You're just too fast for me, Cyclo.
I finished writing a response when I saw your post. Mine pretty much echoes yours. But why waste a post? It took me long enough to finish it!
Quote: Tax Increases. From the liberal perspective the good news is that the major Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. So if the Democrats simply do nothing, the tax rates on lower-income individuals will rise to 15% from 10% and on higher incomes to 39.6% from 35%. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin says that tax increases are the only way to solve the nation's fiscal problems, so that will be the Democratic strategy.
Neither Du Pont or the Republican party suggest an alternative way to solve the nation's fiscal problems.
Quote: Spending Increases. The incoming House leadership says it will hold spending flat for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Perhaps, but for liberal Democrats spending increases are political no-brainers: appropriate more and expand the government to make the country better. And if the deficit grows, well, that's because of the Bush tax cuts, not the Democratic spending increases. Historically Democratic Congresses have outspent Republican ones, and it will surely happen again.
All Du Pont does here is assume that the Democrats are going to increase spending, but doesn't offer specifics, and his assumptions go completely against the precedent set by the last Democratic administration that actually saw a decrease in spending, and the size of the federal government.
Alternative Minimum Tax. A 1969 tax increase that was enacted to soak the rich is suddenly going to seriously soak the middle class. Some 3.5 million taxpayers paid the AMT this year. But unlike the regular tax, the AMT is not indexed to inflation, which means the number of taxpayers the AMT hits is expected to balloon--by some estimates to as many as 23 million in 2007. Less than 5% of families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 are now paying the AMT, but more than 80% may pay it in 2008. Almost no families with incomes of $50,000 to $100,000 pays the AMT today; but as many as 35% of such families will in 2008.
Quote:To eliminate these very unpopular AMT increases would cost about $750 billion over the next 10 years. What taxes the new Congress will raise to solve this dilemma is unclear, but either AMT or other taxes will have to rise.
So, how is this dilemma specifically a Democratic shortcoming or fault?
Quote: Protectionism. Almost as passionate a liberal idea as spending more money is abandoning free trade and returning to protectionism. The AFL-CIO wants to limit lower priced goods from being imported into America even though it gives people a wider variety of products to choose from.
The truth is that the export of goods and services from America accounted for 10.4% of our gross domestic product in 2005 and created more than five million jobs over the previous 10 years. Imports have been increasing American trade deficits over the last quarter century, but U.S. employment simultaneously rose from 99 million to 145 million people. So trade has not cost us jobs; in fact it brings jobs into America--foreign auto manufacturers building cars here being the best example. Nevertheless, the Democrats will start by refusing to renew the president's trade authority, which expires next year.
Protectionism isn't an issue that is specifically a Democratic one. There are Republican protectionists, i.e. the nationalist conservatives, who would curtail free trade and globalization, which are issues expounded by the "conservative" libertarian faction within the Republican party.
Quote: Energy. One of the last acts of the current Republican Congress was to pass legislation permitting more oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It will lead to the production of about 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, two things America badly needs.
But that will be the end of progress, for the Democrats have a very different set of energy goals. First, no more offshore drilling, even though there are 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf--a 19-year supply at today's usage rate--and 102 billion barrels of oil in the OCS and Alaska. Next, Hillary Clinton's repeal of oil drilling tax deductions and another windfall profits tax on oil companies, just like Jimmy Carter's, which reduced domestic oil production between 3% and 6% and increased oil imports by about 10%.
No more nuclear power plants will be allowed either. We have 104 operating successfully--our cleanest source of energy. But liberals believe they need more regulation and are too risky.
The Democratic party is generally Green oriented, so the push is towards the development of alternative energy sources. With that said, the Democratic party cannot afford to follow the extreme Green positions against more resource exploitation and nuclear power development. If the Democratic party wants to win the presidency in '08 it will have to adopt a more centrist stance as concerns the environment and the nation's energy needs.
Quote: Social Security. Just 10 years from now Social Security benefits paid out will exceed taxes paid in, so something will have to be done to fix the system. Individually owned Social Security accounts would help by allowing workers to enjoy bigger returns. But Democrats are dead opposed to the idea of turning millions of Americans into owners of stocks and bonds, which will lead to the liberal solution of raising Social Security taxes and reducing benefits. The forthcoming plan will likely be to raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes ($97,500 in 2007). That would raise taxes on everyone earning more than this amount, especially the most productive wage earners. If the cap went up to $150,000, for example, it would mean a tax increase of $6,510 on a worker earning that amount.
The problem with privatized SS accounts, and the reliance on the stock market and US economy through stocks and bonds is the volatility of these areas of investment. Increased returns are not guaranteed. Social Security's returns, although estimated smaller, are guaranteed. One of the problems of SS is that the government borrows against it, and the problem is exacerbated by a government that heavily spends and subsequently heavily borrows from the fund.
Quote:With a closely divided Senate and a president with a veto pen, the 2007-08 Congress will be more about defining the principles of their party and winning the 2008 presidential election than making significant policy changes. But all of the above public policy ideas will be put forward in some form or another in order to energize the Democrats' liberal base and win the 2008 presidential election. And that will produce a fiery new Congress.
Like aforementioned, if the Democratic party wants to win the presidency in '08 it will have to adopt a more centrist platform like what it did to win its last presidency. They most certainly won't win by adopting an extremist platform, which is something which Du Pont is, again, making unfounded assumptions.
