the Democrats basically have no plans for anything other than asset redistributions to special-interest groups...and vietnamization- maybe they'll all get one of john kerry's hats? http://www.slate.com/id/2153062/fr/rss/ [rquoter]Pelosi's PlatformHow the Democrats could govern if they win the House. By Michael Kinsley Posted Monday, Nov. 6, 2006, at 9:16 PM ET What will a Democratic House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi be like? The Republicans have been painting an unattractive portrait of Democrats roasting young children on a spit in the Capitol rotunda and whatnot. Hoping for a more encouraging view, I picked up "A New Direction for America," a 31-page manifesto released to little acclaim by House Democrats in June. By all means, read it. But do me a favor and vote first. The document is full of bromides, of course, and like all good bromides, they come in threes. The Democrats promise "security, prosperity, and opportunity" in "diverse, safe, and vibrant communities." Not to mention "integrity, civility and fiscal discipline." They will "protect Americans, secure our borders, and restore our country's position of international leadership" through "homeland, energy, and diplomatic strategies." And we're just up to Page 3. The two favorite words of Democrats on the cusp of power seem to be "tax credit." They promise to "modernize" the tax credit for research and development; to "expand and improve" the already ludicrously complex system of tax-deductible retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s (and "match dollar-for-dollar" the first $1,000 a person puts in); a "100% tax credit for tuition up to $3000." They want a "broadband tax credit" for Internet access in "rural and underserved areas." Click Here! They call for a 50 percent tax credit for employee health insurance paid for by small businesses, as their solution to the health-care crisis. Needless to say, they love the tax credit for ethanol production, and want to expand it for "local" ethanol producers. And—my favorite—they want a tax credit to cover the administrative costs of "encourag[ing] employers to offer their employees the option to convert their retirement plan into an annuity when they retire." I don't know what that last one is about, but I smell an interested party. It's just not the kind of thing that anyone thinks up who doesn't have some skin in the game. Democrats call for ending the "Disabled Veterans Tax" and the "Military Families Tax." The what? There cannot be any such thing as a Disabled Veterans Tax. It is a label dreamed up by people wanting special treatment, like the Republicans' brilliant "Death Tax" for the estate tax. Maybe they deserve it, maybe they don't. But why can't we leave this bullying by terminology to Newt Gingrich? The problem with tax credits in general is that they never appear in the budget, so they never get the same scrutiny as direct spending, although their impact on the deficit is exactly the same. By definition, they cost more than whatever benefit they are intended to achieve, since no one is going to be induced to spend an extra dollar on, say, dance lessons (because some member of Congress has decided that it would be good for the country if more people knew how to dance) unless the subsidy is worth more than a dollar. Tax subsidies often go to Person X to help Person Y (e.g. to a corporation to help its employees), and Person X gets a slice of the benefit—often a big slice. And the distributional consequences are rarely examined. For example, tax credits are just one of several new subsidies the Democrats propose for college education. Why should a young person who is out working and paying taxes subsidize someone in college who will soon be better off, if he or she isn't already? Fairness is one of the three qualities that need to be restored to American public life after six years of George W. Bush and 12 years of French-Revolution-turned-French-farce on Capitol Hill. The other two are honesty and competence. Honesty is not just therapeutic. Fiscal honesty is a practical necessity. "New Direction" quite rightly denounces the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Republican leaders, and duly promises "pay as you go" spending. But in the entire document there is not one explicit revenue raiser to balance the many specific and enormous new spending programs and tax credits. Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter, do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to "assum[e] primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces. Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization—the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat." Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document—although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My fear is that the House Democrats may try to use it as a basis for governing.[/rquoter]
Their plan sounds pretty good, of course the partisan bickering and editorializing I will overlook. It is far better than the Bush plan where the wealthy get breaks and make no sacrifices towards the war in Iraq. The middle and lower class shoulders the burden, and the President has no plan other than just staying there with too few troops to win, and makes matters worse and worse. Meanhwile he doesn't hold anyone accountable. I've seen what the GOP plan for control has looked like. It was beyond bad. It is time for a different plan.
I find it odd that you quote the Iraq part. You do realize the GOP plan for Iraq is "just keep getting people killed and pretend it's not happening." Are you really wanting to compare GOP and Dem plans (on anything, really)?
The reality is that at this point there is no plan for Iraq that stands a chance of not being a catastrophe. That's where Bush and his Republican enablers have led us... where this country has to choose between a terrible policy and an abhorrent policy. It also doesn't matter what the Dems plan is because it won't be implemented regardless of what happens today. Bush is still President and he ain't going anywhere until 2008. The Iraq War is so part of his identity that there is no way he's going to change, much less take on anything suggested by Dems. I have to believe there have been Repubs, like those from Dad's cabinet, who have tried to talk with Bush/Cheney, but obviously to no avail. If anyone thinks this administration is not going to act on advice from serious Republicans and then turn around and let Dems dictate anything on Iraq, then you're not paying attention. A Dem victory today does nothing but further harden the administration's resolve to stay the course. If Dems win today, they have two choices for Iraq... try not to let things get further out of control, chip away at the "policy" edges, try to make incremental improvements, try to get more info about what has happened and what is happening or provoke a constitutional crisis with an administration that does not value the Constitution. Just as there is no good choice or plan for the US in Iraq, there is no good choice for Dems. This administration and the president are killing this country, literally and figuratively.
Here we go, we are talking about plans again. Running a government is just like running a construction project. If the plan failed miserably, you either had a bad plan, or bad execution, or both. If the executions were totally wrong, you fire all the engineers and replace them with new ones, meanwhile you also have to hold the head or chief architect for hiring those bad engineers. However, if you can't point out what exact part was wrong in execution, that just means you can't blame those engineers or commanders but the chief architect and his assistants. No matter how one spins with "complicated circumstance", it's still a bad plan from bad architect. He and his assistants need to go. Who's going to design the next plan, or whether the project gets cancelled, or whatever next plan looks like, the bad architect and his assistants have NO say, nor do they have any clue to judge. Let them go is the first step, and a must step. Whatever happens next is the second step, and it's irrelevant to the first one.
"No doubt -- let me say to you, if you've got a relative in the military, I wouldn't have your loved one in the theater if I didn't think we'd win. (Applause.) I can't look at the mothers and fathers and husbands and wives of those who wear our uniform who may be in Iraq, and say, it's noble, but not think I can -- we can win the -- the only way we can win is if we leave before the job is -- I mean, the only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done. That's the only way." --Bush, yesterday Boy, do Dem plans sound really stupid compared to this well-thought out policy put forth by our President.
Did he do it again yesterday? I know he flubbed the line last week. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e07uIcQMFlE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e07uIcQMFlE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
The mere fact that the Dems might be able to take control of the Congress without having to state a "plan" shows how much of a failure the Republican "plan" has been for the last six years.
Hawking can formulate a logical thought and understands English. EDIT: Besides, he's barred from the presidency by the Constitution.
Moreover, Hawking has written books, which speaks to his literacy, whereas Bush has acknowledged that he doesn't even read the newspaper, much less PDBs.
Virginia too... Sources: Turnout in Virginia may reach historic levels http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/sources-turnout-in-virginia-may-reach.html
bingo. it's time for a change. period. nothing the republicans can do to change that. hopefully most Americans feel the same way as i do. :fingerscrossed
Basso, bummer for you!!! Pelosi is what you get after the Repubs pretended that oversight was so pre-911.
