Democrats + Bush = successful 110th Congress

I support Obama for President, but I don't "hate" George Bush or his policies.

I have disagreed with President Bush on many things including:

stem cell policy
war in Iraq; especially its' execution
war in Afganistan; not fighting hard enough to win
attack on internet gambling
refusal to fight for real education reform including vouchers for everyone
failure to establish stronger standards in trade deals
...and more

but I find it interesting that according to Senate Democrats here is what has been accomplished during the 110th Congress working with President Bush:

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_na me=fs-110-2-111

Economic stimulus:
a law to boost the economy by offering timely, targeted, and temporary measures to provide rebate checks to eligible single, married, and elderly Americans, provide tax relief for American businesses, and help families avoid foreclosure by expanding financing opportunities;

Ethics and lobbying reform:
a law to slow the "revolving door" for former Senators and staff, strengthen limits on gifts and travel, expand lobbying disclosure requirements, establish a study commission on ethics and lobbying, prohibit pensions for Members of Congress convicted of certain crimes, and implement reform procedures relating to earmarks and conference reports;

Strengthening FISA:
legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to strengthen national security, provide better civil liberty protections for Americans, and increase oversight and accountability of government actions;

9/11 Commission recommendations:
a law to make America more secure by giving our first responders the tools they need to keep us safe; making it more difficult for potential terrorists to travel into our country; advancing efforts to secure our rail, air, and mass transit systems; and improving intelligence and information sharing between state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies;

Intelligence authorization:
a bill to strengthen and authorize the nation's intelligence and intelligence-related activities and require that all federal agencies abide by the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture;

Care for wounded soldiers and veterans:
a law to improve military health care facilities, fill in gaps in health insurance coverage, increase severance pay, and provide a seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and transition from military service to civilian life; and legislation to protect military bonuses for wounded soldiers;

Enhancing veterans benefits: a bill to expand and improve benefits for all veterans and extend benefits to Filipino veterans of World War II;

Minimum wage:
a law that increases the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour;

Foreclosure prevention and housing market recovery:
legislation to strengthen and modernize the FHA to help homeowners facing foreclosure obtain safe and affordable home loans; and legislation to increase foreclosure counseling, expand re-financing opportunities, enhance foreclosure protection services members, aid communities in rehabilitating foreclosed properties, improve mortgage loan disclosures, and extend tax relief to help the housing market recover;

AMT tax relief:
a law that protects 19 million American families from being hit by the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a tax that was never intended to impact them;

Consumer product safety:
a bill to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission, improve children's product safety, stop dangerous imported products, increase penalties for violations, and enhance recall effectiveness;

Energy bill:
a law to increase our energy independence, enhance energy efficiency, increase production of clean domestic biofuels, raise fuel economy standards for the first time in 25 years, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our energy security, reduce our dependence on oil, and strengthen the economy;

Higher education:
a law providing $20 billion in additional college aid to students - the largest increase since the G.I. bill - including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant; simplifying the financial aid process; decreasing subsidies so that the student loan system works for students, not the banks; and improving our K-12 schools by promoting effective teacher preparation programs;

Head Start:
a law to expand eligibility for the Head Start program;

Extending Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP:
a law that blocks cuts to Medicare and ensures access to health care for rural seniors; funds the Transitional Medicaid Assistance and special diabetes programs; and extends CHIP;

Farm bill:
a law to invest in rural communities, ensure participation in the food stamp program, expand programs to feed low-income children, improve conservation, reform producer income protection programs, and expand the development and use of farm-based renewable energy;

Criminal background checks for gun purchases:
a law that improves the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by ensuring that records are more easily updated by state and federal agencies to reflect a disqualifying mental illness and by establishing a better process by which citizens who have overcome a disqualifying mental illness can have their rights restored;

Improving the Do-Not-Call Registry:
a law to ensure that phone numbers can remain on the list beyond five years and that removed numbers can be re-included; and a law to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect do-not-call registry fees from telecommunications companies for the operation and enforcement of the registry;

Much of the above is on the "progressive" side. Yet, many things on the list above would have been filibustered (by Rep's) had there been a democratic President or a stronger Democratic majority. So the end result would have been less success.

I'm arguing for Democrats to start "curbing their excesses" here on the internet and advocate for good ideas that can be debated without name calling, and defended on an intellectual level. This is not a call to be DLC type moderates, but to argue for what you believe and support it with facts and logic, and not "you're evil" type arguments.

I think on balance, President Obama would be better than Senator McCain because of:

Supreme Court nominations
Executive orders
World-wide recognition of the goodness in America
Less chance to start foolish wars

But as I argued a few days ago, too many democrats in Congress with an Obama Presidency is a recipe for disaster as it stands today. It would lead to partisan warfare that Democrats would lose. It happened less than 15 years ago in 1992 and is shaping up that way again.

That's because of the zealots here online and those working behind the scenes in all the left-wing interest groups.

A Democratic Congress has done a good job working with this President. It has helped that Bush was a lame duck and was forced to do business. As democrats we should stop denying reality about the progress of the 110th Congress, and recognize Bush was a necessary partner.

---

I'm not arguing for "centrism" or "moderation".

The recently passed Housing Bill is a good liberal bill to address a poorly functioning market.  It is not right wing, it is not moderate, it is on the left and it is the right thing to do.

I'm arguing for solid legislation and/or ideas that can be advanced without venom and craziness.

----

Candidate Obama seems to understand this, yet many seem to think he is only doing what needs to be done to get elected. I think Obama is being geniune. Someone is wrong.

Yesterday, Dems wasted time in Committee voting to hold Karl Rove in contempt.

They also voted to "apologize for Slavery".

Hopefully this is not a sign to come when we win in November.

Craig Farmer



Display:


Re: Democrats + Bush = successful 110th Congress (none / 0)

Why should I be forced to pay taxes so that the Federal Govt can bail out people who were negligent in making loans to people who could not pay or negligent in accepting loans that they could not afford?  May I go out and buy a Ferrari for low interest and very low payment on the balance, drive it for a year, then not pay the loan, and have you pay it for me?


by LesGovt on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST

Re: Democrats + Bush = successful 110th Congress (none / 0)

Why should I be forced to pay taxes to pay George Bush's salary and that of my Republican rubber stamp Senators? Not one of them is worth a dime of my money.
But I accept it as the "price" of living in the United States. Cowboy up, man.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:34:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Democrats + Bush = successful 110th Congress (2.00 / 1)

I believe the Constitution provides the authority to tax for paying for Congress and the President.  That is not true of bad loans made by companies or taken by people who cannot pay.  Please try again as I was seeking a serious answer.


by LesGovt on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:09:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the mortgage thing is a tough one (none / 0)

I agree in principle that it is not the government's role to bail out people (or companies0 for their mistakes.  we have certainly just been through a period where lots of folks have made shaky bets on (how much they would get paid in the future when their ARM balloons, and the real estate market increases that will let them "flip that house!"), and likewise lots of companies have made shaky decisions on how likely they will be to capitalize on their products (mortgages).  In general, my opinion on such things is "well, you lost your money" and "well, you lost your business" and let the market work itself out.

But in this case the market is homes and the impact is more complicated than the usual "well, I guess I have to start building it back all over again" (which I have had to do more than once in life because of bad decisions).  The personal mistakes folks have made impact everything in the fundamentals of the economy, from the ability of people to even have jobs to the future outlook of the children affected.  While this (hopefully) is not as globally devastating as the Great Depression, the foundational affects on society are similar, and it may take similar arbitrary steps to fix it.

For the companies I feel much less sympathy.  Yes, thousands of jobs have been lost and it ain't over yet, and yes the failure of financial institutions can have ripple effects which could be just as devastating, and yes - sympathy or no - we need to seriously consider whether the failure of these institutions presents a fundamental national threat to our culture.  But generally speaking I have more faith in the open market to fill the voids of failed financial institutions on its own. (but then I'm not an economist, and this may in fact present a strategic threat.)

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:17:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the mortgage thing is a tough one (2.00 / 1)

Chris, I thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking point of view.  I don't see this incident as anything close to the Depression and I believe that the amount of mortgages involved amount to about 2.2 million and $164 billion dollars.  That is a great deal of money; however, compared to the total mortgage market, it is not a very large percentage.  While it won't help the economy, the housing or stock markets, it will not prove fatal for the U.S.

This bailout teaches people nothing.  They sell or purchase risky, if not just plain dumb investments, and then when they are faced with the consequences of their decisions, they want you and me to bail them out.  I don't think that should be the case.

Life is about risks and rewards.  When you use common sense and practice positive virtues, you may suffer some pain in this life, but normally not like those who practice neither.  The pain should not be removed from people's lives as lessons are not learned and it is not right to reach into someone else's pockets to pay for one's poor judgment.


by LesGovt on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep (2.00 / 1)

I agree fundamentally.  The only questions I have nagging around are the true scale of the problem, potential ripple effects, and whether actual wrong-doing was perpetrated.  I don't really know the first answer (and you're right, if it's $164B it's a big number but not fatal in itself, the second is kinda unknowable (or at least fractally complex on a sociological level) and the third is for the courts to figure out.

The second one is the only justifiable reason for government meddling outside of the Justice system.  If there is (to be harshly pragamtic) a net-zero mid-term impact on tax revenue by government intervention (iow, if some sort of program eases the ripples and creates an overall positive impact on the economy) then it may be justifiable or necessary (depending on the size of the ripples).

I don't think there is too much chance of appropriate goverment intervention at the consumer level keeping folks from learning their lesson - it's hard and painful regardless and no program will make that go away.  Government intervention on the corporate level should, however, be extremely carefully weighed and only used to prevent broad economic collapse - corporations do not learn the lessons individuals do, nor feel the pain that teaches them.

-cheers!

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep (2.00 / 1)

I thought we might disagree and I actually think we do, but that's okay.  Only one additional thought came to my mind after your last posting and it has to do with corporations and not being concerned so much about them.  I am concerned about both as they both (individuals and companies) need to learn the lessons.  Having said that, let's remember that when companies are hurt or fail, individuals are impacted.  Employees are impacted.  Owners of 401k accounts are often impacted and they have nothing to do with the company, other than their 401k manager purchased stock with the company.

Now, since you have agreed to help the individuals, are you going to make the payments for my year-old Ferrari?  :-)


by LesGovt on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep (none / 0)

Oh, I'm not sure we disagree by much.  "Help" is a broad word, I'm less interested in helping folks (or folks who work for/invest in companies) repair their foolish mistakes.  More interested in leaving the option open if the ramifications of mass-mistaking has broader implications that can actually be mitigated.

But no-one should get off with a wrist-slap, and I can't imagine anyone will either way.

"Hold still, this will only hurt for a little while..." ;-)

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Odd (2.00 / 1)

I actually like much of your diary, this time, yellowdem1129.  You're getting a little better at selling your points to a progressive audience.  Well done!

That said, you probably should stick to one Blue Dog issue at a time; bringing up school vouchers AND suggesting that it's a waste of time to pursue justice from someone who was a primary architect in destroying the "world wide recognition of goodness in America," among other things, is not going to win you any points.

Anyway, I think your analysis of how likely filibusters will be under an Obama presidency and a Democratic majority is a little shakey.  There's every chance that Reid will change the procedural ruling about automatic filibusters if Obama wins, and Republicans will need to actually stand up and vocally obstruct the government if they want to filibust anything.  Given how much trouble Republicans are in already with regards to public opinion, I don't think it will be a common problem.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM EST

Finding Rove in contempt... (none / 0)

of Congress was a waste?  So they shouldn't have called him in to testify at all?  I take it you think that Congressional over site is a waste of time as well.  Or, do you just think that when they serve someone with a subpoena and they don't show a shrug is the proper response?


by tonedevil on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST

Holding rove in contempt was a good (2.00 / 1)

move by the house judiciary committee.

If Nancy Pelosi had more gumption she would bring it to the full house for a vote.

That puts the lid on having Rove work for McCain.
_____

As for apologizing for slavery, its a symbolic move that should have been done ages ago.  I dont see anything wrong with the vote, I do see something wrong with slavery, and its about damned time the US acknowledges its mistakes and make symbolic gestures w/r/t those mistakes.

________

Strengthening FISA = Good
Telecom Immunity = SHITTY


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:57:26 AM EST

voting on Rove (none / 0)

is a waste of time.

Here is the process:

1. committe vote

2. full house vote

A recomendation to the Justice Dept.

which won't pursue it.

Then hearings on why the Justice Dept. won't pursue it.

The House has no power to enforce its' vote.

So it is all show.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Untrue (2.00 / 1)

It does something important, which is show the American people that the Democrats are at least trying to go after the bad guys, and the Bush administration is obstructing them yet again... which is good for Democrats in an election year.

Further, there's always the Sergeant-at-Arms recourse, which isn't all that effective, but is an important symbolic move... and would make for an incredible visual if he actually caught Rove.

Up to but not including impeachment hearings, I think that it's worth our time to pursue Bush administration corruption, and force their hand into pardons before Bush's last day in office.  Lets get them as obvious crooks on the record before the elections.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voting on Rove (2.00 / 1)

The point is, every time one of these votes goes down we show the people that we're willing to go through all the lawful processes and the other side is not. The legal proceedings start with us and stop with them. Hopefully then people decide to give our side control of the executive branch too so people can finally be fully held accountable.


by Cincinnatus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voting on Rove (none / 0)

It's fine for you as a minority to believe this, but I'm wary of too many jumping on that bandwagon.

it's bad news.

The best thing that has happened in the past week is the bad poll numbers for obama.

maybe it will shock some of the people here into realizing that their view isn't inevitable.

It is bad politics to use political energy and capital trying to "get" the other side.  If they broke the law, the do a serious investigation, which almost never is in public before Congress, and then refer it to the prosecutors or wait for Democratic prosecuters.

Public hearings are for public show to rile people up.

Go through the recent history and list the real efects both in the criminal justice sense, public policy sense, etc. of any public hearings where people were forced to testify?


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:05:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voting on Rove (none / 0)

Actually, I'm a white male, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a minority. Unless you meant me in particular, in which case, yes, I am a pretty big minority, making up only about one six billionth of the world's population. And I'm not concerned with "getting" the other side. I'm concerned with "getting" those who break the law. When they turn up on our side, I want to "get" them too.


by Cincinnatus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.