On the outset, the JOBS Act appears to be, in the words of
NPR reporter Sonari Glinton, “…about as bipartisan as it gets,” with the vote in favor of the
JOBS Act counted at 390 to 23. However, minority whip, Steny Hoyer, expressed
the less than satisfied viewpoint of the House Democrat’s when he glibly referred
to the JOBS Act as, “Just Old Bills.”
House
Democrats reasonably view the JOBS Act as a reiteration of policies that are
old news--policies that are a far cry from the graver deliberations that
are required for real change. However, based on the startling amount of
party polarization that has arisen in recent years, a step like this one that tends towards
consensus, even if only a baby step, is still a step in the right direction.
Recent
party polarization, illustrated in the “Sorting Out” graph from the National Journal, has caused a startling decrease of moderation and inversely has
strengthened unified party voting. This shift towards a more parliamentary style
of 'voting based on party,' stands in stark contrast to our Founder’s initial
reasoning for creating a bicameral rather than unicameral legislature-- to ensure that factions
cannot centralize power in the Legislative body.
So,
while House Democrats may not view the JOBS Act as a true homerun for small
businesses, I’m certain they would agree that a consensus vote, even on something
as small as this, is better then forfeiting all their power to the centralizing might of the majority
House Republicans.
Rate this posting:
{[['
']]}
']]}