Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger
Amid the lamentable health care reform debate, one fact is incontrovertible: despite President Barack Obama's large 2008 presidential election victory, one in which the Democrats gained 21 seats (to 257-178) in the House and eight seats in the Senate (59-40, not counting the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy's seat), the Democratic Party's majority still is not large enough to pass progressive legislation.
The solution to this is obvious enough: win more seats in the 2010 off-year congressional election, and then in the 2012 presidential/congressional election. And how does a majority party accomplish the above? By solving the nation's problems. These days, that means: 1) getting the U.S. economy growing again with robust job growth, 2) keeping the U.S. safe against international terrorism, and 3) ending the Iraq War successfully and making substantial progress toward victory in the Afghanistan War.
Not underplaying national security -- and absent any terrorist incidents -- the U.S. economy will likely be cited as an important issue by voters in both 2010 and 2012. The Obama administration and the Democratic Party-led Congress certainly have time to heal the economy, to have that issue be a net-plus in 2012. The 2010 Congressional election, however, is another matter: typically, the party in charge of the White Houses loses about 10-14 House seats. In 2010, the Democrats could lose 20 House seats, or even more.
Charles Cook, who is, arguably, the nation's most respected source on congressional races, said the early read on 2010 is not a pleasant one for the Democrats.
"What we're seeing now, both in terms of numbers and the feel out there, this is how big waves feel early on," Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report, told The Wall Street Journal (subscription required).
One can only imagine what an even more balanced Congress would achieve: not much. Also, if the Republican Party regained control of the Senate in 2010 (possible, but not likely), policy gridlock until the 2012 presidential election could ensue.
Further, concerning the current political climate, the health care reform debate has cemented another reality: bipartisanship, certainly as it relates to economic issues -- is dead. The divide between the parties is too wide, hence there will be no "grand bargain/compromises" between the parties on economic issues.
Political/Economic Analysis: If health care reform fails, it will be a major defeat for the Democratic Party. That scenario would also double the focus on the party's performance at fixing the economy and creating jobs: they'll need to perform very well on the economic front in order to build on existing majorities in the House and Senate. Ideally, the Democrats need to add 20-30 seats in the House, and at least five seats in the Senate from current levels to have a decent chance to implement social and economic reforms, to achieve social change.
- -
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-09-2009 @ 2:35PM
Iridium said...
What social change do you refer to. The only change I can see the Democrats granting is forcing me to pay more money in taxes so they can give the money to welfare cases.
Maybe they'll even tax me to give millions of government jobs to minorities to build things nobody wants. Maybe they'll pass a few laws requiring me to have solar panels on my roof even if I don't want them built in a minority owned and minority staffed factory all funded through tax dollars.
Every single proposal presented by everyone in the government, democrats and republicans, is going to take more money away from me and make it harder for me to provide for my family. The solution is always to give more control to the individual.
They may say they will only increase taxes on the rich but the richest people do not pay the highest percentage of taxes. They may pay a high percentage on a portion of their net worth, but that is only the portion the IRS knows about. A recent study posted on this site said that the top 1% of wage earners only pay 17% in total tax. The true tax burden is on the middle class to lower upper class. Those who can not hide their net worth through accounting tricks.
The other major source of tax revenue, corporations, pass all increased costs onto consumers. We all pay more when you tax business more.
The answer to every problem is a drastic reduction in tax rates, the total elimination of all federal subsidy and welfare programs, and strict regulation of traders and brokerages to control the baseless speculation of the market. A better solution for the last point would be the wholesale elimination of the current stock market and all brokerages. It is far too corrupted to continue operating and causes massive inflation by injecting too many middlemen into the transfer of goods.
The stock market is based on a flawed principal. That earnings for all publicly traded corporations must continue to grow forever. That the welfare of workers is second to the bottom line. The only end result of that principal is one corporation that owns everything and everyone working for that corporation. The only business type the public market creates is a monopoly. Just as a centralized government that continues to grow in power will always end up as a dictatorship or oligarchy.
The stock market is not based on capitalism. It is based on the growth of corporate socialism. The rapid growth of singular entitles that control ever greater spheres of influence. A true free market is based on the trade of goods from one producer to another. You trade what you produce of value for something another produced of value. The individual end buyer decides what value to place on what is produced. In a true free market there are only individual producers, no massive corporations.
The main problem is that the consumer in our economy is not the producer of what they consume. Once you transfer your ability to produce you no longer provide any base value to the economy. Once you hold no value you no longer control your economic freedom. Without economic freedom you become a slave to the corporate machine.