Friday, January 26, 2007

Pelosi and her first hundred hours

It is over and in the books.

Was the first hundred hours a success or failure for The Democrats?

It took the Democrats about 87 hours to pass the six bills they promised during the 2006 election... The did get all of the bills passed in a timely fashion.

They refused to allow The Republicans to participate in the legislative process... This is 100% disappointing. One of the main Democratic pledges was that they would rule in a bi-partisan fashion. This has NOT been the case so far.

Lets look at their six bills.

1. They promised to make ALL of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into law. They passed a 278 page bill with a vote of 299 in favor vs 128 against. This Bill will enact most of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; however, it does not enact one of the changes the 9/11 Commission wanted the most. It does NOT change the way oversight is done by Congress. About 1/3 of the Republicans voted for this Bill. Mark Souder voted against it.

I will say The Dems kept this promise; however, it is disappointing that they kept about 80% of the promise rather then 100% of their promise.

2. They promised to increase the Minimum wage. They passed a three page bill with a vote of 315 in favor and 116 against. This Bill raises the Minimum Wage in all fifty states. For some really stupid reason the Dems decides to increase the Minimum wage in The Northern Marianas Islands and NOT to increase the Minimum wage in American Somoa. This was dirty politics and anyone who looks into the matter knows it. Nancy Pelosi made a mistake with this one... If they are going to raise the minimum wage for one US Territory they should raise it for all US Territories... About 40% of the Republicans voted for this one. Mark Souder voted against it.

They actually passed a three page bill, and this is a GOOD thing.

I will say The Dems kept this promise; however, they made a mistake by including one territory that used to be exempt and then excluded another US territory that used to be exempt.

3. They promised to expand Federal Stem Cell Research. They passed a three page Bill with a vote of 253 in favor and 174 against. Most Republicans voted against this Bill. Mark Souder voted against the Bill.

The Democrats kept this promise 100% AND they limited the Bill to three pages. Impressive to say the least.

4. The Democrats promised to pass a Bill that would allow the Government to negotiate with the Drug Companies for bulk discounts. They passed a three page Bill with a vote of 255 in favor and 170 against. Most Republicans voted against this Bill. Mark Souder voted against this Bill.

The Democrats kept this promise and they limited the Bill to three pages. Impressive.

5. The Democrats promised to cut the interest rates on Student Loans. This is an 11 page Bill. This Bill passed with 356 in favor and 71 opposed. About 60% of the Republicans voted in favor of this Bill. Mark Souder voted against this Bill.

This Bill is poorly written. It SLOWLY lowers the interest rates over several years. It certainly does NOT immediately cut the student loan interest rates in half.

The Democrats made a feeble attempt at this Bill and did not quite keep this promise.

6. The Dems promised to end some subsidies to big oil and to invest that money in renewable energy. This is a 14 page Bill. It passed 264 - 163. Most Republicans voted against this Bill. Mark Souder voted against this Bill.

The Democrats kept this promise.

All in all I have to say that The Democrats kept five of their six promises for Bills they waited to pass, they did it in less then 100 hours; however, they rammed the Bills through and used the same tactics that they promised NOT to use.

Overall I have to say The Democrats kept most of their initial promises...

Mike Sylvester

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Dems DID ram these bills through, just as they promised to. That was no secret. They also promised to go easier on the opposition after these key bills were passed. Watch and see. . .

At least THIS Congress can't be labeled "do nothing" like the last one.

Anonymous said...

John is right. They did openly say that they were going to limit debate and not allow any amendments during their 100 hour legislation.

They also promised a more "opposition-friendly" environment after these 100 hours. I think this is going to be extremely tough. There's just too much that's happened in the last 12 years to forget overnight. It will be easy for the newcomers, but for those that have been there it will be extremely difficult to turn the other cheek.

I'm not sure what's going to happen on this. I think the most egregious items - such as giving only a few hours to read thousands of pages of legislation - will be corrected. But will the pettiness disappear completely? I wouldn't count on it and I'm not sure I could blame them either...

LP Mike Sylvester said...

John:

In all of their original promises I read it mentioned NOTHING about ramming bills through in the first 100 hours; however, once they won the election that added this.

You can certainly argue that they had to ram them through to fulfill their 100 hour pledge.

Jeff:

They did a LOT more then promise to be more "opposition friendly." They often promised to reach across the aisle and rule in a bi-partisan fashion...

There is NO DOUNT in my mind that they will break this promise...

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

They already broke the bi-partisan promise which is no surprise. Did any thinking person really believe there was anything these self centered ass covering socialists would honor from a campaign promise? Please.......

As far as promising to go easier on the opposition after the bills were passed? Yeah right, Please find me a quote on that from a politician. John & Jeff have been reading the recycled left wing blog bull.
You know how that works, you take an inane comment from some pseudo-intellectual wannabe, forward it to ten different left wing blogs and then recycle the comments ten-fold. That's how you get a statement created.

Anonymous said...

Sucks to be in the minority huh Tim? Whine all you want but the first 100 hours was a success and limiting debate was a good idea if you take a look at what's going on in the Senate. The Republicans have offered up 70+ amendments to the minimum wage bill and many of them have NOTHING to do w/ minimum wage whatsoever. They are simply obstructing and delaying - essentially using a fillibuster by amendment tactic.

As Pelosi said:

"We have promised the American people that we will have civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the House, and we will do just that."

Let's see where we are after 6 months to a year. There was no need to let the Republicans try and screw up the first 100 hours for political purposes. They would've tried their damndest to delay all the legislation until the 100 hours were up and then they would've attacked the Democrats for not keeping their promise.

The first 100 hours was a prominent piece of the party's campaign. The American voters accepted that platform when they overwhelmingly elected Democrats to the House. There was no need to pass anything OTHER than what they said they would pass.

And let me just say that I find it comical to see the Republican leadership (and yourself) complaining about the lack of bipartisanship. If I were in the Democratic leadership I would stick to the Republicans every single chance I got and I wouldn't think twice about it. What goes around comes around...

Anonymous said...

So what you're saying jeff is that it was all right when democrats used these tactics when they were in the majority, but it is wrong now that Republicans want to try the same tactics.

I think what Tim is trying to say is that the democrats are a bunch of hypocrits.

Anonymous said...

sorry, ment to say when they were in the minority.

Mike Kole said...

Jeff- When will the period of retribution be over? Mainly, I had thought that the retribution period had been going on for the entire Bush presidency, in response to the way the Clinton presidency was treated by the GOP. Here the retribution period is just starting?

Please explain where this bi-partisan lies! I'm all confused! (Not that I care too much. I actually like partisan strife. Anything to slow the advancement of liberty-robbing bills is excellent work, in my opinion.)

Anonymous said...

Anon:
I don't think it's hypocritical to not allow debate on the first 100 hours for the reasons I stated previously. However, I would agree that it is hypocritical if they continue to do this for the next 2 years.

Mike:
I'm not saying there WILL be a continued period of retribution but I am only saying that I personally would have a hard time extending the olive branch. Then again, I probably wouldn't have campaigned on a "I will be more opposition-friendly" platform.

Some things certainly needed to be fixed but this idea that the party should treat the opposition as if they are a co-majority is (to quote our VP) "hogwash"...

Anonymous said...

Jeff, anon got me right. I'm just pointing out that they lie through their teeth.

Tit for tat, turnabout is fair play, and all the other examples of someone elses bad behavior do not justify or exonerate bad behavior by others.
I'm not even trying to make the point that Republicans are some how better. All I'm pointing out is the very simple fact that they (pelosi/reid/etc) flat ass lied (on many occasions) and I don't know about you but I teach my kids not to do that. It makes them think that it's ok to lie.

Mike Kole said...

It just says to me (again) that the Dems are no better than the Republicans, true colors shown.