A Plea for Party Loyalty

My Unrecognizable Democratic Party

The stakes are too high, please get serious about governing before it's too late.
By: Ted Van Dyke   http://online.wsj.com/article/

Topic: The article discusses how the democratic party has created a system in which bipartisanship is difficult and nearly impossible to achieve. The author, a life long democrat, alludes to the democratic party of the past and remembers when it was possible for parties to work against each other while moving forward. He believes that Obama was elected because of his persona and his willingness to move forward with a bipartisan agenda. However, the sequester and number of other recent examples suggest otherwise.Modern political history indicates that big midterm Democratic gains are unlikely, and presidential second terms are notably unproductive, most of all in their waning months. "He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction and stabilized rapidly growing entitlement programs. He opted instead to demonize Republicans for their supposed hostility to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."   the author is not necessarily argueing against the democratic parties ability to achieve goals and move forward with legislation, but their inability to coordinate with the republicans, this is an interesting example of party realignment. If republicans were to be involved in legislation, it is possible that they would share in the blame and rewards that their constituents feel when bills or laws affect them. However, as republicans have failed to be included in bipartisan efforts, they cannot be held accountable.  The author states that Obama's victory wasn't based on public affirmation of his agenda. Instead, it was based on a four-year mobilization of core Democratic constituencies, and on fear campaigns in which Mitt Romney and the Republicans "were painted as waging a 'war on women,' being servants of the wealthy, and of being hostile toward Latinos, African Americans, gays and the middle class. I couldn't have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics."

Opinion: While I do not agree with Dyke's dennounciation of his own party, I did find this article refreshing in message the author was attempting to get across. What the author believes in, is while the democratic party holds substantial power, and continues to be successful in its application, seeking bipartisanship will add valuable perspective and insight into legislation. An interesting examples the author refered to was in 1965, Lyndon Johnson had Democratic congressional majorities sufficient to pass any legislation he wanted. But he sought and received GOP congressional support for Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights, education and other Great Society legislation. He knew that in order to last, these initiatives needed consensus support. "He did not want them re-debated later, as ObamaCare is being re-debated now." Looking forward to the future is important, and that is one of the few issues that I can see with the policies and agendas of the Obama administration, the bills he is pushing forward are successful but are totally lacking the majority support of republicans. Therefore, it is easy to assume that when the chief executive is a republican, he or she will push forward an agenda and policy set that counter-act what obama has done in his administration, seeing as those bills do not hold an party-based influence.

Conclusion: The topic proposed in rather complex. While the republican's control the house, one would think that they would be able to dictate legislation. Howevever, it is clear that the most valued legislation has strays from the republican ideology. It is easy to assume that the congressmen who are voting in favor of the legislation being passed and introduced by democrats, their districts are receiving some form of direct or indirect benefit. I digress, The president must start considering the future implications of his and his party's actions. Dyke makes a valid argument. When a republican president is inevitabley elected, or even a democrat, it will be up to him to reverse the effects of the Obama administration by moving the parties back towards a bipartisan regime. Considering that this article comes Van Dyke, who has served in democratic national administrations and campaigns for several decades, it is fair to assume that this is a pressing issue that neither party is ignorant to.

Sequester may not be so bad

Sequester two-step

A plan for moving forward  By Kevin D. Williamson

http://www.nationalreview.com/sequester-two-step-kevin-d-williamson

Topic: the article discusses how the recent sequester has not dratically or immediately affected any of the regular government workings, comparing it to the mess that was the clinton-gingrich government shutdown. However, this is not to say that both sides are satisfied with the results. The issue is that politicians were not able to effectively prioritize programs and institutions that should receive the most or the least funding.  The author notes that the executive will play a prominent role in the ultimate result of the sequester and the budget to come. "Obama's most important constituencies are those receiving direct payments from the government, in the form of either paychecks or welfare benefits. So he is courting Republicans, hoping they’ll sit down and hash out another broad, long-term deficit deal." Republicans should not be oppossed to it, because being flexible in one area may result in a reward in the other. The author really sticks the republican perspective as it is a NRO article, which is probably the most bias source in my library. What is needed now is a simple, two-step program for achieving a better sequester regime. So what it comes down to is this rather simple 2 step plan, hence the title...Step One: Pass a simple, straightforward bill that keeps the sequester spending controls in place but empowers federal-agency heads to decide for themselves how to divvy up the non-cut “cuts” among their programs. Step Two: Do Nothing. The spending controls imposed by the sequester will not be the end of the world, but adding an element of flexibility will require the administration to make some difficult choices. While the author's plan does make sense in a way, I disagree with his explanations of how they will affect our government funding, my interpretation will be explained below.

Opinion: The plan will force a bipartisan effort to prioritize spending as they never have before. When the legislation is present to force congressmen to recognize the legitimacy of both claims, each can come forward with the programs that they are unwilling to give up, limiting debate and controversy over the governments that both parties would hold with esteem. The fact of the matter is, there is too many smaller programs that the parties are unwilling to surrender simply because of the principle of surrendering any sort of leverage. Republicans have already made a move in this direction in the House’s continuing resolution, which would allow defense officials some flexibility in how they meet sequester targets."Conservatives realize that some programs are more worthy than others, and there is no reason to fund the USDA or spend nearly $300,000 a year for three official White House calligraphers while we’re taking funds away from meat inspectors." The sequester is the classic bipartisan compromise: an imperfect deal that nobody likes but both sides supported.

Conclusion:What we are forced to recognize as responsible citizen's is that there is never a PERFECT plan, but there are plans that hold our country together and uphold the values that it was established upon. Deeper reforms of the entitlements, federal spending, and the tax code will be necessary as well, but they all depend on something that will not be easy to achieve: reclaiming the Republican party’s reputation for fiscal prudence. "The best way to get a start on that is by allowing the sequester to become the new normal and by giving the administration the flexibility to help implement it more intelligently." Narrowing the specturm based on what our congressmen deem most valid and immediate will subsequently create an analysis of the budget on a case by case basis. So I guess the sequester is good in a way, it has brought to light the necessity of compromise and will provide the government with empirical data to create a new budget, based on the standardized sequester spending.

Interest groups play role in sequestration

Interest groups barrage Congress with sequester pleas

by Fredreka Schouten on Feb. 28, 2013,  USA TODAY News
http://usa-today-news/2013/02/28/interest-groups-barrage-congress-with-sequester-pleas/

Topic: Hematologists are sending tweets to members of Congress, warning that looming cuts to federal research funding threaten to slow medical advances for diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and lymphoma. Defense manufacturers have produced studies showing job losses will top 2 million. Lobbyists and interest groups have spent months and millions trying to forestall what now seems inevitable: automaticcuts totaling an estimated $85 billion that will kick in starting Friday without action by Congress and the White House. This sequester has been brought on by what most have identified as a byproduct of President Obama and Congressional Republican's unwillingness to compromise. Mthousand of elected officla and business owners are preapring themselves for the wost because the $85 billion might affect their industry or offic's ability to satisfy their district's interest.“With this degree of uncertainty, companies are already holding back on investments,” said Cord Sterling, vice president of legislative affairs for the Aerospace Industries Association, which has bombarded lawmakers with studies, outlining the economic toll if a planned 9% cut in this year’s Defense Department budget takes effect. Deficit hawks counter that the most aggressive lobbying and dire predictions are coming from special interests with a vested interest in government spending. "If you are a government employee or you have a government contract, the chances are that, at least in the short term, you will feel pain,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute. “But as far as the country and the economy overall, we are talking about cutting government spending back to 2009 levels,” he said. “The country survived 2009.”

Opinion: I finished my topic analysis on a positive note because yes, the country will survive, but at what cost? It is unfortunate that certain programs, particularly medical research programs, will suffer from our politician's inability to compromise and prioritize the needs of our nation. We've discussed in class how party alliances often rule supreme of national interest and I believe that what the sequestration has come to, is this. Republican Congressman are not incapable of understanding that (sticking to the theme) medical research is crucial and represents one of the lighter sides of industry, but they cannot rule out their party ideology which is to remain loyal to big business.Druker, a leading scientist in the medical industry, said he has relied on NIH grants, ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 a year, since 1985. “Our capability of making advances has never been greater,” he said. “But it’s a travesty that at the same time we can make such rapid advances, our funding is decreasing.” It is amazing how deep the sequestration has run, from national park to Oil industry, bringing me to my next point. Lobbyist are a commodity that must be purchased, and coalitions for businesses to become involved in may be difficult, when we recognize this, it is easy to see what portion of the population will receive the most consideration and exemption from the spending cuts. When the final sequestration plan is laid out it can be interpreted as the interest groups that spent the most on lobbyist were the least affected by the spending reduction and may even benefit from spending realignment.

Conclusion:Many groups lobbying Congress already are turning their attention to the next fiscal deadline menacing Washington: late March when the government will shut down entirely unless Congress approves another bill to temporarily extend government funding. What we can take away from this event is that lobbyist play a major role in determining the future of our country and that their inevitable presence highlights an unfortunate flaw in our American system. Lobbyist represent the largest groups and coalitions in our Nation, but what about those who are too small to afford a lobbyist of their own or receive substantial consideration. Another interesting factor is lobbyist represent groups from both sides of the spectrum and often, one side has a more valid claim, the presence of lobbyist detract from one another and thus, result in some programs receiving more or less than they should in terms of national interest. Ultimately, Lobbyist have and continue to play a major role in the reorganization and reduction of federal funding.