Economist: The Democrats' Plan

[Publius]

After the victory | The Democrats' plans | Economist.com

IF YOU think the Democrats’ triumph will bring fresh young faces pushing a well-honed agenda, think again. Unlike the Republican upstarts who stormed to power in 1994 with their “Contract with America”, the new House of Representatives will be run by veterans with few coherent plans.

Nancy Pelosi, the putative speaker, has agreed to respect the ancient custom of appointing committee chairmen by seniority (a tradition the Republicans ignore these days). As a result, seven of the 19 likely committee chairmen are over 70. John Dingell, who is set to head the Energy and Commerce Committee, has been in Congress for 51 years.

Republicans have spread none-too-subtle scare stories about these war-horses, painting them as frenzied liberals out of touch with most Americans. In fact, their focus will be scrutiny as much as policy. With decades of experience watching White Houses between them, these dinosaur committee chairmen care most about hauling George Bush’s team over the coals. Mr Dingell is famous for “Dingellgrams”—huge numbers of fiery reprimands sent to government agencies—from his previous stint as a committee chairman. The same is expected again.

Less clear is whether Ms Pelosi and her generals can push a coherent agenda of their own. The Democrats’ equivalent of the “Contract with America” is a 31-page pamphlet called “A new direction for America”, boiled down for campaign purposes to “Six for ’06”, a six-pronged action plan that Ms Pelosi promises to enact within 100 hours of becoming speaker.

Unfortunately, this “agenda” is little more than a series of soundbites designed to show that Democrats care about the plight of ordinary workers. There are pledges to raise the minimum wage, expand tax-break subsidies for college, “free America from dependence on foreign oil” by boosting alternative fuels and ending tax giveaways to big oil, allow the government to negotiate lower prices with drug firms, promote stem-cell research, and stop any plans to privatise Social Security.

The plan says nothing about some of the tougher issues facing America’s legislature. Not a word about how Democrats might fix Social Security’s finances. No mention of how they will deal with the Alternative Minimum Tax which will, without new legislation, hit 22m Americans in 2007, up from 3.4m in 2006. Worse, the proposals are internally inconsistent. There is a promise to end the Republicans’ fiscal profligacy by reinstating budget rules that require tax cuts and spending increases to be matched by savings elsewhere. But there is no explanation of how the Democrats’ own pet tax cuts or spending increases would be paid for.

Within the next few months the Democrats will have to decide whether they care more about fiscal discipline or shovelling money at ordinary Americans. That decision will set the budgetary tone for the next two years. Budget hawks hope for a repeat of the 1990s, when divided government and strict fiscal rules brought balanced budgets. It seems a slim hope. The Democrats’ conceit that rolling back some of Mr Bush’s tax cuts will pay for their agenda is nonsense, since these tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. And many Democrats are keen to extend those Bush tax cuts that help average families, such as the child tax credit. The most likely outcome is a fudge: Democrats will introduce a series of new, sensible budget rules and then will waive them for the tax cuts they like.

They will be equally opportunistic on the rest of the “agenda”. In some areas the law will be changed. There is little doubt, for instance, that the minimum wage will soon go up. Other labour-friendly legislation, such as a tightening of workplace safety rules, may also make it into law. Compromise is also possible in places, such as immigration reform, where the Democrats’ position is close to Mr Bush’s.

Elsewhere, there will be much huffing but little action. Ms Pelosi will push for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, knowing that such a change is unlikely to pass the Senate. She will lead the charge for stem-cell research, daring Mr Bush to veto it again. She may stymie Mr Bush’s priorities. A Democratic House bodes ill for new trade agreements, for instance.

Several government programmes come up for reauthorisation next year, including the farm bill, the State Children’s Health Insurance Programme and No Child Left Behind, Mr Bush’s landmark education reform. In each case Democrats will try to tilt the laws to their liking: more money for insuring poor children; more cash for schools and fewer demands on teachers; more subsidies for biofuels.

Overall, Ms Pelosi and her generals are unlikely to do anything radical. That is partly because Mr Bush’s veto pen limits their room for manoeuvre, but mainly because the new House chieftains do not see themselves as revolutionaries. Their goal, after all, is not to enact a specific agenda, but to prepare the ground for the presidential election of 2008.

I think this is an excellent critique by the Economist of the Democrats. They aren't going to do anything out there to put themselves on the line by making meaningful reforms/laws, they're just going to hit talking points over and over and talk about "all the good they'll do" if only the people will elect them to the Presidency in 2008.

The next 2 years is going to be nothing but laying groundwork for the 2008 election, and that means that the American people are going to continue being cheated of meaningful reform while we waste two more years, just like we've wasted the last few years on Iraq.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Publius

After the victory | The Democrats' plans | Economist.com



I think this is an excellent critique by the Economist of the Democrats. They aren't going to do anything out there to put themselves on the line by making meaningful reforms/laws, they're just going to hit talking points over and over and talk about "all the good they'll do" if only the people will elect them to the Presidency in 2008.

The next 2 years is going to be nothing but laying groundwork for the 2008 election, and that means that the American people are going to continue being cheated of meaningful reform while we waste two more years, just like we've wasted the last few years on Iraq.

Why is this a bad thing? The Republicans have largely been a disaster. What's wrong with taking another 2 years to completely transition into something else instead of starting right now?

[Thorgrim]

So its the democrats fault Bush would veto any big reform ideas...great

[Publius]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why is this a bad thing? The Republicans have largely been a disaster. What's wrong with taking another 2 years to completely transition into something else instead of starting right now?

Rather than just throwing out soundbytes I'd like to have them actually try to FIX something.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So its the democrats fault Bush would veto any big reform ideas...great

No, it's their fault they aren't even going to attempt to deal with any issues like, oh I don't know, Social Security Reform?

[motivez]

I think it's a bit too early to say they're not going to try. From what I've read on Daily Kos and a few other liberal blogs, many people want them to focus on a real agenda, real laws, etc.. so they can point to it in '08

I think that's a real possibility, but the question is whether or not the defeated Republicans will play ball as they try to restructure their party.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think it's a bit too early to say they're not going to try. From what I've read on Daily Kos and a few other liberal blogs, many people want them to focus on a real agenda, real laws, etc.. so they can point to it in '08

I think that's a real possibility, but the question is whether or not the defeated Republicans will play ball as they try to restructure their party.

It would be nice if they try to pursue a real agenda, but I have a feeling it's going to be just like the Republicans: do nothing worthwhile, but hammer away at talking points.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

No, it's their fault they aren't even going to attempt to deal with any issues like, oh I don't know, Social Security Reform?

Last time I checked, Social Security still worked

Saying "the sky is falling" isn't going to make it so

Social Security has been in trouble before...then they adjusted some things, and it continued...

Better said:

Now, it turns out that an article on the Social Security Administration's Web site, ''Life Expectancy for Social Security,'' specifically rejects the idea the Social Security was originally ''designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits,'' and the related idea that the system faces problems from ''a supposed dramatic increase in life expectancy in recent years.''

And the current number of older Americans as a share of the population is just about what the founders of Social Security expected. The 1934 report of F.D.R.'s Commission on Economic Security, which laid the groundwork for the Social Security Act, projected that 12.7 percent of Americans would be 65 or older by the year 2000. The actual number was 12.4 percent.

[motivez]

I hope they'll have a real agenda, but I'm fairly discouraged about the prospects of actual oversight and whatnot considering Dean's remarks.

I want investigations and hearings on the illegal bullshit the Administration has done.. I know that's why a lot of people voted for them, and if they fail to take any action I think people will have a hard time trusting them going forward.

[6SpeedTA95]

Thats a pretty good critique from a liberal source...pretty interesting IMO.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Publius

Rather than just throwing out soundbytes I'd like to have them actually try to FIX something.

Well, the main reason Democrats just came to power is because of Iraq, but with Dubya still president, I don't really see what they can change about that. As far as other stuff, I really don't think they'll just spit out sound bytes. It's in their interest to push through some popular legislation, like minimum wage increase, 911 commission recs, etc. because that'll just help them in '08 even more than sound bytes could.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

I hope they'll have a real agenda, but I'm fairly discouraged about the prospects of actual oversight and whatnot considering Dean's remarks.

I want investigations and hearings on the illegal bullshit the Administration has done.. I know that's why a lot of people voted for them, and if they fail to take any action I think people will have a hard time trusting them going forward.

I think a lot of people voted Dem because they felt Iraq was #1 priority and other things were getting left behind. If the democrats do nothing but have investigations, hearings, impeachments you have, again, Iraq being the #1 priority with other things getting left behind.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I think a lot of people voted Dem because they felt Iraq was #1 priority and other things were getting left behind. If the democrats do nothing but have investigations, hearings, impeachments you have, again, Iraq being the #1 priority with other things getting left behind.

Thats exactly right.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Last time I checked, Social Security still worked

only if you plan on the world ending in 2042. Because that is when Social Security cannot pay the bills

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

only if you plan on the world ending in 2042. Because that is when Social Security cannot pay the bills

So we have until 2041 to fix it?

I'll starting running around in circles in 35 years

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why is this a bad thing? The Republicans have largely been a disaster. What's wrong with taking another 2 years to completely transition into something else instead of starting right now?

I think what he's saying is that the Democrats will ride out the good things the Republicans have done and credit themselves for it to get elected in '08

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So we have until 2041 to fix it?

I'll starting running around in circles in 35 years

Social Security will run out of money prior to 2041

[Diamond Cross]

What good have Republicans done?

None.

Neither have the Democrats.

I hope the Democrats don't do the tit-for-tat crap. I do want to see things like the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security and BATF bite the dust. The creation of those were unneccessarry, we already had laws and agencies to cover the terrorist just fine. If we needed more people we should've just added more people and not create new agencies. The police have a lot of power as it its, not to mention the screwed up cop culture of "no matter what the police can do no wrong" bullshit.

But personally, I believe it was President Bush that hurt the GOP more than anything else they did.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What good have Republicans done?

None.

Neither have the Democrats.

I hope the Democrats don't do the tit-for-tat crap. I do want to see things like the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security and BATF bite the dust. The creation of those were unneccessarry, we already had laws and agencies to cover the terrorist just fine. If we needed more people we should've just added more people and not create new agencies. The police have a lot of power as it its, not to mention the screwed up cop culture of "no matter what the police can do no wrong" bullshit.

But personally, I believe it was President Bush that hurt the GOP more than anything else they did.

On social security hte reps tried several times only to be met with fillibusters and constant negative media attention the issue.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So we have until 2041 to fix it?

I'll starting running around in circles in 35 years

No we have until 2012 to fix it, that is when the inflow isnt enough to pay the bills and they have to collect th