Posted on 12/14/2006 9:05:10 AM PST by shrinkermd
Lower interest rates on student loans. More special forces for the military. Expanded prescription drug benefits for senior citizens. Greater federal support for renewable energy and alternative fuels.
Congressional Democrats have a long list of priorities they'd like to enact when they assume the power of the majority in January. After all, they've been wandering in the political wilderness for 12 years. They've had lots of time to scribble down stuff under the heading "to do."
But faced with record federal deficits and the expense of the war in Iraq, Democrats have also vowed to be more fiscally responsible than their Republican predecessors. Handling this impending collision could be one of the first big tests for the party's House and Senate leadership teams.
"Maybe [incoming Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi can really curb the tendency of Democrats to spend money, but there is a lot of pent-up desire," said Ron Haskins, codirector of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families, at a recent seminar.
As yet, Democrats have hung no price tag on their forthcoming agenda. Many of the high-priority items they have pledged to enact in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, such as an increase in the minimum wage, wouldn't cost Washington lots of money.
In addition, incoming Speaker Pelosi said in a statement last month that the party is committed to "no new deficit spending." She said Democrats intend to restore pay-as-you-go rules, which require increases in the federal budget to be offset by either tax hikes or cuts in spending elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Why do they have to do something? Politicians from both parties have a long history of promising things, not delivering, then getting re-elected based on the same promises.
Of course, they couldn't do much worse than congress has done the past 6 years in terms of controlling the deficit.
First thing they will do is let the tax reductions expire which the MSM will announce that the extra money just balanced the budget thanks to the RATS fiscal conservatism.
They will then cut military spending, showing a surplus which they will then use to pay for their programs.
Just in time for Hillary in 2008 to announce her candidacy and universal health care that will only cost each tax payer a teensy weensy bit of their salary.
The deficit will then go up to a trillion dollars, interest rates will once again be 19%, nothing would still have been done about social security and the RATS will blame Bush's failed 8 years in office for it,
And the MSM will eagerly eat it up.
The price tag will be huge...and it won't cost Washington a bit...WE THE PEOPLE will pay the bill.
You'll be eating your words if they are even moderately successful at getting their pork barrel projects passed. Remember the bench marks as of election day 2006:
Fixed for accuracy.
An understated number given that many have left the workforce or taken a permanent downgrade in job status.
Annual inflation rate: 4.3%
You can have that inflation rate. Any more than 2% is a serious problem.
Deficit as percent of GNP: 2.7%
It's not terrible, but you should be using GDP and not include the account surplus of Social Security.
If things were as good as your post asserts, Bush would have had a landslide and Congress would be Republican. He didn't and it isn't.
The Dems are all talk and zero action save for hate and diatribe. They have no agenda and will do nothing to advance our prosperity.
The fools who thought they were performing a referendum on our administration are in for a terrible disappointment. The Dems will get all of the blame for the worsening outcomes to come and will be thrown out in '08.
Well, lets add the National Debt while we are at it. At some point I would like it to reverse.
Agreed.
The fools who thought they were performing a referendum on our administration are in for a terrible disappointment. The Dems will get all of the blame for the worsening outcomes to come and will be thrown out in '08.
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Never underestimate the enemy.
Seeing as the collateral is coming out of the hides of American property owners, the deficit is a lot more expensive than we've been led to believe.
Chalk it up to the power of the enemedia who endlessly drummed discontent into the heads of the sheeple, the George Soros organizations who financed negative advertising and the stupidy of certain Republicans who were content to endlessly reach out with crap like "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" rather than stand on and articulate principles in the style of Ronald Reagan.
Imperfect or not, those numbers need to be posted to judge the next congress by.
Kinda hypocritical to complain about Democrat spending when the Republicans didn't do anything about spending.
I'm afraid the administration will get the blame for the deeds of Congress. Bush is a well established whipping boy and it's his own damned fault for not fighting back.
Think what would have happened if Ashcroft had started an investigation into Chinagate, Ron Brown's death, or an Iraqi act of war on US soil at Oklahoma City. Instead, Bush has covered for Clinton to the detriment of us all. It's too late to do anything about it now.
As are a balance sheet and an income statement, respectively.
We disagree by degree. The MSM bashing surely has an effect, but talking up an economy only goes so far. It imploded on Clinton before the end of his term.
At best, this would give the sheeple a good sample of what life would be like living under a far-left regime and cause them to consider carefully their decision to let the enemedia and Soros influence their decision.
At worst, the enemedia would no longer be able to fawn over Hitlery as the first woman president and there would be an immediate cat-fight.
Bush and Cheney could look very magnamimous with their resignations (we need to break the endless cycle of partisan bickering, investigations, gridlock, etc.) and by Labor Day, the country might even be nostalgic to have them back.
Unfortunately, I was convinced that Bush was preparing the way for Hillary before 2004. His choice of VP candidates showed no interest in promoting a conservative future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.