Listening to talk radio this morning, I heard Rush Limbaugh complain that the debt ceiling bill shows how Washington isn't acting in the interests of Americans but instead in the interests of the wealthy ruling class.
For the first time in my life, I agree with him.
Then I flipped over to Thom Hartmann, on progressive talk radio Green960 in San Francisco, and heard that he was saying the same thing.
What does it mean when the two sides of our deeply divided country actually agree on what's wrong?
As I flipped back and forth between Rush Limbaugh and Thom Hartmann, I heard these two men and their guests all saying the following things:
1. There was no real threat of a default on our debt. This was a manufactured crisis that politicians used to push their own agendas.
2. This legislation will cause a serious deterioration of our economy.
3. The cost of this legislation will be borne by average Americans and their grandchildren.
4. This bill does not do what the party you support says it would do.
If you are a Democrat, the bill does not raise revenue.
If you are a Republican, the bill does raise revenue (because of the Super Committee and "trigger" in the bill).
5. This legislation is a fundamental failure of democracy; both sides compromised so heavily on their core beliefs that it doesn't represent the interests of anyone.
While the two sides don't agree on the reasons/causes for each of the above, it seems there is general consensus that this legislation is a national embarrassment and will make our country worse.
What do you think?
Did this process turn compromise into a dirty word?
Or did it prove that a good compromise is one with which both sides are dissatisfied?
12:33 PM PT: To be clear: I am not a Rush Limbaugh supporter, nor am I claiming that he is truly a defender of the working people.
However, I do think it's interesting and thought-provoking that both "sides" of the political spectrum are using similar key points to express their frustration with this legislation.
1:01 PM PT: Rush Limbaugh does indeed use the phrase "ruling class" quite often and uses it to refer to the moneyed interests that are controlling both the Republicans and Democrats.(http://www.infowars.com/...)
However, Rush's use of class warfare also coincides with the rise of the Tea Party, which he touts as proof that the American people are rising up against the "ruling class" (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/...)