(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

The primary erosion of consumer spending power has come from medical care / insurance, education, and housing.

Social Security plugs into that between the retirees and the disabled because it is such a significant source of income (especially given fewer workers are covered by pension plans, though there seems to be an uptick in private disability insurance paid by employers which fills the gap until Social Security makes a decision then drops to being a supplement)

Healthcare funding, education and housing. If you can't find a way to agree to make the situation better even if it means not getting exactly what you want, it is probably time to leave and cash in on your experience at a law firm, lobbying firm, or as VP for governmental relations for someone.

I would add the opioid situation but it is so complex. Part of it is economic opportunity. Part of it is that it is cheaper to toss someone 60 oxycodones per month than send them to physical therapy or perform surgery, if 3% get addicted, that's not a bad business model either unless they switch to the street providers. Toss in some untreated mental illness. Add a dash of our national knee-jerk reflex and complete ignorance of capitalism and market theory so we are always trying to control everything with prohibition or limited prohibition on the supply side and never address demand side.

Hell we can't even do something as simple as taking pot off the controlled substance schedule and kicking the issue to the states in a legal manner. We just let the states flip off the Federal government while pretending we still are asserting Federal power. How damn hard is it to just say we quit. States you deal with it.