Jim Fossel’s whiny column (“These days, why compromise at all,” April 9) seemingly contradicts his previous week’s column. Fossel complains that Republicans “didn’t really get anything out of the bipartisan supplemental budget” then admits Gov. Mills agreed to expand eligibility for heating aid (to Fossel: “free cash”).
Aren’t the terms “bipartisan,” and Mills’ “agreed” expansion examples of compromise? If “compromise” means: “As promised, I am vetoing all bills sponsored by Democrats” (Paul LePage) or John Boehner’s 2010 statement regarding Obama’s agenda: “We’re going to do everything – and I mean everything we can do – to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can,” then I guess we disagree on what “compromise” means.
“Compromise” is not issuing threats of retaliation toward fellow Republicans reaching across the aisle. “Compromise” is not calling moderate Republicans “RINOs” when seeking middle ground with Democrats. “Compromise” is Biden saying: “Democrats and Republicans can come together and deliver results.” “Compromise” is Obama acknowledging his infrastructure bill was “not perfect, but it’s a commonsense compromise,” and “compromise” was Obama working with Republicans to craft a stimulus bill in 2009 resulting in the longest period of job growth in the country’s history despite inheriting an economy in free fall.
“Compromise” takes two parties striving to work together, not one making “life difficult” for the other.
Sarah L. Sweet
Topsham
Send questions/comments to the editors.
