I can’t see Geedubya changing his spots, and although the Democrats control the House, and probably the Senate, what’s there that’s going to make any major changes? The Pres could just change from “rubber stamp” to “veto stamp,” and there aren’t enough votes to override.
I guess I see two years of gridlock…which ain’t all bad. It’d make Wall Street happy–or at least happier–than both Executive and Legislative branches being Democratic.
What areas, specifically, do you see for any major shift in posture–other than in Iraq? (I see a sooner end than previously imagined.)
Personally, I don’t think there will be any major issues doing anything but marking time until the next go-round.
Presidents don’t get to write laws, they only get to sign them or veto them.
The outgoing Congress and the Prez worked together as a fairly unified system. (God only knows who was pulling the strings). Now there will be a Congress that will want vastly different things than the Prez. Maybe they work together in areas of common ground (such as it may be), maybe they compromise and each get some of what they want. Or maybe just gridlock.
Technically the President doesn’t get to introduce legislation but practically Presidents do it all the time through supportive House and Senate members.
A lot of the new Democrats aren’t the types that have been fighting with Bush for six years, nor are they from the left-wing part of the party. It’s difficult to say how they will interact with Bush and what compromises they will reach (some compromises will almost certainly be reached.)
As for how much it will affect John Q. Public, that’s just impossible to say; and also depends on your personal circumstances and possibly where you live. The type of government decisions that typically have noticeable, day-to-day effects on your life are actually made by local politicians, not national ones. People often forget, in light of the fact the Federal government and its officers get the overwhelming share of media attention, that most actual governing happens at the local level.
Usually Congressional or Presidential actions have not a direct but rather a “trickle down” effect–they set something in motion that causes X which influences Y which ultimately influences Z which has an effect on you.
In a few more words? An end to the Bush Administration’s “we can do whatever we want and not tell anyone about it” super-secret attitude. Checks and balances are back, baby.
(And, with any luck, a few key investigations into just what the Bush Administration really knew these last few years and when did they know it. I suspect the White House closets are jammed with skeletons…)
They have control of the investigations now. A serious check into the looting of our treasury in Iraq is in order halliburton is probably pretty uneasy and deep into shredding now.
I’ve read a couple of articles recently that said that Wall Street may be somewhat pleased by Congress being at loggerheads with the President in the sense that nothing much will get done, and it will be a relatively open market. I get the feeling that the only significant disturbance would be a change in the minimum wage, but only time will tell if G-Dub will soften his stance.
We’ll see just how ornery and stubborn he can (or will) be.
My stocks are doing just fine, thank-you-very-much. Now, just don’t screw with my taxes, and it’s all good.
To me, quite frankly, it means less job security. The pharma and biotech sectors are shitting bricks right now over the govt. negotiating prices for Medicare patients. That’s probably going to hurt bottom lines across the board to some degree, and could very well drive some investment overseas. At least, that’s what the CEOs are squawking about. As I’m in R&D (heavy on the R), the axe would likely fall on our heads first, should my company need to downsize. I’m willing to deal with that to see real positive change in health care. I have to admit I’m nervous all the same, though I’m probably safe for the next couple years, anyway.
Not sure what this means for Medicare patients in the short term. Maybe the ability to get access to newer drugs that before they were steered away from, I don’t know. Maybe more coverage for more people.
I think Bush is now faced with ending the Iraq occupation in the next two years or seeing the White House go to the Dems, along with more Congressional seats, in 2008. I don’t know if he’ll do it or not.
If the dems in Congress wanted to play hardball, they could do all manner of things to get their way. Let’s say they really, REALLY, wanted Stem Cell research. They could attach a provision for the research at the 11th hour to a thousand page appropriations bill that’s been “delayed” for numerous reasons. In order to forestall a government shutdown, Bush would have to sign it. Quite possibly the one liner in the bill will go unnoticed. Or he’ll veto it and cause a good old fashioned standoff (which I’d personally love to see, though I doubt the dems have the cajones to pull a stunt like that.)
This is a WAG on my part, but I’m guessing that the best way to force a showdown (and a shutdown should it come to that) would be to try to jam stem cell research down George’s throat. Y’see, that runs up against his religion. It seems to me that he’d be more willing to compromise on other issues rather than “taking a human life.”
Personally, I’d love to see stem cell research funded to the max, but I fear that it is one issue that GWB will battle the hardest against.