Compromising over shutting down the government would set a bad precedent for the future

While I agree with the notion that everyone in Congress should be out of their job come the next election, I fail to see the logic behind the theory that "both sides are to blame."

True, the supporters of the budget, mainly Democrats, are not compromising on the content. They are not expected to do so. In the legislative process, Congress passes the law, the president signs or vetoes it and the Supreme Court reviews its constitutionality. If it passes all those hurdles, it is a law.

The Affordable Care Act passed all those hurdles. It's the law. The Democrats don't owe its Republican opponents a compromise. If the Republicans do not like the ACA, they can either try to repeal it, something they've attempted some 40 times already, or they can attempt to amend it.

Which brings me back to my original point: Supporters of the budget do not need to compromise. It is their right to their own opinion on political issues — I absolutely disagree with the Patriot Act, for example — but I have never accused those who disagree with me of "not compromising."

I refuse to refer to the Republican party as "hijacking" the budget or taking it "hostage," because the problem is more nuanced than something like a hostile takeover.

However, accusing the system of ignoring fairness and resorting to what can only be seen as a clear breach of good faith with your constituents screams of bad politicking and self-centered abuse of the system.

The very act of striking down the upcoming budget sends the wrong message: that in order for something to be fair, it always has to go your way. That's a harsh and troubling precedent to set for the future of this country.

Jeffrey Malbrough

Copyright © 2018, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad