The Harvard Salient -- 12 March 2007

The Harvard Salient
12 March 2007

Madam Speaker’s 100-Hour Failure

Nancy Pelosi Fails to Clean Up House

By Brian J. Bolduc, Staff Writer

The first 100 hours of the 110th Congress have passed. Congressmen are well-raised, workers are well-paid, and Big Oil is well-taxed. But the country has not yet reached utopia—even with the Democrats in control of things. Perfection will come only when a Democrat occupies the White House; the country will wallow in misery until then. In the meantime, Americans should look at all the recently passed legislation and understand the direction in which the Democrats are leading us. It is not a new direction, as the Democrats claim, but the oft-traveled path towards ever bigger and ineffective government.

“We started by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and committed to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.”

—Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised to kill the “culture of corruption” in Congress. On January 4th, the Democrats passed their trumpeted ethics reform bill, banning Congressmen from pocketing lobbyists’ gifts and from flying on corporate jets. Now, an ethics committee must approve congressional trips funded by interest groups and publicize the travel arrangements. Proud of this achievement, Representative James McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, exclaimed, “It’s amazing what an election will do.”

Yeah, a whole lot of nothing. Congressmen will not receive perks as easily anymore—although they will probably find a way around the rules—but they will continue to scrape to the bottom of the pork barrel. They can still earmark funds for special interests with anonymity. Frankly, a Congressman’s trip to the Bahamas on a lobbyist’s tab is not too trifling. Let the lobbyist spend his money courting politicians; but Congress should not spend taxpayers’ money courting votes.

But it seems that Democrats also claim fiscal responsibility with their adoption of the “pay-as-you-go” principle. This rule forces Congress to pay for spending increases with either spending decreases in other areas or increasing taxes. The first day the Democrats were in office, they voted to lower the requirement for passing a tax increase from a three-fifths vote—a holdover from the 1994 “Contract with America”—to a simple majority. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats have not yet disclosed where they will decrease spending.

The “culture of corruption” still exists; only now, taxpayers will pay even more of their money for it.

“We made our nation safer and began by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.”

As the Baker-Hamilton Commission was the panacea for Iraq, the 9/11 Commission was the cure-all for terrorism. The Democrats insisted that the government adopt all of the commission’s recommendations. On January 9th, Congress passed a law implementing these recommendations, including requiring inspection of all cargo that enters the country by air and by sea. It is overly burdensome to inspect every piece of cargo that enters the United States—not just the high-risk shipments that inspectors check now.

Interestingly, the bill also stipulates that Transportation Security Administration workers receive the same treatment as other federal employees. Namely, the bill authorizes these workers to unionize. More unions means more security, obviously; but unionization is merely an offshoot of the law, the capstone will be the extra billions of dollars in spending. The Democrats have yet to name a price, but a similar measure proposed by Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat from Maryland, last year estimated a cost of $53 billion over five years. Perhaps Congress’ new “pay-as-you-go” system will prevent further deficit spending…

Instead of standing up strong and supporting the beleaguered mission in Iraq, the Democrats are forcing the country into the fetal position. Defensive measures that cost billions but minimally increase security are meaningless. Rather than write “non-binding” resolutions that oppose the troop surge, Congress should focus on winning the war on terrorism, not surrendering and potentially laying to waste all of the lives and resources that have been put into it already.

“We made our economy fairer, and we began by raising the minimum wage.”

Since the United States is the poorest nation in the world, the increase in the minimum wage was crucial. On January 10th, Congress approved an increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. Everyone immediately saw their paychecks rise.

But some did not. Although the bill is the first to mandate a minimum wage for the Northern Mariana islands, it exempts American Samoa. An opponent of the minimum wage, StarKist Tuna runs packing plants on the Pacific island that employ almost three fourths of the population. The parent company, Del Monte Corporations, resides in San Francisco, the region that Speaker Pelosi represents. Republicans were able to secure tax breaks for small businesses in the Senate in exchange for the increase, but the blatant special treatment of Speaker Pelosi’s constituents is too rich.

In reality, the increase in the minimum wage affects only 2% of working men and 4% of working women, and even then mostly teenagers working their first jobs. It will serve mainly to decrease opportunities for workers trying to land entry level jobs. Small businesses cannot just raise wages without raising their prices or cutting costs—which includes firing workers. Speaker Pelosi seems to think that most businesses will just have to find some way to deal with it, with the notable exception of those businesses in her district, of course.

“We made health care more affordable for all Americans, and began by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices”.

After long being put to the back of the line by the Republicans, seniors are finally being put first. On January 12th, the House passed a bill requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies for lower medicine prices. Representative John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan, who wrote the bill, duly noted that the plan did not need “a rocket scientist” to figure it out.

Yet it perplexed the Congressional Budget Office. After reviewing the bill, the CBO wrote a letter to Representative Dingell, warning that the Secretary would have a negligible effect on prices. Rather, competition among drug companies forces prices to decrease, and the government cannot quicken that process. Unconvinced, Representative Dingell declared “Common sense tells you that negotiating with the purchasing power of 43 million Medicare beneficiaries behind you would result in lower drug prices.”

Drug prices, however, are already decreasing. The Bush administration has decreased its estimated cost of the Medicare Part D program through 2015 from $926 billion to $640 billion.

But that will not satisfy Representative Dingell—he is still looking for the rocket scientist to tell him how to negotiate lower drug prices.

“We promoted stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.”

Embryonic stem cells are the only solution to human disease. Thankfully, Democrats understand this fact and approved federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on January 11th. As Democratic Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer proclaimed, “We have a moral obligation to provide our scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives.”

Still, stem cell research is not that promising. Privately funded stem cell research has been progressing for years, yet scientists have not developed a single treatment using embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, Dr. David Prentice, a senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, has compiled a list of 72 treatments that use adult stem cells—the stem cells that the Democrats never mention. If the private sector is not pursuing embryonic stem cells vigorously, and adult stem cells show greater promise, then when where is the pressing need for such legislation?

As Representative Harry Mitchell of Arizona says, the bill is “the best hope for a cure.” Indeed it may be: hope and nothing more.

“We broadened college opportunity, and began by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.”

Upon first grasping the gavel, Speaker Pelosi declared that she would work for the children. Certainly, the children need help with their college tuition bills. On January 17th, the Democrats voted to reduce the interest rate for federally subsidized loans from 6.8% to 3.4%. Although this measure may slightly ease financial burdens for some students, its effect will be negligible. Democrats claim that people will be less likely to fear high costs of loans because of the decrease, but the bill does not affect their ability to pay those high costs. Republicans have suggested increasing need-based grants and loans to students. Decreasing the interest rate helps graduates paying their loans but does not help potential students considering higher education. Moreover, decreasing the interest rate may allow banks or universities to increase their costs to soak up the additional money.

Here, the Democrats are not faltering but grandstanding. Decreasing the interest rate will barely improve students’ financial outlooks. The Democrats claim this measure is merely a “first step,” but this first step may be the last one—to which the Democrats can refer when they run for reelection, demanding that Congress do more.

“We energized America by working towards achieving energy independence, and we began by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.”

Big Oil was the last monster with which the Democrats did battle. On January 18th, the House eliminated almost $6 billion of tax breaks for oil companies and approved additional fees on Big Oil. The Democrats believe the measure will raise close to $15 billion, which they plan to use to promote renewable fuels.

Oil companies are a favorite target of the Democrats because they are so profitable. But Democrats also complain about the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Taxing domestic oil companies, and thus forcing them to raise their prices, will not increase our energy independence. Funding renewable fuels will not change the fact that such energy sources are more expensive than oil and will be for the foreseeable future. Americans will merely shell out more money to foreign oil companies.

The Democrats should stop blaming Big Oil for the country’s problems. Moreover, they should stop punishing Big Oil—and consequently stop hurting every-day Americans’ wallets. But such a request is hopeless, for Big Oil is the Democrats’ favorite scapegoat.

On November 7th 2006, America voted for a new direction, but not the one that the Democrats have chosen. Runaway spending, greater regulation, and political scapegoating will mark the 110th Congress, if the first 100 hours are any indication. Sadly, Americans will not be able to reverse this direction for another two years.