[real_change]

I am not a big fan of compromise and never had been. Henry Clay is often cited as an example of the virtues of compromise but what did he really accomplish as a legislator? At best, he helped delay the outbreak of the Civil War but neither side was ever really satisfied with the bargain they struck, so were the compromises that Clay helped broker really worthwhile?

I think that we are starting to see the impact of years of compromise for the sake of compromise. Politicians of both parties have supported federal spending for pork barrel projects and costly legislation in exchange for support for their own pet projects. The result has been an exploding national debt with no end in sight.

There has been far, far more compromising in Washington than what most people seem to believe. The question is would we have been better off with several decades of gridlock when it came to entitlements and discretionary, non-defense spending? IMO, we would have been much better off today without so much compromising within and between the two major parties.

As Reagan said about compromise, (paraphrasing), "They will be some who can not accept what we believe, and I say, let them go their way. We can not now or ever water down our values and ideals for the sake of agreement. If we believe in something, its because we believe its right."

All too often, compromise is simply a fancy way of saying that you passed a bill that contains the worst and smallest parts of each side, for the sake of saying you actually passed something. republicans want personal accounts for social security, democrats want to raise the taxes on the rich --- the compromise would be neither of the two key points, but instead some earmarks, increases in educational and defense spending and a commission that studies hwo to fix social security. the bills title? "Securing a better future today, for tomorrow's seniors".