Site Meter

America vs. The World

The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart. — Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Give 'em hell, Nancy

With the Republican party's collective head exploding, it grows increasingly likely that the Democrats will retake at least the House (and possibly the Senate), making Rep. Nancy Pelosi the first woman to server as Speaker of the House. What's not to like?
Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
Can we roll back the bankruptcy bill, too? I think we can.

There has been so much bad law passed over the last six years that just the idea of the Democrats retaking the House has me salivating. I don't really consider myself a Democrat, although that's the way I have voted in every election. If I was presented with a Republican whom I really though was a better candidate, I would have no problem voting for him. Shit, I'd vote for almost anyone over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The guy makes Bush look brilliant. Too bad the Republican candidate, Judy Baar Topinka, has about as much brains as Rod with half the charm.

The fact is, one-party rule has made me more unabashedly liberal than I would have ever thought possible. This has been one of the most conservative administrations, and Congresses, in living memory. What we need right now is not bipartisanship. We need full on Liberalism, in all its glory, to undo the damage the Republican Party has done to our nation and its citizens over the past six years.

Maybe, after reversing the bankruptcy bill and the detainee bill, after prohibiting warrantless wiretaping and protecting net neutrality, after conducting hearings on the Iraq war and the War On Terror, after cleaning House, kicking ass and taking names... maybe then we can think about cooperation, if by then the Republican party has shed itself of its theocratic authoritarian leanings.

But if we don't first undo some of its worst excesses, we will be stuck with them.

I hope Pelosi comes out swinging, no holds barred. Send these fucking cockroaches scurrying for cover. Shine some light on one of the darker periods in U.S. government, and see what's lying in the shadows.

Give 'em hell, Nancy. Give 'em hell.


Anonymous tet said...

What we've had for the last six years has *not* been conservatism, by any means. It's been some kind of bastardized corporate-lobbied state giving government support to rapicious, evil men while government expanded at an ever-increasing rate.

This is about as far from the '94 "Contract with America" kind of Newt conservatism as you can get.

The Democrats will only have my respect if they get in and immediately begin repealing laws right and left and start lowering taxes while eliminating parts of the government.

Otherwise, they're just expanding government in the direction THEY approve of, which is as evil as what the Republicans are doing.

The Stupid Party and the Evil Party--not much choice.


Blogger Chance-86 said...

"Reform" is such a wonderfully innocent word. Every incumbant fears the word, every challenger weilds it like the sword Excalibur. The problem with the word 'reform' is that it becomes totally defined by the person using it. One could dissolve our representative republic (what's left of it) and bring a Nazi regime to power (and I'll leave the application that everyone is obviously making out). Doing this is technically 'reform.' I applaud anyone who has the balls of steel...or the rock-hard clitoris, as the case may stand up and say that some things that didn't sound so bad at the time have been completely bastardized (great word, tom, so I'm stealing it momentarily) into something that even conservative republicans never imagined. I am very much a pragmatist, and I believe very much in the concept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...but at what cost? Is my safety worth my freedom? HELL NO...but who am I to answer that question for someone else? And there-in lies the problem. In the past 6 years many decisions have been made for us that have been under the guise of protection and safety, but at what cost? Well, a cost that I'm not sure many of us really want to pay.
However, playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'm not so convinced that returning the throne to the devoted servants of President Clinton and her husband is exactly where to go either. No matter who is in the big chair, it is a fact that the face of this country and the face of the world is different than it was 5 years ago. We have to face that, we have to adjust for that.
The answers are vague and experimental. Some laws need to be changed, some taxes need to be changed, and some government spending/programs need to be cut. But let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have a fear that everything that has been done in the past 6 years are going to be indiscriminately scrapped just because they are 'guilty by association.' I, for one, saw a HUGE income tax cut in the past 6 years. Before we start throwing taxes back on 'rich' people (which is a deceivingly ambiguous term); destroying the livelihood of seniors by taking 1/3 of their lifetime investment (the capital gains on their home) that they had planned to sell, move into a senior apartment, and retire without having to worry about feeding themselves; or putting the government in charge of buying foreign drugs, by-in-large bankrupting the national pharmacueitical know, the ones that are doing research to cure disease and lessen symptoms...maybe we need to think about things before we just blast in and wipe out everything in our path.

A clean sweep is just going to sweep out the current agenda and replace it with one that, from our current perspective, looks better. Careful. Hoover swept house with the same promise of a chicken in every pot...and I'll be damned if I'm sharing my shanty with ANYONE, wire-tapped or not.

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Jeff Goldstein is a wanker.