Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

I've learned that frequently the best compromise is one in which both sides end up somewhat unhappy. And if I'm party to such a compromise, I suppose I have to hope that I'm a bit less unhappy than the other guy.

Such is the case with the massive $555 billion omnibus spending bill signed by President Bush on Wednesday.

Bush complained about $10 billion contained in 9,800 earmarks, but at the end of the day Bush was the clear political winner of this battle.

The bill, which was a compilation of eleven spending bills and additional war funding, included money for the Iraq war without attaching a time line, or as some call it, a date for surrender.

A rather strange statement followed Bush's signature:

“This legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.”

I don't quite know what this means, although it sounds disturbingly like the single biggest failure of George W. Bush's presidency: Signing the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act while acknowledging that he believed it to be unconstitutional.

As if the NetRoots won't be unhappy enough about funding the war without surrender, the Democrat Congress abandoned Charlie Rangel's "Mother of All Tax Hikes" (OK, he said "reforms", not "hikes", but my version is more accurate) to send to the President a bill which put a one-year "freeze" on the Alternative Minimum Tax ("AMT"), keeping it from hitting an additional 20 million taxpayers on their 2007 returns.

It is pleasantly astonishing to see Democrats be completely unable to use their majorities in both houses of Congress to pass tax hikes and surrenders despite a president with very low approval ratings.

While I don't think there's any chance of the GOP taking back either chamber in the next election, this type of result should give Republican presidential candidates some hope...and give voters a hint of a reason to vote to put a Republican in the White House.

Indeed, Americans have shown relatively consistent wisdom by keeping our government divided for most of the past generation. If there's anything we should learn from our modern history, from FDR to George W. Bush, it's that we don't want one party to control the executive and legislative branches simultaneously. For that reason, I continue to believe (though I wouldn't bet a lot on it) that a Republican will win the White House, but will not have any coattails. And that's fine with me, although I would prefer the Democrats not gain a veto-proof majority throughout Congress.