Our elected representatives are supposed to be pragmatists, and what does a pragmatist do when faced with a difficult problem? Compromise. Instead we're left with ideologues that shout from the highest mountaintops about "bipartisanship" however it's just bluster and posturing.
Just my two cents. Thanks for an interesting comment.
In this case, it seems like the principle has already been compromised, and now the two parties are simply haggling over the price, so to speak. The principle that I think has been compromised is whether the government should take by force from some individuals in order to give an unearned benefit to some others.
Seems like a concept that most Americans can get behind, but the rubber doesn't meet the road until you ask which rights of which individuals need protecting.
Is abortion law about the rights of the mother or the rights of the fetus? Is campaign finance law about the rights of the rich person or the poor person? Is business regulation about the rights of the employer or the employee? Etc.
Different people will answer these questions in different ways, so if everyone just sticks to their principles, nothing will ever change or get done.