* * *

Of course the Democrats have been obstructionist in the past. Look at their shameful disconduct about Social Security reform. We even heard the most shameful lies, such as Hinchey’s “Social Security will be more valuable in the future if we leave it alone” nonsense. I only hope the program’s surplus begins its inevitable dimunition between now and a year from now so this becomes a campaign issue. I fear too few people have the intelligence and the moral drive to learn about how the beginnings of deficits will require all-new federal taxes to pay benefits in full, now as of 2017.

It’s not as if this is unknown. It is common knowledge.

Why obstructionism? The basic explanation is: Neither party wants the other to achieve a victory.

I haven’t forgotten all the commentary about the spineless Democrats who won’t stand their ground and cave to Bush and the Republicans.
I haven’t forgotten all the ounter commentary about the conservatives not standing up for their principles enough.

While some blame this on a two-party system, I don’t see that changing the number of parties would change the constituencies – all of whom have very specific outcomes in mind and WILL NOT COMPROMISE. They all want miracles without conyributing one iota to miracle making of the kind that would involve actual compromise or a balanced approach.
They all want things to go 100 % their way, in all their myriad ways, that is.

Break the deadlock, and everyone would be hurling mud at Congress’s for its failue to get their particular miracle to materialize.

Our government is broken? I say our citizenry are breaking it and would do it no matter what the parties are called or how many of them there are.

And who is going to pay for all of those programs that are going to “help the average American.” Americans complain that their taxes are too high but then support politicians who want to start more programs. Of course, the Democratic Party is using the short hand of “rich” to mean “Rich, White, Republicans” when it comes to paying for programs.

In addition, the Democrats are for lowering standards in public schools, depolicing many areas, for open borders and unlimited immigration, and for shrinking the economy for lower carbon emissions. How are those programs going to help average Americans? Also, someone should ask the Democrats why anyone would want to go into a career in healthcare when the government is about to nationalize the industry which means lower average wages and a ton more mandates?

Unfortunately we will continue to see this tactic employed by the Congressional Dems as long as their approval ratings at the polls remain higher than those of their fellow Republicans (Congress may have abysmal approval ratings but the polls show better approval ratings for the Congressional Dems than for the Congressional Repubs).

The Dems feel they have the upper hand. But unfortunately these sorts of tactics work best over short periods of time. By the time the 2008 elections come around it will be two years since the Dems gained control of Congress and folks will feel that since the Dems can’t accomplish anything in two years, that both parties are equally ineffective, therefore it doesn’t matter if the politician is a Dem or a Repub.

I don’t know what sort of impact this might have on the Prez. race. Though I think more than a simple majority of the American people are sick of Bush and want a Dem. Prez.