Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits. They didn't feel they needed to pay for this extension, because it would boost the economy. But they didn't want to extend Bush-era tax cuts; that would be too expensive.
Republicans felt the opposite: tax cuts should be continued and need not be payed for, but extending unemployment benefits would be too expensive.
So what's the compromise Congress has reached? They'll extend unemployment benefit and tax cuts without paying for either of them. That's like if I want to buy a Civic, because the Lexus is too expensive, but my wife really wants the Lexus, so we compromise and buy two cars. How is this a good deal for our country? Why are so many people singing the praises of compromise and reconciliation so loudly?
This issue shines a spotlight on a fundamental problem with legislatures, independent of political party: people send their neighbors to Congress to do things for them, not to sit on their hands and say "government oughtn't to do things like that." (Why are we paying you if your theory of government says you shouldn't have a job in the first place? Quit!) Furthermore, for a legislator -- as opposed to an executive -- "doing" really means "spending." Translation: if someone says to you "vote to send me to Congress, because I will be fiscally responsible," they are lying to you -- or they are so politically naive that you ought to question their qualifications on other grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment