=====================
====================
From the Washington Examiner:
By: Examiner Editorial
05/30/11
During the summer of 2009, in the early stages of the health care debate, a frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., lamented that he wasn’t getting any cooperation from Republicans. “On something as important as health care, you would think people would be interested in working together,” Reid grumbled. “Republicans aren’t interested in working with Democrats. That’s pretty clear. … The party of no is hoping that we trip and fall.”
This “Party of No” rhetoric was parroted by nearly every liberal writer. It is less common today, now that the tables have turned. The new Republican House majority has passed a serious proposal to reform the broken entitlement system and avert national insolvency. Not only has Reid refused to work with the GOP on a budget, but he said it would be “foolish” for Democrats to release one of their own. And last Wednesday, Senate Democrats gave new meaning to the label the “Party of No” when they held a series of four budget votes. Not a single Democrat voted for any budget proposal, including Obama’s own plan, which was rejected by a unanimous 97-to-0 vote.
Democrats have settled on a political strategy of isolating and attacking the Ryan plan instead of offering constructive solutions that could leave them open to attack. If history is any guide, this is a winning election strategy. But it is not necessarily responsible governance. The nation faces an unprecedented debt crisis that makes the problems in the health care system pale in comparison. Both former President Clinton and President Obama at least rhetorically acknowledge that the current and projected federal deficits are unsustainable.
