Democrats 100 Hour Agenda

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Democrats to Kick Off 100 Hour Agenda</font size><font size="4">
Democrats to stick with popular basics in Congress agenda</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
5:05 PM PST, January 1, 2007


WASHINGTON -- When Democrats take power on Capitol Hill this week, House leaders will kick off their legislative campaign with a lightning-fast 100-hour agenda.

But there won't be a revolution.

In marked contrast to the Republicans who swept into the majority in 1994, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her legislative allies are not planning to amend the Constitution or eradicate federal agencies.

Instead, their initial legislative foray will focus on modest, politically popular issues, including initiatives to expand stem cell research, lower prescription drug prices and tighten congressional ethics rules.

Pelosi's program is expected to receive a warm reception on Capitol Hill, even from some Republicans. Less clear is whether Democrats can follow up with solutions to the deeper problems that are troubling a restive public.

Polls show that most Americans are looking to Congress, rather than the president, for leadership, particularly on resolving the war in Iraq.

Yet Pelosi and the Democrats plan no dramatic steps to influence the course of the war. Nor has the new majority detailed strategies to tackle other challenges that have confounded lawmakers for years, including rising healthcare costs and the financially imperiled Social Security system.

For now, the relatively safe 100-hour agenda may simply allow the Democrats to show they can accomplish something after a dozen years in the political wilderness.

"One of the things the public is definitely looking for is results," said veteran strategist Peter Fenn, who helped several Democratic candidates unseat Republicans in part by campaigning against the "do-nothing" record of the previous GOP-led Congress.

But finding a majority on Capitol Hill to agree on even small measures can be challenging.

Democrats will hold just a one-vote advantage in the Senate, where rules allow the minority party to stall, slow and amend legislation.

At the same time, ideological divisions between the parties are wider than they were a generation ago, when moderates in both caucuses wielded greater influence.

It also remains unclear how the president and the new Congress will work together. Though Bush and Democratic congressional leaders have pronounced themselves committed to compromise, they are coming off six years of fiercely partisan government.

And taking on a president, even a weakened one, is never easy for Congress. When Republicans challenged President Clinton over the budget after taking power in 1995, they were blamed after the federal government was forced to shut down during the faceoff.

"It's not going to be a cakewalk," said incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Just because you say you want to be bipartisan doesn't mean they're going to fall all over themselves to work with you."

But the rapid-fire agenda that Pelosi has crafted to kick off Democratic rule carefully hits issues with broad popular appeal that may be hard for many Republicans to oppose:

Ethics
Pelosi's proposed House ethics package -- which would ban many gifts from lobbyists and identify members who insert earmarks into bills for spending on their pet projects -- comes after scandals that voters blamed on Republicans. The GOP never passed comprehensive ethics legislation, to the chagrin of many of the party's own members.

Offsetting Tax Cuts - Deficit Reduction
House Democrats are also talking about reinstating rules that would require any new tax cuts or spending increases to be offset by other cuts, a measure designed to reduce future budget deficits -- another issue that opinion polls show Americans are concerned about.

At the close of the last legislative session, some Republican lawmakers decried the spending excesses of their own party, which has presided over record budget deficits despite its platform of fiscal restraint.

Stem Cell Research
Democrats plan to liberalize federal funding for stem cell research, a popular initiative that was approved by bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress before the president vetoed it in July.

Lower Drug Prices for Medicare Recipients
And they are pledging to repeal a law passed in 2003 that prohibited the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare recipients, a top concern of senior citizens.

That proposal, too, earlier won bipartisan support when the Senate voted in March to support the idea in concept.​

Some of the 100-hour issues are so popular that opposition appears to have melted away.

Increase Minimum Wage
Representatives of the business community for a decade had been engaged in a struggle with organized labor to blunt any raise in the minimum wage. Yet now they say they see little chance of stopping the Democratic push to increase it from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

It is uncertain whether Republican insistence on some tax relief for small businesses could hang up the measure. But few expect major battles.

"There's not much desire to start a fight on it. It's not winnable," said one business lobbyist. "The White House doesn't appear to have a lot of fight in them ... (and) I don't think weakened Republican minorities are going to want to fight."

Repeal of Some Tax Breaks
Even some oil executives have said they don't need all of the tax breaks that the federal government has granted the industry in recent years. House Democrats have promised to repeal a number of them.

Twelve years ago, the House Republican caucus that Newt Gingrich led into the majority set a very different tone, filling its agenda with a number of highly contentious issues that touched off bruising battles with the minority party.

In its "Contract With America," the GOP pledged to place term limits on lawmakers, slash taxes, cut welfare benefits and curtail the rights of death row inmates to appeal their sentences.

Gingrich also made no secret of his plans to roll over Clinton.

"Republicans did something that was very foolish by essentially claiming that the president was irrelevant," said Rutgers University congressional scholar Ross K. Baker. Baker noted that Clinton deftly outmaneuvered them, and Republicans lost seats in the next election.

"However the Democratic leaders feel about President Bush," Baker said, "no one in any position of authority has proclaimed that President Bush is irrelevant."

Once Democrats move beyond the popular items in their first 100 hours, however, their challenges will mount.

Iraq War
Americans overwhelmingly want Congress and the White House to address the war in Iraq first. In a recent Gallup poll, 69 percent said the war should be the top priority, compared with 16 percent who pointed to the economy, which was second.

By contrast, the items on the 100-hour agenda ranked far down on the list.

House and Senate Democrats have planned a series of oversight hearings in January to focus attention on the war. And several senior Democrats have pledged to fight any proposal to send more troops to Iraq.

But the new majority has indicated it will shy away from asserting its real power to shape the war: using its budgetary authority to restrict spending.

"We will have oversight," Pelosi said recently. "We will not cut off funding."

Healthcare Reform
Equally uncertain is the fate of healthcare reform, another legislative quandary that has increased in urgency as the number of uninsured Americans nears 47 million.

Last month, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., unveiled an ambitious proposal for universal health insurance, but neither Pelosi nor Reid has promised to revisit the controversial issue. And without Bush's support, the prospects for such a far-reaching plan are slim.


Social Security
Democratic leaders have reached out to the White House to discuss Social Security, the long-term solvency of which is a major challenge confronting the federal government.

Incoming House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., recently had lunch with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who is taking the lead for the administration on economic issues.

In a recent interview, Rangel said both sides had reason to compromise. "We have two years to prove that the voters were right, and the president has two years to prove that he's not a lame duck," he said.

Times staff writers Joel Havemann and Janet Hook contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...2jan02,0,3069119.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies<font size>

<font size="4">House Approves Additional Fees, Taxes on Oil Companies;
Plans to Use Money for Renewable Fuels</font size></center>
[frame]http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2805859[/frame]
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>
Democrats Try to Increase Leverage
Over Iraq Policy</font size></center>


By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: January 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the House majority leader, said Friday that Congress might consider legislation revising the authorization it gave President Bush in 2002 to use military force in Iraq.

Mr. Hoyer set out a road map for the House to exercise more control over Iraq strategy, as he and other Democratic leaders continued on Friday to exert pressure against the president’s plan to send in an additional 21,500 troops.

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, moved on Friday to force a debate on a resolution opposing the troop increase that had been offered by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska.

But Mr. Reid said that he also expected debate on other similar resolutions. Ultimately, he said, he expects the Senate to come together behind one resolution when the debate begins the week after next, with broad bipartisan opposition to the president’s plan.

Public opinion, he predicted, will compel many Republicans to support a resolution opposing the troop increase.

“Twenty-one Republicans are up for re-election this time,” Mr. Reid said. “If they think this is going to be a soft vote for them, they’ve got another think coming.”

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Congress against passing any such resolution, saying it “emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.”

“I’m sure that’s not the intent behind the resolutions,” he said, “but I think it may be the effect.”

President Bush told reporters on Friday that he had proposed the increase “in that I’m the decision maker, and I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.”

“I’ve listened a lot to members of Congress,” he added, speaking at a meeting at the White House with Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, whom the Senate confirmed Friday as the new commander in Iraq. “I’ve listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.”

In a speech to the Brookings Institution, Mr. Hoyer predicted that the House would follow the Senate’s lead in backing a resolution against the troop increase, with broad support from Republicans.

Several committees in the House would then convene hearings on the war, he said. To follow that, the House might try to exercise more control over Iraq strategy in legislation regarding spending for the Defense or State Department. Another option, he said, would be a revised authorization for the use of military force in Iraq “that more accurately reflects the mission of our troops on the ground.”

Some Republicans as well as Democrats have said that the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, passed in October 2002, was not intended to allow American troops to police a civil war, as some lawmakers now say is the case.

Mr. Hoyer said in his speech that he would not have supported the resolution allowing the president to go to war “had I known then what I know now: that the United States of America could and would prosecute a war and manage a nation-building effort in such an incompetent, arrogant, unplanned and unsuccessful manner.”

Mr. Hoyer also called for requiring the president to certify to Congress that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was meeting the benchmarks Mr. Bush said he had set. He also called for greater international involvement in securing Iraq, and peace talks like the ones held in Dayton, Ohio, in 1995 that ended the Bosnian war.

“The president’s so-called new strategy is really little more than stay the course,” Mr. Hoyer said, adding that it “places far more confidence in the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki than his record of competence and cooperation merits.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a surprise visit to Baghdad on Friday with other members of Congress, including the chairmen of the armed services, foreign affairs, and intelligence committees, as well as Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic critic of the war.

In a statement after her visit, Ms. Pelosi said that she had traveled to Iraq to thank the troops and to express support for them, “as well as our hope that they will come home safely and soon.”

In meetings with the prime minister and other senior American and Iraqi officials, the statement said, “we stressed our belief that it is well past time for the Iraqis to take primary responsibility for the security of their nation.” American forces, Ms. Pelosi said, “should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counterterrorism, force protection and controlling Iraq’s borders.”

Mr. Maliki’s office released a statement after the meeting saying that the prime minister had “confirmed the resolution of the Iraqi government to challenge the terrorist groups with the full power” of its military force and the political system.

The prime minister also emphasized that Iraqi forces “are ready” to assume responsibility for the country’s security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/world/middleeast/27cong.html?ref=world
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<FONT FACE="ARIAL BLACK" size="5" color="#d90000">
Novak: Pelosi's first 100 hours a 'Success'-
Bush and staff 'Irrelevant' </font>
<font face="calibri, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">

<b>January 24, 2007

by Mike Sheehan</b>
<br><img src="http://rawstory.com/images/new/novak.jpg" alt="novack" hspace="5" vspace="5" border="1" align="right" />Veteran Republican political analyst Robert Novak says in his <b><font color="#ff0000">Latest Report</font></b> that Speaker Pelosi's first 100 hours in power were &quot;a success beyond all anticipation,&quot; while the Bush administration is seen lately as being &quot;irrelevant and out of touch.&quot;
<br>The conservative commentator writes, &quot;The 'hundred hours' program of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been a success beyond all anticipation. The passage of poll-approved measures came with a unanimous Democratic vote and heavy -- in some cases majority -- Republican support.&quot;
<br>Pelosi's performance &quot;shows the error and futility of Republican expectations that Pelosi as speaker would fall on her face,&quot; although Novak notes that &quot;they still hope that she will fail now that the set pieces of the 'hundred hours' have been completed.&quot;
<br>Novak has decidedly different thoughts on the Bush administration and the Grand Old Party, saying, &quot;Republicans are divided and disorganized. Senior Republicans in Congress refer to President George W. Bush and his staff as irrelevant and out of touch. Younger conservative members are going their own way, feeling that neither the White House nor the party's congressional leadership shows the way for the GOP.&quot;
<br>He adds, &quot;Republican House aides, even in the leadership, complain that they are so completely shut out of the legislative process they have no idea what will be on the House floor next week.&quot;
<br>Of Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night, Novak writes that it &quot;was notable for what it did not contain.
<br>&quot;Bush mentioned only in passing the need to maintain his tax cuts as the bulwark of the economy,&quot; he continues. &quot;Bush completely ignored the social issues dear to much of his conservative base. He did not mention abortion on the day following the annual 'March for Life' on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. He did not mention the embryonic research bill that he vetoed last year and is likely to veto again in the new Congress. He made no mention of same-sex marriage.&quot;
<br>And though polls depict corruption as a major issue for 2006's voters, &quot;Bush ignored congressional ethics entirely,&quot; says Novak. &quot;The closest he came to this issue was his call to halve the spending created by congressional earmarks -- the first time he had raised that problem.&quot;
<br>Novak closes his take on Bush's speech by saying, &quot;It was not a stirring or a memorable State of the Union Address. Everybody seemed happy to get it over with. At least it did not cause more trouble for a President sinking in the polls.&quot;

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Novak_Pelosis_first_100_hours_success_0124.html
</font>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="12"></hr>
<p>
 
Top