Posted by
On the Right on Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:32:59 PM
This is from opinionjournal.com, I have mentioned this before, if you don't want to wake up the day after election day to Speaker Pelosi; just look at the rest of the line up in a Democratic House committee leadership.
Let's think about how the Democrats would govern.
Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:01 a.m.
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.