Every silver cloud has a gray lining. Guess the risk for Republicans in this scenario:
Most Republican hope focuses on the House of Representatives, but even there they have a huge job ahead. Democrats control 256 seats, and Republicans 178. Forty seats would have to change hands for Republicans to take charge.
On the other hand, 52 seats turned over when the GOP won the House in 1994. And even if Republicans don’t get the 40 they need in 2010, they could dramatically narrow the gap between the parties, giving Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership less room to operate.
The polls are definitely moving in the GOP’s direction.
A near miss might be worse than anything at all, in terms of effective governance. The Democrats most likely to lose in 2010 are the most conservative ones, elected in the South and Midwest over the last two or three cycles. The remaining Democrats would, on average, be even further to the left.
And, thanks to gerrymandering, those far-left seats are safe, safe, safe. Perhaps safe enough not to work with Republicans on anything of substance.
Two tears in a bucket, man.
It’s time to work on the 34 state, Article V cram-down, where the Federalism Amendment re-invigorates “We the People”.
Smitty –
My proposal to amend the Constitution consists of a mere nine words:
“Those Ninth and Tenth amendments? Yeah, we meant them.”
I care little whether the Congress swings one way or the other, as both parties are in favor of big spending and big government.
But the more incumbents, of either party, get thrown out, the better.
Steve, that’s a good start, but by itself wouldn’t wipe out errant application of the Commerce Clause, e.g. Nor would it repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Any rewording needs to be done with a meticulous eye toward clarity, such that the limits of federal power are unambiguous and without room for re-interpretation.
Unless it includes the death penalty for emanating into the penumbra, I don’t expect much from any of these.
So far the Republicans have little to run on.
They’re “for” lower taxes, but their record is for them to be for dumptruck loads of spending. Yes, they’re “against” that spending, but it’s only pork when it’s in a Democratic district.
They’re “against” wasteful government programs, but what did they cut? Not stop, but actually cut once it was in place? They had a chance, but decided on a huge payout to the education school and district administrator lobby in some half-assed attempt to bring accountability to education. Great job, even if you think you can put that one on Ted Kennedy.
They don’t like this healthcare plan, but haven’t one of their own to overcome the problems that will make Medicare and Medicaid and SCHIP more and more expensive in the future. Personally, I think socialized government healthcare should be for more than a special-right for people who are old, disabled, very poor, and children who are kinda poor but not really except when calculated on some chart I’d be too depressed to look at. Just let all of us have an option for socialized medicine, let the rest decide to fend for themselves, and move on. That’s not very close to the Democratic plans, but at least they have plans. The Republican plan seems to be to attack one part of it that was a Republican proposal (optional end of life discussions and planning being reimbursed) as some sort of prelude to Soylent Green. I guess the second part of the GOP plan is to pretend everything is just great.
The Republicans have very little going for them that isn’t based on a reaction to the Democrats. They’re being reactive rather than pro-active, which puts them in quite a bind for their politicians even if they think they can harness those Tea Party and Healthcare Screamer demographics.
Have the Republicans released a budget plan yet? An actual plan for Afghanistan and Iraq? A proposal on healthcare? All I can see from them is more and more proposals to reduce taxes for the rich, which most people aren’t. Yes, the rich pay a lot of the taxes and such, but they’re also taking a lot of the money. The laissez faire ideal that things will trickle down just doesn’t seem to work, since real wages have remained stagnant for most people while the rich, as always, got richer. One big Republican disadvantage of this healthcare debate is that it’s getting people to see just how much money the government pays out for healthcare, and the people who get it want it to stay that way and the people who don’t get it wonder why. Successful government programs tend to be somewhat popular, and all this screaming and yelling shows just how scared old people are at the prospect of losing their socialized medical care. Talk about standing up for the status quo, the GOP is actually showing people what it is. And people like it so much they just might demand more.
The Republicans will hold the South and make some inroads into the Mountain West, but won’t get in charge of the House. The Senate looks to have only about 57 Democrats after 2010. If that’s a victory in 2010, it’s only because the GOP has such low expectations. They’ve certainly set themselves up for that.
One of the other problems that arises if the Republicans kick the Blue Dogs in the teeth (which you address indirectly, but I don’t think quite nail) is that Scareface and Dingy-Harry get to play the partisan card and start passing shit-sandwiches on a party line vote. The positive aspect of the demographic layout in Congress at the moment is that it’s the Blue Dogs who are stopping some of this insanity because Congressional leadership (much as they try) can’t lay the obstruction purely at the Republicans’ feet. With the Blue Dogs gone, the Dems get to claim party unity and finish the job of taking us to Hell in a hand basket.
And yes, with the Blue Dogs gone, the Dem side becomes even Pinker, so the policies they try to enact will be even worse than what is being attempted now. Cheery thought, that.
What is needed is an elimination of gerrymandering. Instead districts should confirm to recognized political boundaries of cities and counties. All elections should be at large. No safe seats tempers excesses. The constitution should be amended to to state the US is a capitalist economy, all citizens are equal under the law irrespective of gender, race, orientation or creed with the exception for those who lose their civil rights for criminal convictions. Equality under the law, not equality of outcomes. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to have someone else be compelled to subsidize you. That all rights are those of the people as individuals then to the states and then to the federal government and that the constitution is applicable to in its entirety to the federal government and the states and their subdivisions. That it formally recognizes that the common law as it was understood at the time of the initial enactment of the constitution, the declaration of independence, the northwest ordinance and the articles of independence are incorporated into the constitution as part of the organic law of the USA. That all laws enacted apply to to the enacting government. In other words congress cannot exempt itself from it’s own laws. That absent a state of war and then only for a five year period, all governments combined cannot tax in any form more than 20% of the economy or of a person’s total income as defined as all forms of revenue to the individual and that fictional persons be treated accordingly and that taxes paid by fictional persons be passed on to the actual persons who own them as a credit to taxes owed by them. That no one or no entity be exempted from taxation and that all taxes are levied equally without favor to any particular group or individuals. That only income earned in the US is subject to taxes in the US and only income earned in a particular state be taxed in that state and that merely having a casual connection to a state or one of it’s subdivisions does not constitute a presence for taxes. All public contracting be limited to the lowest cost competent and qualified bidder and not be subject to the highest prevailing wage rates or set asides for any groups. That all legislation enacted be required to be clear in language and easily understood by the average citizen, be specific in its intent and that it have a preamble explaining why the legislation is needed (the public good), it’s intent and it’s conformity to the constitution. Property rights are not to be be abridged without full compensation as determined by the property owner and that property taxes on an individual’s owned residence be eliminated as no one should be compelled to perpetually to rent one’s home. No government shall have sovereign immunity for criminal acts enacted against an individual who is a US citizen on US soil with respects to compensation for the harm to the person and the officials who committed the offense can be held criminally and civilly liable for those acts at their personal expense. And finally that laws be interpreted by the courts as contracts, to be interpreted as a plain reading of the text.
5. jon: your problems are your problems and not some else’s obligation.
cubanbob, you have a wishlist a mile long and a millimeter deep.
First of all, many counties and cities have odd boundaries, so “banning” gerrymanding would be meaningless since annexation would be the new gerrymanding method. Local city councils and boards of supervisors would trade areas for tax and election purposes, only they’d do it more.
Your constitutional amendment idea (amendments?) sounds ridiculous. Common law at the time of the enactment of the Constitution? And you want plain English as well? Hate to break your heart, kid, but common law at that time was enforced by dudes wearing wigs who wrote flowery prose and used effs for soft esses and there’s no way in hell we’re going back to a time where indentured servants and slaves were common and women were barely acknowledged by the law.
Third, your proposal to limit taxes to 20% presents a question of primacy: which government gets first dibs? Local, regional, state, or federal? Fictional persons? Do you mean corporations, or do you mean Mickey Mouse and Popeye and Hannah Montana?
Your property rights stuff would be ridiculous in practice, since letting the owner decide price is absurdist crap. If a highway or a water line is for the public good, then sometimes the market gets to set the rate of compensation for abridgments to the owners’ rights. I understand the reasons to hate government in many cases involving property laws, but let’s not go insanely to the other side of the spectrum.
As for my “problems” not being someone else’s obligation, I guess you’ll outlaw social security, military healthcare systems (Iraq probably has some nice hospitals, Afghanistan probably doesn’t,) Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and all other forms of welfare. And the same at the state and local levels as well. I’m guessing you won’t get much support, but go for it.
Also, when a thing has something, it is “its” thing. “It’s” is a contraction of “it is”. You’re welcome.