What will the Dems do in the next few years
GW Bush in his first term was able to pass a series of bills through a narrowly held Republican House and Senate. These included his tax cuts which came with a sunset clause in order to get 60 Senate votes; The no child left behind act that Kennedy voted for, and a series of anti-terror legisation that democrats generally supported.
GW was also able to pass the heavy spending Prescription Drug bill on razor thin margins in the House (with Democratic support).
The largest legislative failure came with Social Security Reform, something the republican congress refused to ever really support (they were scared of losing control)... ha ha ha.
Knowing these successes and failures, what then will the Democratic House be able to enact....Minimum wage will get by, possibly with some small business tax relief in the senate. Bush will sign it.
Immigration Reform. I believe that this will ultimately die in the House. It would be death for most of the new democrats to come out swinging for illegal aliens. If anything comes out it will be little stuff and not major reform.
Stem Cells. The democratic Congress will pass stem cell funding, which Bush will veto. It will fall short of an override.
I think that is it. Dems may try to monkey around with the war funding - make threats etc..., however, they will ultimately fund the war.
The democrats will ultimately be compared to the 104th Congress. And the comparison will be ugly for the democrats because Bush is not up for reelection and thus doesn't have to sign any democratic bills.
IN 1995-7, the new 104th Republican Congress rammed through a series of legislation (the contract with America), much of it becoming law from a frightened President Clinton:
This included a Balanced Budget Amendment, a large crime bill, welfare reform, the $500 child tax credit, tort reform (which was vetoed), and many government reform measures. The 104th congress also shaved off a full percent to GDP of spending or about $80 billion at the time from 21.75% to 20.75%. The Republican congress also enacted House reform, such as limiting committee chair terms to encourage fresh blood. It doesn't appear that the dems will learn from this as I have heard that Dingle age 81 will chair E&C, Charlie Rangel age 76 will chair Ways and Means, and Conyers age 77 will chair Judiciary. How wrong is this? Why would the Dems just revert back to 1993?
These comparisons will come out as the year goes on and people will soon realize that the Democratic congress has little power and little mandate to do anything but investigate Bush over Iraq. People will also be reminded how great 1994 was and will yearn for its return.
Republicans would be smart to come up with a new contract, with new leaders for 2008. The new contract should be domestic reform and should include legislation that has a chance to be passed. It should include reform to social security, health care reform, etc... In the meantime, 2006-2008 should be spent showing how hapless the Democrats really are.
GW was also able to pass the heavy spending Prescription Drug bill on razor thin margins in the House (with Democratic support).
The largest legislative failure came with Social Security Reform, something the republican congress refused to ever really support (they were scared of losing control)... ha ha ha.
Knowing these successes and failures, what then will the Democratic House be able to enact....Minimum wage will get by, possibly with some small business tax relief in the senate. Bush will sign it.
Immigration Reform. I believe that this will ultimately die in the House. It would be death for most of the new democrats to come out swinging for illegal aliens. If anything comes out it will be little stuff and not major reform.
Stem Cells. The democratic Congress will pass stem cell funding, which Bush will veto. It will fall short of an override.
I think that is it. Dems may try to monkey around with the war funding - make threats etc..., however, they will ultimately fund the war.
The democrats will ultimately be compared to the 104th Congress. And the comparison will be ugly for the democrats because Bush is not up for reelection and thus doesn't have to sign any democratic bills.
IN 1995-7, the new 104th Republican Congress rammed through a series of legislation (the contract with America), much of it becoming law from a frightened President Clinton:
This included a Balanced Budget Amendment, a large crime bill, welfare reform, the $500 child tax credit, tort reform (which was vetoed), and many government reform measures. The 104th congress also shaved off a full percent to GDP of spending or about $80 billion at the time from 21.75% to 20.75%. The Republican congress also enacted House reform, such as limiting committee chair terms to encourage fresh blood. It doesn't appear that the dems will learn from this as I have heard that Dingle age 81 will chair E&C, Charlie Rangel age 76 will chair Ways and Means, and Conyers age 77 will chair Judiciary. How wrong is this? Why would the Dems just revert back to 1993?
These comparisons will come out as the year goes on and people will soon realize that the Democratic congress has little power and little mandate to do anything but investigate Bush over Iraq. People will also be reminded how great 1994 was and will yearn for its return.
Republicans would be smart to come up with a new contract, with new leaders for 2008. The new contract should be domestic reform and should include legislation that has a chance to be passed. It should include reform to social security, health care reform, etc... In the meantime, 2006-2008 should be spent showing how hapless the Democrats really are.
posted by Sloanasaurus | 11/10/2006 12:35:00 AM
I expect some form of Assault Weapon Ban to be resurected, that Bush should veto but won't.
I also expect the local Dems to repeal the Concealed Carry Law in Mn., but Pawlenty should be able veto that. I don't think they can override.
I disagree with AirMarshall. One thing the Democrats seemed to understand is that they needed to stop taking so many stupid pills if they wanted to win. As far as I can tell, not one Democratic candidate ran on an anti-gun platform. They correctly diagnosed that this was killing them in the past. I don't think they will be so stupid as to make this a big deal either at the federal or state level.
Cun control is a solid plank in the Democrat party platform. It is in accordance with UN resolutions, and much other "internationalist" thought. It has been a losing issue to run on but that does not stop them from attempting "reasonable" measures while in office. Start small work up from there. It has always worked for them in the past. They will have to throw some sort of bone to that wing of the party on this issue. I would expect it to come sooner rather than latter to keep it off the next election's hot topic list. I think we have givin this issue too much credit for conservative victories in the past. Many otherwise conservative people are uncomfortable with both concealed carry and so called "assault weapons".
At the state level, Democrats will throw huge gobs of money at the teachers union, in humble obeisance of their masters. Any attempts to actually reform the public education system will be dismissed out of hand. If there isn't enough money (and there never can be), Democrats will raise taxes. Perhaps the biggest question ought to be whether Tim Pawlenty will show some spine and veto this profligate taxing and spending.
Nationally, the Democrats will do everything in their power to lose the war on terror, specifically in what the terrorists themselves concede is the central front of that war in Iraq. Again, the question here is whether Bush will have the spine to slap these idiots down early and often, and whether the Republicans hold together to sustain the veto, and if they can succeed in making political hay out of the Democrats foolhardy perfidy.
J. Ewing
Two things I forgot to mention harsh pencil. One, Joe Olson of CCRN has stated there is a draft bill ready to go into the hopper at the State Legislature cutely nicknamed "Repeal Conceal" (catchy eh?). I see no reason why this won't be introduced. It may pass both houses and it will be up to Pawlenty to veto it. At the Federal level we need to remember that the Assault Weapon Ban was never repealed, despite twelve years of Republican control. It just went away with a sunset provision. The Dems in the Senate tried hard to reinstate it at the time so they weren't afraid to do it then, right before an election. The House refused to consider it, and that is what stopped it, not fear of the voters. John Kline even told me he and other Republicans in the house were scared to death to have to do an open vote against it for fear of the Soccer Moms. All that has changed now. Also, at the time Bush said he would sign it if it made it to his desk. No reason for him to not do so now. Spitting in the Dems eye won't do anything for him but bring the media down on his head. He has no more elections to win,so it is in his best interest to cultivate a peacful last two years. He has never really been in the Second Amendment camp so I would not expect him to start now.
Pawlenty's foremost campaign promise was to throw more money into the education abyss. So don't look to him as a control on spending.
Post a Comment