« New Poll Says Republicans, Conservatives Happier Than Left Wing Counterparts | Main | Coddling Criminals: Sometimes The System Works »
April 01, 2009
Democrats' New Message Unimaginative and Uninspired
The Democrats are on the cusp of finally releasing their newly figured out agenda. Nancy Pelosi offered a few points.
In a speech to the Communications Workers of America on Tuesday, Pelosi mentioned Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. She said Democrats will end tax subsidies for companies that send jobs overseas.She also said Democrats support the "right of all Americans to organize," a sentiment that goes over well with labor unions such as the CWA.
To protect workers who want to join unions, Pelosi said Democrats are "fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the Senate. "The bill will guarantee that when a majority of workers in a company want a union, they will get a union," Pelosi said.
Democrats also support an increase in the minimum wage. Pelosi, describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used Wal-Mart to make her point:
"I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite -- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must change that in our country," she said.
Pelosi also mentioned the Democrats' "Innovation Agenda" to maintain America's leadership role in the global economy.
America lags behind other countries that have universal broadband deployment, Pelosi said; but the Democrats' agenda "guarantees" that every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.
"We also believe that the nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband and Internet and mobile communications will fuel the development of millions of new jobs in the United States," Pelosi said.
Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.
In short, the agenda is anti-outsourcing, pro-union, minimum wage increasing, tax-payer subsidized broadband internet, and energy independence.
Besides the typical issues that are nothing new for Democrats, at least not new enough to trot out as a new agenda after years of having no agenda other than "we hate Bush," this new agenda lacks innovation. Some of the items will bring our economy backwards from the progress made over the past 5 years, others ensure an increase in taxes, and yet others, are simply showboating.
Affordable broadband? Why should I pay taxes so that people who probably can’t afford a computer get cheap high-speed access to the internet? You know where that will lead to... if we're going to give them high speed access; we better give them a computer too.
Energy independence? Heck, that's not new, President Bush has been advocating this for a long time, and besides that, Democrats have worked feverishly to stop all initiatives for the US to become energy independent. Wind farms like the Cape Wind Project, and drilling for oil in ANWR, are a few prospects for the United States to become more energy independent that Democrats have led the charge against.
Pelosi's remarks on Wal-Mart are just stupid. Is it fair that an entry level person at Wal-Mart makes in his or her entire career what the CEO makes in two weeks? You bet it is fair--but I'm sure raising the minimum wage by $0.15/hr will help close the gap. Will she also whine about congressmen who make less than, say, the House Minority Leader? No, because she's the House Minority Leader, and is in the top tier already, earning close to $20,000 more than the base salary for a typical congressman. So will she accept a pay cut? Yeah, right. Her example is nothing more than promoting communistic ideology. No dice.
One of the last things we need is more unions, and making it easier, if not, required creation of unions sounds like a Big Government scam. Why is the government getting involved in private business? Don't the democrats often criticize the Bush Administration for their increased spending (hence, bigger government) while they propose the same thing?
This new agenda is all about pandering to Democratic special interest, like the unions. The sad thing is, it took the democrats a long, long time to come with nothing new.
Posted by Aaron at April 1, 2009 12:00 AM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Yikes, I agree with Aaron on almost every point. This is a first. Seriously!
The only thing I outright disagree with is the issue of broadband subsidies. He's very right that broadband is useless without a computer, but I still think making it cheaply _available_ to everyone is a good thing. I think the internet is a great vehicle for democratic deliberation, and thus should be made more broadly available. Also, I think as the education and skillsets of foreigners improves, one of the few things we can offer as an advantage to doing business in the US is infrastructure. This includes transportation, something else that could stand some federal investment. Our infrastructure could definitely use some investment on many fronts. It's not very sexy, but it could be crucial.
Another point of disagreement is about energy. While I agree that the democrats aren't offering anything here, I don't think this administration provides a useful contrast. Steps in this direction have been miniscule and symbolic. If you look at the projected production of ANWR, it's not significant. The **ONLY** way we'll achieve anything resembling energy independence is if we develop significant new technology. Wind-power, solar, and a couple stray oil fields are not going to cut it, not even close.
This is an important issue for another reason: the approach of peak oil. Some say it may have already passed, but even the most optimistic government reports place it around 2035, 2045 at the latest. That's not much time in the grand scheme of things. And I really don't buy the "market will handle it" shrug-off that one often encounters. Sure it might, but the market doesn't care if you starve. The invisible hand could easily turn into an America-crushing fist. Let's hope those tales of accoustically-driven fusion from Purdue are onto something.
Posted by Some Fella
at March 15, 2006 07:18 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.


