Compromise

                                   In the course of our public debate over the debt ceiling the word compromise continues to surface, it is a mantra that politicians like to use as if by not allowing certain positions within a debate on a political matter one may be construed as narrow minded. There is some merit to the position that compromise is essential to our Republic. It was Ben Franklin himself who could be called the original compromiser at the Constitutional  Convention the following is a quote from the good Doctor      " When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artists takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides must part with some of their demands "    There was also the compromise of 1850 which came about during the discussions of admitting Texas to the Union.
                                                            Certainly though not all compromise could be construed as good. For example there is the 3/5 compromise in our constitution which gave slaves the 3/5 status of a white person, would anyone today suggest such a compromise of principle is a good thing ?  Henry Clay was considered in his time to be the Great Compromiser he ended up proposing legislation that would allow one Free State into the Union for every Slave State, again would we wish to compromise on the issue of slavery today ? Being 3/5 of a person, or persuading the assembly's that a little bit of bad is okay as long as we let in a little bit of good, that stands reason on it's head, and certainly takes liberty and equality and bastardises the very concept.

                                                                                         When you have a scenario for example of a buyer and a seller, both parties come to the table with an equal share. The buyer comes with a medium of exchange ( hopefully a medium of objective value ) and knows at what point he will no longer be willing to purchase the object of the seller. As well the seller knows at what point he can no longer afford to sell his object for he will be losing money. What can reasonably happen at that point is a compromise on price. Please note however at no point is any one being asked to accept the price of the other as a starting point and then is given a demand to compromise from there.


                                                                                  The debt ceiling being raised is simply the United States government borrowing more than a level than they have already set for themselves as a limit. This borrowing is in addition to an already exorbitant amount of money. The Federal Government takes in 2.2 trillion dollars already. If that is not enough to provide for the defense of this country, provide for the general welfare, to provide for standards of weights and measures, to provide for secure borders, then it appears to me that what we have is an ineffectual Federal Government that should be abolished. There is no empire that has existed on this earth that wastes as much of the public treasury as the United States Federal government does today. There should be no compromise on the debt ceiling, there should be no increase in the debt ceiling, and there certainly should be no more increase in taxation to attempt to raise more revenue.

                                                                                       I will leave you with a quote to think about on this matter, and you can decide for yourself the value of compromise        "  A compromise is an adjustment  of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal. "         Putting future generations into an impossible debt to be repaid because of a lack of integrity today offers no value, and no government can by right make that claim.