we are not reassured by the argument that a shutdown would make a default, which could come in mid-October, less likely. As the habits of normal compromise and negotiation become ever more frayed, further deterioration strikes us as at least an equally plausible alternative to the hoped-for wake-up call that shocks the capital back to common sense.
The story by now is familiar, at least to the many Washingtonians whose livelihoods may soon be affected. Congress, unable to agree on a budget for next year, is trying to pass a temporary spending bill to keep the lights on until Dec. 15, or maybe just until Nov. 15. Republican Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, caving to a few dozen backbenchers who would rather blow things up than govern, has insisted that any such bill contain Obamacare poison pills that neither the Senate nor President Obama will accept. The Senate may say no, for a second time, on Monday, at which point the House can endorse a clean spending bill or let the government go over the cliff.
This prospect may not trouble some of the freshmen conservatives with few government workers in their district and little respect for what government does, but we would hope Mr. Boehner would have compassion for the thousands of moderately paid breadwinners who would find themselves in very difficult circumstances. We would hope he would be troubled by how a shutdown would disrupt research at the National Institutes of Health and safety inspections at the Food and Drug Administration, and by the lasting damage inflicted abroad as the United States comes to be seen as an unreliable laughingstock rather than a bulwark of its alliances.
< . . . >
And here is the text of my comment:
markpkessinger wrote:
[font color="gray"]12:27 PM EST[/font]
Spare us any false equivalence in this discussion. The push towards a shutdown is being driven by one side and one side only, and everybody who is honest with themselves will acknowledge that. Compromise by the President and Democrats with Republicans who think they are entitled to engage in this sort of hostage taking, be it over funding the government or raising the debt ceiling, would be tantamount to compromising with terrorists, and would serve to undermine the constitutionally-prescribed procedure by which laws are made.
Look, there is a whole lot more at stake in this fight than a government shutdown or even the fate of the Affordable Care Act. If a faction of one political party, in one house of Congress, is permitted to successfully extort concessions for a policy agenda for which it has been unable to be successful at the ballot box, we will have set a precedent that undermines the very foundation of democratic governance. At stake in this fight is no less than the integrity of the Constitutionally-provided process by which laws are made. Central to the proper operation of that process is the understanding that legislation, having been duly passed and signed into law (and in this particular case, having been declared constitutional after being challenged in the Supreme Court), will be implemented according to the terms of that legislation. The ACA is the law of the land. Republicans had their chance to play a constructive role as the legislation was being debated. They chose not to negotiate in good faith, and ultimately they lost. And as John McCain correctly pointed out, we have, since the legislation was passed, had a Presidential election in which that legislation was one of the key issues, and the people spoke. And they spoke decisively.
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
