Well the Republicans have been bloviating all over themselves about how the Democrats in Congress, have collectively held each others hands and walked off the proverbial cliff. I want to call Busllshit on that line of thinking an logic and any Democrat who believes it.
First off, losing seats in the House if probably a given, since there are a number of House seats in red districts we should have never picked up in the first place! However, Democrats have a real possibility of mitigating losses, possibly to single digits, and if things go their way have a net gain of seats. Democrats will unarguably need everything to go their way not unlike 2006 and 2008, in an environment that says they could possibly lose a lot of seats.
The Jujitsu with Republican stands during the Health care fight though is ripe for exploitation by Democrats. The hypocrisy is astounding for its chutzpah and it needs to
The number one issue for Democrats should be permanently fixing Medicare, so that the long term budget picture for the program is improved. Republicans, like I said earlier bloviated all over themselves about how Democrats were proposing to starve Medicare by cutting $500 billion to finance health care and they (Republicans) were going to save it.
Doyle McManus of the LA Times wrote back in August 2009:
Now, just when we thought we'd heard everything, comes the chairman of the Republican Party with an audacious act of political cross-dressing. Michael Steele announced last week that his party would henceforth embrace the mission of defending Medicare, the federal health insurance program for senior citizens, against anyone who wants to limit its rapidly growing spending.
McManus quotes RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
"We need to protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of health reform," Steele said at the head of a list of principles he issued for this fall's debate on healthcare.
...and points out the Republican hypocrisy
In 1961, before the program's enactment, Ronald Reagan -- along with other Republicans -- denounced its creation as the leading edge of socialism; with Medicare in place, Reagan said, "you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." Reagan eventually dropped his opposition to Medicare's existence, but as president he looked for ways to rein in its spending -- as have most other Republican leaders and, in recent years, responsible Democrats as well.
In order to squash this idea of Republican gains, Democrats need to run on a platform of eliminating deficits and reducing the debt by, "Saving Medicare and reforming Social Security". Democrats then need to step back and watch the Republicans either jump on board the Democrat train or show their true colors (and their historic position on both subjects)to the American people.
I know, I know... do Democrats really want to potentially scare seniors by promising to mess with the third rails of politics? My answer is Yes, I can see the commercials now starring John McCain and Michael Steele, each bloviating about how they were "for Medicare before they were against it"
I don't know enough about the next subject, but Democrats need to throw the long ball by advocating the elimination of most (if not all) income taxes for small businesses and those making less than $250,000/yr. Replaced by a Value Added Tax or VAT. Earlier this year the subject was brought up in a couple of articles, the one that most struck me was from Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post.
She quotes several ideas from Ezekial Emanuel(Rahm's brother, Yale Law Professor, Michael Graetz, and Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution:
What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Progressives of course are worried about the regressivity of the tax, but from what understand there ways through the tax code and "prebates" back to low wage and middle class earners to satisfy this concern. The Republican and tea-bag talking points of letting people spend their money as they see fit would certainly to some extent be neutralized. As people will be incentivized to save, not spend. Prebates, based upon income or exempting necessities like food and housing would help out low wage and middle class earners and add to that potential increases in subsidies for "out of pocket" health care costs for middle class and low wage workers, Democrats could have a winner for 2010 and 2012.