So On What Do Dems and Reps Agree?

[LURCH]

So...On What Do Dems and Reps Agree?

Now that the Democratic party controll the legislative branch, and Republicans still hold the executive, it is widely feared (and not without justification) that the U.S. Government will accomplish almost nothing for the next two years.

It's the "almost" part that I wish to discuss. The balance of power is nearly even in the Senate, and not completely one-sided in the House. This could be a very good thing. It means that, even if the voting continuse to be mostly along party lines, one or two people voting what they really think rather than what their party tells them could make the difference between a bill going to the Whitehouse or dying in Congress. It might even mean that what the government ends up doing might be closer to what "We the People" actually wanted them to do.

My first call is that the President's Freedom Car Initiative will get better backing. This is one of the big issues to me, and it seems to have gone largely ignored. The succesfull completion of this program would be the best thing ever to happen for the environment, which should appeal to both sides, but is considered the territory of the Democratic Party. It would also be one of the biggest leaps forward in national security, whis both sides want but is considered the territory of the Republican Party.

But I fear that the Democrats in Congress will try to hold back the progress of this program simply because a Republican initiate it. I believe this issue will be a barrometer for weather or not the two parties are capable of working together at all.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Actually, Bush tried a couple of programs that ended up only getting serious democrat support (his stance on illegal immigration is the first one I can think of off the top of my head), so they'll probably go through. Although he may only have proposed them to steal the democrat's thunder about how terrible the republicans were, so we'll see

 

[LURCH]

I thought his stance on illegal immigration was one of the loudest protests from the D.P., have I gotten it totally backward?

 

[Astronuc]

Bush, Pelosi Have Unlikeliest of Lunches
After Exchanging Bitter Gibes, Bush and Likely House Leader Nancy Pelosi Try to Reconcile
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2641400

By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON Nov 9, 2006 (AP)— President Bush made nice on Thursday with Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi after her Democratic Party gave his Republicans a trouncing in this week's elections but not before telling Congress to complete a hefty list of assignments while Republicans are still in charge.

"It is our responsibility to put the elections behind us and work together on the great issues facing America," Bush said after meeting with his Cabinet and Republican leaders from the House and Senate. "Some of these issues need to be addressed before the current Congress finishes its legislative session, and that means the next few weeks are going to be busy ones."

On the president's to-do list for the current Congress before January's changeover in power: spending bills funding government's continued operation "with strong fiscal discipline and without diminishing our capacity to fight the war on terror;" legislation retroactively authorizing his warrantless domestic surveillance of suspected terrorists; energy legislation; and congressional approval for a landmark civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with India and for normalizing trade relations with Vietnam.

Bush cast such objectives as a way for both parties to "rise above partisan differences." But with Democrats skeptical of many of these items, Bush's plea for Capitol Hill to do things his way which came just a half-hour before his makeup luncheon with Pelosi could complicate the reconcilation effort.

Hopefully, Bush and Pelosi will agree to work together for starters. We'll see.

I am waiting to see what Pelosi does. We might need another thread "What to expect from Pelosi." I hope not politics as usual.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think it's hilarious that now that the Dems have won both houses of Congress, the pundits are all calling for bi-partisanship. Where was bi-partisanship when the GOP controlled Congress. Dems were then "on the side of the terrorists".

Impeach Bush!

 

[Office_Shredder]

I thought his stance on illegal immigration was one of the loudest protests from the D.P., have I gotten it totally backward?

That would be the republican stance on illegal immigration. Bush wanted a guest worker program

 

[Rach3]

I thought his stance on illegal immigration was one of the loudest protests from the D.P., have I gotten it totally backward?

The situation was nonsensical. First, conservative republicans in congress started a nationalist push for border fences, increased documentation, deportations, etc., under the guise of national security (rhetoric involving Hezbollah camps in Mexico, and such nonsense). The conservatives were opposed by big business (but supported by some unions); Bush's proposal more or less opposed the hardline conservatives and sided with business, while ironically many liberals went along with Bush, preferring any amnesty program to the extreme crackdowns proposed by Congress republicans. However, prominent Congress Democrats watered down this support, seeking an amnesty program less biased towards business and with more provisions for the guest workers (things like full minimum wage and stronger employment rights). Meanwhile, some Democrat voices (represented by Lou Dobbs) critcized the hardline conservatives for not being conservative enough, and called for far more expensive border programs.

So Congress got together and decided to do nothing at all.

 

[LURCH]

spending bills funding government's continued operation "with strong fiscal discipline and without diminishing our capacity to fight the war on terror;"

Difficult to imagine Pelosi or the Democratic Party supporting that one;

legislation retroactively authorizing his warrantless domestic surveillance of suspected terrorists;

LOL, hard to find unbiased reporting these days, isn't it? I'll look around to see if I can find exactly what this legislation says, but I think the verdict has already been pronounced;

energy legislation

This also is a bit vague, but I'll see if I can find out; this might be one thing where the two parties could agree, if they're willing to;

and congressional approval for a landmark civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with India and for normalizing trade relations with Vietnam.

These sound fairly promissing, and may become early indicators as to whether the two sides of the isle will work together for something that can be agreed upon by both, or just automatically gainsay one another on general principle.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think it's hilarious that now that the Dems have won both houses of Congress, the pundits are all calling for bi-partisanship. Where was bi-partisanship when the GOP controlled Congress. Dems were then "on the side of the terrorists".

Impeach Bush!

When the Republicans gained the House in 1995, they began a political assault on Clinton including impeachment. Although Clinton was acquitted by the Senate the strategy worked. With the Supreme court on their side, they managed to get Bush and his cabal into the White house.

They were unconcerned about the damage caused to the nation, winning was the only thing that mattered. Now they have paid the price. And so has America.

Pelosi was right to take impeachment off the table. For more reasons than simply remove it as a campaign issue. She is a very astute politician, and even more importantly, she is a very astute leader. She puts country before party.

John Conyers will open investigations January 3rd, 2007 at 12pm EST. Just because Pelosi is not pushing for impeachment, does not mean that it won't happen. And the threat of impeachment makes a nice hole card to have during negotiations with the WH.

I think it is obvious from her first words after the election that Pelosi intends to immediately begin addressing the myriad of problems created by Bushco and their rubber-stamp congress. Iraq, deficit spending, minimum wage, health care, and implementing the 911 commission's recommendations.

Her first move was to reach out to the Republicans. With all this talk of bipartisianship, remember it was Pelosi that offered the first olive branch.

She has stated that this congress will be open and fair. There will be no more excluding the minority, no more 300 page bills dumped on the minority at the last minute before the vote, and no more adding amendments after a bill has been passed!

Pelosi is the real deal. I believe that we will see some real leadership in the 110th Congress.

 

[Skyhunter]

I would like to see the ethics committee lose the; "don't investigate ours, we won't investigate yours," agreement. The House needs to clean itself up. Congess should expel it's own sleazeballs, instead of putting it on the people to do every two years. I would much rather have a quandary, as to who is the best candidate, instead of which choice will do the least harm.

 

[Astronuc]

Politics
The Democrats' 100-Hour House Agenda
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6466919
by Julie Rovner, Pam Fessler, Frank Langfitt and Steve Inskeep

Morning Edition, November 10, 2006 · The Democrats who captured the House this week have said they have an agenda for their first 100 hours in power. They intend to pass bills addressing terrorism, a minimum-wage increase, and lower drug prices.

Politics
What to Expect from the Democratic Agenda
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6464897

NPR.org, November 9, 2006 · "To the victors go the spoils," and so Democratic lawmakers are getting ready to claim the top leadership roles and committee chairmanships in both the House and Senate.

But there's another saying as well: "Be careful what you wish for, you may well get it." And so Democrats, having gotten what they wished for, may now find running the two chambers even more daunting than the last time they held them both at once (1993-94). That could be especially true given the strong-minded Republican president working down the street.

At the same time, the Democrats have come in from the political wilderness for a reason. The party's capture of control of the House and Senate is widely being interpreted as a repudiation of President Bush's policies and of Republican rule. And the president is showing some signs he's getting the message. On the day after the election, he announced the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, his controversial secretary of defense, and later in the week he met with the new Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.

So now Democratic lawmakers find themselves in the unaccustomed position of setting the agenda -- at least for one branch of the federal government. And while party leaders have promised to govern in a spirit of bipartisanship, changes can be expected in congressional initiatives across a broad spectrum of issues -- from U.S. policy in Iraq to health care, immigration, the federal minimum wage and the environment.

NPR reporters offer their analysis on what to expect from the new Democratic majority:

. . . .

• Iraq
• Iran and North Korea
• Taxes
• Health care
• Federal minimum wage
• Immigration
• 9/11 Commission's recommendations
• Environmental policy

Will the Republicans and Bush agree?

 

[turbo]

One thing that would help our economy right away is an increase in the minimum wage. That would be a big shot in the arm because low-income families spend about every dime they earn. Business are going to holler about having to raise prices, but do the math. Every competing business will have to raise prices incrementally, so the negative impact on business will be negligible. Allowing business to pay wages that keep people at or below the poverty line (even with two of those nice part-time jobs) only shifts the costs of caring for their families, helping with heating bills, food assistance, etc, to the taxpayers of the municipalities in which those workers reside.

Another thing that would help the economy a lot would be to roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy, simplify the tax code (take out all the targeted deductions, etc) and make our tax codes more progressive, so that the low and middle-income people have more money to spend. If you give a tax break to Bill Gates, will he run out and buy a new car? No need. Consumerism by the wealthy doesn't drive our economy - it's the sheer mass of consumerism by the low and middle-income people. The greed of the upper-income level (I don't want to pay back to the society that made it possible for me to amass my fortune - I want more money NOW) and the politicians that pander to them have blinded us to the very basics of economics. Domestic spending on consumables is dominated by the people earning modest wages, and that spending will rise if they are left with more money in their pockets every week. Bush Sr. called Reagan's trickle-down tax plan "voodoo economics", but as soon as he lost the primary, he drank the Kool-Aid and fell in line. Targeting tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens was a bad idea then, and it still is. It reduces revenue to the government and does absolutely nothing to stimulate our economy. It would also be a good idea not to let US companies have favored tax status if they close US plants and open foreign ones. In case nobody has noticed, the very best, most popular, and most reliable mid-priced cars are made in the US, by US workers in plants owned by the Japanese. We need to put US workers back to work in high-skill manufacturing jobs like that. Average US citizens drive this economy and we will all benefit if workers get fair compensation. Another thing that we can do to help our business sector is to insist on universal health care. Take the burden of health-care plans off their backs, reduce per-capita premiums, and in the process insure everybody. Right now, the insurance companies pick and choose who they will offer coverage to, and if you have a pre-existing condition, you pay through the nose or go it alone. One serious illness can force an uninsured or under-insured person into bankruptcy, so they lose everything they have worked for their entire life. It's about time the US got civilized.

 

[Skyhunter]

Politics
What to Expect from the Democratic Agenda
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6464897

• Iraq
• Iran and North Korea
• Taxes
• Health care
• Federal minimum wage
• Immigration
• 9/11 Commission's recommendations
• Environmental policy

Will the Republicans and Bush agree?

Bush is already asking the 109th congress to do more work in two months than they have done in the last 2 years. About all they accomplished was the special legislation in the middle of the night for Terry Schaivo, and a 700 mile fence without appropriations to pay for it. :rofl:

Honestly Lincoln Chafee (who should become a democrat) summed up the position when addressing the John Bolten question;

"On Tuesday, the American people sent a clear message of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration," Chafee said in a statement. "To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of U.N. ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for." Chafee said Bolton lacks the "collaborative approach" needed to make the United States "the strongest country in a peaceful world."

This is the new bipartisanship of the liberal majority, not the neo-con equivalent of http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage?pid=699

This whole "change the tone" shtick was always hideously cynical, as Michael Tomasky has laid out in the American Prospect. So in a sense it's refreshing to hear it finally, gleefully turned on its head by Grover Norquist, a conservative who has the ear of the Bush Administration and is an old College Republican buddy of Karl Rove, the White House political strategist. Norquist contradicts the President, saying what we already know: Republicans are working to make political discourse uglier, not more civil. "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship," he tells the Denver Post. "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

This is an honest effort to include the minority party. But don't think for one instant that Bush is going to get his agenda rushed through on the last 2 months of the 109th's term!

In the words of GWB's father;

"Not going to do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

Republicans can retreat and become obstructionist, or they can move forward and be part of the solution. Bush has been soundly repudiated by his boss, the American people. He is not going to get his way and he had best get used to it. Republicans will probably split two ways, some will move to the center and work with the democrats, others will move to the right. Either way the party now must reinvent itself, because Bush has added the Republican party to his list of broken institutions.

 

[phoenixy]

Honestly Lincoln Chafee (who should become a democrat) summed up the position when addressing the John Bolten question;

Man, I can't get enough of this guy. If he doesn't become a dem, he should be a Libertarian. The political process needs more people who can conduct critical thinking independently, instead of blindly following partisanship stance.

 

[Astronuc]

I think we need to stop using labels like "Liberal" and "Conservative" and disparaging comments, and as LURCH asked "on what do we agree".


I think the problems have stemmed from a few people who forgot ethical principles. I am hearing both so-called 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' saying very much the same thing with regard to issues and governance of the country.

If the country remains ideologically divided, it will certainly be and achieve a lot less than it would be if the nation were united. EVERYONE has a stake in the success of this nation.

Common goals - freedom, liberty and justice for ALL.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=06-P13-00045

Host Steve Curwood turns to Living on Earth’s Washington Correspondent, Jeff Young, and Western Bureau Chief, Ingrid Lobet to see how the chips fell, environmentally, in the midterm elections. Living on Earth goes beyond the major election headlines to look closely at state ballot initiatives that could have significant political and environmental consequences in the coming years.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00045&segmentID=1
The Election and the Environment

Voters said they want change and they got it. But will that change the country’s direction on energy and the environment? Democrats are poised to take control of both houses of Congress and they say they have an ambitious agenda for a clean path to energy independence. Living on Earth looks at the election results-- who’s in, who’s out, and what it means for environmental policy.

Also in the radio show of November 10, 2006:

The Energizer Voter – A look at what voters were thinking about energy when they went to the polls.

The Environment’s Future: Looking Ahead – Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York and John Podesta of the Center for American Progress predict how environmental issues will play on Capitol Hill.

Championing Change – Carl Pope of the Sierra Club and the American Enterprise Institute’s Steven Hayward discuss the changing political climate in Washington and global climate change.

In addition to concerns over Iraq, voters were upset/angry that Congress (under Republican leadership and control) gave big 'tax breaks' to oil companies while they made $billions and the people (tax payers) paid high gasoline prices. That is the perception, if not the reality.

 

[LURCH]

So, with all other issues hopelessly deadlocked and all attempts at progress for either side obviously futile, perhaps both sides will focus on energy reform, recognizing that this is one of the few areas on which they might work together, and so one of the few areas where either side could hope to accomplish something.

What about Imminent domain? It's been sort-of swept under the rug while both sides railed about one another's plan for Iraq (and potential handling of Iran), but now perhaps it will be delt with. Much of the nation is up in arms about it, and I would think that would be motivating.

 

[Skyhunter]

So, with all other issues hopelessly deadlocked and all attempts at progress for either side obviously futile, perhaps both sides will focus on energy reform, recognizing that this is one of the few areas on which they might work together, and so one of the few areas where either side could hope to accomplish something.

What about Imminent domain? It's been sort-of swept under the rug while both sides railed about one another's plan for Iraq (and potential handling of Iran), but now perhaps it will be delt with. Much of the nation is up in arms about it, and I would think that would be motivating.

You are beginning your argument with a false dichotomy, all other issues are not hopelessly deadlocked. There has been no bipartisanship in Washington because the Republicans have excluded the Democrats. This has now changed, the Democrats have the majority and want bipartisanship.

Iraq and Iran are part of our current policy[/url].

It is vital for the US and the world that the republicans replace their leadership and work with the new majority. If they do not, they will lose again in 2008. And so will America.

 

[Astronuc]

Seems like the US has already normalized relationship with Vietnam.

Intel to more than triple Vietnam investment to US$1 billion
Associated Press November 10, 2006

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam - Intel Corp., the world's largest computer chipmaker, announced Friday that it will more than triple its initial investment in Vietnam to US$1 billion (euro780 million), dramatically expanding the size of a chip assembly and testing plant that it is building in the country's southern business hub.

"It will be the model for larger, more efficient assembly and test facilities that will gain Intel greater efficiency and improve our ability to meet our customers' requirement, making Intel even more competitive," said Brian Krzanich, Intel's vice president and general manager for assembly and test.

The announcement ceremony was attended by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and U.S. Ambassador Michael Marine.

The company plans to expand the size of the facility from 150,000 square feet (13,900 sq. meters) to 500,000 square feet (46,450 sq. meters), Krzanich said.

Construction is expected to begin in March. It will be Vietnam's first semiconductor facility, and Intel's sixth testing facility in Asia.

Krzanich said production is expected to begin in the second half of 2009 and that Intel plans to eventually employ up to 4,000 people. Santa Clara, California-based Intel had talked of 1,200 jobs when it announced a US$300 million (euro236 million) investment in February.

That's great for Vietnam and Intel investors.

 

[LURCH]

You are beginning your argument with a false dichotomy, all other issues are not hopelessly deadlocked.

Quite right. In fact, I started my argument with an incomplete thought. I meant to say that "with all other issues hopelessly dealocked..., perhaps both sides will focus on those few areas on which they can agree, such as energy reform..."

I just re-read my own post and realized that the way it was worded, I was saying that energy reform was the only issue not deadlocked.

Renormalization with VN is a great step, but it's probably going to make things worse with North VN.

Read the link about the energy policies and Iraq. Did that story seem a bit fishy to anyone else?

 

[turbo]

Renormalization with VN is a great step, but it's probably going to make things worse with North VN.

The country is no longer divided into N and S. It is unified.

 

[Astronuc]

Well so much for the normalization with Vietnam.

House defeats Vietnam trade bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_go_co/us_vietnam_trade

WASHINGTON - Legislation to normalize trade relations with Vietnam was defeated in the House Monday, four days before President Bush makes his first visit to the only country ever to defeat the United States in a major war.

The measure failed to win the necessary two-thirds majority it needed to pass under a procedure House Republicans adopted in an effort to rush it through with limited debate. It received 228 votes in support — 32 short of what was needed. There were 161 votes against it.

Ways and Means Committee aides, however, said Republicans planned to bring the measure up again Wednesday under normal procedures which will require only a majority for passage. The proposal gained 228 votes, 10 more than the 218 majority that would be needed under the normal process.

. . . .

However, the proposal also faces obstacles in the Senate, where the administration has had to offer textile-state senators assurances that it will impose penalty tariffs on Vietnamese textile products if the country is found to be selling those products at unfairly low prices.

. . . .

The more things change, the more they stay the same - or so it seems.

 

[LURCH]

OK, well, early indicator showing that nothing's going to get done. Doesn't look too promoissing.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, the new congress, the 110th Congress, doesn't convene until Jan 3, 2007. Until then Hastert, John Boehner et al are still in control.

 

[turbo]

Edit: found link. The Vietnam trade deal was sunk because it was brought to the floor in such a way as to require a 2/3 supermajority. There is a possibility that it will be brought up for a simple majority vote, though there appears to be some resistance in the Senate unless language is added to penalize Vietnamese textile business if they try to ship goods here that are substantially underpriced.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/vietnam.php