Quote :

"As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking. House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans. But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories. Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday. The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years. Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills. "There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress." House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats. Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within hours of taking the oath of office on Thursday. The first legislation will focus on the behavior of lawmakers, banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to special spending directives and to certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker or the lawmaker's spouse. That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule. Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi. "We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills." But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do." For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House. "It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "It's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation." In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of their razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Those same Democrats, who campaigned on a pledge of more openness in government, will kick off the new Congress with a closed meeting of all senators in the Capitol. Manley said the point of the meeting is to figure out ways both parties can work together. In the House, Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Rules Committee, said she intends to bring openness to a committee that used to meet in the middle of the night. In the new Congress, the panel -- which sets the terms of debate on the House floor -- will convene at 10 a.m. before a roomful of reporters. "It's going to be open," Slaughter said of the process. "Everybody will have an opportunity to participate." At the same time, she added, the majority would grant Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once it reaches the floor. "We intend to allow some of their amendments, not all of them," Slaughter said. For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive. "We're going to make an impression one way or the other," said one Democratic leadership aide. "If it's not positive, we'll be out in two years." House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records. "We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies. Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group. "If they've got ideas that will make our legislation better, we ought to consider that," said Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-Fla.), leader of the Blue Dogs. "But if their idea is to try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've been doing for the past six years, and it's all wrong." To keep her sometimes-fractious coalition together, Pelosi has been distributing the spoils of victory across the ideological spectrum, trying to make sure that no group within the Democratic Party feels alienated. Blue Dogs picked up some plum committee assignments, with Jim Matheson (Utah) landing a spot on Energy and Commerce and A.B. "Ben" Chandler (Ky.) getting an Appropriations seat. At the same time, members of Black and Hispanic caucuses obtained spots on these panels, as Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) was given a seat on Appropriations and Artur Davis (Ala.) took the place of Democrat William J. Jefferson (La.) on Ways and Means. Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process. "If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Rutgers's Baker. "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type." "The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very, very strong," he added. "It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal." "

Now some of the legislation they want to pass I don't mind them passing, however, I think it's bullshit for the Dems to say 'Oh we will work together' then turn right around and change their ways


of course I wouldn't be suprised if the Repubs had done the same.

1/3/2007 8:08:02 AM

I'll give them a pass on the inital 100 hours. The pubs got their asses handed to them for a reason, so let the dems put into place what they were elected for. Now 6 months from now....

1/3/2007 8:18:37 AM

What was it that they were elected for? I could have sworn it was "not being republicans."

I didn't realize it was a mandate to do whatever the hell they wanted for 100 hours.

1/3/2007 9:04:49 AM

you act like this is some sort of unified party(everyone will vote for everything), or that the repubs didnt pass tons of legislation that was quite anti-democratic. the repubs had a long time in power, this is only the beginning of the democrats.

the real question will be 6 months from now as the previous poster said. most of these are token anyway... feel good measures..

1/3/2007 10:18:51 AM

^^^^care to post a source for that article?

1/3/2007 10:20:57 AM

it was in the greensboro news and observer also.. its legit more than likely

1/3/2007 10:28:55 AM

hmm. interesting. the greensboro news and observer you say. never heard of that one.

1/3/2007 10:31:42 AM

didn't really read the article

but it sounds like they're just creating deadlock...which is the best possible scenario.

1/3/2007 10:31:51 AM

Quote :

"^^^^care to post a source for that article?"

..


came from yesterday's washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784_pf.html


legit enough source for you???

1/3/2007 11:16:02 AM

i didn't say it wasn't legitimate. i just like to know who's writing the things i read. especially political articles.

1/3/2007 11:17:30 AM

Quote :

"but it sounds like they're just creating deadlock..."

Not entirely. History has shown that nearly all the beneficial reforms took place during partisan deadlock. For example, the tax reforms and de-regulation that proceeded under Reagan, Social Security reform under Bush I (I think), welfare reform under Clinton, etc.

1/3/2007 12:54:52 PM

Quote :

"I think it's bullshit for the Dems to say 'Oh we will work together' then turn right around and change their ways"

POLITICS

get used to it.

1/3/2007 1:11:06 PM

Quote :

"but it sounds like they're just creating deadlock...which is the best possible scenario."

i'm all for that. I would rather have complete government deadlock, statemate, shutdown, whatever, for the next 2 years than continue to allow Bush to do whatever he wants and the Republicans to continue to dominate the policy making.

1/3/2007 1:20:56 PM

Quote :

"but it sounds like they're just creating deadlock...which is the best possible scenario."

Amen, and pass the ammo.

1/3/2007 4:03:52 PM

The Democrats are doing the minimum wage increase, "ethics reform," some environmental legislation, and a few other things. Question: Where is any Iraq legislation, which is the issue that supposedly got them elected?

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 5:13 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 5:12:44 AM

No no no, the mandate on Iraq was actually a mandate on every other issue they care about.

1/5/2007 7:43:47 AM

^ WTF?

1/5/2007 7:56:26 AM

yeah I am suprised they aren't tackling Iraq...since that is the ONLY reason they got back in power


IRAQ - the only reason the Dems won

1/5/2007 8:05:49 AM

well the first 100 hrs deal is stuff that they can actually get done in 100 hours. i would really hope that they wouldn't try to rush the iraq stuff.

and you're fooling yourselves if you think that iraq is the ONLY reason dems got back in power. i would bet that power would have swung back to them anyhow even if the iraq war had never happened. it's just the natural cycle of things.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 8:13 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 8:10:17 AM

^^

I was being sarcastic and saying that the mandate to fix Iraq that got them elected was really a mandate for every issue on their agenda.


^
I'd say it probably was the only reason they won so many seats. Sure, the Foley scandal affected some and deficit spending affected some others, but you're kidding yourself if you think Iraq didn't play a MAJOR role in that campaign. For God's sake, they're already using it in their presidential campaigns for 2 years from now.

1/5/2007 8:10:57 AM

it was a big role. but the economy, health care, education, etc all played roles. but yes, this last election certainly was a statement about the country's feelings about the war and more specifically about george w. bush.

not to mention:

voters have wanted lobby reform for a while, what with all the abramhoff (sp?) stuff.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 8:19 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 8:14:32 AM

With things being the clusterfuck that they are in Iraq, about the only thing they can really do is:
a) withhold "emergency funding" which won't happen, and
b) start real investigations on how we ended up there in the first place, which might happen.

Push too hard on Iraq and the Pubs will be screaming about soldiers killed in vain, freedom on the march, cut n' run, etc.

So basically, plan on spending another 500 billion in that shithole until the next president kills his political career and pulls us out. No way in hell will Bush withdraw at this point.

Still hoping for gridlock on most everything else though.

1/5/2007 8:29:36 AM

^^ Wrong again.

Quote :

"Poll finds Iraq, terrorism top issues with voters POSTED: 10:47 p.m. EST, November 1, 2006"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/election.issues/index.html

1/5/2007 8:49:02 AM

how was i wrong?

i mean even from your own article:

Quote :

"The third most important issue was ethics in government, which 37 percent of respondents said they considered important. "

i didn't say that iraq wasn't important. i said that it wasn't the ONLY reason dems got elected. you're talking like they shouldn't be passing legislation because they only got elected because of iraq.

1/5/2007 8:51:52 AM

maybe this has more to do with polls saying that 80% of the country supports a raise in the minimum wage than polls about why people voted for who.

ps- even with the huge changeover over 90% of the 'new' congress was in the last congress. None of them were elected on the Iraq issue.

1/5/2007 10:34:54 AM

Quote :

"b) start real investigations on how we ended up there in the first place, which might happen."

How exactly is that going to fix the problem again?

Quote :

"maybe this has more to do with polls saying that 80% of the country supports a raise in the minimum wage than polls about why people voted for who."

80% of the country will always support that kind of crap, it doesn't mean we need it.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 10:47:09 AM

Quote :

"80% of the country will always support that kind of crap, it doesn't mean we need it."

and here i thought they were our representatives or something. . . silly me.

and investigations won't solve the current problem. but holding people accountable could conceivably prevent similar problems in the future.

1/5/2007 10:52:08 AM

Quote :

"How exactly is that going to fix the problem again?"

Did you really just ask this?

1/5/2007 12:29:26 PM

^^^democracy aside, quite a few economists (nobel prize winners included) have signed on saying the min. wage hike will be beneficial. 60 votes from the senate are very likely.

i posted this link in another thread, but i forget which one (i think it was the 100 days thread).

here it is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/from/ET/

5.15 buys less now than 4.25 did in 1994 (or whenever it was they last raised it).

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 12:49:06 PM

Quote :

"^^^democracy aside, quite a few economists (nobel prize winners included) have signed on saying the min. wage hike will be beneficial. 60 votes from the senate are very likely. "

And any of those nobel prize winning economists say it is a good economic decision? I'd bet not one.

Quote :

"Did you really just ask this?"

Yes nuts, can you tell me how holding the current administration accountable constitutes fixing what is done in Iraq? If I burn down your house and go to jail for it, does that somehow rebuild your house?

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 1:36:48 PM

yes, it does.

furthermore, holding hearings allows us to not make the same mistakes in the future.

1/5/2007 1:41:09 PM

They want to lower student loan rates which should help 99% of everyone on this board.

1/5/2007 1:53:20 PM

^^^i guess you didnt read the actual article, which said:

Quote :

"NEW YORK - More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been “fully eroded.”"

oops, looks like not every economist worth his snuff shares your libertarian values. why would they call for it if it was a bad descision?

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 2:00:44 PM

^ If you pick and choose the economists you survey then I guarantee you can find 650 to advocate a higher minimum wage. However, an impartial survey would merely demonstrate that Academic Economists are unsure about the issue: "Robert Whaples surveys PhD members of the American Economic Association...One issue that fails to generate consensus is the minimum wage: 37.7 percent want it increased, while 46.8 percent want it eliminated."
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/consensus-of-economists.html


And just because it increases unemployment does not mean an economist would be against raising the minimum wage, because the effects are varied and widespread. Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment among the poorest workers while making most of the poor better off. And since the "poorest workers" tend to be Mexican immigrants which can just go back to Mexico, unemployment for them is not a negative result for the economists being surveyed.

1/5/2007 2:24:20 PM

Quote :

"oops, looks like not every economist worth his snuff shares your libertarian values. why would they call for it if it was a bad descision?"

Or perhaps YOU don't understand the difference between economic good and social good. What I told you was that you couldn't find many economists arguing that the minimum wage is a good economic choice. Krueger and Card are exceptions, but their work on minimum wage was poorly conducted and ripped a new one during peer review. If you found 650 economists that said "sex is awesome," it doesn't mean that sex is suddenly a good economic choice. It simply means that for reasons other than economics, sex might be a good thing.

Most of us economists argue minimum wage is a bad thing because labor markets are competitive, so a price floor causes a surplus of labor and hurts the poor more than it helps them. We also like to point out that MOST of the minimum wage earners are not supporting a family on one minimum wage salary. A point your side of the table continues to overlook.

1/5/2007 2:28:12 PM

Quote :

"We also like to point out that MOST of the minimum wage earners are not supporting a family on one minimum wage salary."

that's because it's next to impossible

1/5/2007 2:30:09 PM

Oh, so they go get better paying jobs or have a working spouse...

And where exactly does that make any difference to what I just said?

1/5/2007 2:31:04 PM

it's all about you you you.

1/5/2007 2:31:38 PM

Well generally it should be about my arguments, my arguments, my arguments

But you seem to be unskilled in the art of debate.

1/5/2007 2:32:07 PM

i was just saying that saying that minimum wage workers don't support a family with one wage isn't a good support for the abolition of minimum wage. if there's no way for someone to support a family on that wage, then no kidding there aren't going to be many in that group. they'd be more likely to either work multiple jobs or just go on welfare etc. (and the "you you you" bit was just joking).

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM. Reason : sardonic isn't the word i'm looking for. . . .]

1/5/2007 2:35:03 PM

My point is that why should we enrich housewives and teenagers with an increase in minimum wage when not many people are supporting a family on it. Your intention is to help the working poor and a minimum wage increase doesn't do that. Here is what happens: SAlly the soccer mom is now willing to work at the higher wage. Jose, the mexican immigrant (the working poor) gets passed on because Sally comes into the employment arena for extra cash. Jose is screwed because they would rather have Sally than Jose because she's better with English and finished high school.

There are better ways to help the working poor than minimum wage, which will adversely affect many of the people you are trying to help.

1/5/2007 2:39:02 PM

The argument against the minimum wage has only two parts:
#1 unemployment is never the ideal solution for those suffering under low wages
#2 it violates the civil rights of those suffering under low wages by eliminating their right to contract their labor as they see fit

If you want to use government to help the poor then increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. That will increase the incomes of the poor without losing anyone their job.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/5/2007 2:39:31 PM

Quote :

"And just because it increases unemployment does not mean an economist would be against raising the minimum wage, because the effects are varied and widespread. Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment among the poorest workers while making most of the poor better off. And since the "poorest workers" tend to be Mexican immigrants which can just go back to Mexico, unemployment for them is not a negative result for the economists being surveyed."

i don't see how minimum wage would effect a good percentage of mexicans since so many of them work illegally. i'm sure billy bob roof construction will not follow the "minimum wage" for workers he hires under the table anyway.

1/5/2007 3:34:29 PM

i guess we'll just have to wait and see if a wage floor raise will really cause catastropy based on real-world results. i'm not going to pretend to know who the best economists are, but i'm also not going to necissarily trust the biased opinions of anyone. all i go by is the knowledge that the Nobel Prize is traditionally awarded to the most widely respected in the field, regardless. for every x, there is a y opposed to x, no matter the subject. that's life. we'll just have to see what happens, because enough members of the GOP, and the president, support it (albeit with deregulation caveots, which i'm not thrilled about as an environmentalist), and it should pass.

if we see a major long-term catastropy (short-term pangs are a given, long term results are what matter, of course), then we can say "yes, this was a bad move".

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 3:40:52 PM

True enough, construction and light manufacturing are not tightly tracked and therefore the minimum wage has no impact upon illegal workers working in those sectors.

But openly public businesses cannot hide from the county inspectors and are frequently policed for wage and safety enforcement, not legality. In other words, a huge sector of the economy cannot escape the minimum wage, hence it does have an impact upon those illegals (and legals) attempting to take part in that sector of the economy.

^ A catastrophy? Of course not! Look, a little unemployment is not that big a problem. Some poor families lose the battle and become homeless, they are just statistics, none of this matters to us. Their kids end up in foster-care, the parents end up in shelters, no big deal, life goes on. "Catastrophy" is absolutely the wrong word.

We are talking about a price floor on labor, at most it can only harm the dregs of society. In a market, it is only a price cap that leads to a catastrophic break-down, a price floor is largely benign from the perspective of consumers.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/5/2007 3:41:15 PM

personally, i would eliminate the wage floor for anyone under the age of 18.

well, more like, anyone under 18 still supported by parents, w/ no kids, b/c we do have those teen mothers with kids out there.

[Edited on January 5, 2007 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2007 3:49:16 PM

I think increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit is precisely the way to help the people targeted by minimum wage laws. Look, I don't discount people's hope to help the working poor, they are usually genuine. I just wish they could choose ways to do it that they fully understand.

And lastly, the deal about the Nobel prize should be summed up this way:
Economists argue against price and wage controls through positive economics. That is the economics of the way things are: Wage Controls and Price Controls are bad for the overall efficiency of an economy.
Some of them, though, will support minimum wage laws under their own personal views and through normative economics: People 'ought' to be ensured a certain level of income.

It doesn't mean they are wrong, but they aren't doing positive economics by arguing it. They are giving their own opinion on social welfare that is totally indpendent of the efficiency of the economics.

1/5/2007 4:22:25 PM

Is the state of the government and the economy so horribly bad that two dudes on a a message board can seemingly consistently discredit every move they make in regards to economic policy?

1/5/2007 5:03:09 PM

"in regards"

1/6/2007 1:42:26 AM

→

1/6/2007 1:51:52 AM