A Liberal Supermajority

**Splash Log** · 10-17-2008, 03:53 PM

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 Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.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.

A Liberal Supermajority - WSJ.com

**bio-chem** · 10-17-2008, 04:12 PM

yea, we are pretty much fucked

**KelJu** · 10-17-2008, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

yea, we are pretty much fucked

We are fucked either way. At least the democrats are offering to give a reach around.

**Prince** · 10-17-2008, 04:29 PM

we have been fucked for almost 8 years now.

**danzik17** · 10-17-2008, 05:11 PM

Just on the tax issue, please don't kid yourself. Both parties are going to raise taxes as there is no way around it. 8 years of reckless spending have all led up to this.

As for the NCLB law that is referred to, most teachers hate that law. It stifles creativity and curiosity which is the basis of learning and trades it for strict testing that doesn't differentiate between the strengths of different students. Just like one generic workout plan doesn't work for everyone, neither does one educational plan.

**Big Smoothy** · 10-17-2008, 05:31 PM

Filibustering by the GOP against the Dems has been rare, historically.

If, the Dems get a super majority I don't think it will matter that much.

Also, we don't know what the Dem Congress would be like. The Democratic party has shifted to the right, and is very Centered, except for a few members.

If Obama is the leader of the Dems (by winning) however, the Dems may just go along with his agenda like the Repubs in Congress did with GWB, never challenging him.

**bio-chem** · 10-17-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by KelJu

We are fucked either way. At least the democrats are offering to give a reach around.

taking my money to give to someone else is hardly a reach around.

i find any degree of socialism to be counter productive to the economy

**Big Smoothy** · 10-17-2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

taking my money to give to someone else is hardly a reach around.

i find any degree of socialism to be counter productive to the economy

The USA started down the road to socialism in the 1930s.

And, as Ronald Reagan predicted in the 1980s, Medicare will push the USA into socialism, and also possibly bring the country to its knees.

George W. Bush signed the Medicare expansion bill a couple of years ago. This was one of the biggest acts of socialism in decades.

Entitlements are now just over 50% of the budget. This....is....socialism.

And add the "bailout," and you have a form of "National Socialism."

Folks, the US has been heading toward socialism since the 1930s.

**KelJu** · 10-17-2008, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

taking my money to give to someone else is hardly a reach around.

i find any degree of socialism to be counter productive to the economy

I'll take socialism over corporate well fair anyday.

**min0 lee** · 10-17-2008, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

taking my money to give to someone else is hardly a reach around.

i find any degree of socialism to be counter productive to the economy

They don't even want to employ American workers, it's all being sent overseas and now the mess they created we the middle class have to pay for it.

I think a rich man can go become middle class and adjust in life.

A person can't go from middle to poor.

I'm in the middle class now, if I become poor my kids will suffer....do they care.....nope.

**bio-chem** · 10-17-2008, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

The Democratic party has shifted to the right, and is very Centered, except for a few members.

.

**bio-chem** · 10-17-2008, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

The USA started down the road to socialism in the 1930s.

And, as Ronald Reagan predicted in the 1980s, Medicare will push the USA into socialism, and also possibly bring the country to its knees.

George W. Bush signed the Medicare expansion bill a couple of years ago. This was one of the biggest acts of socialism in decades.

Entitlements are now just over 50% of the budget. This....is....socialism.

And add the "bailout," and you have a form of "National Socialism."

Folks, the US has been heading toward socialism since the 1930s.

agreed. FDR introduced socialism into the US. and as soon as a social program is started it doesn't go away and only gets bigger. can you imagine what would happen if social security is voted out?

Bush also signed the DRA wich limited the amount of reimbursements given to hospitals for medicare/medicaid.

**bio-chem** · 10-17-2008, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by KelJu

I'll take socialism over corporate well fair anyday.

I don't want either.

**danzik17** · 10-17-2008, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

agreed. FDR introduced socialism into the US. and as soon as a social program is started it doesn't go away and only gets bigger. can you imagine what would happen if social security is voted out?

Bush also signed the DRA wich limited the amount of reimbursements given to hospitals for medicare/medicaid.

Oh I don't know. I guess I could start by having 5+% of my paycheck back. Better returns on retirement savings. Possibly an increase in my 401K match since my company won't need to do a dollar match on SS taxes.

.........wait why is this POS government program still around?

**tallcall** · 10-18-2008, 09:14 AM

I fail to see how anything on that list is inherently bad. Also, this isn't the same party of the 30's and 60's because of the playbook of sorts that Barry Goldwater was famous for helping to write. Both parties were dragged further to the conservative side of the political spectrum and seem to have stayed slightly to the right or left of the Goldwater standard (that's just what I call it) since the end of the 60's.

Think about it, Civil Rights legislation was very widespread and sweeping. LBJ had to virtually bully all southern states to accept it as well as their representatives and senators - a very powerful federal government trying to ensure everyone's rights. We have since had 8 years of conservative control (Nixon and Ford), 4 years with a liberal in office (Carter), then 12 more years with conservatives in office (Reagan and Bush Sr), 8 years with a liberal (Clinton) and are now finishing up 8 more years with another Bush. Since LBJ left office we have had a conservative in office for 28 years (total of 5 people), and a liberal in office for 12 (total of 2 people), that's accounting for the last 40 years as of January 20th, 2009. That's is a very conservative swing to me. I cannot remember much about congress and do not doubt that it is rare to see the congress and president controlled by the same party, but I still see a major paradigm shift.

I don't like the democrats because they have lost their balls. I want to see people more willing to fight for what they want and for what those of us that elected them want out of Washington, I believe we are not being well represented by either party (I still love Hilary because I think she's more of a pitbull and seems to have more balls than anyone else in her party). I will most likely go with a third party candidate.

McCain isn't so bad, but the company he keeps and the flip-flopping he's doing on some things make me think that all those years as a POW being tortured have changed him. He really makes me nervous since his VP choice seems to want to speed up the rapture and he's going against his "maverick" spirit by towing the party lines (I wish he'd also be more brazen and independant, I had a lot of hope for him had he chosen to go with more independantly minded people).

I'm thinking of voting Libertarian and I might feel better with Bob Barr in office (I kind of liked him before anyways).

**tallcall** · 10-18-2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Oh I don't know. I guess I could start by having 5+% of my paycheck back. Better returns on retirement savings. Possibly an increase in my 401K match since my company won't need to do a dollar match on SS taxes.

.........wait why is this POS government program still around?

Social (In)Security needs to be phased out. It only works when there are two or three active workers to one retiree (to help support them). It must be done slowly so people close to retirement can save enough money to make up for the shortfall and lessen the burden on the relatively fewer workers left to support them.

Social Security was a good idea for it's time, but I don't think it was ever meant to be around this long. Besides, I'd much rather have money in the bank and build my own retirement fund.

**bio-chem** · 10-18-2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Oh I don't know. I guess I could start by having 5+% of my paycheck back. Better returns on retirement savings. Possibly an increase in my 401K match since my company won't need to do a dollar match on SS taxes.

.........wait why is this POS government program still around?

rational arguments will not be allowed in a political thread. how many times do i have to warn you? only emotionaly biased sentiments will be allowed from now on.

**bio-chem** · 10-18-2008, 11:55 AM

hell i consider myself a conservative and I feel it is about time for a third party to emerge that can take on these other two.

**Witchblade** · 10-18-2008, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

hell i consider myself a conservative and I feel it is about time for a third party to emerge that can take on these other two.

No way, a THIRD? I don't think America could handle that many options. Thing would get all complicated and stuff.

**bio-chem** · 10-18-2008, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Witchblade

No way, a THIRD? I don't think America could handle that many options. Thing would get all complicated and stuff.

you may be right. can one imagine what would happen if we were actually given a choice in an election other than which is the worst of two evils?

**danzik17** · 10-18-2008, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by bio-chem

hell i consider myself a conservative and I feel it is about time for a third party to emerge that can take on these other two.

Ron Paul in 2012.

Maybe by then the country will realize we need a true fiscal conservative in office and not one of these phonys.

**tallcall** · 10-18-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Ron Paul in 2012.

Maybe by then the country will realize we need a true fiscal conservative in office and not one of these phonys.

**min0 lee** · 10-18-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by danzik17

Ron Paul in 2012.

Maybe by then the country will realize we need a true fiscal conservative in office and not one of these phonys.

If he doesn't die of natural causes....he's old.

**danzik17** · 10-18-2008, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by min0 lee

If he doesn't die of natural causes....he's old.

Yea

I think what he has done over the last year is incredible. He has ensured that his way of thinking and political views will outlast him by energizing much of the youth of this country and making them believe in his ideals.

**Big Smoothy** · 10-18-2008, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by tallcall

Social (In)Security needs to be phased out. It only works when there are two or three active workers to one retiree

I haven't paid into Social Insecurity in about 6 years, or so.

By law, once you have an SS number, you have to pay into SS by law.

Correct me if I'm wrong on these numbers, but is it still:

Employer: 6.3%
Worker : 6.3%

That is 12.6%

Add the medical (FICA?) at 1.5%

Total is: 14.1%

Now, dive a 40 hour work week by 14.1 and this = xxx

Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't filed for taxes in at least 6 years.

**danzik17** · 10-18-2008, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

I haven't paid into Social Insecurity in about 6 years, or so.

By law, once you have an SS number, you have to pay into SS by law.

Correct me if I'm wrong on these numbers, but is it still:

Employer: 6.3%
Worker : 6.3%

That is 12.6%

Add the medical (FICA?) at 1.5%

Total is: 14.1%

Now, dive a 40 hour work week by 14.1 and this = xxx

Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't filed for taxes in at least 6 years.

You do realize SS/Medicare taxes are taken out of each paycheck. You don't file anything, you just pay them with no choice. The only way you are avoiding them is if you are paid under the table.

**brogers** · 10-19-2008, 12:13 AM

Regarding SS, I'd encourage people to examine Chile's retirement fund system.

The Current State of Chile's Private Pension System

**bio-chem** · 10-19-2008, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't filed for taxes in at least 6 years.

then you shouldn't be allowed to vote

**Prince** · 10-19-2008, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't filed for taxes in at least 6 years.

seriously?

**tallcall** · 10-19-2008, 11:08 AM

He said he doesn't live in the United States and hasn't for a while (probably at least 6 years). So he doesn't pay U.S. taxes and probably doesn't vote in our elections, but seems to know what he's talking about.

Thread: A Liberal Supermajority

Thread Tools

Display

A Liberal Supermajority

Similar Threads

How To Speak Liberal

How Liberal/Conservative are you?

Where Liberal Leaders Come From

Liberal Media

Liberal Media BS

Posting Permissions