E.J. Dionne's column,
"Another Bush Deficit: Ideas" argues that Bush's empty SOTU speech is a golden political opportunity for Democrats.
Focusing on W's meagre and wrong-headed health care proposals, Dionne states:
Here is Opportunity No. 1 for a smart opposition. It's time for aggressive approaches to expanding the number of Americans with insurance. The government should commit itself to making sure that all children under 18 are covered, and workers between the ages of 55 and 65 should be able to buy into Medicare, with subsidies if they need them, because many approaching retirement have a hard time buying private policies.
More...
I don't disagree that there are political opportunities for Democrats but they mostly existed well before the SOTU address (except that energy flip-flop). Dionne's suggested
aggressive healthcare initiative will cost money, and lots of it. And I agree that it's where the Democrats should be headed.
But what are the implications of pundits setting the Democrats reform agenda (at least in the public's mind) and expecting them to be "aggressive" about getting it done? Pundits aside, what's likely to be realistically doable in the near-term? And should the Democrats be setting the stage right now for foreseeable difficulties when they gain power?
The CBO projects the federal deficit for 2006 will be about $360 billion while the federal debt is $8,183,138,191,456.56 as of 2/1/2006.
As confirmed again in the LA Times today this administration is likely to leave any Democratic Congressional majority with an empty or nearly empty treasury while the baby boomers are retiring and wars are on-going in Iraq and Afghanistan:
The $70 billion that the administration plans to seek would be added to $50 billion approved by Congress in December as an advance on 2006 expenses, making this year the most expensive yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are tabulated together in federal legislation.
Congress has approved five emergency spending measures since Sept. 11, 2001, and other federal funds have been moved into the effort to wage battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, more than $400 billion will have been set aside or spent by the end of this year.
The administration plans to seek the additional $70 billion as special "supplemental" funding -- an emergency procedure outside the regular budget process that has stirred controversy on Capitol Hill, where critics have complained that the war costs have grown more predictable as the Iraq effort enters its fourth year next month.
But as in previous years, the supplemental budget request also will ask Congress to pay for programs that are not directly related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kaplan said part of the supplemental funding -- he did not say how much -- would go toward the Army's effort to convert its forces into smaller, more deployable combat units.
Some budget experts have criticized the practice of including in "emergency" spending bills the costs of programs not directly tied to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We all know BushCo lies about budgets, excludes major expenditures, diverts funds from Congressionally authorized programs, etc. Will Democrats have to do more than roll-back tax cuts to the wealthy to deal with the problems we're facing?
As I read these two articles today (in light of some of the recent diaries here) I realized that when the Democrats win they are going to be expected to quickly produce on several big ticket items such as; real healthcare reform, real Katrina relief; real education reform, and real progress on national defense - all while the right-wing media and the remnants of the GOP lambastes their every effort.
Because Democrats haven't yet fully decried the magnitude of BushCo's crimes and incompetence, public expectations are likely to be too high. It's going to take a long time to right the ship of state and the Democrats will be working in a corporate-owned and operated media environment.
I'm worried that if the stage isn't properly set then BushCo and the GOP may avoid the full brunt of the national disasters they've wrought. As others have noted, framing is sometimes everything. As long as the Democrats refrain from bluntly revealing the massive malfeasance and calling for extraordinary measures like impeachment, the public will not be fully aware of the ditch into which the GOP has driven us. Also without full disclosure of the scope of these crimes and abuses there is no obvious reason for the drastic reforms required to save our democracy.
We need to urge every Democrat to stop the business-as-usual attempted cordiality. The constitutional crises threatening the Separation of Powers and the Bill of Rights should be acknowledged as such. Simultaneously the scale of the humanitarian crises in the Gulf Coast states and our healthcare systems should be more openly discussed as expensive projects that must be dealt with while our finances are shot.
I just don't want to see the crooks get away with a wink and a nod from complacent Democrats only to have the same criminals leading ruthless campaigns to discredit the winkers and nodders.