Las Vegas Sun

June 30, 2015

Currently: 106° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Four more years of gridlock coming

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Expect four more years of gridlock, as election results point to the need for a permanent change in Republican Party political strategy. Demographics and welfare economics are the hallmarks of a new and successful Democratic strategy, which gives the party a slight edge in the voting and a defining majority of voting Americans.

It’s too much of an uphill battle for the principles of a smaller government that works more efficiently and listens to the pleas of businesses for pro-business health care, tax and regulatory relief in order to invest and grow. This is the new refrain in which the Republican Party must learn to deal from a lasting minority position, or change its traditional values in order to win elections.

The perception of the electorate tends to be that the president is leading a successful comeback effort to cure the economy, even though progress is painfully slow and 23 million Americans remain unemployed. After all, reasons the majority of the electorate, the economic pit was so deep when Obama took over that not much more could be expected. And in the political arena, perception is reality.

As a result, Republicans again will be required to press for their principles from a minority position while polices are in the hands of a president who has demonstrated a desire for left-wing ideological solutions. Unless Obama reaches out and is willing to compromise, the nation is looking forward to four more years of similar political machinations and gridlock.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 28 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The gridlock years can be limited to only two if we put a few members of a third party in Congress. All it would take is for both the Democrats and the Republicans to each lose about 10 - 15 seats to a third party and that party could swing the House votes either way. Assuming the Senate returns to being in close balance it would take even fewer seats than that.

    This is a pipe dream, you say? I say it can be done if enough people stop merely complaining and decide to take action. The TEA Party has already shown it was possible in 2010 and again this year.

    Now it is time for the moderates and independents to take off the blinders they have so willingly worn for the last 150 years that prevents them from getting behind a new party.

    I'm sure you can all guess by now what Party I would like to be chosen for this: the Modern Whigs

    Stop complaining, stop saying it can't be done, and simply do it. Run the numbers, there are more than enough independent and moderates from both the Democrats and Republicans to put a few people in the House in the right districts. CD2, CD3 and now CD4 would all be viable targets.

    There is no reason to have four more years of gridlock if we begin to act now.

  2. Letter writer is correct. The USA has the same people trying to solve the same problems in the same way. Won't happen despite all the back slapping and hand shaking. Has nothing to do with who won the election. And he won it barely, probably by a difference of 330,000 in 3 states. Don't go by the Electoral College, use the popular vote especially when President Obama claims he has a mandate to raise taxes. He's got talk. And that's cheap.


  3. BChap,

    If I can get five, I can get 25. And if I can get that, we can get the rest. Like I said above, the only reason people don't do this is because they tell themselves no one else will do it.

    Look at the caption on the Modern Whig banner photos: "If I do not act for my nation, no one will do it for me." This is the proper response for people to make who are tired of choosing between candidates that they can not fully support, or not voting at all.

    Mr. Jack might be speaking with tongue in cheek to an extent as we all know the Republican Party is not going to let go of the religious right. At the same time, the Democrats will never return to Camelot. So why not have a new Party that is not encumbered with the ideological blinders that Mr. Jack points out?

    Moderates from both the Democrats and the Republicans are closer to each other than they are to what is now the base of their respective parties. Both will accept fiscal responsibility, and both will accept social responsibility. Above all else both truly put America first. These are the people who saw the need and willing paid for both the Interstate Highway project and the moon missions.

    It is time for them to come together again.

  4. "And in the political arena, perception is reality."

    Pretty much true of ALL arenas isn't it? A person's perspective on anything IS their own personal reality. The use of adjectives such as "left-wing" and "ideological" is a manifestation of that perception.

    "Unless Obama reaches out and is willing to compromise, the nation is looking forward to four more years of similar political machinations and gridlock."

    Seem like that would be equally true for Republicams, wouldn't it?

  5. How soon we forget where the country was four years ago,

    Many American who think you just wave a magic wand and all is well, are living is a fairy tale land. It's called the Bubble. Soon, Gridlock will be no more! Repeat Gridlock will be no more.

    If your following events in Washington and in the States that elected democratic senators, you should know that step are being taking to stop gridlock. The major obstructionist in the senate is about to lose the power to obstruct. Republican Senators who have moderate views will come out of the closet and support reasonable measures that will help the country.

    Gridlock in Washington is about to become pass'e.

  6. Hooray! 4 more years of "gridlock" will even the books. The Dumbocrats had their 8 years when George W. was prexy; now it's the Republicrats turn and if 4 more years of "gridlock" stop Osama Obama and his fellow travelers in their Socialist tracks, so much the better!

  7. BChap,

    You might be right that if restricted to only those who comment here I might not be able to get 10 people to commit to the Whigs. But there are thousands more who read these comments and do participate. I believe discussions like this one do not go unnoticed by those readers.

  8. Intellectually I would like to see third parties succeed both locally and nationally, in my particular case some kind of libertarian green philosophy. Practically, though, it would be a potential disaster. We have seen the damage that a narrow doctrinaire base base can do to a party in our two party system. Think of the gridlock if we had more of them. Unless we are willing to consider a parliamentary system then leave third parties out of the equation except as pressure points on the existing majority parties.

  9. wharfrat,

    May I suggest you visit the Modern Whig website?

    I understand your point since the TEA Party has given us such a strong example of what happens when what is effectively a faction of a major party exerts its will. But I do not believe that the same result would occur in the case of a distinct third party's presence in Congress.

    Speaking for the Whigs, it is our belief that the presence of a block of 20 - 30 Whigs in the House would prevent either the Democrats or the Republicans from having an outright majority, thereby giving the Whig block the ability to swing a vote to whichever side we believe is correct on a given issue.

    It would take a block of as few as 5 Whigs, but more realistically 7 - 10 in the Senate to do the same thing.

    There is no need for a parliamentary system. Instead, we need three distinct parties in Congress that will force a compromise so long as no single party has a majority. There is nothing in our Constitution that prevents that.

  10. Comment removed by moderator. Refers to removed comment.

  11. This 23 million jobs nonsense is the biggest piece of Republican bull to come out of the election. Historically we have had unemployment at about 5%. Currently 8% with 150 million labor force participants. That's about 4.5 million above trend.
    We have barely created 23 million jobs in the last 23 years.
    A tad over a million jobs a year is about what we are capable of producing with strong immigration and decent birth rates. We don't even have that. Births are the lowest in recorded history and we don't have nearly enough immigration.

  12. We have this FINAL CHANCE for O. to DO SOMETHING: what spending will you cut and WHEN?

  13. boftx: So tell me about this "new" third party. We NEED CHANGE.

  14. bofx I am going to look for the Whig website now. In my opinion voting in Obama twice is like backing up the Titanic and running into the iceberg again.

  15. Brad...I have a news flash for ya!!!Businesses don't survive in large numbers to begin with. There are only a few million employer businesses in the US and close to 90% fail in 10 years.
    Competition and demand factors destroy most businesses in short order.
    The vast majority of businesses can't afford to pay people what they need to be financially independent. Aggregate costs are WAY too high and need to come down for the welfare rolls to shrink.
    You can't fault folks for wanting the American dream. High wages are the only way to get it other than generational wealth and marriage.

  16. Ref...You are correct! 83% looks about right. My source on the above data was lousy.

    The data on business failures is also cloudy. It looks like about 70% fail in 10 years. Apologies to all. Have a great day!

  17. Class warfare? Which class?

  18. kepi...

    Some excellent comments today!

    And might I add...
    With all the ACTUAL trolling that goes on around here on a daily basis, I am surprised the 'moderator' actually made some kind of subjective call on your comment and deleted it; perhaps someone got woken up, rolled over & hit the wrong switch.

  19. The reality:

    The Republicans, through various channels, Foxnews, Gover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, the Bradley Foundation, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and others, manufactured a perception of President Obama's domestic policy and sold the perception every day over the airwaves.

    The perception was reinforced by the reality of Republican Senate and House members obstructing anything the President put forth to improve conditions in America.

    So, having a debate on actions that were intentionally and willfully designed to stop progress is a false debate. A debate flawed with fraudulent intent, which produce false results because of the obstruction by Republican Senators and House Members.

    By the President own words, he said the recession was deeper than expected after arriving at the White House. In the President own words, he said the recovery would take longer than expected. This reality was ignored by lawmakers, instead many saw this as an opportunity make sure the President failed. But, if you will recall, when the House Members failed to act, the President said he would take his case to the American People. He did, and won his case.

    The point here, debating numbers projected by the Obama administration over the last 3 plus years must take into account the willful and intentional actions by lawmakers to obstruct on all levels of President Obama's administration. This includes the Senate delaying or not bringing to the floor candidates selected by the President to fill cabinets seats and Judge appointments, in addition to the House on measures that in the past were bipartisan that would help the country, now being rejected or delayed. All of this combine makes for a slow down in all area of the government and country.

    On the position side, all this obstruction did not stop over 4 millions jobs being created. If there were the least bit of cooperation from Republicans, the job numbers would be greater. No doubt.

    So debating President Obama domestic policy from a negative stand point is a false debate when including the obstruction from the Republicans and others who willfully opposed reasonable measures that were once acceptable and championed by the opposition. The debate must be about the positive in face of obstruction. This would be a true debate we all can learn from.

  20. ReFreeman,

    Your ex-boss can thank President Obama for his job. The Obama administration is fighting against China's unbalance trading of auto parts. Mainly Chinese government subsidized exports.

    Particularly China's emerging policy of setting up so-called export bases in which automakers receive incentives to make cars and car parts for overseas markets. Policies that may violate international trade rules.

    In addition, your ex-boss can blame job exporters like ex-presidential candidate Mitt Romney for sending his job abroad. Plus, your ex-boss landed a job in the growth sector of the US economy. There is plenty of room to advance if your ex-boss chooses to do so.

  21. Renorobert, says,

    "Losses? Not considered. They are the penalty for bad decisions."

    You should reconsider No. 4. Not all losses are related to risk taking.

  22. ReFreeman, says,

    "Actually, his brother-in-law got him the job."
    "His job was moved to Toledo, OH and...."

    That is good. A job your ex-boss brother-in-law could give because of President Obama's fight to ensure the auto industry in the USA remained intact.

    When a company moves jobs, that could mean several things. The most obvious is downsizing. Usually downsizing is the result of reducing cost to be efficient and competitive. These actions are the results of competition. America is experiencing severe competition from Chinese imports, not from within the USA. So it stands to reason your ex-boss is one of many who lost their job directly or indirectly from competing products and services from abroad. Meaning, either imports affected your ex-boss old job, or your ex-boss company moved jobs overseas to remain competitive. Moving jobs overseas is something ex-presidential candidate Mitt Romney has experience in doing.

    Still, the job your ex-boss now has is with the help of President Obama. Bottom line, 360 my friend, either way you look at it.

  23. Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  24. Kepi 3:58: Conservatives do NOT want to eliminate oversight. They want to ELIMINATE social welfare for long-term dependent whiners. But here's the point: Private enterprise is NOT about businesses seeking to employ every yahoo that wants an income but has no marketable skills. Private enterprise encourages businesses to PROFIT by hiring the best employees who have the bottom line in mind.

  25. Created 9:29: Ya sure, there IS a demand problem. Too many career-indigents DEMANDING you and I pay for their every need, want, whim. It's an arithmetic thing: Exponential growth in numbers and "needs" with negative growth in employable workers supporting the tax system.

  26. renorobert,

    First, I like your suggestion on the tax proposal you offered. The Number 4 is the sticky item.

    Great point on your response. I have no counter on your argument. Over the broad spectrum, you are correct. There is risk in anything we do. Maybe one can consider a loss due to an Act of God? Then again, we're back to debate on losses.

    Any suggestions, or leave Number 4 intact?

  27. Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic

  28. Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic