As Congress continues to bicker over partisan matters, a growing number of them are looking to focus more on solving problem. The No Labels' Problem Solvers is a growing group of members of Congress that are made up of Democrats, Republicans, and an Independent. The Problem Solvers represent the ideological balance that No Labels has been looking to bring to D.C. to break away a little at a time at the current gridlock.
Recently, Frank Weil provided the following for the Huffington Post to put a bigger spotlight on this growing voice for bipartisanship:
In the last year a new 'thing' has appeared on the scene in Washington called "No Labels." It is a response to the political gridlock as well as personal antipathies that have stymied virtually all the crucial current legislation necessary to addressing the country's dire problems and needs. Gridlocks are not a new thing in Washington. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, May 13, 1797: "You and I have formerly seen warm debates and high political passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other and separate the business of the Senate from that of society. It is not so now. Men who have been intimate all their lives, cross the streets to avoid meeting, and turn their heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hats."
No Labels began with the simple idea that if members of both parties in both houses could identify themselves with No Labels and come together and look for bridges between their respective parties' positions and solve legislative stalemates, they would be responding to their constituents' wishes and doing what they had been elected to do.
A lot of people were seriously skeptical about whether that could be achieved. A year ago there were a handful of members of Congress willing to take on the "No Labels" identity. Today there are 67 -- 30 Republicans and 37 Democrats --five from the Senate and 62 from the House. That means more than 12 percent of sitting members of Congress quickly came on board with this new idea. That is not a fact to sneeze at. What is it telling us and what does it foreshadow?
What it tells us is that it is now politically acceptable -- particularly in an election year -- for members to put some distance between themselves and their parties, which to an increasing numbers of voters is becoming attractive because both parties have become increasingly unattractive in this era of gridlock. Perhaps that is a harbinger of things to come. Yet, one of those "things to come", is most likely NOT another party. At best, the threat of another party might inspire existing leaders to do enough to take the wind out of the sails of such an effort, but such gains would certainly be short-lived and, being driven by partisan concerns rather than substantive ones, would almost equally certainly be counterproductive.
So what is No Labels foreshadowing? Perhaps in this era of the breakdown of effective party leadership and process a new 'thing' is emerging to take up the banner and slack in looking after the public interest -- as distinct from political interests -- by putting labels aside.
The nascent No Labels process has already spawned a series of truly bipartisan meetings and discussions about possible legislation and issues that are not seriously in dispute. In the process, members are getting better acquainted and even making new friendships and, more importantly, gaining valuable experience in a highly civil and productive way to conduct policy deliberations.
The real test will likely come sometime later this year when a crucial piece of budget or tax legislation is about to fall short of passage and a small group of No Labels members stand up to build a bridge to a solution with the votes necessary for passage. If that happens, it will be a big day in Washington. And, then the question of what really is this "new thing" will spring front and center. It is not too soon to begin to think that through and visualize how it could be institutionalized.
As previously noted, it is not and probably should not be a party or even a caucus. But, it could be a Super Party entity which could be comprised of members of both houses deliberately selected by their parties' leadership from the No Labels ranking to help create problem solving bridges for both parties. Membership on such a group would have to inoculate and or insulate individual members from traditional party discipline so that they would be free to perform their crucial roles.
That way the parties could both retain their traditional roles AND at the same time embrace the need for a no labels type of problem solving.
However all this plays out we all owe a tip of the hat and real thanks to the folks who have started this ball rolling.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
A need for up or down voting on appointments
One of the most frustrating aspects of Congress and the federal government the last few years has been the hyper-partisan approach to presidential appointments to departments or courts. There are what seems like hundreds of nominees being stonewalled and filibusted over. Normally, the opposing party of the president tends to express doubts with nominees they disagree with but generally provide an approval vote for a nominee as a sign of respect for the president and his choice. Clearly, that is not the case today and No Labels is calling for a way to change that gridlock.
Michael Shear of the New York Times provides the following look at the matter:
John Kerry is practically home alone at the State Department, toiling without permanent assistant secretaries of state for the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa. At the Pentagon, a temporary personnel chief is managing furloughs for 800,000 civilian employees. There has not been a director of the Internal Revenue Service since last November, and it was only on Thursday that President Obama announced a nomination for commerce secretary after the job was open for nearly a year.
As the White House races this week to plug holes in the cabinet, the lights remain off in essential offices across the administration. The vacancies, attributed to partisan politics and lengthy White House vetting, are slowing policy making in a capital already known for inaction, and embarrassing a president who has had more than five months since his re-election to fill many of the jobs.
“I don’t think it’s ever been this bad,” said Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, who recently wrote a letter urging Mr. Obama to act swiftly to fill top vacancies.
One of the worst backlogs is at the State Department, where nearly a quarter of the most senior posts are not filled, including those in charge of embassy security and counterterrorism. The Treasury Department is searching for a new No. 2, the Department of Homeland Security is missing its top two cybersecurity officials and about 30 percent of the top jobs at the Commerce Department are still vacant, including that of chief economist.
At the Pentagon, which is helping to lead the administration’s pivot to a greater focus on Asia, the assistant secretary of defense for Asia is about to leave his job.
Mr. Kerry expressed frustration about the State Department vacancies in recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, saying he was “still waiting for the vetting to move” at the White House for people he recommended for jobs “way back in February.”
But in a statement to The New York Times, Mr. Kerry said, “I have a new appreciation for how much the confirmation process has become a political football in recent years and what that forces on the vetting process required to announce nominees.”
Although Mr. Kerry said that “the White House and the administration make the very best out of a tough situation,” who is to blame is a matter of intense debate.
The White House faults an increasingly partisan confirmation process in the Senate and what officials say are over-the-top demands for information about every corner of a nominee’s life. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew received 444 questions from senators before his confirmation, more than the seven previous Treasury nominees combined, according to data compiled by the White House. Gina McCarthy, Mr. Obama’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, got 1,000 questions from the Senate, White House officials said.
“Current Congressional Republicans have made no secret of the extraordinary lengths they will go to to obstruct the confirmation process,” said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. “That unprecedented evasiveness, often about matters decades old or unrelated to the post, slows down the process from beginning to end.”
But members of Congress and a number of agency officials say the bottleneck is at the White House, where nominees remain unannounced as the legal and personnel offices conduct time-consuming background checks aimed at discovering the slightest potential problem that could hold up a confirmation. People who have gone through the vetting in Mr. Obama’s White House describe a grueling process, lasting weeks or months, in which lawyers and political operatives search for anything that might hint at scandal.
Administration officials, members of Congress and scholars of the federal appointment process say it is difficult to determine — short of a six-month-long study — if Mr. Obama has filled fewer of the roughly 1,200 federal jobs that require Senate confirmation than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton had at this point in their second terms. But there is widespread agreement that an alarming number of important posts in the government’s most senior ranks are vacant or filled with acting deputies with little authority to make decisions.
“It’s a weakening of accountability down the chain of command,” said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who has done extensive research on the appointment process. “You don’t have someone there who has full authority to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The whole system tends to grind down to a very slow crawl.”
The vetting process varies in the Obama White House, but it typically begins with a brief conversation with a lawyer from the White House counsel’s office on basic questions: drug use, taxes, criminal convictions. Next are financial disclosure forms seeking information about transactions as far back as a decade: home purchases, investments, income, employment. That is followed by questions from the Office of Government Ethics, which scours the answers for inconsistencies.
In the security check that follows, potential nominees are asked to disclose all travel and meetings with foreign governments during the past 10 years or more. That is followed by a request for everything the nominee has ever written — papers, speeches, articles — and the official questions from members of Congress.
“The basic premise was that it was better to over-vet, to get everything on the table early and not give something that could end up becoming a scandal,” said one former administration official, who underwent his own examination and requested anonymity to discuss internal White House procedures.
At the State Department, the top official for arms control is waiting for Senate confirmation, and there is no permanent ambassador at large for global women’s issues. Mr. Kerry is also missing one of his two primary deputies. White House officials say that the vacancies are the result of departures when Hillary Rodham Clinton left the top post after the November election. Several came open just a few weeks ago.
The Commerce Department vacancies have emerged since John E. Bryson abruptly left the secretary’s post last June after an accident in which he had a seizure while driving. On Thursday, Mr. Obama nominated Penny Pritzker, his longtime financial backer and an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, to lead the agency.
Mr. Wolf, the Virginia Republican, who has long focused attention on the war in Darfur, said the lack of a top State Department official for Africa meant that “you don’t have the decision makers there.” In a letter to Rebecca M. Blank, the deputy commerce secretary, he wrote that he was also concerned about the vacancies in her department.
“I urge you to prompt the White House to expeditiously appoint persons to these important positions,” Mr. Wolf wrote. In thick black ink, he underlined the words “prompt” and “expeditiously,” and added “This is important” under his signature.
William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who was a co-author of an article titled “A Half-Empty Government Can’t Govern,” said he was especially taken aback by the State Department vacancies.
“John Kerry won’t be able to function very long as his own assistant secretary for the Near East,” he said.
Michael Shear of the New York Times provides the following look at the matter:
John Kerry is practically home alone at the State Department, toiling without permanent assistant secretaries of state for the Middle East, Asia, Europe and Africa. At the Pentagon, a temporary personnel chief is managing furloughs for 800,000 civilian employees. There has not been a director of the Internal Revenue Service since last November, and it was only on Thursday that President Obama announced a nomination for commerce secretary after the job was open for nearly a year.
As the White House races this week to plug holes in the cabinet, the lights remain off in essential offices across the administration. The vacancies, attributed to partisan politics and lengthy White House vetting, are slowing policy making in a capital already known for inaction, and embarrassing a president who has had more than five months since his re-election to fill many of the jobs.
“I don’t think it’s ever been this bad,” said Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, who recently wrote a letter urging Mr. Obama to act swiftly to fill top vacancies.
One of the worst backlogs is at the State Department, where nearly a quarter of the most senior posts are not filled, including those in charge of embassy security and counterterrorism. The Treasury Department is searching for a new No. 2, the Department of Homeland Security is missing its top two cybersecurity officials and about 30 percent of the top jobs at the Commerce Department are still vacant, including that of chief economist.
At the Pentagon, which is helping to lead the administration’s pivot to a greater focus on Asia, the assistant secretary of defense for Asia is about to leave his job.
Mr. Kerry expressed frustration about the State Department vacancies in recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, saying he was “still waiting for the vetting to move” at the White House for people he recommended for jobs “way back in February.”
But in a statement to The New York Times, Mr. Kerry said, “I have a new appreciation for how much the confirmation process has become a political football in recent years and what that forces on the vetting process required to announce nominees.”
Although Mr. Kerry said that “the White House and the administration make the very best out of a tough situation,” who is to blame is a matter of intense debate.
The White House faults an increasingly partisan confirmation process in the Senate and what officials say are over-the-top demands for information about every corner of a nominee’s life. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew received 444 questions from senators before his confirmation, more than the seven previous Treasury nominees combined, according to data compiled by the White House. Gina McCarthy, Mr. Obama’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, got 1,000 questions from the Senate, White House officials said.
“Current Congressional Republicans have made no secret of the extraordinary lengths they will go to to obstruct the confirmation process,” said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. “That unprecedented evasiveness, often about matters decades old or unrelated to the post, slows down the process from beginning to end.”
But members of Congress and a number of agency officials say the bottleneck is at the White House, where nominees remain unannounced as the legal and personnel offices conduct time-consuming background checks aimed at discovering the slightest potential problem that could hold up a confirmation. People who have gone through the vetting in Mr. Obama’s White House describe a grueling process, lasting weeks or months, in which lawyers and political operatives search for anything that might hint at scandal.
Administration officials, members of Congress and scholars of the federal appointment process say it is difficult to determine — short of a six-month-long study — if Mr. Obama has filled fewer of the roughly 1,200 federal jobs that require Senate confirmation than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton had at this point in their second terms. But there is widespread agreement that an alarming number of important posts in the government’s most senior ranks are vacant or filled with acting deputies with little authority to make decisions.
“It’s a weakening of accountability down the chain of command,” said Paul Light, a professor at New York University who has done extensive research on the appointment process. “You don’t have someone there who has full authority to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The whole system tends to grind down to a very slow crawl.”
The vetting process varies in the Obama White House, but it typically begins with a brief conversation with a lawyer from the White House counsel’s office on basic questions: drug use, taxes, criminal convictions. Next are financial disclosure forms seeking information about transactions as far back as a decade: home purchases, investments, income, employment. That is followed by questions from the Office of Government Ethics, which scours the answers for inconsistencies.
In the security check that follows, potential nominees are asked to disclose all travel and meetings with foreign governments during the past 10 years or more. That is followed by a request for everything the nominee has ever written — papers, speeches, articles — and the official questions from members of Congress.
“The basic premise was that it was better to over-vet, to get everything on the table early and not give something that could end up becoming a scandal,” said one former administration official, who underwent his own examination and requested anonymity to discuss internal White House procedures.
At the State Department, the top official for arms control is waiting for Senate confirmation, and there is no permanent ambassador at large for global women’s issues. Mr. Kerry is also missing one of his two primary deputies. White House officials say that the vacancies are the result of departures when Hillary Rodham Clinton left the top post after the November election. Several came open just a few weeks ago.
The Commerce Department vacancies have emerged since John E. Bryson abruptly left the secretary’s post last June after an accident in which he had a seizure while driving. On Thursday, Mr. Obama nominated Penny Pritzker, his longtime financial backer and an heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, to lead the agency.
Mr. Wolf, the Virginia Republican, who has long focused attention on the war in Darfur, said the lack of a top State Department official for Africa meant that “you don’t have the decision makers there.” In a letter to Rebecca M. Blank, the deputy commerce secretary, he wrote that he was also concerned about the vacancies in her department.
“I urge you to prompt the White House to expeditiously appoint persons to these important positions,” Mr. Wolf wrote. In thick black ink, he underlined the words “prompt” and “expeditiously,” and added “This is important” under his signature.
William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who was a co-author of an article titled “A Half-Empty Government Can’t Govern,” said he was especially taken aback by the State Department vacancies.
“John Kerry won’t be able to function very long as his own assistant secretary for the Near East,” he said.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Here come the Problem Solvers
For roughly the last three years, there has been a growing movement and sense of bipartisanship at the grassroots level with No Labels. No Labels is a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents and represents people along the political spectrum who want to put country before party and actually try to fix and address the issues and problems that face the country today.
With that said, there are many citizen leaders around the country in all 50 states and starting this past January members of Congress have officially joined the fight as Problem Solvers.
Recently, Ed Conant would provide the following for a local Georgia paper:
January was the kickoff for a new bipartisan movement in Congress called the Problem Solvers. There were 25 founding members, including three Georgia representatives — Republican Jack Kingston and Democrats John Barrow and Sanford Bishop. The group has grown to 63 members in the House and Senate, nearly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. New members join weekly.
The most important characteristic of Problem Solvers — an initiative of No Labels, a citizens’ group with leadership from former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — is their commitment to putting country before party. Only hyperpartisan ideologues could disagree with that guiding principle.
The Problem Solvers are becoming a force in the Congress. They meet regularly to build relationships and trust across the aisle, and look for common ground to solve the nation’s problems. They understand no one gets everything they want, whether in business, life or politics. The meetings of the Problem Solvers are the only venue on Capitol Hill where numerous members of Congress meet in a bipartisan setting.
This approach is a welcome contrast to today’s dysfunction in Washington. You have only to look at the Senate leaders to see striking examples of bipartisan futility. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., didn’t bring a budget to the Senate floor, not wanting to force Democratic senators to cast difficult votes that might antagonize their constituents. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., famously declared his top priority was to make President Obama a one-term president. At the time, we were conducting two wars and suffering through the worst economy since the Depression.
Neither party is blameless in prioritizing politicians’ personal power over citizens’ interests. By placing political goals ahead of governing, Reid and McConnell were, and are, emblematic of today’s broken Washington culture.
Polls consistently show Americans understand this. Our trust in Congress hovers at all-time lows between 9 percent and 17 percent.
No Labels is dedicated to making government work again. Their slogan is “Stop Fighting, Start Fixing!” and they focus on improving the process of governance as opposed to taking specific policy positions. This is what allows members of both parties to be comfortable within the No Labels community; they have the latitude to maintain their respective political principles.
No Labels is a big tent with a broad spectrum of political views among members. Some of No Labels’ proposals are filibuster reform, 90-day up-or-down votes on presidential appointees, and urging that members of Congress take no pledge but the oath of office. Both parties support or fight these commonsense proposals, depending on who is in power in the Congress and White House at any given time. The only reason these positions have not been adopted is that the parties value temporary political advantage over longer-term improved governance.
The public clamor for solutions rather than ideology is what drives the rapid growth of the Problem Solvers. Most important, Problem Solvers is not a Pollyanna approach to governing. It may be a long road to responsible governance in Washington, but it can be done. It took a long time for our politics to get off the tracks, and it will take a while to get them back on. Meanwhile, there is a growing political leadership working toward rational politics, and we citizens should be encouraged by, and support, that process.
Two of Georgia’s Problem Solvers are strong potential candidates for the 2014 Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Barrow, who hasn’t yet declared his intentions, and Kingston, who is expected to announce his candidacy today in Athens, are veteran lawmakers who have avoided the extremes of their parties. Their participation in Problem Solvers demonstrates their political maturity. They recognize American politics work best through bipartisan cooperation.
It is said that the Senate is the saucer in which the hot tea brewed by the House is cooled. Barrow and Kingston have demonstrated the coolness and judgment to serve honorably and effectively in the senior body. An election between two reasonable Problem Solvers, each representing the principles of their party while putting America first, would serve Georgians well.
With that said, there are many citizen leaders around the country in all 50 states and starting this past January members of Congress have officially joined the fight as Problem Solvers.
Recently, Ed Conant would provide the following for a local Georgia paper:
January was the kickoff for a new bipartisan movement in Congress called the Problem Solvers. There were 25 founding members, including three Georgia representatives — Republican Jack Kingston and Democrats John Barrow and Sanford Bishop. The group has grown to 63 members in the House and Senate, nearly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. New members join weekly.
The most important characteristic of Problem Solvers — an initiative of No Labels, a citizens’ group with leadership from former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — is their commitment to putting country before party. Only hyperpartisan ideologues could disagree with that guiding principle.
The Problem Solvers are becoming a force in the Congress. They meet regularly to build relationships and trust across the aisle, and look for common ground to solve the nation’s problems. They understand no one gets everything they want, whether in business, life or politics. The meetings of the Problem Solvers are the only venue on Capitol Hill where numerous members of Congress meet in a bipartisan setting.
This approach is a welcome contrast to today’s dysfunction in Washington. You have only to look at the Senate leaders to see striking examples of bipartisan futility. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., didn’t bring a budget to the Senate floor, not wanting to force Democratic senators to cast difficult votes that might antagonize their constituents. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., famously declared his top priority was to make President Obama a one-term president. At the time, we were conducting two wars and suffering through the worst economy since the Depression.
Neither party is blameless in prioritizing politicians’ personal power over citizens’ interests. By placing political goals ahead of governing, Reid and McConnell were, and are, emblematic of today’s broken Washington culture.
Polls consistently show Americans understand this. Our trust in Congress hovers at all-time lows between 9 percent and 17 percent.
No Labels is dedicated to making government work again. Their slogan is “Stop Fighting, Start Fixing!” and they focus on improving the process of governance as opposed to taking specific policy positions. This is what allows members of both parties to be comfortable within the No Labels community; they have the latitude to maintain their respective political principles.
No Labels is a big tent with a broad spectrum of political views among members. Some of No Labels’ proposals are filibuster reform, 90-day up-or-down votes on presidential appointees, and urging that members of Congress take no pledge but the oath of office. Both parties support or fight these commonsense proposals, depending on who is in power in the Congress and White House at any given time. The only reason these positions have not been adopted is that the parties value temporary political advantage over longer-term improved governance.
The public clamor for solutions rather than ideology is what drives the rapid growth of the Problem Solvers. Most important, Problem Solvers is not a Pollyanna approach to governing. It may be a long road to responsible governance in Washington, but it can be done. It took a long time for our politics to get off the tracks, and it will take a while to get them back on. Meanwhile, there is a growing political leadership working toward rational politics, and we citizens should be encouraged by, and support, that process.
Two of Georgia’s Problem Solvers are strong potential candidates for the 2014 Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Barrow, who hasn’t yet declared his intentions, and Kingston, who is expected to announce his candidacy today in Athens, are veteran lawmakers who have avoided the extremes of their parties. Their participation in Problem Solvers demonstrates their political maturity. They recognize American politics work best through bipartisan cooperation.
It is said that the Senate is the saucer in which the hot tea brewed by the House is cooled. Barrow and Kingston have demonstrated the coolness and judgment to serve honorably and effectively in the senior body. An election between two reasonable Problem Solvers, each representing the principles of their party while putting America first, would serve Georgians well.
Friday, May 3, 2013
A need for Problem Solvers
Congress continues to struggle to reach compromise on legislation even when a majority of voters express support for issues and legislation. With that in mind, Bill Galston put a spotlight on a need for problem solvers in Congress and in the nation's capital today more than ever.
For Galston:
Whether it’s sequestration, the budget crisis or the debt ceiling debate, America continues to kick the can down the road on problems large and small. Most Americans have reached the point where they just roll their eyes when they hear about the latest dysfunction out of Washington.
But it’s time to pay attention because Washington’s dysfunction is making America dysfunctional.
Economists such as Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom have recently traced the link between policy uncertainty and the reluctance of businesses to make long-term commitments. This means that people aren’t hiring and workers aren’t working as a direct consequence of our elected leaders’ inability to work together.
Fortunately, this reality is starting to generate a sense of urgency on Capitol Hill. The evidence: the growth of No Labels’ Problem Solvers -- a group of 63 members of Congress who are meeting regularly to build trust across the aisle.
This is not just some meeting of mushy moderates or people pushing bipartisanship for its own sake. No Labels’ Problem Solvers includes proud liberals, proud conservatives, and everything in between. They are united by their belief that people with different ideas really can work together. A representative member is Colorado’s Mike Coffman, a self-identified conservative who nonetheless finds plenty of value in building relationships beyond his party’s caucus.
“The people of Colorado sent me here to find solutions to the problems our country is facing. We won’t be able to improve the economy, solve our nation’s debt crisis, or enact the reforms we need, unless we work together across the aisle,” Coffman said when he joined No Labels.
No one expects Rep. Coffman or anyone else to check political principles at the door when they come to a Problem Solvers meeting -- or any No Labels event.
I’m a proud Democrat who served as a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton. Rep. Coffman is a proud Republican, and yet we are working together through the same organization – No Labels – because we respect what people on the other side of the aisle have to say. Rep. Coffman and the other Problem Solvers are showing an attitude rarely seen in Washington these days – a willingness to find common ground and an understanding that working with people from the other party isn’t treasonous. It is in fact the only way forward in an era of divided government.
The Problem Solvers include 33 Democrats, 29 Republicans and an independent who meet privately at least once a month. They are building relationships, building trust and have begun work on common sense policy proposals that you will likely be hearing more about over the summer.
This is a big deal, when you consider that similar across the aisle gatherings are almost totally unheard of in Washington. In choosing a new way forward, the Problem Solvers are choosing a deeply pragmatic solution to deal with dysfunction in our government. They also have a strong wind of public opinion at their back.
Many recent surveys show a majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and independents – supporting collaboration rather than confrontation. Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center reported that approval of the federal government has fallen to a record low. The warning light is flashing, and we should not ignore it. Members of Congress such as Rep. Coffman are answering the call.
With Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans controlling the House, the Problem Solvers are our only hope of ending gridlock in our government and of finding solutions on so many issues.
Rep. Coffman and 62 of his colleagues have gotten the message. The rest of Capitol Hill should be paying attention.
For Galston:
Whether it’s sequestration, the budget crisis or the debt ceiling debate, America continues to kick the can down the road on problems large and small. Most Americans have reached the point where they just roll their eyes when they hear about the latest dysfunction out of Washington.
But it’s time to pay attention because Washington’s dysfunction is making America dysfunctional.
Economists such as Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom have recently traced the link between policy uncertainty and the reluctance of businesses to make long-term commitments. This means that people aren’t hiring and workers aren’t working as a direct consequence of our elected leaders’ inability to work together.
Fortunately, this reality is starting to generate a sense of urgency on Capitol Hill. The evidence: the growth of No Labels’ Problem Solvers -- a group of 63 members of Congress who are meeting regularly to build trust across the aisle.
This is not just some meeting of mushy moderates or people pushing bipartisanship for its own sake. No Labels’ Problem Solvers includes proud liberals, proud conservatives, and everything in between. They are united by their belief that people with different ideas really can work together. A representative member is Colorado’s Mike Coffman, a self-identified conservative who nonetheless finds plenty of value in building relationships beyond his party’s caucus.
“The people of Colorado sent me here to find solutions to the problems our country is facing. We won’t be able to improve the economy, solve our nation’s debt crisis, or enact the reforms we need, unless we work together across the aisle,” Coffman said when he joined No Labels.
No one expects Rep. Coffman or anyone else to check political principles at the door when they come to a Problem Solvers meeting -- or any No Labels event.
I’m a proud Democrat who served as a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton. Rep. Coffman is a proud Republican, and yet we are working together through the same organization – No Labels – because we respect what people on the other side of the aisle have to say. Rep. Coffman and the other Problem Solvers are showing an attitude rarely seen in Washington these days – a willingness to find common ground and an understanding that working with people from the other party isn’t treasonous. It is in fact the only way forward in an era of divided government.
The Problem Solvers include 33 Democrats, 29 Republicans and an independent who meet privately at least once a month. They are building relationships, building trust and have begun work on common sense policy proposals that you will likely be hearing more about over the summer.
This is a big deal, when you consider that similar across the aisle gatherings are almost totally unheard of in Washington. In choosing a new way forward, the Problem Solvers are choosing a deeply pragmatic solution to deal with dysfunction in our government. They also have a strong wind of public opinion at their back.
Many recent surveys show a majority of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and independents – supporting collaboration rather than confrontation. Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center reported that approval of the federal government has fallen to a record low. The warning light is flashing, and we should not ignore it. Members of Congress such as Rep. Coffman are answering the call.
With Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans controlling the House, the Problem Solvers are our only hope of ending gridlock in our government and of finding solutions on so many issues.
Rep. Coffman and 62 of his colleagues have gotten the message. The rest of Capitol Hill should be paying attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
