Reaping what the 2008 election sowed: undivided government
In the buildup to last November’s election I wasn’t an Obama fan, as anyone who reads this blog knows. But I was actually less concerned about Obama in the White House than about Obama in the White House plus the probability of a Congress (especially the Senate) becoming so filled with Democrats that the party would be able to pass virtually any legislation it so desired.
The power of the minority in Congress acts as a check on the majority, and this is true whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in the driver’s seat. This state of affairs is not an accident; it’s part of the wisdom of the original plan. It makes Congress a slow and ponderous body, but that’s by design—and it’s generally a good thing, if you look at the composition of that oh-so-august assemblage.
The current imbalance of power is reflected in this stimulus package: the unholy, mad rush to the passage of a bill that is partly a grab-bag of Democrat wishlists of the past decade or more, partly a group of meaty bones thrown to special interest groups, partly a set of economic interventions the consequences of which are poorly understood, and all of it expensive on an almost unimaginable scale that is nearly certain to beggar future generations.
Yes, the Republicans were hardly fiscal conservatives during the Bush years. But no, the Democrats would not be able to muscle this through if their majorities were not so overwhelming.
And it doesn’t really matter that, at least for now, the Democrats lack the sixty Senators they need for a veto-proof majority, or to prevent a filibuster. First of all, with Obama as President, they don’t really have to fear a veto. Secondly, the Republicans can’t filibuster everything. Thirdly, the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) such as Maine’s Susan Collins, instrumental in negotiations for the current stimulus bill, haven’t received that appellation for nothing (Maine is hardly a Republican state, despite its two Republican senators; it is blue through and through, except in its less-populous rural sections, and a “real” Republican hardly stands a chance of winning a statewide election).
This undivided government was the possibility/probability that concerned me most during the 2008 election. As I wrote then:
…the sort of thing I’m most concerned about this election””what Democrats (or any one party) can do with power. It’s not so much the possibility of an Obama Presidency””although that would be bad enough””but the possibility of an Obama Presidency plus a Congress so strongly Democratic that it might even be filibuster-proof. That combination could do very serious damage indeed…This is the prospect we face: all three branches dominated by the liberal side of the political coin, with no checks on their power but the ability of the people to vote them out next time in two of the branches. Even in the early years of the Bush administration when Republicans controlled all three branches of government, the conservative majority in the Court was very iffy and the breakdown in Congress was very close (at times a tie in the Senate). This time the power of the Democrats is likely to be far greater than that.
The last time so much imbalance occurred was during the Carter years…this was the composition of the Senate:
95th Congress (1977-1979)
Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
And this was the composition of the House:
95th Congress (1977-1979)
292 Democrats
143 Republicans
Well, we all know how well those years went. This could be worse.
And I’m not arguing that the same breakdown would be just fine if only Republicans were the party in power. They are quite capable of self-serving politicking, corruption, and wretched excesses—just different ones.
Could be worse? It is already worse. This bill is a deliberate attempt to ruin the economy and establish socialism in the US. Let’s face facts: this is a moderate recession, it is not a depression, no matter how much Obama whines and tries to instill fear of impending doom. Recessions are not the problem, they are the cure. They reset the economic clock to correct distortions largely instilled by government regulation (in this recession it is a direct result of government regulation of the housing and mortgage markets). The Democrats are going to over reach. The public is already waking up to what they are doing. Obama is a passive president, Pelosi and Reid are running the show domestically, internationally Obama has established a position of weakness to work from. And here it is only week four. The midterm elections are going to be devasting for the Democrats; Americans eventually wake up. Lets hope that when the 50 seat pick up happens in Congress in 2010, the Republicans will have the guts to stand by principle and shove back against this outrage.
I also had the same concern last fall, Neo. But, the Republicans partly did this to themselves, and then the economic meltdown sealed their fate. It’s obvious that the Left (with a capital L and includes BHO, Reid and Pelosi) see this as the golden opportunity to shove their socialism down America’s throat.
John said,
” this is a moderate recession, it is not a depression, no matter how much Obama whines and tries to instill fear of impending doom. Recessions are not the problem, they are the cure.”
How true. I’ve seen more great sales, etc. that are hard not to take advantage of recently. AND.. just today two items: Ford adding a shift to produce more F-150’s which are selling great, and the retail sales for January bumped up 1%. Small signs of this not being as bad as the Left would wish. However, wait until all that fake money that just passed the Congress begins flowing and watch the inflation rate go through the roof.
If I had known that Democrats were going to use the Iraq War to launch a sustained, deceitful, fifth column attack on the United States in order to take power, I would have opposed the war.
The real insurgents weren’t in Iraq.
I strongly doubt that any of the Democrats/RINOS/MSM Reporters etc. etc. have any idea of how much a $trillion dollars really is, The easiest way to get a handle on the number is to divide it by the number of households in the US (100 million) or the population (300 million). The answers are $10,000 per household or $3,333 per person.
Here’s another way to look at it. In 2007, the Feds took in $2.5 trillion in tax revenues. 45% of that came from individual income tax. That is a tad over $1 trillion. The stimulus will cost almost as much as individuals paid in federal taxes in 2007.
There is no way this is going to work; say good bye to the US economy.
I agree, Neo. And the problem will be compounded as it seems NO ONE, in any branch, will buck Obama. At least right now. And you’ve now got the Huffington Post in the Washington Press Corps.
It’s bleak and it is devastating.
There’s one bright note, though, the wall may be cracking, ever so slightly – Jon Stewart on Obama’s Presser,
I posted, just this morning, on the same issue, though much less eloquently.
forty-eight percent of us have the government fifty-two percent of us deserve.
“nearly certain to beggar future generations.”
and bugger.
Also, Richard Aubrey: LOL
Kudos to Richard Aubrey.
Richard Aubrey: So true.
If more people knew the history of the 20th century, they would have recognized a socialist when they saw one, and known why that was bad.
I have the temerity to suggest the majority Dems of the late ’70s were fairly simple in their corruption and venalities compared to the Forces of Darkness now dominating the Congress.
M. Savage may be right that leftwingedness is a disease, presumably communicable. How else to explain its spread, like spilled ink, from MA into ME. Surely the Mainers haven’t been replaced one by one with Bostonians? Has there been massive diluting in-migration? Has the metro Portland pop. doubled in 20yrs?