Pelosi's first 100 hours

Great Debates
1

Pelosi makes specific proposals for a Democratic House:Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
[/quote]

I’ve repeatedly criticized the Democrats for not having specific, visionary suggestions for what they offer the country. This is exactly the sort of thing they should be doing.

No, it’s not an entirely moderate list (although some of the proposals seem like no-brainers–who’s gonna object to implementing the 9/11 commission proposals?), but it’s something that can get people excited. It emphasizes the bread-and-butter issues that Democrats traditionally stand for. And it’s something that can be debated.

Sure, Republicans will mock it as wild-eyed liberalism, but who gives a shit? Democrats ought to sign onto this list and show how they’re going to make the country better. Put the Republicans in the position of explaining why voters shouldn’t want the government to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with companies.

Daniel

2

Umm, what exactly can the House do (beyond investigations) without the approval of the Senate and Bush.

3

Not much, but it doesn’t matter. What they have to do is set a clear agenda that isn’t too wacky, and start passing bills to get it done. Put the Republicans on the defensive, and turn up the heat. That way you get your base energised for the next presidential election. Make the Republicans justify every item they shoot down. Push, push, push until they break.

Then the problem becomes finding a Democrat that can get elected President.

4

Bingo. Also, the president and the SEnate can’t do a whole hell of a lot without a cooperative House. If the Dems get the House, suddenly the two sides of the aisle will have to compromise, will have to work with one another, if they want to get anything done.

So this isn’t just blowing smoke: these proposals might actually see the light of day. The House can hold Republican priorities (e.g., reauthorizing NCLB) hostage if cooperation isn’t evident.

Daniel

5

Time enough, she says, to begin to “drain the swamp” after more than a decade of Republican rule.

Won’t Someone please think of the Eels?

6

I am encouraged reading this, because I was just reading Claire McCaskill’s talking points/areas of focus today and they reflect exactly the same things, same wording and all.

Could this be? A unified vision with definitive goals and some semblance of planning from the Democrats? I almost just crapped myself.

7

That’s a good point. If the House is a designated wetland, she may run afoul of the Clean Water Act. Imagine, the leader of the Environmental Party breaking a federal law she helped to enact! Oh, the parallels…

Daniel

8

Only to a degree. I do not believe Bush will ever sign off an increase in the minimum wage, in fact I think a minimum wage of $7.25 could be disastrous for the economy.

“Breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation” is really nice, but I’m not sure it can be done without infringing or freedom of speech and other things necessary in a democracy. I think most people are uncomfortable with the amount of influence that lobbyists have, but many lobbying groups are simply groups of like-minded citizens who have banded together to voice their desires in a stronger manner to representatives–which is sort of big tenet of responsible citizenship.

Furthermore, it sounds like the sort of empty platitude that will never work because deep down inside politicians of all stripes really aren’t interested in getting rid of lobbyists (nor am I even sure how such a thing would be done.)

I personally would not mind the Government negotiating on drug prices with pharmaceutical companies if it is an open, business-type negotiation I will vehemently oppose such a measure if what Pelosi means when she says “negotiate” is actually “threaten with price controls.” Which would be a violation of free market principles.

“Pay as you go” is nice, too, but we have so many expenses right now we can’t afford to blindly say “we will not increase the deficit” because some matters simply have to be dealt with by spending and shackling ourselves to the idea of “no more deficit spending” could be damaging (not to mention politically shaky–sort of like Bush’s promise of “no new taxes”, Bush the Elder, that is.)

I can certainly agree in spirit that we need to start cutting back on the deficit, I think everyone can agree with that. But the government needs flexibility to function, and shackling itself to a balanced budget is too problematic, as much as I’d like to see a balanced budget every year.

I definitely don’t agree with tax hikes specifically targetted to one income bracket. The wealthiest Americans already shoulder a disproportionate amount of the tax load. 35% in federal income tax is pretty damn huge for the upper brackets, because you also have to pay state income tax in most places, so I really can’t favor raising the rate to 40% or more.

The top marginal tax rates of the 1960s, when people were paying 90% of their income in taxes is way too high, and it is just a simple effort by the government to lower everyone to the common denominator by punishing the wealthy for being so. Any step back in that direction in regard to tax policy is completely unacceptable. I think 35% is about a fair rate, it was 28% in the late 1980s and things were fairly okay then.

Lowering the interest rates on student loans is just retarded if we’re talking about balancing the budget. The government has given a student X amount of money to go to school and hopefully attain the skills to acquire a moderately well paying job, I don’t think it is wrong to expect those students pay back their fair share. At least before we start taking ever more money from the wealthiest Americans who have already paid the bill many times over for lower income students to go to college.

I don’t know the specific recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, just because a Commission has proposed something, even if it is a “9/11 Commission” doesn’t mean those proposals are sound. I’ll have to withhold judgement on said proposal until I actually look in to what the 9/11 Commissions recommendations were. If all of them were reasonable, then I can definitely be on board with implementing them.

I’d also be on board for broadening stem cell research, and it may actually be something Pelosi could get to Bush’s desk without him vetoing it.

9

I will go wayyyy out on a limb here, Martin, and suggest that this set of proposals is not going to drive you out of the Democratic camp and into the Republican camp.

The proposals do not need to be geared toward staunch conservatives; on the contrary, they need to ignore staunch conservatives. They need to appeal to the Democratic base, to get them out and voting; but even more, they need to appeal to people disgusted with Republicans but who see Democrats as offering no alternative.

Also, would someone mind reporting my initial post’s crappy coding?

Daniel

10

No.1 will never happen. After Abramoff the momentum was there,but the present system is a boon to incumbants. They will not give it up without a fight. It will take a huge public groundswell for them to quit selling I cant see it happening.

11

How does this compare with the Contract With America that Gingrich used to help the Pubbies take the House in 1994? Seems like a similar idea, pull together a definite list of objectives, commit to voting on them quickly, and promise to get it done if you win the majority.

12

Very, very similar, only I think the 100 hours gimmick is a bit different. The CwA worked very well, though, and was an admirable and principled approach to politics; it was the content, not the form, that bugged me. I will be delighted if the Dems adopt something similar.

Daniel

13

I’m a Republican.

And I was specifically, with the part of my post you quoted, replying to your claim that Democrats in the House have a serious shot at getting these proposals through because they can hold things like NCLB hostage. It is my opinion that while yes, the House can do that, it wouldn’t be near enough leverage to get some of the things through and actually signed in to law, especially the items that would be highly unacceptable to Bush (increased minimum wage, increased stem cell research.)

14

I know; thus my “wayyy out on a limb” comment :).

Maybe not; but then Bush won’t be able to get through the highly unacceptable things that he’s been getting through for the past couple years. When the Dems have positive proposals, it totally changes the dynamic.

Thanks, Skip!
Daniel

15

I tend to be a bit skeptical about the Contract With America. Am I wrong, or did exit polling back then not reveal that the vast majority of voters hadn’t actually heard of the Contract With America?

I think the reason for the GOPs success in the legislature is their national party apparatus 1) has more money, 2) is better at focusing on local issues and pumping money in to aras that give them a strong base at the grassroots level and on the local level, which I think is the most important aspect of congressional elections.

It’s gone relatively unnoticed, but Howard Dean is actaully taking steps in that direciton, he is withholding some of the Dem’s warchest from the 2006 elections (which has some in the party angered) and instead invested that money in state party offices and building a stronger grassroots network for the 2008 election. It’s a pretty good strategy in my opinion, the '08 election is the one that really matters.

16

Having actual policy proposals is a big step in the right direction. Running as a party purely based on opposition to Bush was never a winning strategy.

I still tend to think the upcoming elections are fairly unimportant, aside from the fact Democrats may get to claim a “moral victory.” Because most of what Bush has wanted to do in his Presidency is done, much of it cannot be undone, and certainly not by Congress while he is still President.

17

I think you got the parties switched there, but even then, I’d disagree with you.

If Pelosi plays up the “pay as you go” idea of no deficit increases, she might be able to pull over some Republicans who are disgusted with their party’s spending-like-a-drunken-sailor tendencies.

It certainly makes this registered Republican happier about his planned vote for Steny Hoyer.

18

I think most true conservatives like myself in the GOP would prefer a balanced budget, but nevertheless I grudgingly have to accept that the Government needs to have the flexibility to act, which means the flexibility to spend in the red. Hopefully over the next few years we can start chipping away at the deficit, but I wouldn’t want to handcuff the government from acting in essential areas just to do it.

19

No, I said it right. Someone who is firmly in the Republican camp (i.e., who wasn’t a Democrat until they saw these crazy-ass proposals) isn’t the intended audience for the proposals.

Yes, there is some room to pull over fiscal conservatives–but I don’t think that’s what she’s planning on doing. Pay-as-you-go can be done either by increasing revenue or by decreasing spending. I don’t think Pelosi is talking about decreasing spending: her student loans program looks pretty expensive to me. I think she’s talking about rolling back Bush taxcuts to some degree, and I’m not sure how many fiscal Republicans will be thrilled about that.

Daniel

20

I’d probably be okay with a raise to 40% if we keep the estate tax dead once it reaches 0% in 2010. I’d also be comfortable with a return to higher rates on capital gains, although not indefinitely, but for a period of years in order to try and alleviate the deficit.