The Liberal Lexicon 3: Balanced Approach

This is what's needed to close the state budget deficit say the Democrats, a bi-partisan compromise, a balanced approach.  This is nonsense on several levels, like having a couple of Hostess Twinkies with your healthy arugula salad to make it a balanced meal.

First of course, the deficit is largely the result of DFL overspending.  Granted, the GOP added to the problem here and there, but even that was usually with DFL approval.  We didn't start the fire, but we're expected to help put it out, their way of course.  They obviously didn't like how Governor Pawlenty did it last session.

Raising taxes, always a part of that balanced approach it seems, is not a responsible way to fix it.  That's the trouble.  Never having to pay the bill, the DFL just keeps on spending, which is why State spending is tripling every 20 years.  However trite, it's the truth: there is no amount of money the DFL cannot spend.

Finally, and fundamentally, however elegantly proposed and administered, always remember that taxes are collected at gunpoint.  I find it difficult to find a "balanced approach" in that reality.  In the words of Thomas Paine: "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."

Comments

[Hiram]

"This is what's needed to close the state budget deficit say the Democrats, a bi-partisan compromise, a balanced approach."

Of course this is true. It goes virtually without saying. Nothing can be accomplished in St. Paul without the concurrence of both parties. If we do what the numbers say we must do, cut the budget by 20%, that will be the work of both parties, and to people who get upset because their local nursing home, local hospital, or local school, was closed, Democrats will be taking a great deal of time and trouble to explain that that is the result of the balance Republicans brought to the mix.

"Raising taxes, always a part of that balanced approach it seems, is not a responsible way to fix it."

What I hear is that there are no DFL tax increase proposals in the works. What the DFL will bring to the table as theire part of the balance, as their share in the inevitable compromise which will conclude this session is a promise of no new tax increases. That's what Republicans are getting in exchange for the nursing homes, hospitals, and schools, along with shifting the tax burden onto local levels of government, what they are bringing to balance the approach.

"Finally, and fundamentally, however elegantly proposed and administered, always remember that taxes are collected at gunpoint."

Nothing could be more profoundly untrue. Taxes are the price we pay for government, and in this country, the decision about what we should pay is made through a democratic process, one that a whole lot people have sacrificed a very great deal to establish. And let's remind ourselves that the stark alternative to democratic constitutional government, the Thomas Paines of history offer us, is the rattling of tumbrils through cobbled streets, and ultimately the cutting off of heads.

[Hiram]

Let me put it this way. The intellectual heart and soul of the Republican Party and the conservative movement in this country, and here I am referring to Glenn Beck, is basically offering a world view that offers a choice between government at gun point, or government by guillotine. He speaks glowingly of revolution with all the insouciance of someone who has never lived during one.

Is it really such a terrible thing to reject the bleak choice the Glenn Becks of the world, offer us? To think in terms of balanced approaches and compromises, and to give a decent respect to those who differ with us and who represent different interests, and to seek to work together for the common good of us all?

[The Big Stink]

How do you negotiate with those whom you fundamentally disagree? Do you do it incrementally, or do you simply draw a line in the sand and stand on principle? If you say principle ought to be negotiated, you are unaware of history. Once surrendered, you cannot resuscitate principle. The truth is not an opposing point of view. To ask people to surrender what is true is to elevate a lie.

Those who moderate on the truth place liberty at the back of the bus. We can argue "what is truth?" and that is a valid debate, but if we cannot see through the fog of deceit truth is always surrounded by, then one ought not have the right to vote. Period. Unfortunately, the fog of deceit tends to rule the day.

[Hiram]

"How do you negotiate with those whom you fundamentally disagree?"

That's easy, for whatever it's worth. You start with things that aren't fundamental. You find points of agreement, or on which agreement is possible. You work through those, building momentum in the negotiation. After a while, both parties can become so invested in the negotiation that it is becomes difficult or impossible to turn back. You leave the fundamental stuff until the end. What can happen through this process is that the fundamental stuff doesn't seem to be so fundamental at all and a comprehensive agreement can be reached. What can also happen is that the fundamental issues are never really reached or resolved that they are permanently set aside, sometimes with disastrous results. The classic example of this in American history is the failure of the constitutional convention to resolve the issue of slavery and it's associated issues. The result was a failed convention and hobbled republic that came crashing down a mere 74 in a catastrophic war far worse than anything the survivors of the Revolutionary War could ever imagine. Such are the perils of defining one's views or interests as fundamental.

[Hiram]

Such, also, are the perils of defining one's beliefs however passionately they are held, as the truth.

[The Big Stink]

If you haven't noticed, Hiram, truth has been redefined. Natural law and God's law continue to be immutable in spite of the redefinition. Finding a 'middle ground' between truth and a lie can only elevate deceit.

If you haven't noticed, we're swimming in deceit. The question now becomes whether we will have the resolve to get out of the pool.

[Hiram]

"Natural law and God's law continue to be immutable in spite of the redefinition."

Presumably, they are litigated in natural courts and God's courts. We, here in Minnesota, litigate in state and federal courts, where different sets of law apply. Sets of law, by the way, which are quite mutable.

President Bush's favorite philosopher once noted that it's the peacemakers who are blessed. Those who insist on driving home their own principles at all cost, went unmentioned.

[The Big Stink]

Jesus never said we should negotiate with liars. He said to make peace. This presumes there is a common ground. I can have a common ground with someone trying to rob me. All I have to do is hand him my money. I don't think, however, this is negotiation, per se.

Please don't tell me there is ALWAYS a middle ground. Some positions, people and policies are simply non-starters. Even seasoned negotiators understand all parties begin from a base-line of assumptions.

[Hiram]

"Jesus never said we should negotiate with liars."

Candor and veracity are qualities not often associated with peacemakers.

[Hiram]

When I negotiate with someone, accusing that person of being a liar, is usually not the first thing out of my lips. Even if that's what I think.