With the election over it's finally time to talk
about the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The gorilla that both
candidates and parties refused to acknowledge during the recent
campaign, the fiscal cliff.
With the makeup of the House and Senate
fundamentally unchanged can we really expect any different behavior
from them in the next six weeks or the next two years? What political
incentive does the Republican Party have for compromise? Why would
the Democrats compromise in the wake of their win?
Mitt Romney was considered a “moderate”
Republican. The young and upcoming Republican leaders, the potential
2016 presidential candidates, are all farther to the right than
Romney. Aren't they better served by holding their current fiscal
positions, not compromising an inch, and using the cliff as a threat?
I think the Republican Party has more to gain if the
political situation plays out along the worst case scenario. The
nation falls off the fiscal cliff. The economy pulls back into
recession. Congress remains at loggerheads for the next two years.
Then the Republicans will blame the Democrats for a lack of
leadership and direction.
In 2014 the Republicans will take control of the
Senate while retaining the House. The Democrat White House will use
it's veto powers repeatedly during the final years of its term and
the US voter will get angrier and angrier at the political stalemate.
This allows the Republicans to capture the Presidency in 2016.
It is a terrible scenario for the American public.
But what incentive does either party have for compromise? Are you
ready to compromise?
George W Parker
No comments:
Post a Comment