It isn't that productive to be pointing at fingers this far into the mess. Both sides know they can't get what their constituents want. They know, also, that compromise makes their constituents angry. This time, both parties came up with something that they believe most constituents on both sides will see as a failed attempt not to compromise but to force the other side to concede. But, in fact, and obviously so, it was a deal in which both sides (the politicians) got exactly what they wanted -- which, and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, isn't what any of their constituents want.
That being said, there is no reason to believe that the constituents want what is really best even for the constituents themselves.
We should have little difficulty believing that, if both sides agreed to something, given that they have access to much more information than does the public and the resources to process that information, the something to which they agreed probably is better than what it is being made out to be.
The government really can't control the economy. To the extent that problems continue to exist, and problems always exist, each side can blame the other, because the other voted for it. And to the extent that the economy improves, each side can claim credit, because each side voted for it.
To the extent that it doesn't work, and nothing will work perfectly or for everyone, we can never know if some alternative could, would, or should have been found that would have been better. And if things improve, well, isn't that what we want after all?