January 18, 2007
The Democrats' 100 Hour DebacleThe Democrats can say all they want about their 100-Hour Plan... They may even call it a success, but don't be fooled, it's been a joke since before it even began.
When they first started talking about it, it was the "first 100 hours."
It was later revised to the first "100 legislative hours."
While the Democratic agenda has been characterized by some critics as unambitious, the goal of getting it accomplished in 100 hours has certainly not — if anything, it has been described as unrealistic.
So talk of 100 hours became talk of 100 legislative hours. According to a search of the Nexis database, Pelosi’s first reported use of the phrase “100 legislative hours” was on October 27, when she wrote, in a letter to USA Today, that “in our first 100 legislative hours in office, we have a bipartisan and achievable plan” to enact the new agenda.
It was changed again to mean only the time spent on the Democrat's agenda.
The clock is ticking for House Democrats, but it's hard to tell what time it is.This is the sad reality that House Democrats hope people won't notice. While normal people wish there were more hours in the day, only Nancy Pelosi seems to be able to make time mean whatever she wants.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was touting a plan to push six bills through a Democratic House in 100 hours or less as early as June of last year. She has passed the halfway point - in just over 23 hours, according to her count.
But Democrats aren't counting minutes spent on business unrelated to those six bills.
So while the House has been in session for almost 48 hours since the 110th Congress was sworn in Jan. 4, the clock on Pelosi's Web site says only 23 hours and 34 minutes have elapsed. (Associated Press, January 12, 2007)
No matter how you count the 100 hours, it's tough to even call it a success. Democrats, in their own twisted version of "bipartisanship" shut Republicans out of the process, resulting in really flawed legislation that will have one of two destinies: Significant revision in the Senate, or President Bush's veto.
So, while Democrats may think they've done something significant, they really haven't accomplished much at all.
In a statement, Rep. Jeb Hensarling said, "The Democrats' 100 hours agenda has accomplished very little for people and families across America. On the other hand, they have done a great deal to expand government dependency and control at the expense of individual empowerment, incentive, and private enterprise. And it should be noted that while it took Democrats even less than 100 hours to raise taxes, not 1 cent is going to deficit reduction."
"Thus far, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have attempted to: empower the federal government to set drug prices that are already being successfully negotiated in the free market; federally fund research that destroys human embryos; federally mandate a higher wage that will keep younger workers from job opportunities; push students into a federally run bureaucratic loan program; and federally impose billions in fees and taxes that will cost American workers jobs and cause millions of Americans to become even more dependent on foreign oil. That is a whole lot of federal."Yet, for some strange reason, Democrats are proud of themselves.
"Though very few of these agenda items will actually become law in their current form, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats clearly have chosen to empower the federal government over families in America."
Posted by Matt Margolis on January 18, 2007 08:13 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/4606
Comments
OK.
1) Pelosi's clock wrangling is bullshit. However, even if you are counting hours the House was in session, it's still under 50 hours, even though Pelosi's count is flawed. This is a BIG improvement from GOP Houses that were out of session for most of January.
2) Democrats promised to push through bills, and they did it. Did I like that they excluded Republicans from negotiating those bills? Not really, though I don't know how much of that statement is true. And please, please. After 12 years of GOP abuse of the House Majority, Republicans have no right to complain about the issue. It doesn't make it right, but no crying about it. Let's see how Pelosi handles it now that these bills are done with.
3) The Senate has only, so far, passed a version of the Ethics Bill. And that is actually much more stringint than the House version. So I don't see how you can play off that Nancy is too left-wing to accomplish anything. It will still most likely run afould of a Bush veto (if it even needs to go there), but we'll see.
4) Jeb Hensarling saying that the Dems are pushing students into a bueraucratic loan system is a lie. That's already how government-funded student loans work. Believe me, I'm a college student, I know. The Dems just cut the interest. In my opinion, that helps me a LOT. I will even be able to contribute to society and earn my own money faster as I leave school and get a job. Democrats helping people? GASP! I hope you aren't breaking out in hives!
5) Embryonic stem cell research is massively popular. Republicans tried to push through the same type of bill last Congress. The righteous indignation is nothing but the hollow gripings of the minority. On the plus side, I hope amnyotic stem cells yield some positive results; then we won't need to have this silly debate. Though, I'd rather them go through the processes of determining which line (amnyotic, embryonic, or adult) works better. These embryos are going to be discarded anyway. What is more 'moral'? Throwing an embryo into a garbage can, or sacrificing it to attempt to alieviate actual human suffering?
6) I believe the new minimum wage allows for a 60 day 'training wage' for people under 20 of $5.15/hour. Although, that might just be the PA raise that was unconnected to the federal attempt. Don't quote me on that. And, the raise isn't for young people. It's targeted for parents having to live at or near minimum wage. And it's still a disgrace that our minimum wage (extended to a yearly, full-time salary) will be below the poverty line for a family. It is different complaining about these issues in Europe (see France), because their minimum wages are closer to a living wage to begin with, and more workers work near the minimum wage. And, for instance in France the minimum wage is pegged to a version of CPI. It is the exact opposite case in America.
7) Need I go on?
Posted by: NovaNardis at January 20, 2007 02:58 AM
Post a comment
