State of the Union and bipartisanship

It looks like less than a week after Obama - once again - reached across the aisle and offered to work with Republicans bipartisanship is dead for 2010.

This Mike Luckovich cartoon (editorial cartoonists are geniuses in my opinion) says it all.  And it reminds me that bipartisanism didn't even last until the end of Obama's State of the Union speech, let alone the end of the week.


A couple of issues highlight the Republicans' unwillingness to do anything other than say no.


One, Senate Democrats are quite willing to add money for nukes and some (limited) new off shore drilling in the climate bill in order to get bipartisan support for finally placing a cap - and price - on carbon.  That's generally how Washington works; each side gives a little, and in placing nukes and new drilling on the table, Dems are giving up a lot.  


Those measures should be enough to keep lame Dems like Ben Nelson and even Mary Landrieu happy.  And if they were ideologically consistent, new drilling and money for nukes should also get Rs like John McCain, Lamar Alexander, George Voinovich, George Lemieux, and Richard Lugar to vote with Democrats and pass a climate bill.  However, Senate Republicans are already saying they will vote against the climate bill even if it contains two of their energy priorities in it.  


But as you know, and as the cartoon and other columns in today's Sunday papers point out, Republicans aren't about legislating or meeting challenges.  Their only issue is saying no to Obama, and hoping he and the country fails.


Issue two is believe it not jobs.  Obama said he wanted a jobs bill, the public wants federal action on jobs, and bottom line who is against JOBS!  JOBS!  That used to be something we could agree on (other no brainers: the need for oxygen, stemming uncontrolled bleeding, taking medicine when sick, and saying 'you're welcome' after someone says 'thank you.').  Once again Senate Republicans and unstatesmen like Ben Nelson are to blame, saying deficit reduction is more important than spending money to promote jobs or provide tax incentives to promote new hiring.


It used to be that patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels.  It's now the second to the last, after saying 'we need to reduce the deficit.'


Ninety-seven percent of federal spending is on defense, social security/medicare/medicaid, and interest on the debt.  Only 3 percent of federal spending is discretionary - done by Congress - for roads, parks, the arts, higher education, and everyone's favorite boogeyman, ear marks.  You can never significantly reduce the deficit by cutting discretionary spending.  That doesn't stop the scoundrels who say the deficit is more important than jobs from leading folks to believe that cutting waste in welfare or the other social services is the way to go.  They are not telling the truth.  If they were serious about reducing our debt they would either 1) cut defense and into the safety net, both politically unrealistic, or 2) dramatically increase revenue.


One way to do that is to substantially raise taxes, or bring in more revenue from increased economic activity like you know, more jobs. 


Three, I rarely quote Jimmy Kimmel but he summed up the State of the Union when he said 'Republicans pointed out that Obama has repeatedly failed to solve any of the problems they created under President Bush.'


On to bipartisanship!