Democrats Win! Democrats Win!
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published November 9, 2006, 5:40 pm in Military / Foreign policy, Economic Issues, Voting & Partisanship.
Maybe I shouldn't put an exclamation mark after my title. Perhaps that makes me too excited about it. I'm going for the "St. Louis Wins!" idea. And let me just say that I think it was an upset, kind of like the Atlanta Falcons actually winning the Superbowl.
Let's talk about the Democrats' agenda, first of all. Now that George Allen has conceded in the Virginia race, the Democrats control both the House and Senate, they will be able to determine the agenda, while Bush will left in the sign or veto position. I doublt he wants to become known as the veto president, either. I think Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is proof of that. But that's a matter for tomorrow's column.
A New Direction for America
No, I'm not talking about my opinion in the heading; that's the name of the Decmocrats' campaign document criticizing the current Republican administration. It's not a policy document, but it corresponds to the house Democrats' mission to pass new legislation within the first 100 hours of the new Congress, which will take place in January.
In this commitment, the Democrats promise the following proposals that will be introduce on the first day of the new Congress and then passed within 100 hours. I want to go through them briefly.
I'm also implicitly giving myself a new direction for this column. I will have to deal with all of these issues just like the Democrats and Republicans have to deal with them.
"We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending."
How can we argue with this one? No one likes the corruption charges, and we can't allow lobbyists to run our government. No one likes deficit spending, either. But how will the new Democratic Congress do these things? And how will they "pass this legislation" within the first 100 hours? Are we talking about a new budget here? I have no idea.
I don't have time to delve into this idea very much here (I'll leave that for a future column), but lobbyists do serve an important function. Stating a commitment like "breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation" is impossible and not really desireable. All this is doing is playing into the buzzword "lobbyist." People hate the term and hate that they have so much power. They think our government is run by them at our expense. But what to do, Ms. Pelosi? Kick them all out? Outlaw dinners with lobbyists? Hunting trips? Even medical doctors get taken out by drug and equipment reps. No one's crying foul there.
And "no new deficit spending"? I want to see that one. With all of the other proposed items, there are only a few areas left to cut from, and one in particular.
"We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission."
Of course you will. Why wasn't that done already? Wait a minute, does anyone actually know what their recommendations were and why they weren't carried out to begin with? All this sounds like is a criticism of Bush, making it seem like he refused to carry out these important recommendations. Besides, with all of the "no new deficit spending" stuff, I expect that security and the military will be the primary place where cuts are made to allow for the following stuff. That's how Clinton got a surplus, after all.
"We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage."
Hip, hip, hooray! Congress won't give themselves a raise this time! I'm so happy! Wait a minute, that's not what they said. They're saying that they will only give themselves a raise AFTER the minimum raise is increased. Like a reward or a celebration, I guess. Man, I wish I could give myself a raise. Just a small one, you know, enough to get me that Audi...
Just another cheap ploy to make me think they care about me. I actually support a minimum wage increase, but to state it like this is insulting. Saying that it will make the economy fairer and linking it to how much Congress makes or the number of wage increases they have had is really misleading.
"We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases."
The only new thing here is the stem cell research plan, and I'm glad to see them make a stand for it. I want to see whether they make provisions for new stem cells, however. I'll talk about that in a later column, as well.
"We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half."
In the original document, they say that they will make the tax deduction for college tuition permanent and expand Pell Grants. As a college professor, I'm glad to see this. I will talk in the future about state funding and rising tution costs, however, becuase simply cutting interest rates means nothing for students who graduate with degrees in humanities subjects who paid $75,000 for college costs. The prices are going up higher than any interest rate cuts or inflation or job payments.
"We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."
I don't see what this will do. If what we're after is "energy independence," then let's offer incentives to researchers of hydrogen and electric cars. Let's start investing in a useful from of methanol, a form not mandated by corn manufacturers. Let's see the government push funding for alternative fuels, not by some silly rebate for buying a hybrid car, but by huge funds for those researching altervatives.
"We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Status quo and all that. Let's see them raise it. I know my father can't live on $1100 a month. Combined with his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, from which he earns another $1100 per month, he gets a combined total of $2400 a month for both himself and my mom, who never really worked. Don't patronize them or me by calling that a "dignified retirement." That's almost poverty line. And for someone who never enough money to invest it, that's a hard salary to live on once you're 65.
So that's my take on the Democrats' agenda. I want to see what they do with it, with the particulars. That's where we really learn what they're about.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 3 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment