The Challenge for Democrats
Democrats will be challenged in the next two years by tugs in different directions. They will want to do a good job for the American people so that they are re-elected in 2008 and gain the presidency. One group of pragmatists, represented by Tim Walz, Minnesota Representative-elect, believe that the American public voted for “healing.” Americans want, according to Walz, a time to recover from a broken government riddled with bad policies and corruption. On the other hand, several other new Democrats are ideologues, similar to their Republican counterparts that took office in 1994, who led the Republican Revolution and produced the Contract with America. That era ushered in a more conservative America in many ways, leading to such things as tax cuts and a more hawkish attitude towards defense.The goals of the present Democrats already contain contradictions. The next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for example, wants fiscal responsibility. She would like to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, using a “pay as you go” system of funding. Yet, already, she and several Democrats will be pushing for things like making college tuition tax deductible, cutting student loan interest rates, increased health care coverage, funding embryonic stem cell research, and a national cap on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. All these worthy programs cost a lot of money.
The Democratic theory is that they will pay for all this, and more, by getting rid of “tax cuts for the rich.” They also want to make life more fair by raising the minimum wage.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Republicans versus Democrats on the Economy
The Republicans believe that Democrats will be raising taxes on everyone, not just the rich. They judge that raising taxes even just on the “rich” will hurt the economy, killing the goose that laid the golden egg—which is the present robust economic situation, with low unemployment and the highest stock market in history. Republicans believe that raising the minimum wage will also hurt business.Democrats counter that yes there are plenty of jobs, but that they are “Wallmart jobs,” low-paying with low benefits and no unions. Democrats believe that raising the minimum wage will not hurt business. In fact, they point to the Henry Ford theory that paying workers a livable wage will enable them to buy more products, hence helping business.
In addition, Democrats will want to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare patients; do something about industrial job loss overseas; and fight President Bush on any privatization of Social Security.
Presidential Power and Investigations
Bush will continue to try to strengthen presidential powers, an area where Democrats think Bush already has grabbed too much.Several Democrats want investigations into missteps in the war, treatment of terrorism detainees and Bush's expansion of executive power. Pelosi is more moderate on this. She rejects out of hand, for example, any impeachment proceedings against Bush. She was pleased that Bush accepted the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Iraq
On Iraq, Democrats clearly look for withdrawal, and place some hope in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group—led by James A. Baker III, former secretary of state, and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton. The Baker crowd and others like Condoleeza Rice, considered to be pragmatists, now have the President’s ear, as opposed to the hawkish Neo-Cons like Rumsfeld and Cheney, who were the most influential advisors up until this election.The Baker report is expected to present two alternative policies. Redeploy and Contain calls for the phased withdrawal of US troops to bases near Iraq where they could be redeployed against new threats, such as an emerging terrorist organization, anywhere in the region. Stability First calls for maintaining a presence in Baghdad and encouraging insurgents to enter the political arena, while Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, would be asked to help end the fighting.
The Democrats also want to enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
My Predictions
Pelosi and the Democrats will try to be on their best behavior, so corruption will actually go way down in government for awhile, which is great. Republicans were disgraceful in this area.Pelosi will be able to enforce fiscal responsibility with her colleagues until the 2008 elections; but then, after they have retained their majority, their Democratic instincts will overwhelm them and they will begin enacting their social and economic agendas, and will raise taxes significantly across the board. This will hurt the “little people” that they say they love.
On the other hand, I don’t think raising the minimum wage will hurt the American economy or business as much as is feared. I actually do believe in the Henry Ford theory—that raising worker’s wages will help them buy more products, which helps business eventually.
I don’t know what the Democrats, though, can do about Wallmart and the globalization of the economy. They want to re-investigate our trade agreements. Can we go back to protectionism? Can you put the runaway horse back in the barn? I somehow doubt it.
I don’t mind Democrats letting us buy prescription drugs from Canada, which is a free-market solution to drug prices. I would mind, though, if they engage in price caps. This is tampering with the economy with socialism, and leads to bleak economics, again hurting the “little people” eventually.
As far as Iraq goes, I have high hopes for the Baker commission. Both their solutions seem feasible. Plus, if you noticed, I proposed one of their solutions in an earlier post.
As far as investigations against Bush and Republicans, I say cool it Dems. Americans just want the mess to stop. They are not in the mood for congressional hearings and righteous indignation. Just stay clean and try sincerely to solve our problems.
As far as your agenda goes, Madam Speaker, congratulations. This is the first time I've heard a Democratic agenda in years. I may not agree with all of it, but at least now we know your intentions, and we can debate them.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
click to hide most of this post
2 comments:
Wow, what have we here? A cooler headed, more relaxed, more HOPEFUL Rock?!?! I must say that you are starting to sound less like an angry, fed up, cynical Republican conservative everyday! You actually sound like you (gulp) RESPECT and appreciate the Dem's agenda! Have you been hanging out with the local drug dealers again? I'm kidding of course. I have the feeling that we'll be seeing Democrats in power for a while and I'll tell you why,
a) they won't make the same mistakes as the Repubs and completely hijack the will of the people for their own benefit (for a while at least)
b) they won't make the same mistake as the Dems of 2004 and lack direction. They won't have anyone to blame but themselves in two years for not setting an agenda and sticking to it.
c) They will pin your dear president to the wall by proposing and pushing hard the "average Joe" friendly measures that Bush would be foolish to veto and Republicans foolish to vote against- namely raising minimum wage. Dems will take credit for it passing in the next election and anyone who votes against it will be tarred and feathered.
We may not have much to argue over in the future if you keep writing like this!
Paz, thanks for your comments. It’s okay that we agree sometimes, as I do think you are sincere in your search for the truth, as am I. You said:
Wow, what have we here? A cooler headed, more relaxed, more HOPEFUL Rock?!?! I must say that you are starting to sound less like an angry, fed up, cynical Republican conservative everyday! You actually sound like you (gulp) RESPECT and appreciate the Dem's agenda!
I think a couple basic things have changed. First, the American people have spoken. I do respect that they sometimes show a deep wisdom with regard to whom they choose to lead us. I don’t always agree with their choices, but I realize that these decisions are based on feelings, ideas, and even unconscious gut level things that tell them to swerve one way or another. One instinct the American people have is to vote people out of power who’ve been in power too long. Since I do believe that power corrupts, this can be a good idea. So, since the Republicans made it easy to vote this way, in the 6th year of a second term presidency, I think it was natural to turn to the other party for the next period of time.
I’m still a conservative, with conservative instincts, but even here the Democrats seem to have been clandestinely wiser than I gave them credit for. They had a secret campaign to find conservative Democrats as candidates—people who were strong on faith, strong on the military, in favor of balanced budgets and so on. I can’t get upset over this policy. I’m just kind of amazed that it came from the party headed by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. Again, they are smarter than I imagined.
I still fear that after 2008, when you guys will win Congress again, if you don’t mess up in the meantime, and the presidency, the Democrats will then turn to their real agenda, which is to socialize America, gut the military, and ruin business.
I have the feeling that we'll be seeing Democrats in power for a while and I'll tell you why, a) they won't make the same mistakes as the Repubs and completely hijack the will of the people for their own benefit (for a while at least)
I think on this point you’re right. What fools these politicians are who think they can be corrupt and never be found out! I think even Dems with corrupt tendencies will be on their good behavior for some years, at least I hope so.
b) they won't make the same mistake as the Dems of 2004 and lack direction. They won't have anyone to blame but themselves in two years for not setting an agenda and sticking to it.
Again, the Democrats have surprised me in recent days. I finally hear an agenda, and some of the points are conservative! Like balancing the budget and overall fiscal responsibility. Still, all the social programs the Dems are proposing are expensive. I don’t buy the tax-the-rich scheme as the solution. I believe they will raise taxes on all of us, on businesses, and on products, so the economy will suffer.
I’ll make a deal with the devil. Whichever party can solve the problem of globalization, I’ll vote for, assuming that they aren’t weak on defense. I’m just thinking out loud, Mr. Devil (not you paz), so let me reflect on this awhile.
c) They will pin your dear president to the wall by proposing and pushing hard the "average Joe" friendly measures that Bush would be foolish to veto and Republicans foolish to vote against- namely raising minimum wage. Dems will take credit for it passing in the next election and anyone who votes against it will be tarred and feathered.
Yes, I think you’re right about this. But, on the other hand, there is an alternative, my friend, and I believe it may happen. Bush could pass the minimum wage now, before the Dems take power. I think this would be smart.
We may not have much to argue over in the future if you keep writing like this!
Yes, in the next two years we’ll agree on a lot, because these Dems evidently are pros. They know they are too far left for the country, so they’re tacking to the center. This is fine with me—I don’t care what is in their hearts, as long as what they do is good for the country. I hope they handle Iraq well, keep us strong on defense, and maintain fiscal discipline. If they do all this for 2 years, I might even surprise you—well, no I probably need a longer time frame in order to judge them that favorably (I was going to say I’d vote for a few of them!)
This is the difference between Rush Limbaugh and I. He is pro-conservative come hell or high water. He admits he’s been disappointed in this crop of Repubs, including Bush, because they weren’t conservative enough. I agree. Where we part company, though, is that I vote policy, not party, and not ideological label. Again, I certainly could vote for John F. Kennedy, and would, if he were alive and running for something, for anything. But I won’t vote for Teddy. Teddy is a raging, hate-filled liberal.
Pelosi and Dean are also of this ilk, but again, they evidently are pros, and can restrain themselves in order to achieve power. That’s okay with me. I expect politicians to seek power. If they are responsive to the American people by tacking to the center, I don’t care what they’d like to do.
I’d prefer to have a true conservative in power, but I’ll gladly take a restrained Pelosi, if she’s listening to the people. Plus, the new crop of conservative Democrats eases my mind also. The Democrats will see this, and learn that their conservative values can help them regain the South again and other areas they’d given up on. This will create a competition between the two parties of who is listening better to the people.
I admit, though, that this taking of the Republicans to the woodshed might turn out to be a good thing, for both parties and for the nation.
We’ll still have plenty to disagree about though, paz, I’m sure. It’s good to be on the same side from time to time.
Rock
Post a Comment