There is no question that George Bush has been a disappointment on some fronts and there is no question that he has done a great job on others. We Bush supporters are usually able to see a mixed bag, appreciate the good and complain/speak out/write our elected officials re the bad.
The Republicans have also been a disappointment on some fronts--most notably in pork barrel spending, their failure to roll back some of the more damaging legislation that has gone onto the books in the last decade or so, and in their failure to address the immigration problem head on. If the execution has been less than exemplary, they have performed commendably on policies related to taxes, the War on Terror, and judicial nominations.
So with the Democrats now salivating at the possibility of them regaining control of Congress in November, we should probably look at what that will mean:
Back to the Congressional Future
Let's think about how the Democrats would govern.
Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
With a little more than two months to go before midterm elections, the polls show Democrats well positioned to win the House after 12 years out of power. So it's not too soon to consider who these Democrats are and how they would govern.
All the more so because we've seen most of these faces and their agenda before.
While Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi would be a new Speaker of the House, the 19 primary committee chairmen who would dominate hearings, issue subpoenas and write legislation are agents of change only in the sense of going back to the future. They represent the same liberal priorities that bedeviled Bill Clinton's attempt to govern as a New Democrat from 1993-94, and before that Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.
To pick one example, 13 of the 19 voted against the welfare reform that Mr. Clinton signed in 1996 and hailed this month as a triumph of "bipartisanship."
Republicans have done little to deserve re-election, and so perhaps voters will ignore Democratic priorities. But one of the ironies of current politics is that a swing in only 15 House seats would result in a huge ideological shift in the legislative agenda. Most of the House seats in play are "swing" districts held by political moderates. The most liberal seats also tend to be the safest and thus are held by Members who can stay around for the decades needed to become chairmen. Their agenda is not the one those "swing" voters would be endorsing.
Consider the man likely to run the Judiciary Committee, Michigan's John Conyers, from the Congressional class of 1964. He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverup in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance."
The report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.
If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.
Ways and Means, the chief economic policy panel, would go to New York's Charlie Rangel (1970), who opposed the Bush tax cuts and recently voted against free trade with tiny Oman. His committee's crucial health care subcommittee would be run by California's Pete Stark (1972), who in 1993 criticized Hillary Clinton's health care proposal because the government wasn't dominant enough. Over at Financial Services, the ascension of Barney Frank (1980) would mean a reprieve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite $16 billion in accounting scandals. His main reform priority has been to carve out a new affordable housing fund from the two companies' profits. And forget about any major review of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Energy and Commerce would return to the untender mercies of John Dingell, the longest-serving Member first elected in 1955, who was a selective scourge of business when he ran the committee before 1994. The Michigan Congressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford. But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form of Net neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a real possibility.
Remember organized labor? Their champion would be George Miller (1974), who as the man in line to run the education and labor committee is the chief sponsor of the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would make it much easier for unions to organize by largely banning secret elections. Instead, union operatives would be allowed to publicly hound workers into signing "cards" that are counted as votes toward unionization. The Californian also wants to raise the minimum wage and fulfill the National Education Association wish to spend more federal dollars on local school construction.
We also can't forget California's Henry Waxman (1974), among the most partisan liberals and who at Government Reform would compete with Mr. Conyers to see who could issue the most subpoenas to the Bush Administration. And then there's Alcee Hastings, who, should Ms. Pelosi succeed in pushing aside current ranking Member Jane Harman, would take over the House Intelligence Committee. Before he won his Florida seat in 1992, Mr. Hastings had been a federal judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democratic Congress for lying to beat a bribery rap. He would handle America's most vital national secrets.
There would certainly be exceptions to this left-wing revival. Missouri's Ike Skelton (1976) supports a larger military and wouldn't mean much of a change at Armed Services. Colin Peterson (1990) of Minnesota wouldn't change the pro-subsidy bent of the GOP at Agriculture, and Minnesota's James Oberstar (1974) couldn't possibly be worse at Transportation than Alaska Republican Don Young.
The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008877
