Loudoun :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
LTM Editorial: Is campaign 2012 sabotaging government 2011?
Posted by:
Loudoun Times Editor
()
Date: August 11, 2011 12:57PM
LTM Editorial: Is campaign 2012 sabotaging government 2011?
Wednesday, Aug. 3 by
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/ltm_editorial_is_campaign_2012_sabotaging_government_2011/
Once again, Congress and the White House appear to have kicked the can further down the road with the debt ceiling. Despite the ill-feeling this debate has engendered and the panic our country’s potential default has had on the business community, the issue has been resolved – at least through the end of the year.
However, when the issue comes back up again we will all be in the center of true campaign mode with the 2012 elections looming over the entire proceedings. This is particularly troubling because the 2012 campaign has already added a layer of drama and intractableness to the debate over the debt ceiling.
Every day, with each new proposal, there are a series of “It’s a betrayal of the American people” or “It’s not perfect, but it will have to do.” As the Republican candidates for president begin to jockey for position, it makes perfect sense for them to insert themselves in the debate and attempt to benefit from the public exposure. Unfortunately, what works in a campaign doesn’t make for good statesmanship.
The American system of government is designed around compromise. Almost nothing can be done of any significance without the different political parties and branches of government coming together to craft the best solution. That’s how our system of government was designed. But compromise apparently doesn’t play well on the campaign trail. Voters want to see strength and (at least the candidates believe) a purity of purpose that defies working with alternative viewpoints and coming to an adult consensus.
It’s a joke among households nationwide that the election seasons are starting earlier and earlier. Have we really reached a point where the campaign truly never stops? Watching the three-ring circus the debt ceiling and tax reduction debate has become leads us to believe that the ever lengthening campaign season has simply started too early. It’s unfortunate, but “Campaign 2012” is preventing “Government 2011” from getting its job done. Today, Mitt Romney’s perspective on the compromise plan is quite frankly no more important than any other citizen’s and Michele Bachmann remains only one of 435 votes in the House of Representatives.
Candidates in the upcoming Senate races have provided us with a similar example. Neither Tim Kaine nor George Allen are currently elected officials. While some supporters may use their respective positions as a reason to cheer … it is entirely beside the point. Neither of them will be voting on the different measures. Rather than contemplating the issues and voting their conscience, these potential candidates are instead forced to contemplate how it can benefit them on Election Day 15 months from now.
Not only are the 2012 candidates fanning the flames of anti-compromise, they are each playing to the extremes in their respective political parties, the ones who will decide on the nomination. And this has confused the issue for most voters, who no longer realize that reducing the federal deficit is a different discussion than raising the debt ceiling. It has to be because to delay raising the debt ceiling could lead to an almost immediate disaster. And to be shrewd about budget cuts takes time and study.
For strict interpreters of the Constitution, there is a fairly compelling argument that defaulting on the national debt is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
While we disagree with the argument that this section allows the president to unilaterally raise the debt limit, it would appear to put Congressmen and Congresswomen in an express breach of their oath to defend the Constitution if they allowed the U.S. to default. Going back further, it should be noted that one of the earliest acts of Congress under the new Constitution was to assume the national and state debts the country had accrued under the Articles of Confederation. Because even then, default of those obligations would have been calamitous for the fledgling country.
This is not to say that the Republican-inspired push to rein in spending is unwarranted. It is absolutely necessary for us to begin scaling back on spending. And it will hurt more than most commentators have realized. It will likely not just be conservative-targeted entitlement programs. It will probably also hit several military programs – possibly impacting the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area – and also regional transportation. It will be surprising if budget cuts do not impact regional employment in our area.
Our public officials in Washington will have a hard time ahead of them attempting to solve both issues in a way that respects both the calls for reduced spending and the necessity to maintain a strong government that cares for its citizens. There will be difficult choices and many we don’t agree with. But the time to judge Congress will come its members are up for re-election. Until then, perhaps we can ratchet down the campaign rhetoric and focus on actually governing.
Wednesday, Aug. 3 by
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/ltm_editorial_is_campaign_2012_sabotaging_government_2011/
Once again, Congress and the White House appear to have kicked the can further down the road with the debt ceiling. Despite the ill-feeling this debate has engendered and the panic our country’s potential default has had on the business community, the issue has been resolved – at least through the end of the year.
However, when the issue comes back up again we will all be in the center of true campaign mode with the 2012 elections looming over the entire proceedings. This is particularly troubling because the 2012 campaign has already added a layer of drama and intractableness to the debate over the debt ceiling.
Every day, with each new proposal, there are a series of “It’s a betrayal of the American people” or “It’s not perfect, but it will have to do.” As the Republican candidates for president begin to jockey for position, it makes perfect sense for them to insert themselves in the debate and attempt to benefit from the public exposure. Unfortunately, what works in a campaign doesn’t make for good statesmanship.
The American system of government is designed around compromise. Almost nothing can be done of any significance without the different political parties and branches of government coming together to craft the best solution. That’s how our system of government was designed. But compromise apparently doesn’t play well on the campaign trail. Voters want to see strength and (at least the candidates believe) a purity of purpose that defies working with alternative viewpoints and coming to an adult consensus.
It’s a joke among households nationwide that the election seasons are starting earlier and earlier. Have we really reached a point where the campaign truly never stops? Watching the three-ring circus the debt ceiling and tax reduction debate has become leads us to believe that the ever lengthening campaign season has simply started too early. It’s unfortunate, but “Campaign 2012” is preventing “Government 2011” from getting its job done. Today, Mitt Romney’s perspective on the compromise plan is quite frankly no more important than any other citizen’s and Michele Bachmann remains only one of 435 votes in the House of Representatives.
Candidates in the upcoming Senate races have provided us with a similar example. Neither Tim Kaine nor George Allen are currently elected officials. While some supporters may use their respective positions as a reason to cheer … it is entirely beside the point. Neither of them will be voting on the different measures. Rather than contemplating the issues and voting their conscience, these potential candidates are instead forced to contemplate how it can benefit them on Election Day 15 months from now.
Not only are the 2012 candidates fanning the flames of anti-compromise, they are each playing to the extremes in their respective political parties, the ones who will decide on the nomination. And this has confused the issue for most voters, who no longer realize that reducing the federal deficit is a different discussion than raising the debt ceiling. It has to be because to delay raising the debt ceiling could lead to an almost immediate disaster. And to be shrewd about budget cuts takes time and study.
For strict interpreters of the Constitution, there is a fairly compelling argument that defaulting on the national debt is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
While we disagree with the argument that this section allows the president to unilaterally raise the debt limit, it would appear to put Congressmen and Congresswomen in an express breach of their oath to defend the Constitution if they allowed the U.S. to default. Going back further, it should be noted that one of the earliest acts of Congress under the new Constitution was to assume the national and state debts the country had accrued under the Articles of Confederation. Because even then, default of those obligations would have been calamitous for the fledgling country.
This is not to say that the Republican-inspired push to rein in spending is unwarranted. It is absolutely necessary for us to begin scaling back on spending. And it will hurt more than most commentators have realized. It will likely not just be conservative-targeted entitlement programs. It will probably also hit several military programs – possibly impacting the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area – and also regional transportation. It will be surprising if budget cuts do not impact regional employment in our area.
Our public officials in Washington will have a hard time ahead of them attempting to solve both issues in a way that respects both the calls for reduced spending and the necessity to maintain a strong government that cares for its citizens. There will be difficult choices and many we don’t agree with. But the time to judge Congress will come its members are up for re-election. Until then, perhaps we can ratchet down the campaign rhetoric and focus on actually governing.
Re: LTM Editorial: Is campaign 2012 sabotaging government 2011?
Posted by:
Dis-Satisfied!
()
Date: September 10, 2011 11:30AM
Our tax dollars at work!
"Candidates in the upcoming Senate races have provided us with a similar example. Neither Tim Kaine nor George Allen are currently elected officials. While some supporters may use their respective positions as a reason to cheer … it is entirely beside the point. Neither of them will be voting on the different measures. Rather than contemplating the issues and voting their conscience, these potential candidates are instead forced to contemplate how it can benefit them on Election Day 15 months from now."
"Candidates in the upcoming Senate races have provided us with a similar example. Neither Tim Kaine nor George Allen are currently elected officials. While some supporters may use their respective positions as a reason to cheer … it is entirely beside the point. Neither of them will be voting on the different measures. Rather than contemplating the issues and voting their conscience, these potential candidates are instead forced to contemplate how it can benefit them on Election Day 15 months from now."