The national news from Capitol Hill indicates that partisan politics at the federal level might be worse than ever.

Congress can’t even agree to a bipartisan plan to raise the debt limit. At the same time, the federal infrastructure plan ran into delays because the progressive wing of the Democratic Party wants to pressure moderate senators to pass the social programs proposal.

The debt limit issue is a political ploy by the Republican leadership. The infrastructure situation is a questionable tactical move on the part of some Democrats. Both sides are guilty of extreme partisanship, the kind that’s seriously impairing the ability of Congress to govern.

What’s the answer?

I think in both cases it would be a good idea to simply call the bluffs on both groups of partisan leaders.

A debt default is unthinkable. Federal employees wouldn’t get paid. Federal agencies wouldn’t be able to pay contractors. People who depend on Social Security wouldn’t get checks.

It’s an empty gesture for Republicans to vote no. It’s not based on a genuine willingness to default, just on an attempt to make the Democratic majority act alone.

Maybe it should be pushed to the final hour. Possibly Republicans should be forced to vote no at the last minute. It would mean that Democrats could claim they voted for default, that they were willing to jeopardize the economy to prove a point on federal spending.

The same logic should apply to tactics used on the infrastructure proposal. It’s the best opportunity for bi-partisan problem-solving to emerge in a long time.

It’s pointless to hold it up because of a different set of spending plans. The infrastructure package has a broad base of support. It should be brought to a vote on it’s own merit, and simply approved as a good federal investment in the nation’s future.

If any progressives were to vote no, they’d create a perception that they aren’t truly committed to infrastructure upgrades. Many of them are in safely Democratic districts, but it’s the kind of tactic that could provoke opposition in primaries.

Based on the latest news, they’re likely to face a compromise on social spending regardless of what they do with the infrastructure bill. A reduced amount of social spending isn’t necessarily bad.

They could start out in 2021 with about a $1.5 trillion increase and then come back for more if it plays out as a good investment.

Some efforts like job training, services for children, housing rehabilitation, public transit and access to technology could easily prove positive. They might improve many lives.

Lawmakers on both sides need to demonstrate that when the chips are down they can work together and get something done. Possibly there’s a need for more moderates, people like Manchin and Sinnema on the Democratic side and Republicans like Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

For a two-party system to be effective, there’s a need to start with areas where there’s agreement, such as the infrastructure proposal. That leads to things which can be highlighted as accomplishments, steps that help to meet current needs in America.

Then lawmakers can move on to areas of disagreement and if necessary have votes along party lines. In the end it’s up to voters to strike a balance between government investment and fiscal responsibility. It’s possible that some of the questions being addressed by the current Congress might set a precedent for a balanced approach.

If obstacles keep getting thrown in the way, it will show that many politicians on both sides of the aisle are more concerned about the next election than about making real progress. If things get to that point, it’s time for voters to elect new people.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor for the Marshall Independent