Great Democrat Ideas

I wanted to pass along a bunch of examples of great Democrat ideas.  Enjoy!

First, let's look at bailouts.  The House just passed the latest bailout bill, but no one really knows how much it will end up costing us taxpayers.

Even conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget Office say the cost for this bailout will run to $41.7 billion, with $16.8 billion offset by higher taxes. No one has any idea of the real cost. The most expensive provision gives the Treasury temporary authority to pour money into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CBO says this could cost $100 billion, or it could cost "nothing." So it threw a dart at the wall and assigned a $25 billion price tag to the Fan and Fred bailout.

Likewise, the bill's $300 billion to refinance and insure distressed loans through the Federal Housing Administration will supposedly cost just a few billion dollars. That assumes few homeowners and lenders will sign up for the program because lenders will have to take a 10% haircut to be eligible. If no one needs this program, why is it there? If lenders do take advantage, they're bound to dump their worst loans on the feds. So as with the Fan and Fred bailout, the FHA guarantee will be either superfluous or much more expensive than we're led to believe.

Alongside these big-ticket items, we suppose the $4 billion tax credit for first-time home buyers, or the $4 billion in "community development" pork grants, or the $180 million for housing counseling are merely routine outrages.

This is a great idea - how about having taxpayers fund irresponsible decision-makers and slimy lenders?  And how about we do it over and over, with a blank check and no spending limits?  Thanks, Democrats.

And what about free trade with international allies?  Take Colombia, for example:

Colombia's leaders, especially President Uribe, had promised us that our three abducted citizens would be treated no differently than the many Colombian men and women who shared their fate. Colombia never wavered in this promise, and never cut any side deals with the guerrillas that could have freed their citizens at the expense of ours. This was not an easy act of solidarity, but Colombia remained true to its word.

That our Colombian partners made good on their promise in this instance is important enough, but this is not the exception; it is the norm.

More than a decade ago, with its country wracked by the worst insurgency in the hemisphere, with its economy contracting, and with its democratic state on the brink of failure, Colombia resolved to turn the tide. Its government and people set out an ambitious plan to secure and expand their country's democratic development, and they asked for our support - political, economic, diplomatic, and military. Starting under President Clinton, expanding under President Bush, and with bipartisan support in Congress all along the way, the United States has fully backed Colombia in meeting its bold promises of success. And the results speak for themselves.

Our Colombian partners said that they would win their fight against domestic terrorism and reclaim their country. Today they are.

They said they would combat social exclusion in Colombia by building the capacity and expanding the reach of their democracy. Today they are.

They said they would open their markets, trade freely and fairly, fuel economic growth, and create opportunities for social justice for all of their citizens. Today they are.

And our Colombian partners said they would protect the lives of all of their citizens, including trade unionists, and bring murderers and criminals to justice. Today violent crime has plummeted, law and order is expanding, and President Uribe's government has taken the courageous step of extraditing 15 major drug traffickers and paramilitary leaders to the United States to stand trial in our courts for their crimes against our citizens.

Colombia has done all of this - and more. And the United States has supported them every step of the way.

This agreement would remove tariffs to level the playing field for American goods going to Colombia, cement the relationship with a good friend and ally in a region decidedly hostile to the U.S., and reinforce the idea to the rest of the world that America is a reliable partner that can be counted upon.  Despite all this, the Democrats are blocking the trade agreement with Colombia.  What a great idea!

It doesn't get much more Democratic than San Francisco, home of one of the oldest and most liberal sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants.  Unfortunately, we see time and time again that Americans pay the price for Democrat policies like sanctuary cities.  In this particular case, a man and his two (adult) children were gunned down with an AK-47 because of road rage.  The murderer was an illegal alien associated with the Central American MS-13 gang, with at least three previous arrests.  He was free because of San Francisco's safe sanctuary policy.  This brilliant Democrat idea costs the lives of Americans every day.

Let's not forget abortion.  Most certainly a Democrat idea, this is one of the key precepts of liberalism.  It has recently been discovered that the WIC (yes, the Women, Infant, and Children organization) has a link on its website directing people to Planned Parenthood.  Apparently, the federal government is suggesting that poor minority women take care of the "I" and "C" part.  So much for being the party of minorities, huh?  Great idea, Democrats.

When talking about great Democrat ideas, we certainly can't forget about national security.  The current national terror alert system has issues:

The new system, which is to be the main way the department communicates regular threat information to local and private sector officials, has had a troubled history. The department scrapped a $91 million system, dubbed the Homeland Security Information Network or HSIN, after reports found that the program lacked critical security and structural functions that made it unworkable.

Okay, that's life.  Sometimes things don't work out quite like we planned.  But get a load of the Democrats' suggestion:

Responding to warnings in a government audit, congressional Democrats are calling on the Homeland Security Department to suspend a new threat alert system until the program is retooled to meet state and local needs.

What a great idea!  If the terror alert system needs fixing, let's just throw it away and remain vulnerable!  Can we really trust Democrats to control the security of America?  No.

Let's finish with oil.  Here's some perspective from a Texas man:

Out here in West Texas we love our guns, we support our troops, and we treasure our freedom. We are an independent bunch and -- pardon me, Senator Obama -- fiercely but not bitterly so. We are proud to have our own things to do with as we choose to, as free people of the freest nation in the history of the world.

We also walk around on top of oil: yes it's far beneath us, but it's there. And all these aspects of West Texas come together to our astonishment and anger over the fact that our independence is limited by an intrusive federal government that tells us what oil we can and can't access through drilling, and ultimately makes us dependent upon other nations for our own fuel supplies.

This dependence is made worse by the fact that it is arbitrary: that is, we don't have to rely on foreign sources of oil because we lack our own but because our government has chosen foreign importation over domestic production.

The two main culprits here are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who are currently enjoying a 9% favorable approvable rating among the American people. Perhaps you will remember Reid as the man who boldly declared we had lost the war in Iraq a year ago: the war we are clearly winning today.

Reid, and his cohort Pelosi, mock Republicans like McConnell, Cornyn, and Hutchinson for their belief that we can "drill our way out of this energy crisis." But why can't we drill out way out? Is oil that much different than other commodities? It is traded on the futures market and its elevated prices currently result from a demand that promises to be greater than future supply. Gold is a commodity, what would happen to it if we suddenly realized it is more plentiful than needles on a pine tree? I can tell you what would happen -- the value of an ounce of gold would plummet: its value is directly linked to its scarcity.

the opposition to drilling in ANWR is usually cited in terms of the damage it would do to the caribou. In all honesty, how out of whack can things get? My friends and I shoot animals as big as caribou in our part of the country every year. We shoot deer, elk, bear, antelope, and aoudad, yet guess what happens without fail? Every few years the hunting seasons are lengthened because the animal populations are still so great that they require more thinning. Add to this the fact that the caribou around the current Alaskan pipeline are thriving and the arguments against drilling in ANWR go from ridiculous to asinine.

I am worried about having politicians in office who are more concerned about hoofed creatures than they are about human beings.

We need to drill here and we need to drill now, as Newt Gingrich, McConnell, Cornyn, Hutchinson, and others who value America's independence assert. It's not a question of whether the oil is or isn't there -- we know it's there -- the question is whether we as a people will muster the wherewithal to tell politicians like Reid and Pelosi to remove the Congressional ban on drilling because America, rather than the Democrat Party or the caribou, comes first.

Just what part of "drill now" do they not understand?

I love it!  And yet, the Democrat idea remains that of increased taxation, increased regulation, increased socialism (by nationalizing the oil industry or by stealing oil profits with a 'windfall profits' tax), and continued shunning of America's vast and waiting natural resources.  Hurt the economy?  Check.  Hurt national security?  Check.  Pander to a mythical environmental problem?  Check.  Another great Democrat idea.

Fortunately for America, the ice is getting thinner.  Michael Franc at the Heritage Foundation writes about the Rep movement in the House to force debate on energy:

For the first time in a while, House Republicans are on the offense on an issue of national importance: removing obstacles to the production of more American energy.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey abruptly shut down his committee indefinitely rather than allow Republicans to offer an amendment to open more areas to drilling for new sources of oil and natural gas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concur. According to the New York Times, she and Reid "appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits."

Obey fears that the amendment, by drilling advocate Rep. John Peterson (R., Penn.), would win. As many as eight of the committee's Democrats have supported similar amendments in the past, while only a couple of the committee's Republicans (who represent well-heeled suburban districts) have stood with the environmental lobby.

Franc goes on to talk about how the Republicans have finally found an issue that resonates with a mass of voters, and their insistence on standing firm appears to be causing the Dem leadership fits, especially since there are likely to be a fairly high number of Democrat defections to support the GOP's bills.  Pelosi has made it clear that she will not allow any debate on any bill that would open up more drilling.  In response, the GOP has brought up discharge petition after discharge petition in an effort to force Pelosi to allow a vote.  This is a strategy that could work, especially if the American people get behind it and call their Reps.

And the public is starting to get it.  Even the Washington Post is questioning why Pelosi won't even allow debate.  It's almost unbelievable, but they say:

When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

When the WaPo takes aim, you know the situation is dire!  Hot Air reports on some trends that likely have Dems lying awake at night:

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll underscores what many of us already know about the most critical issue in this election — and it's not Iraq.  Energy and fuel prices dominate the electoral choice for voters this fall, thanks to the sharp cost increase in just about everything connected with transportation.  And while Democrats have an edge in this area, it has sharply eroded:

Congress will likely break for the summer without passing legislation to curb high gasoline prices. But Americans are fashioning their own energy policy, founded on conservation and support for more production.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll finds that energy — including gasoline and utility costs — ranks as the economic issue that voters say affects them the most personally. ….

Polls indicate voters trust Democrats over Republicans, by substantial margins, to do a better job on energy. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 42% of respondents preferred Democrats for dealing with energy policy, versus 22% favoring Republicans.

The poll indicated that Democrats' edge on the issue may be slipping; the July poll gave Democrats a 20-point advantage on the issue, versus a 28-point lead in a January poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News.

If Congress does break for the summer without a debate on energy, expect those numbers to slip much farther. Americans want to start using more domestic supplies, and not just for price relief in the next few years. They have finally begun to realize that sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas and inflating the price of oil benefit those whose don't like Americans.

Hot Air points out that the Dems are so afraid of this issue coming up for votes that they have been stonewalling every bill that has come up just on the chance that Reps will attach an amendment to open up this debate.  As such, the Congress is essentially shut down until one side gives in.  It would be the first time in 60 years that Congress has entered its summer recession without passing any of the necessary appropriations bills for the next year.  That's how scared they are of this issue!  The Reps are finally starting to get it through their thick heads, too.  Constant phone calls and e-mails from constituents like you and me can put this thing over the edge.

By the way, now we've found oil off the coast of Alaska, too.  Let's go get that, too!

Now, let me make myself clear.  I am not condemning all Democrats.  I am condemning the Democrat leadership, who have become the standard bearers for the far Left fringe of radical society.  It is this leadership that has pushed these radical, destructive, despicable policies.  I firmly believe that normal, everyday American citizens who happen to affiliate themselves with the Democrat party are generally pretty disgusted with a lot of these things, too.  I think the problem is simply that of deception - the leadership is supremely good at misrepresenting themselves and their true colors.  Normal people don't want to believe that anyone could possibly want all of these 'great' ideas, so when the Dem leadership tells them these things aren't true, they want to believe them.  Sadly, the Dem leadership has shown itself to be completely comfortable with saying one thing and doing another, and many Democrats from the rank-and-file don't seem inclined to look past the facade.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you, but I challenge you to prove me wrong.  If you're a Democrat and you oppose some or all of these policies, then you oppose the leadership of your own party.  There's nothing wrong with that - I vehemently oppose a lot of what the Republican party has become nowadays.  I'm not shy about that at all.  In many cases, they suck, and I'm happy to call them out on their stupidity just as much as Democrat stupidity.

Here's the key thing you have to ask yourself - if the leadership of your party has gone off the deep end, why do you continue to support them?  Why send them money?  Why vote for the very people who push the policies you don't like?

This is the thing that gets me.  It's no secret that the Republican party leadership has lost its base.  The reason for that is that McCain and many of the big-government types don't represent many of the policies that the base believes in.  This will probably result in low Rep turnout in November, and it will be decidedly unenthusiastic.  The only way McCain can win is by stealing votes from Obama.  That same phenomenon hasn't happened with the Democrat party - its base continues to march in lock step.  There are only two conclusions I can see to explain this.  Either the Democrat base is happy with their leadership and wants those policies, or they simply don't know what their leadership really stands for.  Either way, it's bad news.

Feel free to prove me wrong...if you can.

There's my two cents.