But, does the Times really criticize the Democrats in the Senate? The following terms are used.
"deflect attention", "toxic plan", "outrageous", "extreme", "destructive".
However, as you probably suspect, these terms are all applied to the Republicans.
The editorial does criticize the Senate for being reactive, unoriginal, fearful, "play-it-safe", etc. But it's quickly diluted by the Times defending the Democrat actions, as in these sections:
These political considerations should not be minimized. With only a three-vote majority, Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are understandably fearful about losing the Senate next year and have decided that treading water is better than taking a showy but risky dive.and
It is fine — and important — to attack Mr. Ryan’s destructive Medicare plan, and such criticism seems to be remarkably effective among swing voters, as we saw in last week’s Democratic victory in a special election in western New York.Even the criticism is based on political motivations. The Times isn't criticizing the Senate Democrats for letting the country roll uncontrolled into a fiscal ditch, the criticism is completely political: their passivity loses the Democratic momentum, and empowers the Republicans.
But if Democrats are ever going to regain the momentum in the national conversation, they have to stand for something. Standing pat gives Republicans huge openings to move the debate to the right.
Democrats avoided passing appropriations bills last year for similar reasons, and that failure almost led to a government shutdown this year when Republicans exploited it.In other words, the Times is not particularly upset that the lack of Senate vision and leadership is hurting the country. They are just upset that it is hurting the Democrats.
One other section of the editorial is very troubling. It complains that the Senate is "hobbled", in part because "Its members are not elected from the carefully drawn partisan districts that in most years are a House luxury". Sounds like the writer is in favor of Gerrymandering. That way Democrats would have secure seats and could "get things done" without worrying about the will of the people. Just like Tom Friedman admires China's ability to get things done.
I agree with the editorial that revenues must be increased, and that health care costs must be trimmed. But we have a representative government that is supposed to handle that, not some all-powerful entrenched oligarchy and political class. :-) Irony intended, we do have a powerful entrenched political class, but Gerrymandering makes it even more entrenched.
