By Patrick O'Connor
February 8, 2005
During a Sunday morning interview on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) repeatedly declined to discuss specific Democratic alternatives to the Bush plan, focusing instead on the party’s broad goals for reform and the need to give Democrats a seat at the negotiating table.
This strategy is only partially voluntary, said one senior Democratic aide who did not want to be named, and is partly forced on the opposition by circumstances. As the minority in both houses of Congress, and with a Republican in the White House, the Democrats have no say in reform discussions unless Republicans invite them in.
Thus, the Democrats are biding their time and leaving it to the press and a handful of Republicans on the Hill to scrutinize the administration’s plan as details trickle out, the aide said. Democrats, meanwhile, are not forced to show their own cards.
“When you’re in the minority, you don’t have the luxury of delivering a defined plan,” the aide said. “Coming out with details of what we would do is irrelevant. Why take the criticism without the result?”
Patrick,
Actually, I think that's a good strategy. As far as the charge of obstructionism, that can be countered by pointing out how disastrous the Bush administration policies have been for America. I can't think of one, but perhaps you may know of just one of his policies that did not cause more problems than it cured.
For the Democrats to enter into the debate, they give political cover to the administration. It allows the Repulicans to say "see everyone agrees that there is a crisis, but they're just quibbling over the details". The plain fact is, is that there is NO Social Security crisis. Period. Since I started working 40 something years ago, I've been hearing that Soc Sec is only about 10 years or so from bankruptcy. And guess what, it's still there, 10 years or so from bankruptcy.
Until such time as Mr Bush actually proposes something that will help the majority of Americans, the only moral stand is to obstruct. To refuse to lend any bi-partisan face to any of it.
Mr Krugman, in today's NY Times, has a column speaking of Mr Bush's class-warfare budget. How moral is it to give tax breaks to those who don't need them, and strip away the safety net for the needy to pay for them.
How moral is it to present lies and exaggerations to justify an invasion of Iraq, with all that came out of that particular Pandora's Box. I'm sure you remember that in 2001, both Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice told us in speeches that Saddam Hussein was completely contained, and no threat to us, or his neighbors.
To return to the present debate, the only way that Mr Bush's "private accounts" can work, is for the economy to grow at a good pace. Now, of course, if that should happen, there will be more money placed into the Social Security trust fund. What Mr Bush is saying, is that the economy will be moribund, and so Soc Sec will run out of money, but the economy will grow at such a pace that those private accounts will give a return that will allow them to live a dignified retirement.
Such contradictions make me say "Go away, little man, and bring me something real."
No comments:
Post a Comment