Political junkies watched with some surprise as the lame-duck 2010 Congress passed a number of last-minute bills to bring the year to a close. Widely heralded as a week of "wins" for President Obama, the accomplishments are hopefully a bit of a harbinger of things to come. With Republicans taking firm control of the House and weakening the Democrats' majority in the Senate, it would be nice to see the GOP start to take the business of governing more seriously and leave their "Party of No" signs in the cloakroom.

The lame-duck session offered lessons for liberals as well. Perhaps the most impressive feat for the Obama administration was the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--mostly because it was done in exactly the way the president wanted it done, by act of Congress, not by court mandate. While many liberals howled in anger when the administration chose to fight court cases that might have overturned DODT this summer and fall, Obama's strategy was vindicated. Now, DODT is effectively and completely overturned within 60 days, instead of dragging through the courts for what could have been years.

Pretty much no one is happy with the tax compromise that occurred in this session, with both liberals and conservatives complaining that if their party had waited until the new year, they could have gotten more of what they wanted.

The truth is, this is probably good economic policy in the short term. The payroll-tax holiday will offer the most direct stimulus to the economy thus far. And while I'd prefer to see marginal tax rates on the top two income levels return to Clinton-era numbers, I understand that any tax increases are best held on to until the economy is firing on all cylinders. These tax rates should have been higher during the 2000s, when revenues would have been much easier to capture and retain. When times are flush, the coffers should be filled, not emptied further. When times are lean, governments spend.

Over Christmas weekend, we made a whirlwind trip from Jackson to Savannah, Ga., and back to Neshoba County in about 72 hours total; one thing we saw were miles and miles of improved highways and infrastructure, and we heard tales of more finished construction throughout the Southeast. The original Obama stimulus may have taken a while to get rolling, but the evidence is that we're still bearing that fruit.

(President Obama himself recently said that one of the things he's learned in his first two years in office is that "there's no such thing as a shovel-ready project.")

Now, stimulus will come in the form of additional dollars in the paychecks of working folks, which will no doubt find their way back into the economy. (Hopefully not exclusively at Walmart. Think local, y'all.)

And, yes, thanks to this compromise, we're set for some dramatic debates on tax policy in the next few years. I, for one, hope that they're fruitful debates and that conservatives decide to come at them honestly and intently, and not just with more obfuscation and obstructionism. As Obama said this past week of the GOP (paraphrasing Spider Man), "With greater power comes greater responsibility." Here's praying the Republicans take that to heart.

Recently I've been reading a book called "Political Common Sense for America: The Creation of the Franklin Party." This book, which appears to be self-published, begins as a parable and ends with a treatise and platform for the formation of a third party, called The Franklin Party. The premise for the party is that "common sense," simplicity and full individual participation should prevail. (More info at http://www.thefranklinparty.org/.)

While I don't agree with every plank in the platform (some of it is a bit too xenophobic and "tough on crime" for my taste) the book does lend itself to the argument that many conservative and liberal principles can co-exist if they're not specifically designed to explode on impact. Ideas like a flat tax, health care directly from the provider, and radical new rules for ending our reliance on fossil fuels are real winners--not always for the special interests that currently buy elections, but for the actual country that these officials are supposed to be governing.

The likelihood of the Franklin Party taking hold seems limited--aside from a blog, a newsletter and a Squidoo page, there doesn't seem to be much organization there. But the need for "common sense" in politics remains.

For two years we've watched the GOP in Congress spend entirely too much time trying to block President Obama. In two weeks, we got a much better sense of what progress can look like if there's some give-and-take among the parties and branches of government. Likewise, I think we've seen the benefits of President Obama's focus on the "long view" and his patient approach to governance--leadership we'll need going into this next Congress.

In 2011, we need government aimed squarely at growing this economy, not just to increase consumer spending, but with an eye to the future of industry in the U.S. We've got a green infrastructure we could be building, a bio-tech industry poised for rapid growth, and a maturing Internet economy that needs care and feeding. I'd love to see a revamped, simplified tax structure--not to mention an emphasis on educating children--looking toward a future of smarter, professional Americans ready to lead the world again in math, science and the arts.

Accomplishing these things will require leaders interested not in smaller government for small government's sake, but rather in good government: efficient, effective ... and sensible.

Mississippi is sending an almost completely Republican delegation to Washington in 2011; we need to demand from them not party fealty or ideological purity, but common sense. They work for us, not their lobbyist benefactors. Mississippi needs smart progress, not just corporate welfare. And we need a government that works for us, not one that shuts down over winner-take-all party politics.

Let's watch our delegation closely and hold them accountable for sensible governance for our state and country.

Previous Comments

ID

161388

Comment

Great column, dog or should I say ITodd. The next two years we will find out what Barry Steve Obama got left in the tank. The republicans will be their usual develish selves. I just hope Barry can outsmart them again and continue to move the country forward. I noticed of late that there is an effort to improve the legacy of the last George Bush as the republicans take over the House. I hope most of us will look forward and backward with clarity and reject all bullcrap. While I know Bush's book is selling well right now I simply say so is marijuana.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-12-30T18:00:00-06:00

ID

161405

Comment

Great points, Todd. The Franklin Party sounds like the kind of political organization that speaks to my political worldview. I know there is no way they can upset the current Demorat/Republicon status quo, but I'll start keeping an eye out for them.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2011-01-03T12:08:51-06:00

ID

161414

Comment

The "FRANKLIN PARTY" whose premise is built around the principals of common sense would be well served if they take the following idea into consideratio: COMMON SENSE IS NOT SO COMMON.

Author

justjess

Date

2011-01-04T11:35:45-06:00

ID

161427

Comment

Until then, "for small government's sake" is probably a mischaracterization of why a lot of people push for such a thing. I see your point, but then again you probably don't get the American's for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist) e-newsletter like I do, thanks to some kind soul who subscribed me. There are plenty of professional right-wingers who advocate against "big government" (Defense notwithstanding of course) for the sake of advocating against it. Plus, it pays for nice parties and puts cars in the garage. And, granted, there are philosophical differences over governments role in education, entitlements, R&D, but those are generally held at the platitude level, not the roll up your sleeves and get something done level. My point is that if we actually thought about such problems on that level more often, we'd get more done. (Another Franklin Party tenet is *strict* term limits to avoid professional politicians.)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-01-04T15:23:30-06:00

ID

161431

Comment

Tangentially related (insofar as it might reflect positive feelings following the lame duck session) is the report from Gallup that Obama's Approval Rating Reaches 50%. Could it be the citizenry responding to compromise and progress?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-01-04T15:49:36-06:00

ID

161436

Comment

Appropriately named if I do say so myself. A party that espouses using good ole "common sense" as a means to make decisions and as a way to govern our citizens. THIS "Franklin" agrees. Professional Politicians need to GO! its as if I wrote it LOL

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2011-01-04T16:59:36-06:00

ID

161443

Comment

Obviously, I support common sense, but I gotta give a meh on the Franklin Party. That's right, a meh. That there is a perennial call for third parties surely shows that a large part of the electorate feels poorly represented by Democrats and Republicans. However, I firmly believe, on the basis of historical evidence, that there will never be an abiding third party in this country because of its winner-take-all non-proportional voting system. Blah blah. The upshot is that anytime a third party has arisen in our history it has been because one of the institutional parties has ripped itself apart at the seams. I don't see that happening today. In the realm of ideas, why on earth would any liberal ever support a flat tax? It is a regressive tax that would destroy the single greatest legacy of the progressives. If you want to understand why we face deficits, it is less a question of spending than it is of revenue. That is not to deny that we have grown the government in the last 30 years, but the government grew quickly between 1932 and 1970 as well. The difference was that we payed for the growth with high taxes on the wealthy. By the way, the wealthy did incredibly well during those years. Now, taxes on the wealthy are about a third of what they once were, but no one has had the political will to cut government spending. Bush grew the government faster than LBJ, and His Holiness Ronald Reagan wasn't far behind. Give me an Eisenhower, praise God. I do believe that we should support bipartisan compromise, even when it makes my stomach heave. Like you, I support the tax cut compromise, even though if I were Napoleon, I would phase in a 70 percent tax on income over $5 million, compared to the piddly tax the Democrats propose. But as much as I hate the dysfunction of our government, and as much as I accept that it harms progressive politics more than conservative politics, all of this clamoring for some "third way" is beside the point. What we need is a new progressive consensus. What we need is victory, for the good of Americans and people all around the world. If I knew how to get us there, I wouldn't be chatting with you here. But that doesn't mean we should abandon it as a goal. And it doesn't mean we should pretend that there is any future to the Franklin Party or the No Label whatever-it-is or to Perot or to any of the other so-called independents.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2011-01-04T19:51:27-06:00

ID

161445

Comment

Brian -- points taken. And reading what you've said does make me mindful of the fact that, at least in recent years, third-party movements have by and large backfired on the "side of the spectrum" from whence the third-party challenge came. (e.g. Perot pulling from GHW Bush and Nader pulling from Gore.) You're right that winner takes all favors two parties and we'd need to do something about that. (I've often acknowledged and lamented the fact that the U.S. has never helped create another country's government -- Germany, Japan, etc. -- in exactly our own image. Our inability to field coalition governments kills a lot of thoughtful ideas in our politics. Kudos to Presidents who try to include the other party; of course, with the President playing a "passive" legislative role, it's only so interesting.) On the flat tax thing, again, you're right, I couldn't imagine anything but a graduated system. However, where the levels fall and the idea of radically simplifying the tax code are attractive "common sense" ideas that neither Democrats nor Republicans seem capable of putting into action. (After all, you'd have the CPA lobby on your ass. ;-) And, yes, I agree with you that we have a revenue problem -- made abundantly clear by Bush's boneheaded tax cuts and the surpluses that went down the drain with them -- although I would suggest that we also have an interest-on-debt problem and we have some issues to overcome in terms of entitlements. I would rather see massive WPA-style work projects going on right now rather than another 52-week extension of unemployment -- recognizing that those dollars are important to people who cannot find work and that the dollars aren't enough for you to truly sustain yourself, causing of a host of other problems. (Whenever I hear someone lament the "lazy" who can't "get a job" on unemployment I suggest they listen to some of the real stories of the unemployed and exactly how high on the hog they live.) Plus, we'd be getting improved infrastructure and arts out of the deal. But I guess the reason something like this resonates with me takes me back to the New Political Compass idea that I used to discuss endlessly (by which I mean this Political Compass not that one.) My brand of progressivism, as defined by the compass, is in the "north" -- the region furthest away from "corporate conservatism." I think that today's politicians find their solutions within the narrow confines of answers that will please their backers -- and those are large corporations and the lobbyists paid to represent them. That goes for Ds and Rs, and, presumably, any professional politician over time. And that's a problem. It's "Corporate America" -- whatever that is anymore -- that drives the narrative when it comes to keeping us on an oil economy, encouraging the military-industrial complex, discouraging oversight of made-up financial instruments, and moving manufacturing jobs overseas when they find it cheaper to re-import everything to us than they find it to pay living wages and benefits to Americans. Even Wal-Mart has moved away from red, white and blue in their marketing. And they do that why? Because the highest and generally only ethic in those "public" (what a word for it) corporations is increasing shareholder value. And that's a problem. So, if there's anything refreshing for me in the Franklin Party, it's that it feels like it's coming from a little right-of-center, but it also feels a little "north" vs. "south." One of their tenets -- outlaw the sale of internal combustion engines by 2015. That's something that would be decried as the exact opposite of common sense from anyone whose ever taken money from any politican who has ever taken money from anyone -- a labor union, the USCoC, an oil company, an oil company front group, etc., etc. And, yet, it's probably an absolutely essential thing for us to do -- and talk about firing up that ol' American ingenuity for an Apollo-mission style solution to energy. That to me is a *little* fresh air.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-01-05T00:23:09-06:00

ID

161455

Comment

well, the Grim Weeper of the House os should I say Weeper of the House and the republicans take over the house today. Jimbo Boehner will cry his ass off before putting the screws to babies, old folks, the poor and middle class. I guess he hates to do it. I hope we don't become the laughing stock of the world with Boehner and his team of assholes as they they try to turn back progress and America. Down Mr. Oppressor man. Down, down, down.

Author

Walt

Date

2011-01-05T17:43:32-06:00

ID

161456

Comment

well, the Grim Weeper of the House os should I say Weeper of the House and the republicans take over the house today. And people wonder why we don't publish poetry.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2011-01-05T17:45:30-06:00

ID

161459

Comment

Michael, do you make over $5 million? As for your cute little personal insults, keep them to yourself. You sound like you have no idea what you're talking about when you have to resort to personal insults to fill space. I just wish someone had explained how to use exclamation points to you. You know what F. Scott Fitzgerald said, right? Using an exclamation point is like laughing at your own joke. I can't honestly tell you what using multiple ones over and over again with a space in front of them mean. I shudder to think.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-01-05T20:18:44-06:00

ID

161464

Comment

Michael, do you realize that corporations gets far more in welfare than poor people do? Are you willing to stand and say the government should cut them off? Also, you do realize that unemployment benefits do help keep the economy going, right? If you cut that off, this country would be in an even worse predicament than we are now. Trust me, take unemployment benefits out of the hands of already desperate people and see how much crime spikes. If I'm starving and have no money coming in, I'm stealing food big time.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2011-01-05T20:58:23-06:00

ID

161468

Comment

Michael, I don't understand your vision of democracy. Do you think that American citizens should not be allowed to have an opinion about taxes? If you knew my parents, you wouldn't bring them into this conversation. My father was a Baptist minister, and he taught me that Jesus loved the poor. If you don't get nicer about it, I'm going to mention your comment in my next prayer. Jesus will know if you're using a pseudonym. Your ad hominem attacks are boring. I pay my bills and my taxes. You challenged none of my facts. You just had a tantrum.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2011-01-05T21:13:53-06:00

ID

161473

Comment

If you don't get nicer about it, I'm going to mention your comment in my next prayer. Jesus will know if you're using a pseudonym. Your ad hominem attacks are boring. I pay my bills and my taxes. You challenged none of my facts. You just had a tantrum. I heart Brian Johnson. And good point about corporate welfare, golden. Too often, that ends up being OK with pseudo-Libertarians--or is it Libertarian In Name Only (LINO)?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-01-06T10:30:44-06:00

ID

161486

Comment

Todd, before I was distracted by he of the reckless punctuation, I meant to acknowledge that I was too quick to dismiss a fresh perspective on our politics. What can you do but give a thumb's-up to anyone who wants to outlaw the internal combustion engine in five years? It's impractical, it's politically impossible, but what a thrilling idea. I also lament our winner-take-all political system, though I don't see how the Democrats and Republicans will ever let us change it. It would require a truly remarkable grass-roots movement to get a constitutional amendment passed, over the strident objections of the mainstream parties and business interests. The evil genius of our system is that everything gets channeled through the two political parties, and they are both corporate. It doesn't really feel like democracy anymore. So yes, we should keep an open mind about center-right activism that defies corporate interests. By the way, I don't disagree that we have entitlement / interest on the debt problems. It's just that they are medium-sized problems. Given the strategic hysteria coming from the right about the deficit, I am reluctant to put entitlements on the table. Social Security is relatively easy to fix, but the Republicans are determined to replace it with some sort of 401K plan. I would rather do nothing with it than open the door to Paul Ryan's "reforms." Also, I don't necessarily oppose reducing income tax rates while closing loopholes and eliminating various credits. My fear is that the corporate interests will surely start to carve out new loopholes and credits as quickly as possible. Then, we might wind up with a worse revenue problem than we have now.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2011-01-06T15:04:20-06:00

ID

161490

Comment

ITodd, don't be a hater, be an emulator. You know that is good poetry. In fact, I'm poetry im motion all by myself. We don't need a third political party. We don't even need the repugnant party we have (the republicans) as I have been saying for years. I saw a news story today about former VP Chaney being too old for a new heart. Hell, I didn't know he had one in the first place. That was likely the best kept secret in the republican party for 8 years. Common sense is leading me to this conclusion. I simply can not fathom how anyone can believe all the evil that just filled the House of Representatives can be any good for the country. Heck, I figured Lucifer was male until I saw Michelle Bachman of Minnesota. She is ugly inside, outside, over, under, and between. I'm thinking about defecting again. I don't know that I can take anymore republicans being in control. All the poor and middle class have left is our pride and self respect. They want that too.

Author

Walt

Date

2011-01-06T17:50:11-06:00

ID

161494

Comment

Walt, don't defect. Remember that Prince is also from Minnesota. In the end, Prince will prevail.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2011-01-06T21:22:44-06:00