Skip to comments.More of the same? Not this Congress (JESSE JAGMO FLATULENTLY GLOATS)
Posted on 11/14/2006 10:32:53 AM PST by Chi-townChief
As Democrats take control of the House and Senate, many wonder whether it makes a difference. The corporate lobbies aren't gong anywhere -- they started to hedge their bets by contributing to Democrats late in the election. The foreign policy establishment that led us into Iraq and continues to support a global economic posture that benefits the capital but undermines work isn't going anywhere. Does it make a difference?
Yes, it does, in ways that are big and small. First, the agenda of the country will change. Consider the six-point agenda that Democrats will pass through the House in the first 100 hours. They will vote to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade; cut interest rates on student loans in half and expand Pell grants; lower drug prices by removing the ban on Medicare's negotiating bulk purchases; revoke subsidies to Big Oil and put it in renewable energy; revoke tax breaks for companies outsourcing jobs and take commonsense homeland security steps like requiring chemical companies to have their defense plans reviewed.
Second, the new congressional majority will force the administration to face oversight and accountability for the first time. Perhaps the worst aspect of one-party rule is that Congress stopped holding the executive branch accountable. The result was billions looted in the reconstruction of Iraq, regulatory agencies simply handed over to the companies they were supposed to regulate and a lawless president checked only by the courts. Many commentators warn Congress against holding hearings, using subpoena power, inquiring into the presidential lawlessness, claiming it would descend into partisan spitball fights. That's nonsense. Accountability is vital and exposing the waste, fraud and abuse that has gone on would be a national service.
Third, the new Congress, needless to say, will force -- has already begun to force -- a change of course in Iraq. The current policy is failing, as even the president now seems ready to acknowledge, with the replacement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Iraq was the major issue in the campaign -- with the public voting overwhelmingly for a change in course. Democrats will force the administration to begin a process that will get the troops out of an occupation in midst of a civil war. There aren't any good options in Iraq, which surely will be seen as the worst foreign policy debacle in the nation's history.
The new Congress also will challenge the country's ruinous trade policies, which have turned us into the world's largest debtor and made our prosperity increasingly dependent on the decision of Chinese and Japanese central bankers. There is no majority for a new course, but there is a strong majority and mandate against continuing down the old path.
This Congress will be more sympathetic to poor and working people, and less beholden to the corporate top floor. The majority is more concerned about growing inequality, catastrophic climate change and our broken election system. They'll focus on investing in schools, not prayer in schools; on health care for children, not flag-burning amendments.
Skeptics are right to point out the limits. The corporate lobbies will focus on the Senate, where a minority can stop progress. After Gingrich Republicans took Congress in 1994, they passed the Contract with America out of the House, but it went nowhere in the Senate. The same might happen in this Senate, unless citizens organize big time to show that they want the 100-hour agenda passed. Broader progress on poverty, on an urban agenda, on climate change, on corporate accountability and empowering workers probably will depend on more than one election, and a change in the White House.
But this election has marked the end of a 25-year conservative era. In January, Congress starts debating progress again, not reaction. How far they will get depends on how mobilized citizens become. But one thing is clear -- the direction has changed, the conversation has changed. We're now about to debate how to get things done for the country, not simply how to stop bad things from happening. And that makes a difference.
And Brother Jesse knows what that means for him:
"MO' MONEY, MO' MONEY, MO' MONEY!!!!"
Why on earth would they do this?
If a bank wants to take in MORE business from MORE people borrowing money, they cut interest rates.
Do we really want MORE people borrowing from the gubmint?
"Climate change" = new code words for "Global Warming, global cooling or whatever the scare-of-the-year is..."
Am I misreading this?
It sounds like JJ is bemoaning the "failure" of the CWA in the Senate...
Has Jesse EVER been elected to ANYTHING???
IIRC, the ONE Dem that he campaigned for this election was Ned Lamont..and he lost..
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The first thing that the Good RebRum mentions shows EXACTLY what a bunch of LOOSERS the Stupid Party is.
It's a trivial exercise to show that anyone who does not have an inflation indexed paycheck (pretty much anyone who makes less than 17-20 dollars an hour - and I'm being conservative) is in effect taking a pay CUT when minimum wage goes up.
So, millions and millions of hi skool grajewits were affected by this one in a BAD way, and where was the Stoopid Party's message on this one?
So, Rahm hoodwinks the voters with a slick game of 3-Card Monte, and it's the end of the conservative movement?
Uh, Jesse - if the Dhimmis HADN'T won last Tuesday, they would have been for all practical purposes extinct.