Thursday, January 04, 2007

Dem agenda...scary

Democratic agenda…scary.

Before getting into the Dems agenda, a few words from soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi:
"We have waited over 200 years for this time to come…I am the most powerful woman in America…All right, let's hear it for the power."

Yikes. And I thought Hillary had a power-hungry chip on her shoulder. Now, for the agenda. The Dems have a "Six of ‘06" plan. This includes priority legislation that they vow to push through within their first 100 days of power. It’s been a long time for them and they can’t wait. So let’s break down their plan:

Implementing the September 11 panel recommendations. Sounds great. Not that I really have much of an opinion on this one. The 9/11 Commission was a waste of time. They spent a lot of money, energy and time to basically say that it was no one’s fault, but was also everyone’s fault. Their recommendations aren’t going to do much to protect us as long as we don’t have the will to stand up to our enemies, but we’ll see.

Increasing the minimum wage. They want an additional $2.10. Big mistake. This does nothing but hurt small business and since small business is what grows the economy, eventually this will slow down our economic boom. Says Steny Hoyer (D-Md), "Americans who work hard to earn an honest living should not be relegated to poverty." Poverty? The vast majority of people who live below the "poverty" line in this country own televisions and have cable TV. I don’t think that’s poverty, but I guess Hoyer and the rest of the Dems disagree. So, this will be step one in the Democratic Party’s halting of the economy. Something tells me there will be more steps later. If there’s one thing they’re good at, it’s economic stagnation.

Expanding stem-cell research. Translation=more government spending on unproven and ethically questionable science. Of course, they don’t mention how this will be paid for, that’s for later.

Allowing the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs. Another big mistake. Government negotiating prices is another step toward socialized medicine. It sounds good on the surface, but what it does is limit choice for the consumer. It leads to restricted pharmacy formularies, diminishes healthy competition among drug companies, and potentially patients aren’t getting the best available medications. You get what you pay for in this country, remember that.

Cutting interest rates on student loans. No problems here.

Ending subsidies for oil companies while expanding renewable energy exploration. I see higher gas prices as a result. When are our politicians going to realize that legislation aimed at corporations only gets passed to the consumer? Raise taxes, cut subsidies, and we see the result at the pump, not the oil company’s bottom line. Once again, Mr. Hoyer chimes in, "we will not be dependent upon foreign states for our economic well-being." Great. I agree. But how does he plan to do this without pursuing more nuclear energy or drilling in certain "sacred" areas to ease our petroleum burden while transitioning to other forms of energy? There is no plan, other than ending subsidies for oil companies. How does that translate to energy independence?

So I don’t see anything new here. There is nothing ground breaking. It’s basically more of the same, a lot of good talk with little prospect for good results. I guess we’ll see.

5 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

"Raise taxes, cut subsidies, and we see the result at the pump, not the oil company’s bottom line."

I thought conservatives were against welfare - taking my money and giving it to others? Isn't that what a subsidy is?

I don't see how anyone can be opposed to this agenda item.

John The Patriot said...

What I'm opposed to is bad ideas in hopes of reaching good conclusions. Hoyer and the Dems think that ending subsidies will somehow help end our dependence on foreign oil. I disagree. All I see it doing is giving us higher gas prices, then we're paying more and STILL dependent on foreign oil. It's empty, nothing but lip service to the "little man" to make it look like they're doing something but, in truth, they're not getting us anywhere. I'm all for ending corporate welfare, but I want to hear a REAL plan on how to get us free of foreign oil, not some BS about how Congress is going to take on big oil in the name of the people. What a load of crap. I'm smart enough to know when I'm being BS'd. I want results, not higher gas prices. So far, I've heard nothing that will get us results.

Dan Trabue said...

Myself, I want higher gas prices. We are underpaying how much we ought for gas. Increased gas prices would have some positive benefits - encouraging less dependence upon fossil fuels not the least of them.

But mostly it's a matter of responsibility. We're not paying full price for gas. We ought to. It's not fair to ask folk like the elderly, the poor, the sick, the environment, our children, etc, to pay for our gas. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

Robert M. said...

What I don't like is the minimum wage thing. It's basic economics. You raise that and it won't help people because it would just raise inflation, and those minimum wage folks would have the same spending power, but with money that's worth less. It's a terrible idea to raise the minimum wage.

Allisoni Balloni said...

No, it isn't a terrible idea to raise the minimum wage. People with full time jobs that pay minimum wage still live below the poverty line. That is totally unacceptable. And living in poverty, John, means that you cannot afford life's basic necessities, such as food and shelter. Therefor, the people you are referencing who supposedly still have those luxuries and live in poverty, are not living in poverty.
Certainly there are people in this country who cannot afford healthcare and live in poverty because they don't have a job by their own decision or are not doing what is necessary to provide for themselves and their families. That is not, however, the case for everyone. As I already said, there are people who work full time and still cannot provide for themselves, much less a family. And we should just leave those people to fend for themselves? I certainly don't think so. The cycle will just continue if they are ignored, and that makes for more and more poverty in the upcoming generations.