On some national issues, compromise is unlikely

SOME pundits and politicians see the midterm elections, in which Democrats reclaimed control of the U.S. House of Representatives, as a sign that voters want compromise and collaboration applied to issues of the day. Of course, wanting it is one thing, getting it is another.

For example, is there any reason to believe there will be movement on the issue of guns? Democrats in the House are insisting that changes are coming. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who likely will become the next House speaker, says Americans “deserve real action to end the daily epidemic of gun violence” in the country.

Among other things, Pelosi has said she wants restrictions on high-capacity gun magazines and the ability to remove guns from people temporarily if they have been deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others.

The new class of Democrats in Congress includes several who ran on platforms that included stricter gun control. Privately funded efforts to clamp down on guns, such as one by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, spent millions helping to elect like-minded candidates.

Ultimately, any legislation requires buy-in from both chambers, and the Republican-controlled Senate will be cool to sweeping gun control efforts. Incremental moves may have a chance to succeed, but Pelosi, et al, don’t seem too interested in that approach.

A separate issue where bipartisanship is warranted, but unlikely to emerge, is the national debt, as that affects every American. At the end of October, the national debt totaled $21.6 trillion, with about $15.9 trillion of that held by the public. A decade ago, the latter figure was $15.1 trillion.

In The Wall Street Journal last week, reporters Kate Davidson and Daniel Kruger noted that interest costs on federal debt totaled $263 billion last year, which was 6.6 percent of all government spending and 1.4 percent of gross domestic product. By 2028, the Congressional Budget Office predicts, interest spending alone will be $915 billion — 13 percent of all government spending and 3.1 percent of GDP.

“Along that path,” Davidson and Kruger wrote, “the government is expected to pass the following milestones: It will spend more on interest than it spends on Medicaid in 2020; more in 2023 than it spends on national defense; and more in 2025 than it spends on all nondefense discretionary programs combined …”

Former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, railed about the debt throughout his decade in the Senate. Doing nothing about it, he has said, will “betray both parties’ core values” and eventually require giant tax increases.

Yet both parties continue to whistle past the graveyard, attacking the other side whenever a potential money-saving reform is proffered. There appears to be little reason to believe this will change, regardless of the latest election results.