WSJ thoughts on the upcoming Super Majority

Laz

DIS Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 1999
Messages
2,710
One Newpapers view, but I would love to hear everyone's thoughts. :

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.Article
more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share:
Yahoo Buzz
MySpace
Digg
Text Size
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
 
I think the article is just as silly and unfounded as some of the stuff coming out of the NYTimes op-ed pages. Seems every election, the mainstream news papers on the right, like the WSJ, and the left, like the NYTimes, begin to hyperventilate and pull further to the fringes. It's all just a part of doing business during the election cycle...
 
I stoped reading after the first paragraph. Not all Democrats are Liberals, and anyone that assumes that isn't worth reading.
 

I stoped reading after the first paragraph. Not all Democrats are Liberals,...
All of them don't have to be... just enough of them. Look at the elected Democratic leaders to see which wing of the Democratic party is in control... it ain't the moderates.
 
This country will be drastically different in four years than it is today. And in many cases, permanently.
 
This country will be drastically different in four years than it is today. And in many cases, permanently.
I think it's likely that in 2010, as in 1994, the country will rediscover the advantages of "divided government".
 
Face it our government is corrupt and poorly managed right now.

No matter who takes office is going to have a difficult Presidency.

If anyone believes different, speak up.
 
From your lips to God's ears...

And therein lies the difference.

Overall, the McCain supporters want to FIX our country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a good one, but need to be fixed).

Overall, the Obama supporters want to CHANGE the country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a bad one and needs to be changed).
 
And therein lies the difference.

Overall, the McCain supporters want to FIX our country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a good one, but need to be fixed).

Overall, the Obama supporters want to CHANGE the country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a bad one and needs to be changed).

How silly...I said nothing of the sort. I am a proud American, love this country and just because our political views differ, you don't get to put words in my mouth or claim any moral high ground over myself or anyone else who shares my views.
 
But we did not have divided government during the first 6 years of Bush II
We shall see. But, I am not counting chickens...

There was not a filibuster proof super majority in the House and Senate during the first 6 years of the GW Bush administration. And, the country was doing pretty well, considering we were attacked and were in the midst of 2 wars.

Then, the far left wing took over control of the Democrat Party and the House and Senate. Look what happened since.

Imagine the devistation 4 years of a filibuster proof, super majority of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Soros, Daily Kos, Moveon.org along with Obama in the White House.

We'll get change, all right. But, the change we'll get is not the change we'll want.
 
And therein lies the difference.

Overall, the McCain supporters want to FIX our country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a good one, but need to be fixed).

Overall, the Obama supporters want to CHANGE the country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a bad one and needs to be changed).

How silly...I said nothing of the sort. I am a proud American, love this country and just because our political views differ, you don't get to put words in my mouth or claim any moral high ground over myself or anyone else who shares my views.

I never claimed you said it. *I* did.

Seems like I hit a nerve, though. I wonder why? :rolleyes1
 
I never claimed you said it. *I* did.

Seems like I hit a nerve, though. I wonder why? :rolleyes1

Damn straight you hit a nerve. When you quote a post of mine and suggest that Obama supporters believe that the premise that the idea of the USA is a bad one, then you've clearly gone off the rhetorical deep end. I'll thank you to take it back...
 
I don't think there's anything in that article that is capable of being disputed, except for the comment that taxes will go up only on the rich, that is.
 
And therein lies the difference.

Overall, the McCain supporters want to FIX our country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a good one, but need to be fixed).

Overall, the Obama supporters want to CHANGE the country (the premise that the idea of the USA is a bad one and needs to be changed).


Being a Democrat or supporter of Obama does not make anyone less of a patriot. We are all Americans, who disagree with the other party and their candidate. Do not forget, Dissent is Patriotic.

We are just as patriotic as you are...

I would fight for your right to say what you just did. Would you for me?
 
I don't think there's anything in that article that is capable of being disputed, except for the comment that taxes will go up only on the rich, that is.

Except for the fact that it came from the WSJ, owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom