Compromising for Bigger Government

For most members of Congress, finding compromise is typically a one sided debate. Should the government be expanded by this amount or that amount? The possiblity of actually reducing government is simply never entertained.

The recent debate over raising the debt limit is just the latest example of a long standing tradition in Washington to achieve so-called compromise while deceiving the people and growing government. Never once was there any true debate among congressional leaders on whether or not government should be allowed to spend more, but that it simply must. And while Sen. Harry Reid believed that the only true compromise was his, every major plan proposed by both Republicans and Democrats alike aimed to raise the debt limit.

Washington’s version of compromise is analogous to being asked the question, “which fist would you rather be punched in the face with, the left or the right?” It is always a false choice. Either way the cause for limited government suffers while federal power continues to expand.This kind of "compromise" has given rise to the incremental growth of government time and again. Of course, as long as the deal is promoted as some kind of bipartisan agreement, it incomprehensibly becomes more acceptable.

Of course it seems that the one thing Washington lawmakers are always willing to see eye to eye on is gutting the constitution and bypassing the rule of law; it's practically their favorite pastime. Instead, what we need less of is this Washington style of compromise, which always ends up with a government bigger than it was before, and refuse to accept any agreement that doesn’t reduce the size of government.

The debate over the debt limit was indeed "compromised" from the very beginning simply because lawmakers never actually sought to seriously reduce spending and limit government in the first place. So Congress and the president can falsely claim to have heroically saved the country from a looming default because they were finally able to come to terms, but it changes nothing. The government has grown and can continue to spend us into disaster. Is that your definition of compromise?


Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF