-------------------
With his election to the U.S. House, [conservative] Steve Daines’ life just took a dramatic turn. But as a freshman congressman, he has a chance to nudge the politics in Washington toward an equally dramatic change.
Partisan politics has halted nearly all meaningful action in Washington. Extremists in the House have hijacked that chamber. In the Senate, the filibuster rule has been invoked on an unprecedented level to stop any significant legislation in its tracks. The only thing that will break this gridlock is a willingness to compromise on the part of all parties.
That’s where Daines comes in. And he can start with some willingness to compromise on an issue of critical importance to Montanans: the resolution of management policy for the state’s public lands.
Three years ago, [liberal] Sen. Jon Tester introduced his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act — a mix of timber harvest and wilderness designation for land on Montana national forests. The act was the product of negotiations between wilderness advocates, timber industry representatives and recreation activists. The bill would set aside portions of national forest land as wilderness and recreation areas, but would also mandate the harvest of designated volumes of timber over a specified period of time.
The bill holds promise for all Montanans. Timber mills will get more wood, which means jobs for loggers and millworkers. And wilderness advocates and recreationists will get more areas designated for their activities.
But outgoing Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg [conservative] stopped the legislation over partisan issues that most Montanans don’t care a whit about.
Daines can change that.
Montanans have been deadlocked for decades over how to manage millions of acres of roadless lands within the state’s borders. The holy grail of a statewide wilderness bill is nowhere in sight. But if the entire Montana congressional delegation can get behind Tester’s bill, it can likely win passage and set a precedent for resolving the fate of other public lands in the state.
Steven Daines can change the way things have been done in Washington for the past few years by looking at this legislation with an open mind. We encourage him to do just that.
------------
Mr. Daines was elected because of his stances on the issues. He is under no obligation to get along with or compromise with anyone. In fact, I hope he stands firm on his principles and does not cave to the pressures of office. If he manages to do that, he will be one of the precious few who doesn't get co opted by the power structure of D.C..
Notice that it is "extremists in the House...," as if there weren't extremists until the TEA party came along. If only we could get those people out of there, something (in favor of the democratic agenda) might get done! But as far as I'm concerned, the less legislation that is passed, the less liberty gets frittered away.
"Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.
Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.
Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.
Partisan politics has halted nearly all meaningful action in Washington. Extremists in the House have hijacked that chamber. In the Senate, the filibuster rule has been invoked on an unprecedented level to stop any significant legislation in its tracks. The only thing that will break this gridlock is a willingness to compromise on the part of all parties.
That’s where Daines comes in. And he can start with some willingness to compromise on an issue of critical importance to Montanans: the resolution of management policy for the state’s public lands.
Three years ago, [liberal] Sen. Jon Tester introduced his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act — a mix of timber harvest and wilderness designation for land on Montana national forests. The act was the product of negotiations between wilderness advocates, timber industry representatives and recreation activists. The bill would set aside portions of national forest land as wilderness and recreation areas, but would also mandate the harvest of designated volumes of timber over a specified period of time.
The bill holds promise for all Montanans. Timber mills will get more wood, which means jobs for loggers and millworkers. And wilderness advocates and recreationists will get more areas designated for their activities.
But outgoing Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg [conservative] stopped the legislation over partisan issues that most Montanans don’t care a whit about.
Daines can change that.
Montanans have been deadlocked for decades over how to manage millions of acres of roadless lands within the state’s borders. The holy grail of a statewide wilderness bill is nowhere in sight. But if the entire Montana congressional delegation can get behind Tester’s bill, it can likely win passage and set a precedent for resolving the fate of other public lands in the state.
Steven Daines can change the way things have been done in Washington for the past few years by looking at this legislation with an open mind. We encourage him to do just that.
------------
Mr. Daines was elected because of his stances on the issues. He is under no obligation to get along with or compromise with anyone. In fact, I hope he stands firm on his principles and does not cave to the pressures of office. If he manages to do that, he will be one of the precious few who doesn't get co opted by the power structure of D.C..
Notice that it is "extremists in the House...," as if there weren't extremists until the TEA party came along. If only we could get those people out of there, something (in favor of the democratic agenda) might get done! But as far as I'm concerned, the less legislation that is passed, the less liberty gets frittered away.
"Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.
Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.
Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment