How Hoyer and Boehner Saved the Deal
Those of us in politics need to be careful about overreacting to or over-interpreting a single event. As any sports fan knows, an early season victory doesn’t always lead to a winning record, let alone a championship trophy.
With that caveat very much in mind, I am minimally heartened by congressional approval of the FY 2011 budget deal that was worked out, literally at the eleventh hour, late last week. Thursday’s vote on adoption of the package of spending cuts in the House of Representatives was 260 ayes to 167 nays (the Senate vote was a more lopsided 81 to 19). The outcome was, obviously, important. But perhaps just as important in the long run was the composition of the 260 vote House majority: 179 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted yes (compared to the 59 Republicans and 108 Democrats who voted “Nay!”).
While not happy with all of the deal’s provisions (and terribly troubled by two in particular---the zeroing out of all federal support for civic education and the direct attack on the the District of Columbia via a gratuitous ban on abortion funding), I am among those who felt the deal was the best one possible under the circumstances. As Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) put it in his comments on the floor, quoting the late, great Democratic Representative Mo Udall (AZ), “If you can find something everyone agrees on, you can count on it being wrong."
House Speaker John Boehner, who was able to bring three-fourths of his Republican colleagues with him, argued for acceptance of the deal by acknowledging the immense challenges presented by current political realities saying, “Welcome to divided government!” Despite his plea and push, however, Boehner couldn’t achieve passage with Republican votes alone. He needed help from Democrats, and he got it.
Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and ranking Democratic member of the Budget Committee Chris Van Hollen corralled enough of their colleagues to vote “Yes!” on a bill that President Barack Obama had helped craft, but that many on the left opposed. Always eloquent, Hoyer addressed the issue of partisan division when he said on the floor, “Our choice in this divided government is whether we will come together, work together, and try to make the best possible agreement together. I think the American people expect us to do that. As Henry Clay, one of the great Speakers of this House, said: ‘If you cannot compromise, you cannot govern.’”
And there, in a few sentences spoken by three experienced politicians and accomplished legislators, we find what might be the adhesive of a “governing party” in the House of Representatives going forward. With so many really tough votes to come---the FY 2012 budget, the debt ceiling and others--- no one with an ounce of sense will be betting on anything but contentious debates and uncertain outcomes. Nevertheless, if a “governing party” can be cobbled together on an issue by issue basis, with “members” enrolling from each side of the aisle, we may have a chance of avoiding disastrous policy deadlocks, complete political paralysis, and the increased public disenchantment and alienation that are their inevitable consequence.
Tweet