The 100 Hour Agenda.

[Rex Kickass]

Nancy Pelosi on Huffington Post. (From Tuesday)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy-pe...rs_b_33529.html

 

In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits.

 

In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq.

 

In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion.

 

In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits.

 

In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each.

 

In 100 hours, a minimum wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67.

 

And if all goes as expected, in less than 100 hours my sixth grandchild will be born.

 

I want my grandchild to be born into an America where government is for and by the people. I want my grandchild to be born into an America that rewards and values hard work. I want my grandchild to be born into an America where you are not labeled a terrorist coddler when you honor the Constitution.

 

I want my grandchild to be born into an America where if the U.S. Central Command judges the situation in Iraq to be near chaos, with "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically", if the top intelligence agencies tell you that the war in Iraq is inspiring the very terrorism it was purported to prevent, and if four highly respected military newspapers say of the Secretary of Defense that "his strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised...[he] must go" that you fire your Secretary of Defense and change the course.

 

I want my grandchild to be born into an America whose government honors its duty for accountability and oversight.

 

I want my grandchild to be born into an America that inspires innovation, that leads with dignity and diplomacy, that rejects fear mongering, and whose leaders start each day remembering that the Constitution begins with the simple but revolutionary phrase "We the people," which announced to the world that here, the people rule.

 

If you honor Democratic candidates with your vote today, in the first hundred hours of a Democratic Congress: We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.

 

We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

 

We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage.

 

We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.

 

We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.

 

We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

 

We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

 

I say this as a grandmother (of almost six) and as the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, ignoring the fluff around it, and cutting right to the "We.."'s, I like all of them except for fighting privatization of Soc Sec. If they can actually achieve all those things (other than SS), in the next two years, I'll be pretty happy.

[kapkomet]

My question is "how"?

 

The minimum wage thing, I agree with. I don't like it, because it hurts a lot of businesses, but it's time to do something with that.

 

The 9/11 commission report stuff is fluff. It really is.

 

The health care thing... that's complete horsedookey. There's problems with the system, I agree, but ANY attempt to socialize our system needs to be looked at VERY closely. Ask Canadians why they come here for medical purposes. Ask Britians who travel to India why they do.

 

The student loan thing. WOOT! I LOVE IT! Seriously, it effects me directly right now, but be careful what you ask for here.

 

Oh, the big bad oil companies again. What are these "subsidies" used for? Find out first.

 

I have mixed thoughts about "privatizing" social security, but how will you keep it, Ms. Pelosi? Oh, that's right, by raising taxes on EVERYONE, not just the "rich", because it's the only way.

[Rex Kickass]

My question is "how"?

 

The minimum wage thing, I agree with. I don't like it, because it hurts a lot of businesses, but it's time to do something with that.

 

The minimum wage hasn't been raised in ten years. If they just required a 3% COLA on it every year, we wouldn't have this debate every five to ten years and I think few businesses would notice.

 

The 9/11 commission report stuff is fluff. It really is.

 

The health care thing... that's complete horsedookey. There's problems with the system, I agree, but ANY attempt to socialize our system needs to be looked at VERY closely. Ask Canadians why they come here for medical purposes. Ask Britians who travel to India why they do.

 

What's horsedookey about using the medicare purchasing power to negotiate lower prices with drug companies? That's not socializing medicine, it's giving the government the ability to do the same things HMOs and Wal-Mart does on their prescription plans.

 

The student loan thing. WOOT! I LOVE IT! Seriously, it effects me directly right now, but be careful what you ask for here.

 

Oh, the big bad oil companies again. What are these "subsidies" used for? Find out first.

 

I have mixed thoughts about "privatizing" social security, but how will you keep it, Ms. Pelosi? Oh, that's right, by raising taxes on EVERYONE, not just the "rich", because it's the only way.

 

Actually, by raising the FICA cap, you can effectively increase viability for Social Security in the long term and it wouldn't cost the average American one cent more in taxes.

 

You know what I'd love to see? Corporate welfare reform. Offer these big oil companies continued subsidies if they reach key benchmarks on a, b, and c. For example, expanding refinery capacity (by reopening mothballed plants and building new ones), devoting a percentage of their budget to research and development regarding further efficiency in consumption/production and renewable energy production.

 

And I think that's what we'll end up seeing if anything happens there.

[kapkomet]

That's an interesting spin, Rex, on the subsidies.

 

On the Medicare reform, it's needed, and I agree with that part, by and large... but the government hookey getting involved in our (private) medicine practices, that's a road we do NOT need to go down.

[Chisoxfn]

My question is "how"?

 

The minimum wage thing, I agree with. I don't like it, because it hurts a lot of businesses, but it's time to do something with that.

 

The 9/11 commission report stuff is fluff. It really is.

 

The health care thing... that's complete horsedookey. There's problems with the system, I agree, but ANY attempt to socialize our system needs to be looked at VERY closely. Ask Canadians why they come here for medical purposes. Ask Britians who travel to India why they do.

 

The student loan thing. WOOT! I LOVE IT! Seriously, it effects me directly right now, but be careful what you ask for here.

 

Oh, the big bad oil companies again. What are these "subsidies" used for? Find out first.

 

I have mixed thoughts about "privatizing" social security, but how will you keep it, Ms. Pelosi? Oh, that's right, by raising taxes on EVERYONE, not just the "rich", because it's the only way.

I wonder what happens if we remove subsidies. Will the price everyone pay at the pump go up exponentially???

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree on raising the FICA cap. As it currently stands, it regressive taxation.

 

Any other raising of taxes should be avoided ike the plague. If the Dems are smart, they'll do that.

 

As for the oil companies, with the profits they are making, I could care less what the subsidies are for. They aren't doing anything serious on alternative energies anyway.

 

If you really want to make the oil companies serious about getting us off some of the non-renewable energy, then you use the federal government's authority to release patent protections in the national interest. Those companies are sitting on patents for many of the most useful alternative energy technologies. Tell them they either get to work producing them, or we'll remove the patent protections and let others do it.

 

 

I wonder what happens if we remove subsidies. Will the price everyone pay at the pump go up exponentially???

I hope so.

[Chisoxfn]

Or adjust the subsidies and provide subsidies to the oil companies that go out of there way to invest in finding alternative energy sources. That way you encourage it, while still keeping oil costs down.

 

I understand where you are coming Northside...in that sake that if we let the prices get out of hand, people will stop buying, demand will lessen and naturally we'll basically force the issue for American's to use less energy as well as force people into developing new energy.

 

I just don't think its that simple because the rich would be able to afford to fill up their Escalades (sure some would be hurting) but the poor and lower middle class may not be able to afford to fill there car up to get to work or anything along those lines (I know in cities thats less of an issue due to public transportation).

 

Plus that plan could force major companies that rely on oil/energy to produce things to either increase the costs on there products or to cut costs somewhere (meaning layoffs).

 

Overall I think messing too much with the oil prices could have a major effect on the economy. In this case the best thing to do is find ways to help encourage the development of a 3rd party source while still fighting to keep oil prices down.

[NorthSideSox72]

Or adjust the subsidies and provide subsidies to the oil companies that go out of there way to invest in finding alternative energy sources. That way you encourage it, while still keeping oil costs down.

 

I understand where you are coming Northside...in that sake that if we let the prices get out of hand, people will stop buying, demand will lessen and naturally we'll basically force the issue for American's to use less energy as well as force people into developing new energy.

 

I just don't think its that simple because the rich would be able to afford to fill up their Escalades (sure some would be hurting) but the poor and lower middle class may not be able to afford to fill there car up to get to work or anything along those lines (I know in cities thats less of an issue due to public transportation).

 

Plus that plan could force major companies that rely on oil/energy to produce things to either increase the costs on there products or to cut costs somewhere (meaning layoffs).

 

Overall I think messing too much with the oil prices could have a major effect on the economy. In this case the best thing to do is find ways to help encourage the development of a 3rd party source while still fighting to keep oil prices down.

 

Using positive reinforcement instead of negative seems on its face to be the way to go. But the problem here is goal alignment. Oil companies, like any other companies, want to make the highest profit possible. They can do that by using existing technologies and infrastructure, for as long as oil is there. Investing in new tech for alternative energies will be more costly, especially at first. Its simply not in their best interests to do it.

 

Normally, the business force that would hold this in check is that other companies would leap at the opportunity to take that chance on alternative energies, and accept the short-run cost and risk. But the oil companies hold the patents. So, that check in the system is nullified in this case.

 

Your answer is to subsidize the oil companies' research. For me, I have two problems with that. One, even if we give them money to research, they will STILL be in no hurry to actually implement anything - because they STILL have no motivation to do so. It would eat into their existing market. So why would they do that? Two, I don't believe its the government's place to be paining profitable private businesses to do anything. Instead, the government's role should be to set a level playing field and allow competition - because that is the one thing that would drive the oil companies to develop these technologies.

 

Create a business environment where competition is allowed, and that competition will result in the best outcome for the consumers. That's a basic GOP principle in regards to business, and I 100% agree with it. So do the same here - level the playing field. Give the oil companies first crack, sure - but if they balk, then open the flood gates.

[Balta1701]

Well, on top of those items...I gotta say, this should be fun.

 

The U.S. armed services have requested a $160 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the remainder of fiscal year 2007--a staggering amount that, if approved by the Defense Department, may hasten the showdown between resurgent congressional Democrats and the Bush administration over the budget-busting War on Terror.

 

The request--which will likely include all costs related to the war on terrorism--far surpasses the $94 billion supplemental authorized earlier this year to fund the ongoing wars as well as hurricane recovery in the Gulf and is nearly double the $82 billion Iraq war supplemental outlay of 2005. It comes within days of Republicans' stunning losses in the midterm elections and the resignation of embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was set to decide on the request Nov. 15.

[southsider2k5]

so

 

-what exactly is "fixing the medicare drug benefit?"

-Who is paying for cut in student loan interest rates?

-I thought Nancy wasn't talking about raising taxes, if so, what other option is there to "guarantee a dignified retirement"? I am guessing that statement means not cutting benefits, so how else is it going to be done? And before you ask, yes, raising the cap on FICA is a tax increase.

-What are the Dems going to do when their plans for dealing with the oil companies end up resulting in much higher gas/heating oil/natural gas prices? Remember transportation/heating costs, disproportionally have a much harder effect on the poorest in the country, as they have the least disposable income to be able to weather a loss of income.

[Rex Kickass]

so

 

-what exactly is "fixing the medicare drug benefit?"

Allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to provide its patients with lower cost medication. Other insurance companies already do this.

-Who is paying for cut in student loan interest rates?

If its for loans yet to be offered, nobody.

-I thought Nancy wasn't talking about raising taxes, if so, what other option is there to "guarantee a dignified retirement"? I am guessing that statement means not cutting benefits, so how else is it going to be done? And before you ask, yes, raising the cap on FICA is a tax increase.

I'm sure that there are some ways to guarantee SSI for longer amounts of time that don't involve raising the FICA cap... but ultimately that's what is going to have to be done. The choice is pretty simple really - eventually we cut benefits or increase FICA tax to pay for it, should it be self serving.

-What are the Dems going to do when their plans for dealing with the oil companies end up resulting in much higher gas/heating oil/natural gas prices? Remember transportation/heating costs, disproportionally have a much harder effect on the poorest in the country, as they have the least disposable income to be able to weather a loss of income.

Again, I don't think we're just going to see a blanket reversal of corporate welfare. Unlike the poor who receive regular welfare, they can afford to spend millions on lobbying efforts that would prevent what you're talking about from happening. A compromise there is most likely. I think the idea of tying corporate welfare to benchmarks of acheivement is probably what's most likely.

 

Let's give American companies a hand up, not a hand out.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Let's give American companies a hand up, not a hand out.

 

[southsider2k5]

Allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to provide its patients with lower cost medication. Other insurance companies already do this.

 

She mentioned this as a separate item from the negotiations, it makes it seem like there is something else there.

 

If its for loans yet to be offered, nobody.

 

If they are offering loans at half of the going rate, someone is paying for them. The US isn't a bank and doesn't lend money. It sells its own bonds to get money, and if it is lending out money cheaper than it is borrowing it, someone is making up the difference. Either it is being subsidized through higher taxes, subtraction of money from another program, or more borrowing to make up the difference on the interest payments.

 

I'm sure that there are some ways to guarantee SSI for longer amounts of time that don't involve raising the FICA cap... but ultimately that's what is going to have to be done. The choice is pretty simple really - eventually we cut benefits or increase FICA tax to pay for it, should it be self serving.

 

There are two ways to "fix" SSI. Raise FICA or cut benefits. If there is some other solution, I would love to hear it.

 

Again, I don't think we're just going to see a blanket reversal of corporate welfare. Unlike the poor who receive regular welfare, they can afford to spend millions on lobbying efforts that would prevent what you're talking about from happening. A compromise there is most likely. I think the idea of tying corporate welfare to benchmarks of acheivement is probably what's most likely.

 

Let's give American companies a hand up, not a hand out.

 

Just realize when you are talking about energy, you are talking about a completely inelastic commodity. Any price increases for the company are passed on to the consumers, pretty much dollar for dollar. If you look at the whole package that has been talked about; windfall profits taxes, cutting subsidies, forcing companies to invest in alternative energy, not allowing drilling in new areas while old ones are depleted, additional oversight costs, etc, those will all reverberate right back to the consumer.

[Rex Kickass]

She mentioned this as a separate item from the negotiations, it makes it seem like there is something else there.

 

Actually she said that she wanted to make healthcare affordable for all Americans but wanted to start with that.

 

 

If they are offering loans at half of the going rate, someone is paying for them. The US isn't a bank and doesn't lend money. It sells its own bonds to get money, and if it is lending out money cheaper than it is borrowing it, someone is making up the difference. Either it is being subsidized through higher taxes, subtraction of money from another program, or more borrowing to make up the difference on the interest payments.

 

The Federally subsidised student loans I got were handled by Sallie Mae, isn't that a quasi private company - like the Post Office?

 

Just realize when you are talking about energy, you are talking about a completely inelastic commodity. Any price increases for the company are passed on to the consumers, pretty much dollar for dollar. If you look at the whole package that has been talked about; windfall profits taxes, cutting subsidies, forcing companies to invest in alternative energy, not allowing drilling in new areas while old ones are depleted, additional oversight costs, etc, those will all reverberate right back to the consumer.

 

If the subsidies are for R&D, I think we have a right to expect a specific amount to be spent on specific types of R&D. If we're providing subsidies, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the companies who benefit to perform some action in return for the good of the country. Subsidies don't have to be cut across the board, and I'm sure they aren't applied uniformly. Yet the price of gas from corporation to corporation does not vary significantly. Putting conditions on subsidies, or scaling them back for some corporations shouldn't cause a significant price increase across the board. If it does, maybe it is time for regulation to return to the energy market.

[NorthSideSox72]

There are two ways to "fix" SSI. Raise FICA or cut benefits. If there is some other solution, I would love to hear it.

 

There are multiple. For one, the government could slowly phase its way out of the SS business entirely. For another, they can privatize parts of the funds, in relatively low-risk equities like corporate bonds.

 

Raising the FICA cap (not the rate) just makes the tax less regressive anyway, so that's the option I'd prefer. That is the only thing like a tax increase I'd want to see.

 

Just realize when you are talking about energy, you are talking about a completely inelastic commodity. Any price increases for the company are passed on to the consumers, pretty much dollar for dollar. If you look at the whole package that has been talked about; windfall profits taxes, cutting subsidies, forcing companies to invest in alternative energy, not allowing drilling in new areas while old ones are depleted, additional oversight costs, etc, those will all reverberate right back to the consumer.

 

And that is precisely why I brought up competition. If multiple firms are competing over new technologies, and there are multiple different technologies available as well, you have two axes of price competition going on. That can help mitigate cost increases from the research being passed on to the consumer.

[southsider2k5]

Actually she said that she wanted to make healthcare affordable for all Americans but wanted to start with that.

The Federally subsidised student loans I got were handled by Sallie Mae, isn't that a quasi private company - like the Post Office?

 

And those loans are set at market value, not half of market value, which means there is a profit incentive for the company in there. If you set it up as a guarenteed money loser, someone has to make up that difference.

 

If the subsidies are for R&D, I think we have a right to expect a specific amount to be spent on specific types of R&D. If we're providing subsidies, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the companies who benefit to perform some action in return for the good of the country. Subsidies don't have to be cut across the board, and I'm sure they aren't applied uniformly. Yet the price of gas from corporation to corporation does not vary significantly. Putting conditions on subsidies, or scaling them back for some corporations shouldn't cause a significant price increase across the board. If it does, maybe it is time for regulation to return to the energy market.

 

Let me put it this way, the Democrats aren't stupid. They know if they take drastic actions like has been bantered about, gas will go to $5 a gallon faster than you would be in line for Bea Arthur stripshow. The quickest way to get run out of Washington DC is to kick the average American in the pocketbook. Now I know the oil companies have a nice big target on their backs, but there can only be so much done without slitting their own throats.

 

Pelosi knows that the Repubs won't allow anything to get through in this respect, so all of this is just window dressing for 2008. Its a game of Washington DC chicken.

 

Heck, in reality market fundimentals should have the price of crude back down into the middle $40s to low $50 a barrel right now, but the worlds favorite cartel has decided that they like the idea of $60 a barrel and they are forcing the price to stay right there. I must have missed the Congressional investigations calls in this case though, because I am sure people want to do something about real live price fixing, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

And those loans are set at market value, not half of market value, which means there is a profit incentive for the company in there. If you set it up as a guarenteed money loser, someone has to make up that difference.

There is another factor - default guarantees. The interest rate charged by banks on loans has not only profit built in, as well as cost of borrowing and inflation, but also risk of default. Since the government guarantees the loans, regardless of interest rate, the default risk is removed from the equation.

 

That of course doesn't necessarily mean that it will make it easy to cut the rates in half, but, there are other tactics too. Some financial institutions, like credit unions, will still scoop up loans even at very low profits. They may even take them at zero profit for one reason or another, just as long as it isn't losing money.

[southsider2k5]

There are multiple. For one, the government could slowly phase its way out of the SS business entirely. For another, they can privatize parts of the funds, in relatively low-risk equities like corporate bonds.

 

Raising the FICA cap (not the rate) just makes the tax less regressive anyway, so that's the option I'd prefer. That is the only thing like a tax increase I'd want to see.

 

One problem with that is profit incentive. No one is going to go into the FICA business if they can't make money doing that, and they sure aren't going to take over a structure that is headed for a crash, without having the ability to either raise more revenues or cut costs in order to stay profitable.

 

Also, Nancy is the one quoted as saying raising taxes is a "last resort". If she is already talking about raising FICA cap in the first 100 hours, it sure sounds like a first option to me.

 

And that is precisely why I brought up competition. If multiple firms are competing over new technologies, and there are multiple different technologies available as well, you have two axes of price competition going on. That can help mitigate cost increases from the research being passed on to the consumer.

 

Economies of scale is a HUGE consideration in the energy industry. The capital costs of starting up an industry like this is enormous, and is prohibative to anyone but companies who are already doing these things. Its nice on a chalkboard, but pretty much impossible in real life.

 

There is another factor - default guarantees. The interest rate charged by banks on loans has not only profit built in, as well as cost of borrowing and inflation, but also risk of default. Since the government guarantees the loans, regardless of interest rate, the default risk is removed from the equation.

 

That of course doesn't necessarily mean that it will make it easy to cut the rates in half, but, there are other tactics too. Some financial institutions, like credit unions, will still scoop up loans even at very low profits. They may even take them at zero profit for one reason or another, just as long as it isn't losing money.

 

If the government is paying off the failed loans, that means the taxpayers are paying them off. That doesn't remove risk, it just moves risk directly to the taxpayers, instead of the business. Its the samething with either the government borrowing more money and paying more interest, or collecting more in taxes to pay for the defaults.

[NorthSideSox72]

Economies of scale is a HUGE consideration in the energy industry. The capital costs of starting up an industry like this is enormous, and is prohibative to anyone but companies who are already doing these things. Its nice on a chalkboard, but pretty much impossible in real life.

I disagree, as it pertains to alternative energy sources. Many of the technologies that we could be using, including wind, solar, and others (yes I know they all have flaws, that's another discussion), are already established and are relatively cheap (key word: relatively) to implement on a small scale and then expand. For things like oil and gas, yes, you are correct - capital costs make it almost impossible as a startup.

 

Also, as we are seeing, hybrid and electric technologies for vehicles can be done by existing firms quite well, and are doing so. They are hitting some roadblocks though, again, with patents (in particular with fully electric cars).

 

 

If the government is paying off the failed loans, that means the taxpayers are paying them off. That doesn't remove risk, it just moves risk directly to the taxpayers, instead of the business. Its the samething with either the government borrowing more money and paying more interest, or collecting more in taxes to pay for the defaults.

We're talking here about changing interest rates. The loans are guaranteed now, and would be later, so the default risk change is zero. Unless you are saying that more students will default at lower interest rates, which seems counterintuitive.

 

I was just trying to point out that student loans are able to be pushed down more easily because they are, and would be, guaranteed.

[southsider2k5]

We're talking here about changing interest rates. The loans are guaranteed now, and would be later, so the default risk change is zero. Unless you are saying that more students will default at lower interest rates, which seems counterintuitive.

 

I was just trying to point out that student loans are able to be pushed down more easily because they are, and would be, guaranteed.

 

People will still default on loans, the difference is who pays for those defaults. Instead of being absorbed by the company doing business, the government is paying the company back for those defaulted loans. So yes the interest rate charged by the company goes down, but the government still has to pay for those defaulted loans somehow so they have to borrow the money to pay for those defaults. The cost is still there.

[NorthSideSox72]

People will still default on loans, the difference is who pays for those defaults. Instead of being absorbed by the company doing business, the government is paying the company back for those defaulted loans. So yes the interest rate charged by the company goes down, but the government still has to pay for those defaulted loans somehow so they have to borrow the money to pay for those defaults. The cost is still there.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes, the cost is still there. But cutting interest rates in half won't change the number of defaults, so it adds no new costs (the government ALREADY guarantees the loans). I was just trying to illustrate how cutting interest rates on student loans would be easier on the cost side for banks, than regular commercial loans.

[longshot7]

don't fight privatizing Social Security - just get rid of it entirely!!!

[Balta1701]

don't fight privatizing Social Security - just get rid of it entirely!!!

No.

[mr_genius]

don't fight privatizing Social Security - just get rid of it entirely!!!

 

lazy old people. get a job ... oh, and don't give me that "i'm too old to work" excuse.

Edited November 9, 2006 by mr_genius