Bits and Pieces, 10-08-2006
Nancy Pelosi has the right idea–instead of bashing the Republicans on the Foley scandal (they do it well enough all by themselves), instead give the people a better alternative. She’s released what she would do in her first 100 hours as Speaker of the House:
- Tear down the lobbyist-legislation connection (okay, nobody believes she’ll be able to, but it’s a good start, and points out how Republicans have been on the biggest spending-and-corruption spree in history)
- Enact all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations (a good idea and a great reminder that Republicans haven’t)
- Raise the minimum wage to $7.25/hour (without the Paris Hilton tax cut this time)
- Cut interest rates on student loans in half
- Make it so that government agencies can negotiate prices with drug companies (absolutely no reason, beyond Republican corruption, why that shouldn’t already be the case)
- Broaden stem-cell research
- Institute pay-as-you-go (try to beat back the massive Bush/GOP-driven deficits)
- Reverse the massive tax cuts for the rich, keeping tax cuts in place for earners making less than a quarter mil per year
You can bet, of course, that the Republicans will take the minimum wage and tax cut ideas and try to paint them, respectively, as small-business killer and Democratic tax-and-spend disasters. It’ll be a weak argument, though; Pelosi chose the list well, with assertive, popular points that suggest a strong, constructive agenda while at the same time passively pointing out Republican weaknesses and corruption. I would have liked to see a point about Iraq in there as well, but I guess Pelosi, as with most Democrats, is still somewhat scared of the whole they’ll-label-me-as-soft-on-terrorism angle. Still, with this list, Pelosi has the exact right idea. Problem is, the news media won’t give it much play. More Democrats have to come out and echo this; we still need the big get-together photo op.
In the meantime, Bush’s numbers are going south like a duck in winter. After riding a surge since July that took him into the stratospheric low 40’s, Bush has plummeted nine points in just a week and a half. Among the culprits are the NIE report and Woodward revelations, but I’ll bet the Foley scandal is also spilling over onto him.
Around 9/24, CNN, Fox, and Diageo had him at 42%; at the end of September, CNN and NBC/WSJ had him at 39%; around 10/4, AP, Pew, and TIME had Bush at 38%, 37%, and 36% respectively; and a new poll dated October 5-6 from Newsweek has Bush at 33%. This is clearly not a blip.
Hastert is already in big trouble, and is providing the Democrats with a new Newt-Gingrich-like punching doll, but it looks like there’s even more scandal ahead. The national media is still ignoring it, but details are coming out about how Hastert had his own Whitewater affair. Apparently, he bought 196 acres of land for cheap in Illinois in 2002, then added land via a real estate trust with the local GOP chief and a campaign contributor. Then Hastert pushed for a new highway to be constructed going right past this property, over the objections of the public and of the Illinois Department of Transportation, who did not want it. The land owned by Hastert’s trust skyrocketed, and in 2005, three years after Hastert’s original purchase, a developer bought the land, and Hastert got 5 times what he paid for the land.
The source for the moment is The New Republic, which, while left-leaning, is relatively respected, and they seem to have their facts straight; nevertheless, take the source for what it is. It certainly doesn’t bode well for Hastert, and if it comes out big, it might even put his now-presumed-safe seat in jeopardy.
If this story is true, then you have got to have incredible respect for those kids, and probably the Amish in general.
I believe Polosi used a term, “Drain the Swamp” in regard to voting out the republicans.
That would be nice.
If Polosi suceeded on these measures AND passed universal healthcare, America would have a huge economic growth spurt and this society would be transformed.
No doubt, these measures would likely be veto’d by Bush. She could then try to override, but wouldn’t succeed.
The Polosi could go to the electorate and pin it all on the Republicans.
Things in this society are going to get worse over the next two years. It’s important that Republicans get the blame that they diserve for all of this.
This would pave the way for a Democratic tide in 2008 and by 2010 we could have everything she listed, plus healthcare.
The healthcare deal is big, because its an enormous tax on the economy, and universal healthcare is so much more efficient than our current system, that it would release huge amounts of purchasing power into the hands of consumers causing a big burst of economic growth, maybe 25%.
A Democratic President with Clinton’s sensibilities could easily add on to that growth – meaning that Bush’s enimic 8 years would be book cased by Democratic administrations that added 50%, each, economic growth. Thats right – a doubling of the economy over 16 years.
Explain to me again, why people vote for Republicans? Oh, yeah, abortion, family values, God, and uhm, guns.
I’d strike off no. 7 if I were her. If there’s an economic downturn, it could be disasterous. I don’t think fiscal responsibility means balancing the budget at the expense of the economy. If it weren’t for the defecits, the last recession could have been even worse.
Progressives aren’t drooling at the alter of Hoover, are they?
Question: which ones of the 9/11 Commissions initial recommendations haven’t been implemented? I know some have, the DNI was created. And I know the commission is handing out Ds and Fs on its annual Homeland Security report card. But what hasn’t been done?
Not a gotcha question. I really don’t know.
And how many Americans even know about this? I’m afraid it may be a little too late for the Democrats to make this a central rallying issue in order to benefit from the upcoming elections.
Raise the minimum wage to $7.25/hour (without the Paris Hilton tax cut this time)
Of course, states can raise the minimum wage when they choose to. But this is hardly a big help to people like me, who make barely more than that.
cc: Actually, it could help you–rising tide and boats and all that. An increase in the minimum wage will give the entire market a boost. May not make it right away, but if your job pays $2 more than minimum wage, and then suddenly is just a hair above minimum wage, that works in your favor. If your employer wants to hire anyone new in the same kind of position, he’ll have a tougher time doing so without hiking the pay to somewhat higher than minimum, especially if the job requires any special skills, experience, or certification. Depending on your position, job security, the job market, etc., it could be helpful if you want to ask for a raise. In many jobs, the effect I described will help. It must, otherwise all past positions that paid less than the current minimum wage would simply be at minimum wage right now–and they are not.
Another point would be that the hike is not intended to be a help to people like you, but to help the people who break their backs at one or more jobs, working heavy overtime, and still not making ends meet. If you feel a pinch right now, guess how people at minimum wage feel. If you don’t feel a pinch, then I guess you don’t need a tax cut…
Besides, the minimum wage today is massively devalued due to inflation. Funny that Republicans want to tie the estate tax exemptions to inflation, but not the minimum wage… why is that? Why should the minimum wage not be reset each year, so it is pegged to inflation?
(try to beat back the massive Bush/GOP-driven deficits)
So much for that gambit. The deficit has been cut from $412 billion from two years ago to $247 billion this year – just a little less than half of what it was.
Considering reports were saying we wouldn’t get it done as late as 2009, and considering the Democrats in 2004 were saying we’d never get it done… pretty remarkable.
First: $247 billion is “a little less than half” of $412 billion? $247 billion is half of $494 billion, which is a hell of a lot more than $412 billion. It is, to be more or less precise, 60% of the 2004 deficit, which is somewhat more than half. Not to mention that hidden costs are not yet included in the current deficit tally, which will likely be revised upward after the current PR slew is over. Also consider that Social Security surpluses (which Bush wants to get rid of, ironically, saying they’re a bad thing because we’re taxing people too much) are a big part of what brought the deficit down–not Bush’s economic policies.
One must also consider that this is a blip–the White House itself estimates that the deficit is going to increase to $286 billion next year, so the predictions that it would take until 2009 or later to get to half of 2004’s deficit may yet come true. If Bush gets his wish of making the tax cuts for the rich permanent, the budget deficit would continue to increase–not decrease.
You also ignore that Republicans are actually claiming that the deficit has been cut to half of 2004’s numbers, using pessimistic 2004 estimates instead of the actual figures. Good on you for not repeating that tripe.
But let’s say Bush pulls out a miracle and get the deficit down to actually half of 2004’s level by 2008, a year earlier than he promised. Then he would only have to decrease it anouther $300 billion or so to get it back to where he actually found it. But to say that he’s managed, for one year only, to bring down deficits he created in the first place to 60% of their highest numbers before they spring back up again–well, I am not overly impressed.
Nor does any of this negate, as you imply, that the deficits are (a) massive or (b) Bush/GOP-driven.