If They Support it, We Oppose it.

Why does it seem like sometimes the opposition party gets so wrapped up in opposing the other party's ideas that their only purpose is to delay, obstruct and get in the way of an idea?

Okay, so some of the good ideas cost money. Some raise taxes. That is understood. So why does the majority push through ideas that have not been vetted simply because they have the votes to do so?

What if...both parties just cooperated with each other for the public good instead of being so damn partisan simply because that is all that we know in Pennsylvania. We cannot govern by suggesting that all their ideas are bad and all our ideas are good. The craving for the power of the majority finally regained corrupts the agendas of those who regain it. The majority that regains power is simply reminded of what it is like to be back in power and they forget how it feels to be in the minority. Someone has to make the first move toward a compromise, offer something of value to the other side, something they have fought for and that was fought against. Otherwise, it's back to the gamesmanship that defines this state as possibly the most partisan in the nation.

So this is reform

The reformers. They agree generally that reform is needed, but they can't agree to recommend specifics. They can agree on campaign finance reform in principle, but can't agree on numbers, not even ones like Congress did. They can agree that open records are needed, and that the Legislature can be included, but not the specifics of the vast list of exemptions that will weaken the law. They definitely DO NOT want fewer legislators, but it would be nice to lessen the cost. They leave the specifics to others who will be asked to carry the ball, other committ chairs who may or may not have the resolve to be reformers when talking to their leaders behind closed doors. It's lip service people. It's open records as long as there's a call for it. They can't even agree on an appeals process once the record access is denied.

But this is progress. It is an open dialogue. I am not so pessimistic as to think that the promises of many votes won't be the promises of many bills being signed by one governor, who has also played lip service to reform, because that is the buzzword. We play bingo with these words, like approve vs. advance. Gawd Almighty if the reformers stick their necks out and approve something controversial. So they don't recommend firmly, they advance the proposal without approving it...There's no there there. Like in the climax of Woody Allen's The Front. "I am answering, I'm just not replying. They can only get me if I don't answer, but if I reply without answering, I have them." The them is the voters. The newspaper muckracker articles will read that things were discussed, but what was done really.

The proof is in the act number.