For a handful of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, some deals are too costly

“A line in the sand”

The conflict was replayed again in August, when Congress voted on a bill to raise the country’s debt limit while cutting more than $2.1 trillion of federal spending over 10 years. Again, Republicans argued that the cuts did not go far enough.

In a statement to Remapping Debate, Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) indicated that, as far as spending cuts are concerned, he would only be willing to compromise with Democrats if the deal included either much farther-reaching cuts, or an amendment to the constitution that would limit how much the federal government can spend annually.

“Short-term political deals are not real compromise,” Amash said. “Real compromise requires each side to take serious steps to address the government’s fiscal crisis.”

Jamie Dickerman, press secretary for Representative Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), agreed. “People already have a cynical view of politicans,” she said. “If no politican followed through with their word or principles then policy would flitter in the wind and there would be no long term solutions to our long term problems.”

For their part, Democrats in the House were evenly divided on that bill, with 95 voting for it and 95 against. Many of those voting against the legislation again expressed dismay at the extent of the budget cuts.

But several House Democrats have pointed out that there is no substantive reason why any spending measures should be attached to debt ceiling bill. Ilan Kayatsky, a spokesperson for Representative Jerrold Nadler’s (D-N.Y.) office, said that the Congressman had voted against the bill because voting for it amounted to “negotiating with hostage-takers.”

According to Jennifer Porter Gore, communications director for Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Ellison believes that the consequences of any of these bills not passing have to be weighed against the consequences of continuously giving in to the demand of “hostage takers.”

The Tea Party caucus in the House, Gore said, “expects everyone else to just capitulate to their demands. At some point you have to draw a line in the sane on the other side, you have to pull the other way. Otherwise, you’re not really representing the people who sent you here.”

A troubled history

According to Baker, in the current political debate, compromise tends to be somewhat idealized, while historically, the results of compromises or “grand bargains” have been quite mixed.

“There are examples of compromises that we look back on now and say, ‘It’s good thing that happened,’” Baker said. “But history is replete with examples of compromises that basically betrayed fundamental principles.”

For example, he said, there was the Compromise of 1820, through which Missouri got to be established as a slave state, and the balance of the Louisiana Purchase not yet incorporated as states were divvied between slave and free territories at the 36° 30’ latitude line.

Baker also referenced the Compromise of 1877, also known as the “Corrupt Bargain,” in which Rutherford Hayes was proclaimed the winner of a contested presidential election on the informal understanding that he would remove all federal troops that had been enforcing the rights of former slaves from South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana, thereby effectively ending the Reconstruction Era.

More recently, Baker said, came the long period in Washington, ending only in the 1960s, where Southern opposition to national civil rights legislation was not seriously challenged.