A Liberal Supermajority

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
First off I do not plan on voting Obama as I consider my political interests in the Moderate-Conservative sector. However, I am not a strong supporter of McCain as a candidate (and if anything my vote in NY will amount to nothing on his behalf anyway), but if there's a bona-fide reason to vote Republican this election, this article nails that ideology on the head:


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 Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.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

Original Article
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Bad news for the country if they get total control of the government.

The union thing is really scary. I would assume that we will see dozens of lawsuits the second the card law goes into effect.
That is ONE issue that should have came up at the debates.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Topic Title: A Liberal Supermajority
Topic Summary: WSJ: "Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933"

:thumbsup: :cool: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: winnar111

You get the government you vote for.

Exactly! That's why I'm voting for Obama. :D

Strangely enough, I don't like my own Democratic Representative, and I don't intend to vote for him, but he's running unopposed. :p
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
They, Republicans, had their chance and they didn't just blow it, they blew it big time.
It's time for change.
btw when you quote the WSJ you're quoting FoxNews now that Murdoch owns both.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Topic Title: A Liberal Supermajority
Topic Summary: WSJ: "Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933"

:thumbsup: :cool: :thumbsup:

To each his own. But putting your faith in the other party getting a turn with the rubber-stamp is a dangerous thing to wish for.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Gee ... Rupert Murdoch promoting fear of Democrats through the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Like no one saw this coming ...
 

Drakkon

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
8,401
1
0
Lets be clear - this is an OPINION piece and not a true article. I don't want a super majority for sure but the stuff this guy is spewing sounds like tin foil hat and not true representation of what is a valid concern.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Drakkon
Lets be clear - this is an OPINION piece and not a true article. I don't want a super majority for sure but the stuff this guy is spewing sounds like tin foil hat and not true representation of what is a valid concern.

Just like those opinions that denounce a McCain Presidency as another 4 years of Bush? It works both ways.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Originally posted by: Drakkon
Lets be clear - this is an OPINION piece and not a true article. I don't want a super majority for sure but the stuff this guy is spewing sounds like tin foil hat and not true representation of what is a valid concern.

Just like those opinions that denounce a McCain Presidency as another 4 years of Bush? It works both ways.


Well, this is a Rupert Murdoch/FoxNews opinion piece.
/nuff said
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,929
1,097
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Topic Title: A Liberal Supermajority
Topic Summary: WSJ: "Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933"

:thumbsup: :cool: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: winnar111

You get the government you vote for.

Exactly! That's why I'm voting for Obama. :D

Strangely enough, I don't like my own Democratic Representative, and I don't intend to vote for him, but he's running unopposed. :p

So you agree with the union position listed above?
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bad news for the country if they get total control of the government.

The union thing is really scary.
as long as it's less scary then all the wars you red want to start every decade.

 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Originally posted by: Drakkon
Lets be clear - this is an OPINION piece and not a true article. I don't want a super majority for sure but the stuff this guy is spewing sounds like tin foil hat and not true representation of what is a valid concern.

Just like those opinions that denounce a McCain Presidency as another 4 years of Bush? It works both ways.


Well, this is a Rupert Murdoch/FoxNews opinion piece.
/nuff said

Coming from the one quotes The Enquirer in the post below me :laugh:

Every article is an "opinion piece" no matter if it's Fox, CNN, or MSN. Don't like that? Then go watch the Senate and House talk on c-span then.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,591
3,425
136
What a joke. The WSJ has always been a cheerleader for the deregulation that has led to the implosion of the financial sector and extra government spending potentially in the trillions. As well as being supporters of preemptive wars that will end up costing at least another trillion. To then come back and say they're against "big government" and higher taxes is a total crock. I'd say their opinion on anything isn't worth the paper it's printed on at this point.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Harvey

Strangely enough, I don't like my own Democratic Representative, and I don't intend to vote for him, but he's running unopposed. :p

write yourself in
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
- 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.

This is just laughable. For starters, I question the legitimacy of any group claiming that universal voter registration would be a bad thing because it would cement Democratic rule for years to come. Voting is a civic duty - if you disagree, I believe you are anti-democracy. Keep in mind I'm maintaining the distinction between duty and legal mandate. Also if you feel like everyone voting would be bad for your party for years to come, then maybe its time to start rethinking your platform, eh???

It's also patently bizarre to hear someone claiming that the FCC or supermajority left would be responsible for shutting down dissent. Last I checked - the left was pro first-amendment, far moreso than the right. Not to mention that media consolidation is a BIG problem, and if all media is owned by a select few parent companies that is decidedly bad for any democracy. The right is of course far more likely to let the Murdoch's of the world consolidate and take over, given ideological position on industry regulation. The left however would be more willing to pursue anti-trust against these conglomerates in order to ensure good business, and good democracy.

As for the other parts of the article, especially wrt the effects of tax increases, I find that hard to believe. Can someone more financially experienced break down those claims - that raising taxes on the wealthy will "substantially increase the cost of investment" and therefore stunt the economy?
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
The article does indeed sensationalize the possible outcomes of a Democratic controlled Government, but to say that this is what we need after what six years of a Republican one got us is just naive. Checks and balances anyone?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
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.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 (Jon Tester, Jim Webb for example) are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too far to the left.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Gee ... Rupert Murdoch promoting fear of Democrats through the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Like no one saw this coming ...

Probably an effort to get out the Repub vote.(I.e., you don't have to vote for, but instead against..)

Fern
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Damn shame we didn't have any 'checks and balances' under six years of George Bush and the corrupt Republican Congress ...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Balt
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.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too liberal.

Shh... the Pubs hate it when you even hint at the fact that large numbers of Democrats are moderate or even conservative. They are ALL commies, do you hear? Every last one of them! Rush said so!
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
You simply need to take a look at Obama's largest contributors to understand what direction the Obama nation would take. It's just more of the same, only different somehow,,,,changed??