The Dems take the House and the Senate, how can they screw it up now?

[atszyman]

I remember last night once the House was declared for the Democrats that they actually have a plan to immediately start with raising the minimum wage and push through a few other pet bills. How will/could they mess this up for themselves? What do they need to do?

My thoughts are that if they have these bills that they want to force through and get their way and either force Bush to use a veto or expose him for what he is they will have to push through the bills (probably along party lines) that have no, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero riders/pork barrel projects stuck to them. Give Bush no other option but to veto or pass the bills core intent. Don't give them some technicality that allows them to veto based on some pork barrel project that got tacked on to the bill. If anything go a step further to prove they are the people's party and tie Congressional salaries to the minimum wage to avoid a situation like earlier this year when a minimum wage hike was struck down around the same time a Congressional pay raise was passed (not voted down).

Note : Yes, I do remember that the Democrats were key in defeating the Minimum Wage hike due to other provisions in the bill which is why I believe it's critical that the bills they want to push through not have any provisions that would give Bush an excuse to veto them for anything other than the main thrust of the bill.

[clevin]

I believe minimum wage, gov intervention of drug price, 9/11 reports and student loan interest cut would be the first batches on the house floor, as Speaker-to-be Pelosi said.

[jelloshotsrule]

it's interesting that you made no mention of iraq for first priorities..... hmm

[clevin]

well, I think she said something about iraq, but I wouldn't think iraq can be easily dealt with in first 100Hrs.
To be honest, as I said b4, iraq is such a mess now that there will be no good solution. only one I can think of is to slide it into 3 part, give shiit part to iran, give sunni part to saudi, give kurds part to turkey.

[iGary]

I remember last night once the House was declared for the Democrats that they actually have a plan to immediately start with raising the minimum wage and push through a few other pet bills. How will/could they mess this up for themselves? What do they need to do?

My thoughts are that if they have these bills that they want to force through and get their way and either force Bush to use a veto or expose him for what he is they will have to push through the bills (probably along party lines) that have no, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero riders/pork barrel projects stuck to them. Give Bush no other option but to veto or pass the bills core intent. Don't give them some technicality that allows them to veto based on some pork barrel project that got tacked on to the bill. If anything go a step further to prove they are the people's party and tie Congressional salaries to the minimum wage to avoid a situation like earlier this year when a minimum wage hike was struck down around the same time a Congressional pay raise was passed (not voted down).

Note : Yes, I do remember that the Democrats were key in defeating the Minimum Wage hike due to other provisions in the bill which is why I believe it's critical that the bills they want to push through not have any provisions that would give Bush an excuse to veto them for anything other than the main thrust of the bill.

You talk about all these "pork barrel" programs, yet no mention of the billions of dollars over the last decade by Republicans. I'd rather have a Democrats that spends money on this country than fixing some other country at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

[jelloshotsrule]

well, I think she said something about iraq, but I wouldn't think iraq can be easily dealt with in first 100Hrs.
To be honest, as I said b4, iraq is such a mess now that there will be no good solution. only one I can think of is to slide it into 3 part, give shiit part to iran, give sunni part to saudi, give kurds part to turkey.

i agree there's no simple solution, but there should at least be some serious debate about how to go forward. of course, all of this will take place in january, after that report comes out (the james baker one) so who knows what bush et al will be talking about at that time


uggh, pork is so frustrating. there needs to be *some* relevance to the major point of the bill to allow a rider, i think. it's pathetic that you could have a minimum wage hike bill and have someone tack on something totally unrelated about allow torture or some other BS (just hypothetical here), thus defeating it all... lame

[Desertrat]

It will indeed be more of the Interesting Times in which we've been living, for sure. They've got to find the money, first. It's all well and good to talk about Pork, but Pork is a bi-partisan game. After all, it's a Democrat who's named "Senator Pork"; Stevens (R-AK) is a piker by comparison. I just don't see any notable reduction, there.

You think they'll cut student loan interest rates below the federal funds rate? I dunno, but odds are the rates are tied to that, by existing law. I've certainly no objection to low rates, but there seems to be a need for more effort toward collecting repayment.

As far as raising the minimum wage, this particular time of low unemployment might mean it's less harmful than it usually is. Those who get laid off by employers because of the increased overhead will probably be able to find work elsewhere. Fortunately, it's only some 5% of the existing workforce.

But they have to get past all the office-shuffling for better views, add and subtract staff, and get their parking-place and suchlike perks in line before doing much of anything meaningful...

'Rat

[jelloshotsrule]

It will indeed be more of the Interesting Times in which we've been living, for sure. They've got to find the money, first. It's all well and good to talk about Pork, but Pork is a bi-partisan game. After all, it's a Democrat who's named "Senator Pork"; Stevens (R-AK) is a piker by comparison. I just don't see any notable reduction, there.

totally agree.


But they have to get past all the office-shuffling for better views, add and subtract staff, and get their parking-place and suchlike perks in line before doing much of anything meaningful...


hahah. very true.

[Chef Medeski]

Copied from another Forum. I wrote it, but writing might be awkward its an exceprt:
It looks like the Democrats will effectively take both Houses of Congress, which I congratulate. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not a Democrat. Yet, its been statistically shown that when the Congress and the Presidency are held by opposing forces, public spending is slashed. When the Democrats held power of both with Clinton in the first 2 years, sparked a huge spending spree. Yet, when the Republicans took over the Congress, spending was slashed. Yet, when Bush was elected the spending burgeoned way past any previous limits. Hopefully, now we will return to much less costly state. Just what we need. On top of that regardless if the Democrats take the Senate. Their hold int he House will allow for multiple investigation into everything in the previous 6 years. Which is exactly what I want. Answers, research. There has been too big of a shroud of secrecy in the past 6 years to the doings of the government and finally people will be held accountable.

So, Congratulations to the Democrats.

Yet, this is a double-edged sword. If they are unable to do something with their Congressional majority it will Surely spell death for any Democratic candidate for president in two years. Already not showing any strong resolve towards new ideas, it seems this next 2 years will merely bring more bad press for the Democrats. Itd be nice that way. Lets say the Democrats waste away the next two years because all their weak ideas are easily toppled by Republican opposition. They start numerous investigations allowing them to keep a lead in Congress in 2 years. Yet, The president goes to a Republican due to the lack of leadership shown, the exact quality a president needs Roll Eyes . If John McCain is that man, a quite flexible out reaching man. I think we will see two years of fresh ideas being brouth through the congress with a mix of most likely free-market economics with a lot less moral conservatism. But thats just my hopes. Its a bit too optimistic isnt it.

[freeny]

Again, as I said in another thread, the point is not what the dems plan on doing or not doing, it is the fact that the balance of power has returned to U.S. politics.

This should be quickly followed by accountability and compromise which are both good things.

Government has always been screwy, but is exceptionally screwy when one party has all the power.

[Chef Medeski]

Again, as I said in another thread, the point is not what the dems plan on doing or not doing, it is the fact that the balance of power has returned to U.S. politics.

This should be quickly followed by accountability and compromise which are both good things.

Government has always been screwy, but is exceptionally screwy when one party has all the power.

Exactly and most importantly financial accountability.

[atszyman]

You talk about all these "pork barrel" programs, yet no mention of the billions of dollars over the last decade by Republicans. I'd rather have a Democrats that spends money on this country than fixing some other country at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

I guess the general point I was trying to make is that if they want to force a veto from Bush. They had better do it with single item legislation. If they want a minimum wage increase they can't compromise to get it passed. No bridge to nowhere, no extra riders. Force Bush to veto the main thrust of the bill and don't give them any excuse to say, well we like the idea but these extra provisions are unacceptable.

Basically I'm hoping they realize that if you want to try to push your agenda issue by issue get the bills through Congress on their own merit, don't stick on extras to get the votes since you'd only be giving the President more excuses to veto.

I didn't mention Iraq since Congress can only increase oversight of the war and where and how much money is spent. The conduct of the war still rests in the hands of the Administration. Congress can try to guide the war with increased oversight and control of the purse strings but cannot fully run the war.

I fully believe in the constructive gridlock in the federal government and we should have a good setting for it for the next 2 years. I just don't want them giving Bush too many excuses for using the veto pen in setting up the gridlock. If they can pass the single items and force Bush to pass some bills for the good of everyone, that's great, if they manage to get Bush to veto legislation make the veto against the main point of the bill.

[skunk]

I didn't mention Iraq since Congress can only increase oversight of the war and where and how much money is spent.That's potentially a pretty powerful lever (pronounced "leaver", btw), if used right.

[yellow]

Stevens (R-AK) is a piker by comparison.

Ted Stevens, the man who claimed that the internet is a "series of tubes"? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYiDo0DjSk

[Chef Medeski]

I guess the general point I was trying to make is that if they want to force a veto from Bush. They had better do it with single item legislation. If they want a minimum wage increase they can't compromise to get it passed. No bridge to nowhere, no extra riders. Force Bush to veto the main thrust of the bill and don't give them any excuse to say, well we like the idea but these extra provisions are unacceptable.

Basically I'm hoping they realize that if you want to try to push your agenda issue by issue get the bills through Congress on their own merit, don't stick on extras to get the votes since you'd only be giving the President more excuses to veto.

I didn't mention Iraq since Congress can only increase oversight of the war and where and how much money is spent. The conduct of the war still rests in the hands of the Administration. Congress can try to guide the war with increased oversight and control of the purse strings but cannot fully run the war.

I fully believe in the constructive gridlock in the federal government and we should have a good setting for it for the next 2 years. I just don't want them giving Bush too many excuses for using the veto pen in setting up the gridlock. If they can pass the single items and force Bush to pass some bills for the good of everyone, that's great, if they manage to get Bush to veto legislation make the veto against the main point of the bill.

You don't think Bush could merely veto a bill for a minimum wage hike. I'm sure he has enough backers that it wouldnt be that controversial. I mean he is a lame duck president how could it hurt him. On top of that, its not like a super majority of americans agree for a minimum wage hike. At best a slim majority agrees to it.

[atszyman]

That's potentially a pretty powerful lever (pronounced "leaver", btw), if used right.

Yes it's a powerful tool but it's not a pass this legislation type of tool.

They can push and help guide the war but it will require time and finesse to pull off. It's something they can hope to yield for the good of our soldiers and Iraq but they can only do so slowly. Many other items in their agenda are a pass the legislation and wait for a veto/pass items.

I guess I'd like to see them shed a bit of the "tax and spend" label and start writing bills/legislation as intended and force the issues that matter rather then get sucked into debates about bridges to no-where and tax incentives tied to unrelated bills.

I guess I'm feeling idealistic today.

[atszyman]

You don't think Bush could merely veto a bill for a minimum wage hike. I'm sure he has enough backers that it wouldnt be that controversial. I mean he is a lame duck president how could it hurt him. On top of that, its not like a super majority of americans agree for a minimum wage hike. At best a slim majority agrees to it.

I think he could and very well might veto a Minimum Wage hike. I think you do underestimate public support though. Even the GOP recognized the MW as a way to energize some voters when they tried to tack cutting the estate tax to it at the beginning of August so they could go claim that Dems stopped a MW hike. However, Foley and other scandals managed to take that bill out of the news quickly.

link to GOP MW bill article (xhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-03-minimum-wage-bill_x.htm)

[Chef Medeski]

I think he could and very well might veto a Minimum Wage hike. I think you do underestimate public support though. Even the GOP recognized the MW as a way to energize some voters when they tried to tack cutting the estate tax to it at the beginning of August so they could go claim that Dems stopped a MW hike. However, Foley and other scandals managed to take that bill out of the news quickly.

link to GOP MW bill article (xhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-03-minimum-wage-bill_x.htm)

Yeah, it would be great to show that Democrats, who almost all their voters support a MW hike, voted against a MW hike. Doesn't mean its that popular among everyone. I think its retarded. While new studies have proven, the supposed less job theory wrong during a MW hike. It has shown something else interesting it doesn't help the poor at all. Since basic commodities, usually increase the most as reflecting a MW hike and these commodities are consumed at the highest margin by poorer individuals. So, realistically, the MW hike doesn't help anyone, except maybe illegal immigrants cause now more buisnesses will go under the table to avoid higher prices. And I'm sure they can raise their prices too now. ;)

[zimv20]

You don't think Bush could merely veto a bill for a minimum wage hike.
it's entirely possible.

i hope that a democractic congress would serve up a number of simple, pro-lower and middle class bills which, if vetoed, would further bush's negative standings. his vetoing a bill which was single purpose -- to raise the minimum wage -- would be a good start to that end.

[atszyman]

Yeah, it would be great to show that Democrats, who almost all their voters support a MW hike, voted against a MW hike. Doesn't mean its that popular among everyone. I think its retarded. While new studies have proven, the supposed less job theory wrong during a MW hike. It has shown something else interesting it doesn't help the poor at all. Since basic commodities, usually increase the most as reflecting a MW hike and these commodities are consumed at the highest margin by poorer individuals. So, realistically, the MW hike doesn't help anyone, except maybe illegal immigrants cause now more buisnesses will go under the table to avoid higher prices. And I'm sure they can raise their prices too now. ;)

I think you misunderstood my point. The GOP proposed a MW hike with a provision that they wanted (eliminating the estate tax) to either get the estate tax eliminated or to campaign on the issue that Democrats held back a MW hike. I'm hoping that the Dems don't go through and push bills like this. If you want the estate tax gone write a bill that does that. If you want the MW hike write a bill that does that. Let's end the practice of trying to get what we want passed by attaching it to what they want passed. Let bills succeed or fail on their own merit.

Everyone cites a zero sum game for raising the minimum wage, but it's simply not true. I've seen many claims that retailers like WalMart could afford to pay employees $1 per hour more by simply raising prices $0.005/$1. For a MW worker that would be a 19% raise accompanied by a 0.5% increase in cost. Hardly zero sum and would probably show more benefit to the economy in the near term than tax cuts for the upper income brackets, since the lower wage earners are more likely to spend their extra money while the upper brackets are more likely to save/invest, which isn't bad for the economy but it is more of a long term growth vs the immediate boost.

link (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_walmart_wages)

But regardless of wether or not you support the MW increase my basic point is to try and get back to really defining the issues and determining where people stand by writing bills that are singular in their goal in order to force a discussion on the issue rather than a discussion on the extra stuff that got tacked on.

Like I said, I'm feeling idealistic today. I'm sure it will fade by January.

[Chef Medeski]

I agree. Cut the Fat. I like my steaks lean.

[SMM]

I have been reading volumes of 'spin' over the past 24 hours. I am extremely pleased with the results. I would love to see the democrats get hold of the senate as well. I find it very interesting that as of right now, the republicans were unable to gain a single position in the house, senate or governors races. There are still some opportunities for them to do so, but this was clearly a major shift by moderate voters. Those are the people the democrats need to keep happy. And they should.

I think the goal of the democrats has to be twofold, and aimed at 2008; increase their majority and recapture the white house. It will be very interesting to see how well this new democratic majority works together. There are many conservative democrats in the mix. It seems like the one common theme is anti-Bush. There is also strong sentiment against how the Iraq War is being managed. I am not sure that equates into simply ending it.

The fear of terrorism has not gone away. I think there are still too many people who associate Iraq with fighting the war on terrorism. Over the next 2 years, the house and (hopefully) senate committees will be chaired by democrats. They will now have the ability to hold hearings on all of the dirty laundry the republicans have been hiding, or ignoring. To end the war in Iraq, I think you first have to discredit it in the eyes of the American people. Most people with common sense and who pay attention to what has gone on, already know the war is a scam. But, that does not equate to a majority of Americans. However, the truth is out there.

I believe there already exists a majority of Americans who no longer doubt the seriousness of our environmental problems. The corporate rape under Bush has basically erased decades of good work. The guilty have no defensible position. This needs to be addressed NOW.

Several writers have commented that the republican party lost credibility with the moderate voter. I do not think they were sticking their neck out too far saying that. The influence of the fundamentalist religious groups, within their party, is starting to have a backlash effect. Many moderates do not want to be associated with the religious right. This includes many traditional christians and republicans who think the cost of their membership has become too dear.

Bush is like bloodied carcass, being thrown into the middle of a bunch of starving dingo dogs. It will be political suicide to be seen as a 'Bush-man'. I think the democrats may be able to pass some legislation easier, if they can associate a 'no' vote with supporting Bush policies. Whether they can muster (my guess 60) enough votes to override a veto will depend on the legislation itself. Someone earlier posted about keeping the 'pork barreling' out of legislation, and I think that was dead on.

The media has been very biased right. I wonder if any of them will grow a pair and actually engage in journalism?

[Thanatoast]

The Dems will screw it up the way they always do. They will let the Reps define the debate.

When they try to pass a minimum wage hike, the Republicans will say "their socialist divisive politics are going to destroy the economy!" The Democrats will then respond to all Republican attacks using the Republican frame of reference. End of game.

Same goes for getting out of Iraq, re-instating the estate tax, re-introducing pay-as-you-go (a pipe dream, maybe) or lowering the cost of the medicare drug benefit. The Republicans will frame every argument and the Democrats will let them. In two years time the Dems will lose at half of what they gained yesterday.

Also, the Democratic leaders, Pelosi and Reed, are terrible public speakers. I was watching CNN last night while they were victory speeching and I felt like I was in a Church board meeting - trying to sound like what they were saying was important and ending up sounding like they're trying, rather than being.

Sorry, I'm not nearly so optimistic as others. I'm pleased as punch the Democrats took the House. At the very least they'll probably put a stop to voting for torture and tax cuts (maybe). They'll just not go so far as I want them to go - you know, lead. Come up with some ways to make the country better off (MW is a start) and actually stand behind their convictions. But as long as they stop the Republicans from eating any more babies, I suppose that's progress.

[solvs]

But as long as they stop the Republicans from eating any more babies, I suppose that's progress.

They're still going to eat babies. It's just that now we'll know about it. ;) And we'll all sit around doing nothing but complaining that the Dems do nothing. :p

[rhsgolfer33]

Here's how the Dems can screw it up: if they attempt to or pass anything that is socially liberal (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Many of the new Dems are fairly socially conservative, which definetly helped them get elected (that and the Iraq stand).

The Dems can definetly pass a progressive economic policy(unfourtunately, Id much rather see a progressive social policy since I am extremely economically conservative) because there are alot of people who support MW increases, raised taxes on the wealthy, decreased taxes on poor, renewal of death tax on lower dollar value estates, etc. They can also work on Iraq, the American people definetly voted with this on their mind and the Dems know it. But as soon as they start working on implementing their social policies a large portion of America that voted for them in this midterm will probably go back to voting Republican in the 08. Unfourtunately this socially neutral/conservative and economically liberal view will make a fairly sizeable portion of the Democratic party rather upset. We shall see, there are many possibilites for change and stability in 08, I'm already ready to go out and volunteer on some Presidential and House of Reps campaigns.

[Thomas Veil]

Late to the party, but my 2¢:

I think antzyman is right on when he talks about Democrats passing simple, amendment-free, rider-less bills that Bush has to (*cough cough*) vote up or down on. If he vetoes the bill, everyone will know where he stands. Yes, he's a lame duck, but it sure won't reflect well on Republicans in the run-up to the '08 presidential election. In fact, it'll be just one more way to show that they're out of touch with America.

Besides, if you attempt to override the veto, and the Republicans side with Bush and the override fails, you get bragging rights. You get to say for the next two years, "We tried to pass a straightforward minimum wage bill, but Bush and the Republicans killed it."

As far as letting Republicans control the debate: I'm becoming more and more of a fan of Howard Dean, because I think he handles this sort of thing well. If you've ever seen him on TV, he can pick apart a Republican argument, without looking at all like the "screaming maniac" image the GOP has cast him in. If I were going to let anyone be the "face" of the Democratic party, it would be Dean.

I know I've been driving the Bill Maher thing into the ground, but listen to this clip (http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/sounds/newrules.mov), where he talks about, "When the Republicans say _______, you say _______."

As far as cutting out the pork, that will be the toughest thing to do. Most politicians run on the idea that they bring home the bacon to their districts. Will the Democrats actually abandon this idea any more than the Republicans will?

Finally, as I said elsewhere, the Democrats can't afford to screw it up by starting out too far to the left. Pass some simple, moderate, popular legislation. Forget about gay marriage. Sorry, but it's just not meant to be yet, unless you want to make sure you hand the House back to the GOP next election. It's a cruel reality, but it'll take the Dems a decade or so in power to engender the kind of trust with the people that will allow the party to begin to shift back to the left. You have to have a record of showing people that you've got their interests at heart before you can go leading them into new, uncharted territory.

Oh, one more thing: I'm not prepared to accept that "how can the Dems screw this up" line. They can't. They just can't. That kind of thinking is for losers, and the Dems have to shake that off, because the stakes are just too freaking high nowadays.