Are Democrats in Congress Bent On Electoral Suicide?
Posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009
by Richard Vail
Chisel & Plane
These day's it seems that this Democratic led Congress is bent on it's own defeat in next November's Congressional election. Their record this year has been, on it's face, abysmal. They have passed a number of bills that have not been popular with the American people. Many of them have had, in the long term, a detrimental effect upon the economy. Secondly, this "most ethical Congress ever" has a number of members who's ethical issues that make the Republican's Jack Abramoff scandal pale in comparison, yet that issue is NOT being reported by the national media because of its detrimental impact on the Democratic Party.
This insanity was increased by relaxing the rules as to the minimum income requirements for loans. These rule changes permitted low income families to receive loans up to 10 times their income, where previously, the "rule of thumb" was no more than four to five times the income. This put the government backed Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac on the road to financial insolvency. In 2003, when then President attempted to change those rules, he was very quietly filibustered in the Senate, thus setting the stage for the present recession.
When banks that were heavily involved in the growing "credit crunch" began to fail, the now Democratic controlled Congress passed the unpopular $750,000,000,000.00 TARP bill that "bailed" out their supporters on Wall Street. Publicly, it is a little known fact that many of the highest paid executives of large investment firms and banks on Wall Street gave millions of dollars to the Obama Campaign, and then the Democratic National Committee when they reached the maximum campaign contribution limits for individuals to a political campaign.
The bailout was ostensibly meant to bail out those banks that were deemed "too big to fail." But a careful review of campaign contribution tells that those banks and investment firms that were first bailed out either had connections to powerful politicians or held retirement funds connected to them. It started with AIG, the investment firm that holds all of the funds that have been set aside for Congressional pension plans. As has been pointed out by another writer on Searchwarp, public pensions are becoming a scandal in and of themselves. Congress is particularly generous with our money with members being fully vested after only a couple of terms, and not the 20+ years required for everyone else. Additionally, their more than platinum plated health care benefits should be a scandal by themselves (more on this below).
With the economy on the verge of collapse, President Obama demanded that Congress pass a "stimulus" bill that was purported to "save the economy". Unfortunately, he deferred to a Democratically lead Congress that has in the past two years (since taking control in 2006 elections) set records for earmarks (earmarks are budgetary items that are placed into bills outside of normal channels AFTER passage, or during the consolidation phase when Senate & House bills are finalized). The "stimulus package" was touted as being able to keep unemployment below 8% and aimed at "shovel ready" projects as well as being used for immediate spending..but was ultimately derailed when special interest constituencies within the Democratic party demanded their cut of the pie.
Instead of being targeted at infrastructure projects that would have jump started the construction industry (China, Germany & India did this, thus deflecting the worst of the recession in those countries), huge amounts were diverted into large block-grants to states and institutions that had no direct impact upon the economy. Thus, while unemployment for blue collar men has risen above 40%, and men in general is above 14%, women's unemployment is well below 10%. This is the largest "gender gap" in our nation's history. Fully half of the $853,000,000,000.00 that has been set aside won't be spent until 2012, a presidential election year. More importantly, the 1,300 page bill was passed prior to many Congressmen and Senators being able to actually read the provisions of the bill...
Then, even as unemployment rose, Congress decided that what was urgently needed was a government takeover of the health care industry, fully 1/6th of the economy. Even as unemployment rises above 10%, and looks to stay there for the foreseeable future, they bicker over hugely unpopular "public options" and ways to drive "evil" health insurance companies out of business. The Obama administration Democratic leaders in Congress has gone so far as to demonize, first those same greedy health insurance companies (who's average profit for the largest 10 companies is below 8% per anum), then anyone who has the "audacity of hope" to oppose that takeover.
Originally, it was envisioned that there would be rapid passage of the "health care reform act" (another 1,300+ page bill for the House version) before the public could learn about the contents of that bill. The Senate bill being pushed by Sen Harry Reid (D NV) now tops 2,200 pages...as more is learned about the provisions of those bills, their popularity with the public has plummeted, with more than 61% now being opposed and fully 42% being STRONGLY opposed to its passage. Less than 21% of the people strongly support ANY of the bills now being. Worse yet, the independent voters who were key to Democratic victories in 2006/8 have begun to move away from that party in droves, supporting a generic Republican in polls by more than 2 to 1. More specifically, in both measures now being considered, Congress with its platinum health care plan, as well as the "gold-plated" plans provided by the Federal government to all Federal employees, as well as those employed by the Executive and Judicial branches of the government, are specifically exempted from ALL provisions of those bills. While the rest of the country will eventually be forced onto the government provided "public option".
Furthermore, all of the bills are being claimed NOT to add to either deficit or debt through a shell game. Both require a four year period wherein higher taxes/fines/fees will be levied upon the country as a whole, fleecing the "rich" especially hard (the "rich" being defined now as those who earn more than $125,000.0 per year), while not implementing the insurance "plans" until the final half of the proposed 10 year plan. In other words, we'll have to pay for four years, to finance six years of a "budget neutral" plan...that's a shell game...if you look at the real first 10 years of the plan and don't include that four year period of increased taxation, then each year, we will add $250,000,000,000.00 to the deficit, and much more than that to the national debt, when the interest payments are figured in...
When a second "stimulus" was being bandied about recently, more than 60% in a Pew Research poll expressed opposition to such a plan, preferring that unspent funds from the first "stimulus" (or "porkulus" as it is now often referred to) be diverted and used on infrastructure projects or others that will actually have a direct impact on the economy. Additionally, the proposed "jobs bill" is gaining stiff opposition from the public as it entails far more deficit spending than is desirable.
The passage of a $1,800,000,000,000.00 budget package this week that force Congress to raise the debt ceiling above its present $10 trillion dollar limit, has raised additional questions as the entire bill will have to be financed with Treasury bonds. That bill will immediately add more to the national debt than George Bush did during his ENTIRE presidency. And he was considered to be a profligate spender.
Now consider the "Cap & Trade" bill which is purported to reduce carbon emissions but is so fraught with exemptions and exemptions to various Democratic constituencies that its provisions are rendered meaningless. When you throw in Mr. Obama's statement last year that he would eliminate all coal fired electrical generation plants by taxing and imposing fees that would make it prohibitively expensive operate. This is supposed to stimulate millions of "green" jobs, but doesn't explain what will happen to the economy when literally everything become much more expensive to produce and distribute (vastly higher gasoline taxes will also be imposed by provisions in the bill). Additionally, a fee of more than $1,700.00 per household will be assessed upon every residential electrical account, as well as a higher fee for natural gas usage. The business fee will be roughly double, except to those favored industries that are granted exemptions under the bill.
On the positive side, ClimateGate has shown what has been touted as "settled" science is anything but. It appears that not only have results been altered to fit predisposed political conclusions. Additionally, the scientists at the centre of the controversy have used influence to not just have unfavorable editors removed from positions, but have perverted the "peer review" process as well. With the Copenhagen conference being thrown into serious doubt of "meaningful" measures to throttle western economies (a useless gesture as both China-who passed the US this year as the largest producer of carbon emissions, and India-who will pass the US early next year- have both refused to abide by any limitations to their economies.). That would be tantamount to economic suicide, which no nation genuinely desires. More importantly, Europe, which has instituted "carbon trading" (the 3rd largest company for this new "business" is owned...by Al Gore, hhmmmm...) can't even abide by it's own self imposed limits and regularly exceeds the targets that it has set for itself.
In a recent column, Byron York revealed that strategists for the Democratic Party are using the following logic to justify their positions. "In the House, the view of [California Rep. Henry] Waxman and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi is that we've waited two generations to get health care passed, and the 20 or 40 members of Congress who are going to lose their seats as a result are transitional players at best," he said. "This is something the party has wanted since Franklin Roosevelt." Under this concept, losing a "few seats if just the cost of doingg something historic." But as Mr. York notes, that its " easy for Waxman and Pelosi to say that, since they come from safely liberal districts."
"Because they think they know what's best for the public," the strategist said. "They think the facts are being distorted and the public's being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because Goddammit, it's good for the public." Additionally, the strategist has equated Congressional Democrats "with robbers who have passed the point of no return in deciding to hold up a bank. Whatever they do, they're guilty of something. They're in the bank, they've got their guns out. They can run outside with no money, or they can stick it out, go through the gunfight, and get away with the money."
Under that view, they are trying to do everything they can to pass these initiatives and huge entitlement programs under the theory that once in place, they won't be repealed no matter what damage they do to either the party or the country as a whole. I suspect that America, with large numbers of the independents who helped elect, first the Democrat majority in Congress, and then last fall, Mr. Obama are going to punish the party next fall in ways they Democrats don't anticipate. I suspect that Democratic losses will be much larger than are presently seen as possible, especially if the jobless rate continues above 10%.
This Article has been viewed 484 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)which of your presidents said "what we need is far less government"I couldn't agree more, politicians the world over are our greatest impediment to good policy and decision making, the problem is, who or how else?Indeed, that is the problem as too often to "small government" politician is often "captured by the system" and thus fails at what they set out to do. For the most part, I support the concept of term limits for politicians, the main, and unfortunate, side effect of that is to give even more power to those "professional staffers" who live in the capital (be it national, state, country or city) who do most of the work and upon whom politicians often come to have a reliance (and whom wield influence upon said politicians) far larger than they should have.What to do? I'm not sure, but I think that in the American system, dependence upon politicians who have never actually "worked" outside of government is something that can't be good for our republican form of government.So, I really don't have the "true" answer, merely some suggestions...that may in the end be worse than the original problem.
There's a lot here for us to consider. Thank you. ~sThanks for coming by and commenting.
Interesting article, Richard. I have to say that I don't think I trust any of them right now.and well you shouldn't, because "they" (politicians in general) have done nothing to earn our trust lately.
Dare we hope? We need to roust out all voters starting right now - reminding them if they don't vote they can't complain! MarijoI agree and have said pretty much the same thing since my first election in 1980...but, with the now certain passage of this government's seizure of our health care, along strictly partisan lines, the Democrats will literally "own" government controlled health care. This will end up biting them on the a** over the next three years...especially when health care costs begin to rise...sharply. Mr. Obama and the Democrats will pay a very stiff price for that. I expect that next fall, they will lose far more than the 49 seats that will cost them controll of the House of Represenatative. I suspect that they will lose as many as 100 seats. I just hope (and it's a faint one at that) that the GOP won't get stupid (I suspect they will) . I also think that the GOP will pick up at least 10 seats in the Senate.Remember ALL of the House seats will come up for election next fall...and 33 of the Senate. Now is the time to begin hunting for viable candidates...and not just RINO's. We saw what happens to those last month in NY's 23rd Dist. I hope the party has the sense not to select "socially" conservative candidates, but rather FISCALLY conservative candidates. I doubt they will.My earnest hope is that the Tea Party movement will coalesce into a viable alternative and begin fielding candidates. There are already groups beginning to make it a reality.
Very well-said. Congress seems to only be concerned with the 'moment' and not 'momentum'. They seem, by their actions, to fly by the seat of their pants and not consider what their actions will cause in the future. For politicians, unfortunately, this is normal, yet for normal humans this is delusional at best. Well done.Well, when you consider how Ben Nelson, Sen D-NB, was bribed, by excepting Nebraska from the real costs of this bill (this may very well be unconstitutional--no state can be excepted from provisions of national legislation) it will of course be challenged in the courts.I firmly believe that it flies in the face of the 10th amendment wherein those powers not enumerated in the constitution are devolved upon the states...thus even when you take the commerce clause of the Const. into account, it's not within the purview of the US Const to force individuals to purchase health insurance...We'll have to see how the Supreme's rule.
Just the other day, Bloomberg put across a pointer to this whole debate on the Health care plan! He said in Europe, governments pay $4500 per person on a healthcare plan which provides for a life expectancy higher than the US while the US pays more at $7500. So where goes this additional money? Guess the US needs a plan anyhow! A distilled plan today will bring in more comprehensive changes perhaps later! One needs to cross the first hurdle before winning the race!Thanks for the informative piece anyway! Guess people have lost faith because of the President Obama need for a consensus!Unfortunately, the plan that is being put foward with neither keep costs down, nor be budget neutral. Medicare was projected at its height in the late 1990's to cost no more than $40 billion dollars. In 2002, it cost the government more than $400 billion, and that included an estimated 10% in waste and fraud...so tell how cost effective that is.Another part of the problem is that American pharmaceutical firms develop and produce drugs that they charge Americans much higher rates...while they charge 1/2 to 2/3's LESS to European countries. If we stopped subsidizing European countries drug costs, it would reduce those same costs in this country...no solution is simple...but by implementing a vastly complex plan, it is guaranteed to cost far more than it would if one harnessed market forcess and used THEM to keep costs down. but alas, that won't happen.thanks for stopping by and commenting.
I am an Indian. So I can comment upon American politics as a third party observer.First of all I admire Richard Vail for voicing his concern on behalf of all Americans (ooooooch...the zeros he is adding to every figure in amounts is staggering). As far as I have read, the US economy started to slide towards destruction right from President Bush's administration (or mal-administration?). The neo-cons in the political circles were executing the behind-the-screen plans warped at Chicago School of Economics (one full article can be written on this alone). The disaster-capitalism of corporate giants, first initiating the disaster (like the war on Terrorism in Iraq and repairing and reconstructing 9/11 damages inside the country; and cyclone Katrina in New Orleans) and then amassing profits by swindling tax payers' money through disaster management contracts, is the root-cause of today's pathetic US economy. We, the Indians were looking at America as a world-leader economy for years. The slide brought down by the housing loan fiasco, (rightly pointed out by Richard) culminated into the credit crunch by laxity in granting disproportionate home loans. While millions of home owners were rendered worst-hit by the foreclosure crisis, those corporate giants responsible for the predatory lending practices have been bailed out from sinking. Again with taxpayers' money. I pity you Richard ...what to do...we the public are puppets in the hands of politicians. But one thing is sure - President Obama is measuring his steps so far, without any remarkable blemish. We, the Indians feel he is the only "Save Our Soul" (in the present circumstances that is) to all Americans.thanks for coming by and commenting.
A lengthy article by Richard. Pours all his thoughts as a concerned American citizen. Good researched info to support his views. Well done.Thanks for commenting.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.