Worrying About a Democratic Supermajority
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Congress, Economy, Health Care, TaxesThe Wall Street Journal gives us the conservative doomsday scenario of a Democratic supermajority. The Journal is certainly right that we may be on the verge of liberal hegemony not seen since 1965 and the mid-1930’s. Question is: is the paper right about the damage that control would cause?
The Journal warns:
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today’s left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for “change” should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
The Journal lists a long grab-bag of concerns, some trivial, some hyperbolic. But some are worth considering, particularly by those of us who don’t reflexively believe the Democrats have a monopoly on wisdom and good intentions. Here are three worth discussing:
Government-controlled healthcare: Barack Obama’s plan could very quickly become the nation’s largest insurer, thus giving the government more and more market power to set prices, regulate access and control the system. Ultimately, we could lose choice, lose quality and have no recourse because the government plan would be impossible to repeal.
Onerous business regulations: Democrats bent on punishing corporate malfeasance could go overboard and impose arduous regulations that result in giving the government increased power over commerce and markets, ultimately reducing our nation’s ability to compete.
Taxes: The repeal of income caps on Social Security and Medicare would change those programs from retirement plans to massive wealth-redistribution plans. Plus, while Obama may have a very targeted tax increase, there’s no reason to assume that Congress won’t be more expansive in raising taxes and that Obama wouldn’t sign such legislation.
I’m not saying that any of the above issues would turn out as disastrously as I described. But as we march toward giving the Democrats a potential supermajority, we really should consider the possible consequences. One-power rule is always a recipe for overreach.
This entry was posted on Friday, October 17th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Congress, Economy, Health Care, Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:10 am
First, the idea of Democratic hegemony doesn’t thrill me, but I do wonder where all the conservatives were from 2000 through 2006 when this was actually in force.
Today, I was watching c-span and some gentlemen from the Heritage Foundation was lamenting what a crappy job Bush has done regarding economic oversight and now what a crappy job they are doing by interferring in the market place. Hello! Where the hell have you been the last 8 years? If you would have used your influence maybe we woudn’t be in this problem now.
Anyway, just to counter the grab bag.
Government-controlled healthcare: Barack Obama’s plan could very quickly become the nation’s largest insurer, thus giving the government more and more market power to set prices, regulate access and control the system. Ultimately, we could lose choice, but improve quality and access for the vast majority of Americans as well has finally putting an end to the runaway increase in medical care, ultimately leading to more competitive US businesses who no longer need to provide healthcare when their overseas competitors do not.
Business regulations: Democrats bent on punishing corporate malfeasance could NOT go overboard, punishing those who have in their greed crippled the US economy. Instead, policies could be enacted that encourage businesses to hire employees and expand in the US leading to a resurgent Middle Class that once reestablished results in more moderate, but real economic growth based on actual assets rather than financial trickery. Additionaly, the Democrats engage in increased infrastructure investment that leads to US energy independence, improved transportation and a revistalization of our urban areas, further spuring a middle class resurgence.
Taxes: Obama does exactly what he says he is going to do and a less taxed middle class uses it’s increased purchasing power to drag the economy kicking and screaming out of the recession. Meanwhile, the relatively few who see an increase in taxes find that they don”t really miss that money they weren’t spending anyway, but ironically these captains of industry find their investments and companies growing at unprecedent rates because the middle class ow has increased purchasing power.
Is this all likely to happen? I haven’t the slightest, but it is no less or more likely than Wall Street Journal conserative fear mongering.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:17 am
And what if we do leave the current version of the Republican Party with enough seats to filibuster or at least threaten it credibly? Bill after bill unable to pass purely for political advantage with no regard to what it really means to the country is what I would foresee with the current leadership. The supermajority can be changed in two years if they are that irresponsible. Of course it’s also been years since anyone outside of Republican loyalists have been able to take the WSJ op-eds all that seriously anyway.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:41 am
We have already lost choice. If you wife had cancer, and you are self employed; try getting insurance.
I am too young for medicare, but am financially able to retire. I can not because we can not get health care at any price.
Insurance should be nationalized. If you leave to business they only want to insure the healthy people. The whole point of insurance it to spread the risk.
I paid insurance for over 30 years, with no real claims except when our kids were born. Now that we need insurance, no one wants us.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I agree with Rob thoroughly. The free market is a wonderful means for profit and efficiency maximization. It’s clear that a de-regulated healthcare market is great for making Viagra’s and and other popular (and very profitable) drugs.
Actual long-term care, especially for rare or vicious aliments, isn’t something the market allocates well. We need to correct this, the sooner the better.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am
If the super-majority happens, I encourage every Democrat to write to his or her Rep and Senator, letting them know they are on notice for two years, and begging them to set up internal checks and balaces to off-set corrupting temptations. Also, I think the blue-dog Dems will step up to balance the party. If you’ve got one of those, write them! If the Dems screw up the first two years, the neo-cons will come roaring back in 2010. If the Dems do a good job, I predict the extreme right-wing of the Repubs will be done for a long time, and the Repubs will be forced to remake themselves into more (truly) concervative party, and abandon (finally) their fringe. I may even consider coming home to them if they do.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:41 am
@gerryf
True, the Republicans have zero credibility based on the record of the first six years. As long as you are locked into Red vs Blue thinking, you are stuck with a false choice between Republicans or Democrats.
Historically, any time you give either party all the keys you get out increased spending, fiscal irresponsibility, abuse of power and increased corruption. It happens with the GOP, it happens with the Dems. Every time.
It is seductive to think we need to have One Party Rule under the Dems to undo the damage to civil liberties we saw under One Party Rule with the GOP. But if we give them all the keys, it won’t happen that way. Far more likely, is a wholesale erosion of economic freedoms piled on, plus freedom of speech attacked with a Fairness Doctrine and campaign finance “reform”.
Giving both sides a share of the power is the only way to limit the damage.
However, if you believe like Jim S, that only
51%54% of electorate possess the white hot truth of what America needs, and the other49%46% should have no say and no seat at the table well – lets just stay on this path and give the Dems all the keys. The result is depressingly predictable.October 17th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Where’s mw when you need him….
October 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Yeah. That’ll work.
October 17th, 2008 at 9:49 am
mw – I’m as sceptical as you, but the only accountability Congress will have it so their constituents. We’re a part of this process – that’s my point, and if enough of us let them know we’re watching, it may (may) have some impact.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Gerry, don’t confuse “conservative” with “republican.” They have become, in the last 16 years, radically different things. Republicans haven’t adopted small government, tight fiscal policies for well over a decade. There currently is no major party for fiscal conservatives.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Check your math, mw, check your math.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Unless the divided government fans had the same concerns about the GOP being in charge in both 2004 and 2006, I don’t find this line of argument remotely persuasive.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
@Jim S
I’m making a prediction, but for your benefit – fixed now.
Always happy to accommodate.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
David: I’d hope they did, otherwise they’d be hypocrites. Speaking for myself, I voted Kerry in 2004 and supported the Dems efforts to take Congress in 2006. I’m not as devoted to the divided government cause as MW, but my attraction to it is one of the reasons I’m undecided in this election.
October 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
We have cured hypercholesterolemia, vaccinated against cervical cancer, successfully treated manic depression, not to mention all of the medical technology advancements, like remote laproscopic surgery, brain-stimulators for epileptics and parkinsons patients, as well as advanced imaging and hospital networking technology all through the free market.
NIH-funded research is good for uncovering the basic quandaries of nature, so as to provide a foundation for technological innovation, but rarely the innovation itself. A socialized system not only forces taxpayers to fund distribution of treatment, but also the research itself. What do you think gets cut first?
October 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
MW,
As noted, I do not feel completely comfortable with complete Democratic control–but I also am of the opinion that one party in control can act more quickly and I think quick is needed.
I do not completely dismiss yourtheory on divided government–I only disagree with blind adherence to it.
In the current situation, I believe that the Democrats have every reason in the world after having had their tails kicked for most of the past 30 years to “do it right.” Furthermore, I think Obama is very aware of his status as the first minority president and he wants to create a legacy that will not discourage others.
I find it hard to believe the Dems or Obama would risk throwing everything back into the GOPs hands in a two-year power grab…too optimistic? Perhaps, but I until shown otherwise I generally think the best of people.
ExiledIndependent,
I don’t believe I said that the GOP = fiscal conservative. In fact, the total abandonment of fiscal conservatism is one of the three reasons I have come to loathe the GOP in the last 8 years.
I have generally voted throughout my life along with the fiscal conservative crowd, meaning while I consider myself an independent, I have leaned more right than left. Under Bush, fiscal conservatism has become a hypocritical slogan of the GOP.
Despite the GOP marketing machine, Clinton has been the most fiscally conservative president of the past 30 years (queue JimmyDhimmi’s nonsenseical the Republican’s made him do it response)
October 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Carl, I’m glad to hear this isn’t a sudden “oh crap, the dems could be in charge” thing, and the idea of divided government was part of the reason I voted for Kerry/Dem in 2004 and 2006. I just had to bring this up b/c I’ve seen this “divided government good” idea coming from places that were plenty happy when the GOP was in charge of everything, so I’m just a little suspicious now.
This is probably my biggest worry about the likely Democratic gains, but the I don’t think the current Republican party deserves any significant say right now. They were too obstructionist during the current congress for my taste, and until “tax cuts” stops being their answer for every economic problem, I just can’t take them seriously.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
[...] us look forward. What can we expect? As ASC points out, some worrywarts are concerned whether an impotent Republican minority will be able to restrain the [...]
October 17th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I never said that Republicans made him do it. I like Bubba. He was a good president. He was a true bi-partisan when it came to welfare reform and free-trade agreements. His greatest failing was not seeing the threat of Islamic Radicalism. I always complain about this surplus revenue fetish you have, when all Clinton did to get it was cut military and intelligence spending. You can run a defecit as long as you grow the economy in kind. Cutting military and intelligence spending was nearsighted considering wave after wave of terrorist attacks against us and our interests throughout the 1990’s.
Also, don’t forget that we had a bad recession beginning in the last year of Clinton, because like today, much of our economy was build on a house of cards. This time it was mortgage-backed securities, then it was dot-com and tech stocks.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Divided Government = Government of the Least Common Denominator = Disaster in an Era Requiring Major Changes
October 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Keep in mind how fractious and divided the Democrats are, and have been for some time. If simply having a Congressional majority were enough, for one example, the Dems could have forced an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq long ago, just by cutting off funding. But in reality the party establishment has not always been able to keep the “Blue Dogs” and other factions in line, enabling the GOP minority to “rule from below” to a certain degree. (Hmm… considering that, maybe it’s not such a mystery anymore why they’ve taken the blame for the sins of Congress.)
That internal division won’t change just because the Dems have grown their ranks in Congress and put one of their own in the White House. That may make it quite a bit harder for the minority party to exert their will, but still far from impossible.