In his latest column, Michael Barone objects to the use of the terms “bicker” and “squabble” to describe the contentious negotiations between congressional leaders and the White House over the budget:
You’ve seen those verbs often if you’ve been reading about the budget struggles between the Republican-controlled House, the Democratic-majority Senate, and the strangely detached Obama White House.
The implication is negative. Children bicker. Small-minded people squabble. When you use those verbs to describe the actions or words of John Boehner, Harry Reid and Barack Obama you are implying that they are arguing about trifles.
But they’re not. They were arguing about big things, vast flows of money, public policies with real consequences.
. . . .
The fact is that the Obama Democrats increased the size and scope of government beyond anything ever seen except in World War II. The Republicans are trying to reverse this trend. Far from arguing about trivia, both Democrats and Republicans are arguing about the most fundamental issues of domestic public policy.
Read the whole thing; it’s well worth you time. Barone offers an excellent analysis of the dynamics of negotiations and how such negotiations play out in light of the constitution’s provision for different terms of office for the president, representatives and Senators (those last in staggered terms).
*BTW, this is our 8,000th post since we moved from Blogspot.