• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Democrats Non-Contract With America

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
I see that kola is taking the week off so the rest of you libs are going to have to tell us where this editorial from the Wall Street Journal is wrong.

The Non-Contract With America
What Democrats aren't saying about their agenda, so we will.
Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT


A joke in Washington these days is that the only thing that can save the Republicans on Election Day is the Democrats. House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi seems to get this joke, because with few exceptions she's kept her Members tight-lipped and unspecific: As New York Senator Chuck Schumer has put it, why take the focus off the GOP?

This is in notable contrast to 1994, when the Gingrich Republicans ended a 40-year Democratic House majority by laying out a 10-item agenda known as the Contract with America. What Democrats are campaigning on this year is a Non-Contract with America--mostly generalities about "helping the middle class" and "ending the corruption in Washington."

As a campaign strategy, this may well pay off. But if they do win, Democrats will have to fill their campaign vacuum with something, and the best clue to what that would be is what they've already proposed. We've taken some time to inspect these policy priorities and thought we'd share a few of the highlights, if that's the right word. (Warning: Keep sharp objects away from drug-company and Wal-Mart shareholders.)

Tax increases. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and any chance that they'll be made permanent will vanish with a Democratic Congress. The question is whether Democrats will try to raise taxes even sooner. Most Democrats voted against the Bush tax cuts, but this week Ms. Pelosi said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." that "Democrats like tax cuts. We support middle-class tax cuts."

The same isn't true, however, for the "investor" tax cuts of 2003 that coincided with the acceleration of the current expansion. Ms. Pelosi says reversing these tax cuts "at the high end" would be "an earlier resort." This would raise the top income and dividend tax rate back to 39.6% from 35%, and the capital-gains rate back to 20% from 15%, substantially raising the cost of new investment in the United States. Economist John Rutledge estimates that raising the dividend rate alone would reduce the value of the S&P 500 stocks by between 5% and 8.5%, roughly a $500 to $700 billion decline in the wealth of the 52% of American households that own stock.

"Paygo budgeting." President Bush would no doubt promise to veto any direct tax increase, but having the power of the purse would give Democrats plenty of leverage. What if they framed the political choice as a tax increase on "the rich" versus funding the war on terror?

Democrats have also pledged to restore so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules, which sound like a restraint on budget deficits but in practice restrain only tax cuts. They don't apply to the growth of current entitlement programs or to domestic discretionary spending, only to tax cuts or new entitlements. This formula would probably take us back to the 1980s, when Democrats insisted on higher domestic spending while fighting Ronald Reagan's increases in defense spending.

Health-care regulation. Big Pharma and private insurers, watch out. Michigan's John Dingell, who would run the Energy and Commerce Committee, has co-sponsored the "Patients Before Profits Act" that would gut funding for the new Medicare Advantage plans that are proving so popular with seniors. Instead, he and the other Democrats who run health-care panels want to direct all seniors into a single government-run Medicare drug plan. Another proposal from top Democrats, the Medicare for All Act, would make all Americans, of any age, eligible for Medicare and pay for it with a new 1.7% payroll tax on workers and 7% on employers.

Ms. Pelosi has also pledged to pass, in her first 100 hours as Speaker, legislation to require the government to "negotiate lower drug prices." That's a euphemism for imposing price controls on new medicines, which can take as much as $800 million in research and development to bring to market. The actor Michael J. Fox is getting headlines for his ads in favor of Democrats who support stem-cell research, but price controls would do far more to delay the introduction of new treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or cancer.

The union label. AFL-CIO headquarters would be rocking with hope once again. A job-killing hike in the minimum wage, to $7.25 from $5.15, would whisk through Congress, and we'd expect that Mr. Bush would sign it.

But another top priority for Democrats is the Employee Free Choice Act, which has at least 215 co-sponsors in the House and 44 in the Senate. This would allow labor to turn workplaces into union shops without an election or secret ballot. Unions would merely have to gather signatures from a majority of workers at a work site, which means labor organizers could strong-arm employees who opposed such a petition. This would almost surely pass the House.

Democrats have also moved well to the left on trade since the Bill Clinton-Nafta era. Mr. Bush's trade-promotion authority, allowing up-or-down votes on trade deals without amendment, expires next July, and there's little chance House Democrats would extend it. The entire Democratic leadership opposed free trade with tiny Oman and with Central America, so deals now in the works with Vietnam and other countries would also be long shots. Sorry, Robert Rubin.

Energy. The Pelosi Democrats favor a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies and a virtual moratorium on drilling for more domestic oil in Alaska and on the outer continental shelf (where the U.S. may have more energy than Saudi Arabia). These policies would make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil. There would also be an effort to pass new, and higher, fuel-mileage mandates, which would make things tougher on what's left of Detroit. And lobbying would begin for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and to subsidize, even more than Republicans already have, ethanol and other "alternative" fuels.

We could go on, in particular in the regulatory arena, where agencies would be under greater pressure to restrict mergers, among other things. But you get the idea. A Democratic triumph would produce a major shift in the national policy debate, and we can understand why Ms. Pelosi isn't plastering most of this agenda on billboards around the country. Not everything would become law, to be sure, especially if Mr. Bush were finally willing to use his veto pen. However, elections have consequences, and we thought our readers might like to know about them before November 7.

Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009166
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That's a great editorial, LB. Thank you for posting that. I wish they would continue that editorial in a series outlining everything else that would be screwed up.

The thought of a high-headed, lathered up, 'Speaker Pelosi' in charge of anything other than handing out towels at a San Franciso lesbian bath house sends chills up my spine.

It is, in fact, a dangerous world we live in. This threat is too real to suit me. :???:
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
You libs have been awfully quiet. I realize kola is gone this week but what do the rest of you have to say about this? Does the idea of 'Speaker Pelosi' appeal to you?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I am a conservative but I will give it a shot.

The one reason not to vote republican is because they are a bunch of hypocrits that support each other.

We have not had adequate oversight in the committees so the republicans have been able to sell out positions and lack of oversight to industry.

It has been happening in the medicare drug buying policy, the FDA, the USDA in its bse policy and country of origin labeling and in the oversight of GIPSA.

The republicans want to act like they are moral but their leadership in the committees are a bunch of sell outs with support by other republicans.

There is no contract with america, there is only a contract with themselves and the industries that are paying them off. Some of these guys should be in jail instead of running the country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Liberty Belle said:
You libs have been awfully quiet. I realize kola is gone this week but what do the rest of you have to say about this? Does the idea of 'Speaker Pelosi' appeal to you?

LB- Not a Liberal by a long shot-- But what I have seen happening with the Republicans these last few years is that they forgot who they represent and who does the voting- and now that things look shakey, they are in a mad scramble to make things look good...
In there courting of and toeing the line for Big Corporate Business they went against the wishes of the voters who expected things from an all majority Congress/Administration...And now they are finding that there aren't that many CEO's/millionaire investor voters out there to override the middle class voters...

Examples are closing the Borders/No Amnesty which was supported by 70+% of the population, which the Administration came out opposing and the Congress has done little about besides blow smoke- the M-COOL law which is supported by a majority of producers and 70-80% of consumers, depending on the poll, which even after being made law was killed by the Republican controlled House in a back room snidely move to appease Big Business...

Like I said in the other post- I think the Republicans lost the issues when they deviated from their "contract with America"- I don't think gays and abortions which they have been focusing on is the issue on most folks minds anymore...I have always thought of the Republicans as the Ethics and Moral Party-the Law and Order Party-- but they have lost a big part of that perception with their apparent lack of caring about ethics with Delay, Burns, Foley, Cunningham, Ney- and the apparent attempts to keep them aboard even when their misgivings were known... They have truly disappointed me....

Speaker Pelosi does not appeal to me- but an administration/Party that appears to be selling out to the Corporate world scares me more...
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Speaker Pelosi does not appeal to me- but an administration/Party that appears to be selling out to the Corporate world scares me more...
Do you not think pelosi would sell out to entities just as "dangerous" as the big corporations, such as peta, etc? How do you think your way of life will survive if we close the border but put more taxes on realestate , more regulations on BLM land , etc.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Who should we have RR- Hastert- who even from the Republicans testifying is being shown to have covered up Foleys chasing male pages for quite some time- just so they wouldn't lose a seat?

Need to clean out the whole mess of crooks....Both Parties- but instead the Party will follow the Party line so they don't lose any power...Where are these high Republican ethics and morals :???:

Red Robin- There was a very good article in the Billings Gazette yesterday reporting on the "labor shortage" in Helena....The lady they interviewed that was crying the loudest was the Owner of a Taco Deli...She commented how as the owner she felt she should be able to get more time to spend on personal things, but had had to come in and work several shifts to keep the Deli open for the lunch crowd...

She went on to explain she couldn't understand why help was so hard to find since she paid $6 an hour and gave them a free Taco for lunch as a benefit :roll:

$6 won't even pay for the gas to start a vehicle and drive across the Helena valley anymore....Is that where this country is headed for- $6 an hour and a free Taco :???:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I'll agree with you on the clean sweep ot. Trouble is if integrity isn't the first issue we look at as voters, we'll just get a bunch just like the bunch we have. In case you havn't noticed there aren't very many people that have unquestionable integrity running for congress...or the presidency in 08 for that matter. I'm not upholding the republicans that are there now as shining knights but I would rather have crooks than idiotic crooks I guess.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
I'm not upholding the republicans that are there now as shining knights but I would rather have crooks than idiotic crooks I guess.

About the best definition I've heard so far of this years choices.... :wink: :(
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I'll agree with you on the clean sweep ot. Trouble is if integrity isn't the first issue we look at as voters, we'll just get a bunch just like the bunch we have. In case you havn't noticed there aren't very many people that have unquestionable integrity running for congress...or the presidency in 08 for that matter. I'm not upholding the republicans that are there now as shining knights but I would rather have crooks than idiotic crooks I guess.

rr, the only way we have been able to get rid of some of the crooks is to make that party engaging lose. They clean out the leaders and start anew with the next bunch.

All through the south the democrats are putting in the old southern democrats who were conservatives. The democrats may not have Pelosi as leader when conservative democrats gain enough seats. I will remind you that it was these southern democrats that changed over to the republican party that built the republican party up. Phil Gramm was an example. He lost his chance to keep his seat when his wife was on the board of IBP and Enron. Now it is about time to clean out these "leaders" in the republican party who put their self interest above the interest of their constituents and thought they could get away with it.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
All through the south the democrats are putting in the old southern democrats who were conservatives.
They are not conservatives. You've been misled. They are liberals here in the south hiding behind their conservative roots pandering to their conservative base.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
All through the south the democrats are putting in the old southern democrats who were conservatives.
They are not conservatives. You've been misled. They are liberals here in the south hiding behind their conservative roots pandering to their conservative base.

That is your opinion. I know the republicans in the south are pandering, however, while they take huge corporate donations to influence policy and delay oversight in the committees supposedly overseeing the respective areas.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Name me a fiscal conservative in the south that is against abortion and for the preservation of the definition of marriage.

Those are your issues, rr. Not mine. You vote for who you want to. The preservation of marriage is broken everytime someone gets a divorce. I support marriage being defined as between a man and a woman and it is on the ballot in several states this year.

Clinton was a much more fiscal conservative than Bush ever thought about being. Fiscal conservatism means you don't spend money on things and put it on the nation's credit card for the next generation. It also means getting SS and Medicare on an actuarial that works, not a time bomb. It also means NO EARMARKING.

Your devil Clinton balanced the budget and all republicans can do is talk about it and not perform. They remind me of a teaser bull.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Just for the record I asked you to back up your statement about all these conservative democrats and you took backwater, not unlike most democrats! I can certainly name a fiscal conservative that would define marriage as you just did and also take a hard stance against abortion, Tom Coburn. I just wish he would run for president.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Just for the record I asked you to back up your statement about all these conservative democrats and you took backwater, not unlike most democrats! I can certainly name a fiscal conservative that would define marriage as you just did and also take a hard stance against abortion, Tom Coburn. I just wish he would run for president.

rr, I am not a democrat spokesman or operative so I don't really know all the candidates in the south. I did hear a program on it and I know the history of Phil Gramm pretty well, former Senator from Texas. In the south, many democrats were known to be more conservative than republicans in other areas. The individual candidates for house or senate seats probably don't have a lot to say about it anyway--the party does. The party is lead by the president if he is in office and gw hasn't lead up to expectations while giving huge gifts to corporations either outright or through policy.

You can believe what you want, but the facts are out there.

I am sure if you do a google search, you can find your own answers and I am not about to waste my time doing it for you.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
Just for the record I asked you to back up your statement about all these conservative democrats and you took backwater, not unlike most democrats! I can certainly name a fiscal conservative that would define marriage as you just did and also take a hard stance against abortion, Tom Coburn. I just wish he would run for president.

rr, I am not a democrat spokesman or operative so I don't really know all the candidates in the south. I did hear a program on it and I know the history of Phil Gramm pretty well, former Senator from Texas. In the south, many democrats were known to be more conservative than republicans in other areas. The individual candidates for house or senate seats probably don't have a lot to say about it anyway--the party does. The party is lead by the president if he is in office and gw hasn't lead up to expectations while giving huge gifts to corporations either outright or through policy.

You can believe what you want, but the facts are out there.

I am sure if you do a google search, you can find your own answers and I am not about to waste my time doing it for you.
You are the one that made the statement Econ. I asked you to back it up and now you say you don't have time to list the facts? Hardly convincing.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I am sure if you do a google search, you can find your own answers and I am not about to waste my time doing it for you.

isn't statments like that what DIS used to say when pressed for hard proof she couldn't supply!!
but then she was an extreme liberal, and i didn't think econ was up to her and kola's standards till now :eek:
 
Top