Are we so divided as a nation that the two sides in Washington can agree on nothing? Can we no longer work together? What do you say to the Negative Nancy who claims the only action occurring in Washington is the evolution of James Comey’s (former FBI Director) dramatic career and debates over the proper use of presidential twitter?
In light of the tragic shooting that targeted Congressional leaders this week, followed by the long overdue push to recognize the values that unite us as a nation, this post is focused on bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship does still exist – and this is what it looks like:
Improving Care for our Veterans
After a process of compromise, a bipartisan bill designed to better serve our veterans sailed through the Senate on June 6th, and passed the House with bipartisan support on June 13th. The President will soon sign the bill, codifying “into law the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection that was set up last month by President Donald Trump through executive order.” (Free Beacon)
The bill is S.1094, Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.
This is just the most recent, publicly documented example of bipartisan compromise. What other topics are our elected officials crossing the political divide to agree upon?
One topic to look for: reforms that bring “government closer to the people.”
Decentralizing Government
Many in Congress, mostly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long championed the 10th amendment – advocating for a reduction in the size of the federal government in exchange for empowering individual states and local governments. The 10th amendment to the Constitution designates that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.
This amendment has formed the basis of arguments to eliminate the federal Department of Education and federal Environmental Protection Agency – the conclusion being that education and environmental protection should be delegated to the states without federal interference, since the federal government was not expressly given such duties in the Constitution. The belief is that use of taxpayer dollars, and the ability to conduct oversight of that use, is more efficient and effective at the most local level feasible.
The Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
At times I have heard my Democrat colleagues say that the 10th Amendment argument is simply utilized to kill programs that Republicans don’t like. Yet, lately, there are signs of both sides turning toward this theory of local governing.
Immigration Reform could Serve as an Example
In early May, two Republican legislators – Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado – discussed legislation they are drafting to shift immigration management from the federal level to the state level.
The vision is to “create a visa program that gives states a much larger role in managing immigration based on local needs. The rationale is that different parts of the country have different labor demands, and state leaders are in a better position than Washington lawmakers to assess local economic conditions. The number of [total] visas available would be determined by the federal government and indexed to economic growth.” But then states would be empowered to decide the number of visas that make sense for their state and set the relevant visa requirements. (WSJ)
Immigration and the 10th amendment has also been discussed (often led by Democrats) in the context of “sanctuary cities,” otherwise known as localities that choose not to enforce federal immigration laws, particularly when it comes to policing.
Given the bipartisan acknowledgement that our current immigration system is broken, is it time to pursue bipartisan consensus on increased state/local management of immigration visas and policing?
The Bigger Picture: Decentralization of Government
Also as recently as last month, a Democrat Congressman from Ohio, “Rep. Tim Ryan [touted] a bill that would ‘decentralize’ the federal government, moving parts away from Washington.” The bill is H.R. 2112, the Federal Government Decentralization Commission Act.
Congressman Ryan said, “We have a lot more employees in the federal government than we ever imagined as a country, and we are in a position where a good number of these jobs don’t necessarily need to be in Washington, D.C. … Democrats should be for decentralizing the government, you know? It is big. It is bureaucratic. It does need to be closer to the people.” (The Hill)
In Conclusion
Of course, utilizing the 10th amendment to defend the rights of states can come in handy when one doesn’t agree with the individual elected to run the federal government – but that tidbit is hardly relevant given the immense opportunity at our fingertips for bipartisan embrace of decentralizing government.
Can we come together to support this growing bipartisan chorus of government closer to the people?
Resources:
- We have been divided as a nation in the past, more so than we are today: TIME
- The Atlantic, Is It Time for the U.S. to Rein in the Presidency? Two historians consider whether it’s time to raise the possibility of decentralization amid frustrations with the federal government. “California Democrats and Texas Republicans are likely to look benignly on rules and laws that increase their states’ authority.”
- Read The Policy Circle Brief on Immigration including a summary of state and federal influence
- And also The Policy Circle Brief on Regulations on the role of local, state and federal government
What Still Matters is provided by Kristin Jackson, who serves as policy editor for The Policy Circle. Kristin is a middle-of-America native with a decade of experience working on policy in our nation’s capital.