Friday, October 06, 2006

Nancy Pelosi and the first one hundred hours...

I found a great press release on The Drudge Report about the items Nancy Pelosi says she will do if The Democrats win a majority in congress in 2006.

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061006/ap_on_el_ge/pelosi_time_1>

I think The Democrats should have come up with something like this a long time ago and made it a national Campaign. I am utterly convinced that if they ran a National campaign and used a message "similar" to the one she outlined they would take the House...

Lets look at what she wants to do:

1. Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislators."
I absolutely love this one. How is she going to do it? I would like some details. John Good or Jeff Pruitt or any other Democrats who read this blog; please tell me how this would be done. I am in favor of it.
I like this one, I just want to know how they would do it. I do not think she can, I think it is an empty promise.

2. Enact all recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
I have not looked at this too closely; overall, I tend to think we should enact the recommendations of the Committee we appointed to study the event.
I think I like this one.

3. Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step.
I am obviously against this one; however, it is a good one for Democrats to run on. It is wrong; but, it may appeal to people who do not understand economics.
I am against this one; but, it is a winner for Democrats and consistent with their message.

4. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.
The Federal government has no constitutional role in education at all. We need to abolish the Department of Education like Reagan wanted to do back in the 80's. I have to say this is a good stand for The democrats to take.
I am against this one; but, it is a winner for Democrats and consistent with their message.

5. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the phamaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
I agree with this one in a big way. It makes economic sense.
This one is a winner and I agree with it.

6. Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with Federal funds.
This is definitely something the Federal government should stay out of. There are plenty of private companies that can do stem cell research and we need to keep The Federal government out of it. Medical research companies are making billions of dollars; they do not need more subsidies...
This one is a winner for Democrats. They do want to spend more money and this is a program that their base will like.

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 this "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."
I am 100% for the first part of this. We MUST balance the Federal Budget right away. Then we have to start funding the 75 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities The Dems and Reps have created... As far as raising taxes on the rich; well, I am not in favor of that.
I agree with the first half of this, and this point is a winner for the Democrats.

The Democrats could win on a message like this...

Mike Sylvester

12 comments:

John Good said...

Mike - re the lobbyist seperation, here's a good start:

Sunlight Network

Tim Zank said...

1. Pandering/Lip Service....sound tough now, take the money.There were lobbyists there in 1776 and there will be 2076.
2. Sounds good doesn't it? Take a look, last I checked there were 42 pages of "Key" recommendations. It would be more realistic to move heaven and earth.
3. Sucking up/ fiscally unsound but it makes 'em feel warm and fuzzy while sipping merlot. 16 year old kid's don't need a govt. mandated raise.
4. Really sucking up...interest rates are already low on student loans and students should work while in school so as to borrow less. Didn't kill me, ain't killin' my oldest son.
5. Another "sounds good in theory" plan. I suggest you check out http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092804b.cfm
6. Great big vote getter from the chardonnay sipping limosine liberals.

Pay as you go? Yeah right.

Then there's repealing tax cuts....

One of the scariest things is I find is democrats inability to use simple math. Tax revenues collected have NEVER been higher because of those tax cuts. To repeal them to "reward work, not just wealth" is preposterous and economic suicide.

John Good said...

Wow! Tim has progresses from Kool-Aid to Orange-Sunshine. . .

Tim Zank said...

Hey John, my flashbacks are vivid!
Let's just say I think her "plan" is pretty hollow....

I'm also astounded how such a good looking, articulate, 66 year old grandma can be such a nasty old bitch. I mean, what does she do with her grandkids on holidays, teach them how to stick pins in dolls?

Jeff Pruitt said...

Mike,

I know Pelosi is an advocate for Publicly Financed Elections but alas I don't think it has broad enough support at this juncture to pass. IMO, this would be the ultimate lobbying reform.

Having said that, back in January the Democrats proposed their own Lobbying Reform Legislation and I'm sure that's what she's referring to - The Honest Leadership & Open Government Act of 2006

Robert Enders said...

Jeff, I have a question about publicly financed elections. Who decides which candidates get public funds? I raised way less than either of my two opponents, and I was very grateful to receive what little I got. I have this bad feeling that minor parties will not "qualify" for public funds, and will be prohibited from raising their own cash on top of that.

I am just as worried as you are about elections always going to those with the deepest pockets. But I think voters are getting saavier. They read the paper to get info on candidates. They are doing research at non-partisan websites like Project Vote-Smart.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Robert,

You can get some of your questions answered here but I think the answer you're most interested in is:

"Candidates don't get something for nothing. They must demonstrate broad-based support by collecting qualifying contributions from registered voters in their district/state. While it is important to screen out frivolous candidates, we should not discriminate against independent and minor party candidates."

John Good said...

I'm also astounded how such a good looking, articulate, 66 year old grandma can be such a nasty old bitch. I mean, what does she do with her grandkids on holidays, teach them how to stick pins in dolls?

Come ON, Tim! This IS 2006 we're talking about here! We don't play with dolls anymore; we find actual asshat conservatives and impale them with real pig-stickers!

Gotta prepare them for the real-world experience and all, ya know! MY girls just spent last weekend with their Grandma. . .watch yer ass. . . lol

Mike Kole said...

Jeff-

The 'demonstration of broad-based support' is code for 'two-party system', or 'keeping Greens and Libertarians off the ballot'.

Remember that when the Libertarians got ballot access in Indiana in the 1980's, the threshhold was 0.5% as tied to Secretary of State's result. The response? To hike up the bar 4x, to 2.0%.

You will recall that the Green Party was kept off the ballot this year because of the higher standard.

Publicly-financed elections means the death of third parties in the USA.

By the way, I do not support the screening out of "frivolous" candidates by the political parties. Put anyone who wants to be on the ballot onto the ballot. Let THE PEOPLE decide. That's what elections are supposed to be about!

Mike Kole said...

To bolster my argument that public financing of elections would only result in the exclusion of thrid parties, look to Ohio where the LP is fielding a gubernatorial candidate.

The Rs & Ds conspired to keep Pierce, the Libertarian, out of the debates on the basis that he does not have minimum 15% of the vote in the polls. Well guess what? The ballot access threshhold in Ohio is 5%.

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/10/06/blackwell-campaign-blatantly-lies-about-peirce/

So, the rules will get tweaked by the two parties as they go to get the results they want, which is to say, the exclusion of all third parties.

Which two parties sit in the legislature? Which two parties therefore write election law? Which two parties comprise the Elections Division?

Come on. Common sense.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Mike,

I guess you can always read into something whatever you want. I can understand your underdog frustration but the very next sentence says:

"we should not discriminate against independent and minor party candidates"

And frivilous candidates are always allowed on the ballot so long as they meet the state's criteria. That quote was simply referring to the qualifications to receive public funds and NOT ballot access as you suggest.

I would encourage you to look into some of the districts where they've implemented Clean Elections. I don't see it as the end of 3rd parties at all - in fact quite the opposite. I think publicly financed elections are the only chance third parties have to break the two party dominance...

Jeff Pruitt said...

Mike,

I'm not surprised that Blackwell and the dirty-tricks machine running the GOP in Ohio would do anything they could to keep the LP off the ballot.

That however, is not relevent to the Clean Elections discussion. You're suggesting that since a few bad apples are subverting democracy in this country that we should stop trying to make the system better. I disagree with you - I believe we can punish the bad apples while simultaneously improving the election system for all.

Seriously, look at some of the districts where this is in play and let us know what you think. I'll bet you're pleasantly surprised...