It's a cliché that the party who holds the White House deplores divided government, while the party out of power likes it very much. The principal objection to divided government is that quick, bold, necessary actions are stymied. To this humble observer that's a feature, not a bug.
When the Democrats had control of Congress and the White House from 2008 to 2010, they passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote. When the Republicans were similarly situated in 2003 to 2006 and part of 2001, they passed the so-called Bush tax cuts, arguably a major source of today's deficit problems. (It should be noted that Democrats were roughly split on the Patriot Act and Iraq War resolutions, so it's a reasonable supposition that even if congressional Democrats had slim control, George W. Bush would have gotten his legislation through, thanks to solid Republican support.)
Now we are seeing another advantage of divided government: congressional hearings on possible Administration malfeasance. Yes, investigations into the current raft of scandals are interfering with Executive Branch operations, and yes, there is grandstanding and partisan obstructionism going on, but there are also important issues at stake concerning the free flow of information prior to a Presidential election (the time when the people have the most say in their government) and the abuse of the enormous powers of the Internal Revenue Service, the agency that has information on everyone and where everyone is presumed guilty, not innocent.
I'd like to see something get done this year on immigration reform and tax simplification, but if inaction is the price we pay for divided government, so be it.
© 2013 Stephen Yuen
[Update - 5/31: Ann Althouse on the 2014 elections: "Regardless of how directly Obama is implicated and how much any given voter wants to blame Obama, the scandals make a strong argument for opposite-party control of Congress."]
No comments:
Post a Comment