Alexander Cockburn of The Nation has an article up on how the Democrats have "blown it" since becoming a majority in Congress.
Cockburn's right.
The Iraq War is the big issue and the Dems have been on the defensive in relation to the war ever since they caved in and gave Bush the 87 billion in supplemental funding he wanted. What Pelosi and Reid should have done after Bush vetoed was to pass legislation for an immediate withdrawal and put the issue back in Bush's lap.
That would have been exercising the national leadership the American public wanted.
But the Democrats caved and now we have no credible national leadership. It's a very bad situation for a representative government in a time of war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I'd say they didn't so much cave as met with the realities that being the majority, rather than the opposition, presents itself. And that's being generous, if they decided to continue funding it because it makes for a great cudgel, they are using the deaths of soldiers - in a conflict they totally oppose - to solidify their political position.
What I find interesting is the potential for far left candidates (green party types) to jump in and grab a significant portion (guessing ~15 or 20% in the leftist bastions) of the vote, thereby handing a win to repubs that they otherwise wouldn't have had. The Blue Dogs are likely very safe, but alot of the further left Dems, especially those that were in safe races, spent a great deal of time telling their folks they'd be ending this thing in a hurry. The backlash could be big.
The repubs may run into the same problem over the immigration debacle, but I don't see it cutting as deep.
So far, there hasn't been any movement toward third parties on either the left of the right. The Republicans are covering their flanks on immigration and left-leaning Democrats (like myself) have strong memories of 2000 when the Nader vote allowed Bush to win.
We didn't exactly blow it. Have a look at this article from the New York Times, (Friday, May 25, 2007; Page D01)
Congress Approves Minimum Wage Hike
Bush Plans to Sign $2.10 Increase, to Come Over 2 Years
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 25, 2007; D01
With little fanfare, Congress yesterday approved the first increase in the federal minimum wage in nearly a decade, voting to boost wages for America's lowest-paid workers from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over the next two years.
The bill... mark[s] a victory for congressional Democrats.
The tactic of attaching it to a must-pass bill deflected attention from an issue Democrats hammered at effectively during last year's election. But it ensured that the wage increase and $4.8 billion in corresponding business tax breaks would take effect despite objections from the White House and other Republicans who wanted a larger package of business incentives.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who fought for months to restrict the size of the tax breaks, called the final product a "responsible package that provides the first wage increase in a decade and targets tax relief to small businesses."
Thirty states and the District have set higher minimum wages, including six where voters in November approved increases at the ballot box.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 1.7 million workers, or 2 percent of the hourly workforce, were earning $5.15 an hour or less last year.
Democrats contend the measures approved yesterday will lift the incomes of about 13 million workers. 5.6 million who earn less than $7.25 an hour and 7.4 million people who earn slightly more but are likely to see their wages increase.
Republican leaders, backed by small-business lobbyists and restaurant groups, argued that raising the minimum wage would cripple the economy unless accompanied by significant tax cuts for small businesses. A recent PNC Economic Outlook survey, conducted for PNC Bank of Pittsburgh, found that while most small and mid-size businesses would not be affected, one-third of retail and wholesale business owners said the wage hike would force them to raise prices, limit hiring, cut staff or reduce health-care benefits.
In March, Democrats tacked the wage issue onto the Iraq spending bill in hopes of breaking the logjam.
The two chambers finally struck a compromise last month that includes tax breaks worth $4.8 billion over 10 years, more than the House wanted but much less than the Senate had sought. More than half that amount -- nearly $2.6 billion -- would pay for an extension and expansion of a tax-credit program for employers who hire former welfare recipients, at-risk youths and other targeted groups.
The measure would also extend a law that allows small business to quickly deduct $112,000 for equipment purchases and raise the deduction amount to $125,000. It would allow married couples who operate unincorporated businesses to file as sole proprietorships, simplifying their tax returns, and offer tax incentives for rebuilding areas of the Gulf Coast damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
To pay for those provisions, the legislation would raise about $4.4 billion in new revenue over 10 years, mainly through stepped-up enforcement and collection of overdue income taxes. The measure also would close a loophole that permits wealthy taxpayers to shelter income by shifting it to their children.(SO YOU SEE, IT WASN'T SUCH A SELL-OUT AFTER ALL.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052402241.html
Wow Todd, minimum wage hike AND preventing the wealthy from passing on their succes to their own families. Why, next year maybe they can ban French Fries and turn all corporations into non-profits. Those dems sure are on a roll.
Post a Comment