Editorial
It was obvious in the last election that voters want change.
The sweeping victories by Republicans, two years after similarly sweeping victories by Democrats and the election of President Obama, indicate that the citizens remain unhappy with the status quo. They want change.
Change, though, is often painful, and the first waves of that were emanating from Washington last week as Obama and Congressional Republicans reached a compromise agreement on major issues like taxes and aiding the unemployed. Democrats, led by our own Rep. Peter DeFazio, erupted in rebellion against the bill, which would extend the Bush tax cuts that end this year for two more years.
Many conservative voters went into the election aiming to rein in moves made by the Administration and the Democrat-dominated Congress to redistribute wealth – the takeovers of GM and AIG, the healthcare bill, the massive reorganization of student lending, proposals to increase taxes for the wealthy, the economic recovery bills, etc.
The fact is, the size of government – both at the national and state levels – has grown far beyond what the founders of our nation envisioned.
Government is a necessity for human beings, who tend toward excess and abusively selfish behavior if allowed to do so. Hence we have agencies such as a Department of Commerce, a Department of Education, a Department of Agriculture or a Department of Housing and Urban Development.
All of these were established in response to recognized problems and abuses that have occurred in the past, but, as is typical of any government throughout history, they took on a life of their own and their size and power has grown over the decades to the point that now more Americans are employed by government than by the entire manufacturing sector in the United States.
So although there may have been legitimate problems and concerns that led to the establishment of these agencies, their positive effects are overshadowed by their size and intrusion into the lives of the American people and economy, in the minds of many voters.
Of course, the Democrats are not alone in the blame for this. George W. Bush was elected in 2000 on promises of smaller government and left eight years later, having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.
In other words, he and the other Republicans blew it, which accounts for the voter response in 2008 to Obama’s new face, his pragmatism and intellect, and his promises of a new direction – undefined though that was.
Now that Obama’s direction has become pretty clear, it’s not what most people were hoping for.
This compromise on the tax issue may be the smartest move the president has made in a long time. Giving tax relief right now for millions of unemployed Americans facing disaster will show that he’s not the self-absorbed, socialistic, out-of-touch elitist that he’s begun to resemble.
Sure, Democrats such as DeFazio, an unabashed supporter of government as a panacea to solve our problems, are angry and feel betrayed, but Obama’s decision may be closer to what a lot of voters want, even if it doesn’t follow the Democrats’ agenda.
Pollster John Zogby says that a majority of overall voters believe Congress passes too many bills and that “politicians fight too much instead of working toward common goals.” Frankly, as Zogby pointed out last week in a Forbes magazine article, “while the Democratic base may be angry about this tax deal, the approach Obama is taking to governing is very much consistent with what Democrats believe.”
Nobody really likes compromise, but the reality is that that’s how things get done in a society and a government with a multiplicity of views.
DeFazio is likely representing the views of the voters who elected him in the closest Congressional race he has ever won, but he needs to remember that the majority of America does not reflect the thinking prevalent in Eugene and Corvallis and Multnomah County.