Almanac last Friday (10/7) spent a few minutes recapping a conference among journalists and former lawmakers, the subject being whatever happened to civility in politics, at least here in Minnesota. We of course know: the DFL happened, and the GOP is slowly, finally pushing back. Hence there is more noise to report, though as Mitch Berg has observed over at Shot in the Dark, democracy is noisy almost by definition.
But the most interesting quote on this Almanac segment was from the reporter herself, Mary Lahammer, the following edited for clarity:
"Many lawmakers for the first time I remember hearing are saying 'Why is comprise good? Why are you assuming compromise is good?' Between my father and I we have been covering the Legislature for half a century and in fifty years the two of us saw lawmakers and governors who ultimately thought compromise was good."
Her facial expressions seemed to echo this incredulity. Compromise is second only to kumbaya in her world.
Those of us with a little business experience know the difference between a deal and a compromise. Deals are win-win or they don't happen. Each party wishes for more than they got, but they otherwise walk away happy. Compromises are lose-lose because they must happen, like adopting a budget or settling a labor contract. Both sides may be glad it's over, but usually both sides are unhappy with the result. In business it can be worse if neither side wants to own the decision.
Look how compromise played out in the 2011 Legislative session. Had the Republicans held the line at a $32 billion general fund budget we wouldn't now be facing some cuts to rebalance it to the lower revenue estimate just released. Had the Democrats held the line at the $34 billion passed, we would have fewer cuts to make.
But getting back to that panel and Ms. Lahammer, notice the refusal to consider the premise, that compromise may be overrated. The corollary is this "balanced approach" nonsense we heard about all session. (Of course, that doesn't apply to photo id voting which in fact has a wide bi-partisan consensus!) What counts is the result, not how it was achieved. And thanks to compromise, we got the wrong answer in 2011.
In my experience, deals are win win but also lose lose. They differ from compromises which are lose lose but also win win. What concluded the 2011 legislative session was both a deal and a compromise.
Presumably, if the budget had come in at 32 billion dollars, there would have been 2 billion in tax cuts reducing revenue to 32. If there had been a revenue shortfall, it would still be necessary to re-balance the budget.
There are good deals and bad deals. Good compromises and bad compromises. I think the conclusion of the legislative session was a bad deal, a bad compromise, not just for Democrats, not just for Republicans, but for the people of Minnesota.
Posted by: Hiram | Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 05:37 AM
No, the extra revenue would have been banked and/or repaid to schools/cities that got shifted.
Posted by: Speed Gibson | Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Compromise, in a political sense, is necessary up to the point one's core principles are compromised. This presumes the parties negotiating the compromise have principles.
Posted by: The Big Stink | Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 12:06 PM
What happened at session end was a compromise of principle, and it shouldn't have. When one side of the argument wants to spend more than is in the checkbook and the other side wants to live within our means, there should have been no compromise at all.
Posted by: J. Ewing | Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 12:21 PM
To TBS's point, the act of compromise IS the principle to Lahammer.
Posted by: Speed Gibson | Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 08:59 PM
As long as compromise is the desired goal, one need not have ideals - only preferences. When one party refuses to negotiate based on "principle," it forces all to win their respective debates - something liberals don't want to have to do. Better, to massage a compromise, than to define your true objectives - that way you can win the debate in installments.
Posted by: The Big Stink | Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 09:55 PM
What is the old saying, "You cannot compromise with evil"? We got into the financial mess the state and country are in because politicians keep thinking they can spend more money than they have, that the money is theirs to do as they will, and that the taxpaying public is a bottomless well of more. That's evil.
Here's a crazy idea: Make taxes voluntary! Have the government come to your house, like the Fuller Brush man, and sell you each and every one of their marvelous services, for what you are willing to pay for them. Then they can go back to their cloisters and spend that money on those services, extracting a little off the top for their recompense. Everybody would be happy except the politicians, right? And they are a tiny minority, just like the rich, so we shouldn't care.
Posted by: J. Ewing | Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 08:58 AM
The difference would seem to be that business negotiations are measured by the unflinching metric of profit and loss. When you are dealing with other peoples' money, that largely goes out the window.
Posted by: David Boone | Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 09:37 AM
Hey, J: Every rich man has the ability to send the Treasury Dept a check - unsolicited.
Posted by: The Big Stink | Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 01:52 PM
I mean make ALL taxes voluntary, every dime. Then you could reasonably ask a welfare recipient how much they would like to pay for their welfare check. You wouldn't get anything except a bug-eyed stare, but it would certainly be an eye-opener for some people.
Posted by: J. Ewing | Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 02:35 PM