New Democratic Agenda
I just noticed a new dkos diary Help me set the Senate's agenda by Dick "Our troops are like nazis" Durbin. There he lists 10 Senate bills that will be introduced when the new congress convenes. He also asks for community's priorities.
* S.1 -- Ethics & lobbying reform
* S.2 -- Increasing the minimum wage
* S.3 -- Lowering prescription drug prices for seniors
* S.4 -- Fully implementing all 9/11 Commission recommendations
* S.5 -- Expanding stem cell research
* S.6 -- Developing new technology to promote energy independence
* S.7 -- Making college more affordable
* S.8 -- Rebuilding America's military
* S.9 -- Immigration reform
* S.10 -- Reinstating "Pay As You Go" rules for the federal budget
So I had some thoughts on those, and what is ommitted. Some predictions as well.
First of all where is Iraq? As another diary by Sen. Kennedy Escalation: It's Not Up To Him points out, one of his priorities is preventing the funding of any possible "escalation" of troops in Iraq. But Durbin is 2nd in command and Kennedy is somewhat of a fringe figure (I know I know Pelosi and Reid made noises about funding), so will Dems actually have the guts to stop any new funding? I am skeptical.
Secondly, what about warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act? This is somewhat self-explanatory and a big favorite of the liberal activists, but I seriously doubt Dems will do anything beyond a few hearings. There will be no legislation dealing with it.
Thirdly, what about that "Torture and Habeas Corpus" bill that was passed with the complicity of the Dem Party? Another huge favorite of the liberals as a candidate for repeal. This one as I remember was a "compromise" that was significantly watered down to my displeasure. There are no votes for a veto override - the chances of which are approaching 100% so my prediction is that Dems will not even mention it, again to a significant displeasure of the liberal activists (especially bloggers).
Fourth is impeachment... Of course it won't be mentioned as one of the priorities but astonishingly a large percentage of dkos denizens thinks that it is a realistic possibility and that it is almost a done deal that Congress will move in that direction. Chance of that in my estimation is about 0.
Fifth one I'll throw in there is Universal Healthcare, a favorite of socialists of all stripes (and of course a majority of dkos). That S.3 bill for lowering prescription medicine costs is about as much as will be accomplished and beyond that there is no money or interest, and enough opposition to this perpetual dream of the Left.
As for what the Senate Dems actually proposed... 1 and 2 are doable; 3 will be a compromise as it might be pricey and we already have the Medicare bill that significantly cut down the costs; 4 will not happen fully - too pricey and as an article I just read (lost link) points out, the test programs currently run by the Homeland Security that screen all the cargo are very costly and timewasting; 5-6-7 are possible, 8 is a vague nonsense, 9 is a joke that even if passed will be worthless, and 10 is a joke from the worst bunch of tax and spenders in our government.
Whoohoo, great start!
Comments :
Aren't you registered at dKos
Since "YOU" have been selected Person of the Year, feel free to chime in with your concerns, which I am sure you will offer with the utmost of sincerity.
As a progressive and a realist, your list is long and will take time. So try to exercise some patience.
Remember that being a progressive entails
First.
A realistic look at the circumstances of a situation. (Oversight Hearings)
Second.
A step by step process of evaluation of how to make practical changes to develop a better and more modern state of improvement. (To legislate or not to legislate)
I suggested to Senator Durbin encouraging conditions that favor small businesses.
I'm only half stupid
my concern
is that there are too many people who think like the ones on dkos. That is scary :)
I don't want to share my concerns there, so I'll share them here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If you Act Now
You have a chance to have your voice be heard.
If your concerns are reasonable why would you not take
an opportunity to influence the political discourse that you
think would further the interests of this great country?
I'm only half stupid
well I am not interested
in trying to influence the political discourse from the Left and I doubt anyone on the Left is interested in me chiming in with my concerns with their agenda that I wholeheartedly oppose.
I am more interested in influencing the political discourse from the Right. But generally I am just interested in the political discourse itself. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
All I know
Is if the situation was reversed, I would be all over it.
That is why I have often called CSpan to speak with the
most right leaning of idealogues who have been living
in a bubble.
I'm only half stupid
Great! Tell us next time you're calling
so we can listen in!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Spontaneous event!
It is much easier to be an armchair pundint. Public speaking causes complete brain freeze, and I am never sure if I sound coherent.
I asked some neocon (David Rivkin) about the Islamic prohibition against homosexuality as contrasted with the hard rights Christian view, because there is no contrast. He said it would take time like the end of slavery.
I also asked some statistician for NCLB (whose job is dependent on tax dollars that could actually be going directly towards education) why statistics on children national test scores, were more important than individual needs that nuture creative independent thinking. She said they are focusing on the individual needs with their nationalized standards. (???)
I'm only half stupid
These politicians are data mining e-mails
Then after getting a lot of e-mails they build a PAC and ask for money.
I dont take it seriously.
Excellent,
so you think at least half of Durbin's suggestions are doable? We really are off to a great start!
I think the reason some of these other issues are conspicuously lacking has to do with what Durbin has power over, and what he does not. Take the impeachment drive - that will still happen, eventually, but it's going to be simmering in committee for a while in order for investigations to lay the proper groundwork.
I'm content - not thrilled, but content - with this outline so far. I was half afraid that they'd already start waffling in order to appear more middle-of-the-road, but while these programs aren't exactly revolutionary, they're comfortable improvement, especially as a start.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
heh
The reason they are doable is because they are minor and unoffensive. They wouldn't necessarily be the list of my priorities but I wouldn't be vigorously opposed to many of them either.
I'd call them safe. So the Dems are starting out with a really tame list of safe bills and will then claim that they passed most or all... Well no kidding, there is nothing controversial here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Really?
I thought from all the hand-wringing before the election that increasing the minimum wage was controversial - at least, with right wing bloggers and nobody else. Ethics reform shouldn't be uncontroversial, but it never happens (it's like telling kids at a playground to behave themselves without adult supervision). Stem cell research was hotly enough debated to make the Missouri election a near-draw, and has been vetoed by this President before.
I'm actually surprised you think "making college more affordable" is doable. That's the one big sticking point for me: unless they plan on reforming our entire system of education, this is a monster of a topic to try to fix with a piece of legislation.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
issues
I am not a big fan of the minimum wage (at all) but it's not a major issue to increase it as it is still fairly low and hopefully wouldn't burden the businesses too much. I would offset it with tax breaks.
Stem cell research is not an issue for me and I hope the GOP will lose on it. They should take a stand on issues that are important and not block good ideas.
There are plenty of tax credits that can be passed geared towards helping parents pay for college. It is a big issue, but tax breaks would definitely make it "more affordable".
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So you're saying raising the minimum wage is "unoffensive?"
And "minor?"
Really?
Your Ayn-Randism is slipping.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I was never a
randroid. I am just a sensible right winger who loves capitalism.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What have Republicans Done?
Republicans could have done a number of these but they didn't. Instead of passing ethics and lobbying reforms they gutted the house ethics committee, changed the rules so Tom Delay could still be majority leader after being indicted, and ran the k street project and tripled the number of lobbyists in Washington.
Doing your homework for you (as usual)
As far #4 goes (implementing 9-11 Commission recommendations), some of it is possible and some of it is not as of now.
However, what you wrote is false:
From today's New York Times
:
"Too pricey?" At $3.6 billion over a decade? The Iraq fiasco is costing us $8 billion a month.
Granted, inspecting the shipping cargo will be more difficult and will require improved technologies.
But to claim that something that will cost $3,6 billion over 10 years is too expensive is to ignore the elephant in the room that is Iraq.
We're at half a trillion dollars on that mess and counting.
Talk about the biggest government boondoggle of all time.
And you want to claim this?
Your team has squandered half a trillion dollars on the fiasco in Iraq that has brought our military to its knees in terms of readiness, and built the biggest budget deficit in American history and you want to call Democrats names?
Typical, uninformed drivel from you.
Pathetic.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I take back the
"too pricey" as it is clearly not but I was reading the same article and remembered that quote that you included:
But generally we should move towards inspecting all cargo so I approve of it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I salute Ted Kennedy
He honors the memory of his brothers with his actions today.
Hopefully, this will mean that there will be NO military action taken against Iran without the consent of Congress. This is my biggest worry.
And I want one of those new iPhones really really bad.
Rock on Steve Jobs.
I'm only half stupid
durbin answers
he points out this is just the first ten. Those things we're either not priorities or the bills could not be written because the subject is too complex... i.e. Iraq... the issue requires a back and forth with the commander in chief.
As for the patriot act, we see simply... I suspect, that they do not think the public is against the act, and in fact, probalby fear fighting it falls into the "weak on terror" thing they are so affraid of.
One interesting thing... anyone can set those priorities, not just Democrats, and know that Durbin willl look at them, if not nec. follow them (one would hope he won't just follow them).
Paygo
Can you really claim that the Democrats are "the biggest bunch of tax and spenders" with a straight face? Over the last 6 years Republicans have been in charge of all branches of government and they have increased the debt from 5.7 trillion to almost $ trillion. They did this through a combination of unpayed for tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy), by starting a reckless war in Iraq, and by spending "like drunken sailors." Even the CATO institute calls Bush the biggest spender since LBJ. PAygo just makes sense and there is no reason to oppose it except to run up debt, yet Democrats have supported it (and created surpluses) and Republicans have opposed it (and created massive deficits and squandered the Social security surplus).
The way the game is played
Dick Durbin, for example, never said that our troops are like Nazis. What he had said was
Which is to say that if you take what is done to the "enemy combatants" we hold in our mom and apple pie, all American concentration camps out of context you might think it was work of some authoritarian regime.
I actually take exception with his statement. One can't seriously compare Nazi POW camps with the concentration camps run by the Bush regime. Prisoners could write from the Nazi POW camps. Prisoners could participate in the common sports and cultural activities. Prisoners could receive and send packages. Prisoners were not questioned beyond their name and service number, and most of all - they were not tortured, or kept at the mercy of elements.
Of course the Nazis, being authoritarian personalities (just like the Republicans) and sticklers to the rules, did not extend this treatment to the POWs of the countries that were not signatories to the Geneva convention, like the Soviets, or insurgents who did not wear the uniforms or insignia when caught.
The Nazis also did many horrible things that the Republicans only dream about doing, like wiping out religious/ethnic groups, or going no holds barred on insurgents or the conquered population, but the fact remains that the POW camps they run were better in their treatment of Prisoners than ours.
One suppose that if they had a guy like Rove or Gonzales in their midst, our POWs would not be so lucky in the care of the Nazis. But in some ways the Nazis were just boy scouts and chumps when compared to the Republicans. After all they provided social security, health care, public housing and jobs to the German people...
Sic semper tyrannis
Hold it right there
Please do not attribute genocidal motives to political opponents. There are plenty of accurate criticims to levy at Rove and Gonzales without imagining them as Nazi torturers. And no, Germany did NOT treat its POWs better than we did in WWII. They treated British and American prisoners better than others, probably out of fear of reprisal, but the Geneva conventions weren't a significant factor.
I don't think you understand that metioning Hitler or Nazis carries so many negative connotations that it automatically demonizes the object of comparison. It's lazy, dishonest and insulting, even in the milder form Durbin used. And Nazi social programs are hardly relevant.
Have you just discovered
Republican politicians' lack of consistency?
Remember, Republicans hate taxes more than they like balancing budgets. Heritage and CATO hide behind farcical Laffer Curves and conveniently ignore the dire consequences of cutting the social programs that dominate the federal budget.
It is kind of depressing to assume whatever fiscal progress Obama might make is likely to be blown on tax cuts for the rich by the next Republican who worms his way to the White House. But what can you do.