willing to compromise?

At the crux of the current debate is how many amendments to allow, and which ones. Democrats want to allow amendments that have to do directly with the Farm Bill, and Republicans would like to be able to add any amendments they want to the bill. This is a frequent tactic, especially with huge, must pass legislation.

Personally, I think the Democrats are right in this case. Far too often, proposals that are unpopular with voters are hidden in big bills like the Farm Bill and people only find out after they start to see the detrimental effects of the legislation after it passes. And yet, I'd also like to see the bill actually debated.

I will say this, though. In the House, the Rules Committee has complete control over what amendments are allowed and how long debate will last. The Rules Committee is also controlled by the majority party, and it tends to do the bidding of the majority party leadership and shut out amendments from the minority party, even if the ideas are widely supported by both parties.

The result of this difference in this case is that the House completed the Farm Bill, but the downside is that a lot of ideas that might have been very helpful to consumers and family farmers were not considered. The Senate has no equivalent to the House Rules Committee, so while it can mean that they take more time, it also means that the minority party has more of a voice.

As frustrated as I am about the lack of a Senate Farm Bill debate at the moment, I also value democracy. As much as I hate the idea of them voting on tax policy or the Iraq war, it's a question of process. I tend to be very task-oriented myself, but if we prioritize the task over the process to get there when it comes to legislation, we might compromise our democracy. Let's just hope they can come to a compromise that values both democracy and a need to move forward.