The 111th Congress was one of reform and “change.” Democrats hail the previous Congress as “the most productive Congress” since 1964: Republicans, however, point out that it was also the most partisan Congress in decades. While the Democrats passed major overhauls and signature legislation, the Republicans dissented. The Democrats branded the GOP as “the party of no” as the Republicans blamed the Democrats for taking the country down the wrong path. They alarmed over a government-run healthcare system and outrageous spending that would lead to record debt levels. Indeed, it was dirty. The 111th Congress will forever be remembered as one of bickering. It is ironic that a President that ran with the mantra of a “uniter” led perhaps one of the most partisan Congresses in history, but this is the fact: Republicans claimed that they were largely shut out of the discussions as back-room sweet deals were made to pass controversial legislation.
Controversial it was. Throngs of protestors filled the streets in protest of the proposed legislation as town halls often turned into shouting matches; polls showed public disapproval to legislation that must be passed first to be understood thereafter. Businesses were scared that they are doomed with some of the bills – one that included a law requiring companies to issue a 1099 for every purchase above $600. Republicans led the fight against the President and the Democratic-led Congress as the White House pushed back. However, it wasn’t just the Republicans that fought; along them stood Democratic Congressmen who protested as well. The bills passed in a Congress largely dominated by Democrats but had bi-partisan opposition. Main Street and Wall Street alike were suspicious of an agenda that racketed up the national debt to unforeseen levels.
It passed, but it didn’t glide. Turbulence and many bumps in the road withheld the passing of Obamacare instantly. Republicans came out in public blasting the bill as they took to the podium and berated this controversial giant that is to become law. Some Democratic congressmen joined them in protest and voiced their opposition as well. Amendments were made and more sweets was handed out to garner more support – yet, the Republicans stood steadfast and presented concerns with the bill and stood in the way of its passing. Their vocal opposition paid-off: liberal Massachusetts elected a Republican to be the 41st vote against the bill. The Democrats, nevertheless, made a detour and rammed it down the throats of the American people. Statistics were doctored to fool the public about the effect it would have on the country and, most particularly, the national debt.
The Republicans became known as obstructionists to some with others even claiming that this was why the Democrats had a “shellacking” in the midterms. Yet, the people were upset at those bills and decided to go for real change; change that would lower the staggering debt, change that would repeal the government takeover and change that would begin balancing the budget and spend only what we have. The “red menace” had to be challenged and the warriors were elected to do just that. The debt that bankrupted state after state, piled up until the voters said enough is enough. Fiscal conservatives were overwhelmingly elected to State Houses all over the nation; they were to make this extreme spending come to a halt and make government working again.
In Wisconsin, a liberal leaning state which Barack Obama won by 56 percent to John McCain’s 42 percent, the tidal wave also came at full force. There too, the people were upset as they ousted Senator Russ Feingold, a three-term Democrat and liberal lion, in addition to replacing the Governor’s mansion with a moderate Republican. Governor Scott Walker faced a projected 3.3 Billion dollar deficit for the 2011-2013 budget. He was elected to cut and that’s exactly what he began to do immediately after his inauguration. The tax-and-spend liberals of course looked in horror as their sweet deals began suffering under the new Governor and fresh Republican majority. Their special interest groups feared that their lobby will be shut-out of the new discussions and negotiations; a plan was drafted – they would stop the Governor from enacting his “controversial” budget and legislation.
Democracy is at stake. It isn’t only the democracy in Egypt, Libya or elsewhere – it’s in the United States of America! The democratic process of our great nation is in peril. The very same procedure that the Founding Fathers foresaw for this great country is at risk. No longer can we trust our elected officials to do what’s good for us and decide on our behalf. In Libya democracy is withheld from the people through shells and bullets and here it is obstructed by lawmakers – people that were elected to vote, abstain or reject legislation legally and through debate – preventing legislators from reaching a quorum. Simply not showing up is in conflict with democracy and not the way to lead a government.
The Republicans didn’t flee the country to protest the controversial Obamacare – a bill that even Democrats don’t want to have contributed to themselves. Although a quorum in Congress is a simple majority, nevertheless, the GOP didn’t use methods to obstruct the democratic process; they did what they were elected to do. They didn’t flee: they showed up, took to the floor of the House and made their case against it. They explained to the people why they oppose the bill and got the public opinion on their side. They didn’t have to rely on protestors that were driven in from elsewhere by special interest groups (screaming Nazi – something the media won’t tell you) or falsify polls to show public disapproval to the bill – they showed up to work and worked hard to actually stop it.
As President Obama and the Democrats in Congress didn’t take the courage to lead, weren’t brave enough to touch politically toxic entitlement programs, and didn’t have the guts and audacity to do what is right for this country by slashing the budget while stopping the unsustainable programs, fiscal conservative governors around the nation took control and tried to set a new standard for a country at war with mountains of debt threatening to take it down. They were brave non-partisan individuals who knew that they’re putting their political career on the line. They weren’t scared to tell the people the truth they don’t like to hear – they were open and honest.
We hoped that the Democrats would take a lesson. Republicans were ready to cut form defense and were waiting for the Democrats to come to the table; yet, as the phone call was to come, the Democrats instead dispatched their troops to obstruct democracy in states where leadership reined. They didn’t stand up with courage to explain why stripping bargain right from public unions was not good for the taxpayers; they didn’t have an explanation – they fled instead. They created a stumble block for democracy and created a new standard of obstructionism. The message to the Democrats should be simple and unambiguous: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and featured columnist. His opinions have been featured in numerous publications. He can be reached at [email protected]
NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
Point taken. It seems that the designations of “Democratic” and “Republican” ought to be reversed for the parties.
“In Libya democracy is withheld from the people through shells and bullets and here it is obstructed by lawmakers ”
This is completely beyond the pale. In one country you have Democrats and Republicans using legal means to try to prevent what it doesn’t like from being enacted. In the other there is no parliament, only bullets — and a dictator just named by the New York Times as the worst dictator in the world.
Dave, you should be ashamed of yourself. Or try living in a totalitarian state. You would have already disappeared by now, having published this.
Oh chill out. If the republicans could have stopped obamacare by fleeing they would have and you would probably have cheered them. The republicans have held up obamas judicial appointments and not given obamas apointees a democratic up or down vote. Mr. Tea party conservative You would do well to look at your orthodox bretheren and see how many are receipients of hud, wic, medicare, pell grants etc. Many can not afford to live in america with out them.
I have said this before, but like the text of last week’s parsha, sometimes repetition in necessary or appropriate: This opinion is so wrong in so many ways that I cannot address all of them, so I’ll just make a few comments.
Perhaps the most offensive – and wrong – statement in this opinion is that the health reform bill enacted by Congress at the end of 2010 was “rammed … down the throats of the American people”. The plain implication of that phrase is that, at the least, the Democratic majority in Congress used some extra-legal or improper or unlawful method to pass the health care reform bill. That is simply and patently and blatantly false. The health care reform bill passed by getting majorities in both houses of Congress to vote for it. If you want it repealed, just get your own majorities. The majorities were achieved in part by old-fashioned, democratic (that small “d” is not a typo, which is more than I can say for substantial portions of the text of the article above) horse-trading. In the case of health care, President Obama and the Democrats (capital “D” intended) gave the Republicans the tax break they sought for their wealthy sponsors. I’m not happy about the trade, but I don’t think it was undemocratic or “rammed down” my or anyone else’s throat. It’s a part of democracy, not necessarily the prettiest part, but the author of this opinion seems not to fully grasp the nature of democracy.
Additionally, if you want to honor (or smear) the current US president by referring to the health care reform bill as “Obamacare,” perhaps you should consider calling it “Romneycare,” since it closely resembles the Massachusetts health care plan that was enacted with the support of its former Republican governor, Mitt Romney.
I have made reference to the “author” of this article. He/she is no where plainly identified, but I am guessing that it is a certain “Dave Hirsch,” or the last, italicized paragraph of this article is a remarkable non sequitur. Why is YWN so timid about plainly and explicitly naming the authors of its articles?