Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (795)	11/12/2002 3:42:09 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1604

Jewish World Review Nov. 12, 2002 / 7 Kislev, 5763 Mort Zuckerman URL:http://jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman.html Everybody has the right to be wrong … but the Dems have been abusing the privilege newsandopinion.com \| The Republican triumph last week challenges both political parties. The Democrats must look backward and deal with problems of failure; the Republicans can look forward and deal with problems of success. The Democrats need a message and a messenger. They tried to run on the weakness in the economy without a clear-cut plan to improve it. The economic facts restricted Democratic opportunities. On the income side, it is a jobless recovery, but the unemployment rate remains at a relatively low 5.7 percent and even less, 5.2 percent, for heads of household. Meanwhile, real wages have increased by a solid 2 percent. On the wealth side, the stock market has made millions poorer-but the effect of wealth contraction was mitigated, since the top 10 percent own about 80 percent of stocks. More important, since 68 percent of families own their own homes, in a market of rising values and declining mortgage rates, this produced stunning opportunities for refinancing gains, with home equity of the average American family at least three times its financial assets. The economy, in other words, was hardly a burning political issue. On what clearly was a key issue, the war on terrorism, the Democrats came off as "national security lite." They conveyed the perception that they were too interested in protecting special-interest constituencies-the civil service unions in their fight over the new homeland security department; the tort lawyers on the issue of terrorism insurance; and the environmental lobby on the issue of energy independence. Everybody has the right to be wrong. The Democrats have been abusing the privilege. Fairness. Republicans now face a different set of problems. In George W. Bush, they have a gifted political messenger, but they cannot rely on the political momentum gained in last week's balloting to carry them through the presidential year of 2004. They will hazard the odds of a second term for Bush if they appear to support programs that excessively favor the wealthy and the business community, especially with investors bemoaning shrunken portfolios and so many corporate bosses exposed as hucksters. This is not, in short, a moment when Americans will equate good economic policy with what is good for business. All this might be different, of course, if Americans thought they had a fair shot at success and that the winners in the American economy played by the rules instead of doing whatever they could get away with. Pay for performance is acceptable. But all the stories of executives who failed and were still paid millions of dollars on their way out the door are outrageous. Right now, 23 major companies are being investigated. Their CEOs collected about $1.4 billion in compensation between 1999 and 2001, only to see the market value of their companies plunge by about $500 billion, while over 160,000 people were laid off. As President Bush said, "Responsible leaders do not collect huge bonus packages when the value of their companies dramatically declines . . . ." nor "take home tens of millions of dollars in compensation as their companies prepare to file for bankruptcy." Who would have thought that business leaders who had already made so much money would ever have to do anything immoral in their entire business life? No wonder the American sense of fairness was aroused. Traditionally, Americans don't resent wealth because they believe ours is an opportunity society and that anyone who works hard can make it here. Indeed, America has extended to millions of ordinary people the upwardly mobile avenues of economic advancement and personal fulfillment previously available only to the elite. But lurking in the background is the fact that average annual salaries in America, adjusted for inflation, have grown only about 10 percent from 1970 to 1999, while after-tax income for the top 1 percent rose by 157 percent. The bulk of all income gains were concentrated in the top 20 percent. Public cynicism over growing income inequality is an issue that is smoldering; if not watched carefully, it could burn Republicans-badly. Democrats will make much of the fact that the two major tax cuts of the past 25 years, both under President Reagan and the current President Bush, were heavily tilted toward the well off, while the only major tax hike during that time-the increase in payroll taxes-was tilted the other way. So ideas emanating from the Republican leadership like eliminating double taxation of dividends or reducing the capital-gains tax must, if proposed, be balanced by programs to extend unemployment insurance, provide medical care for the unemployed, and support states in fiscal crisis-all to create a perception of fairness. Properly handled, though, the Republicans have the opportunity to take control of the great middle of American political life. Who would have thought George W. Bush would have been able to pull that off?

To: calgal who wrote (795)	11/12/2002 5:02:05 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 1604

Many favor GOP on economy, war on terrorism URL:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-11-11-poll-usat_x.htm 11/12/2002 - Updated 12:58 AM ET By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans support President Bush's push for war against Iraq and say Democrats are not tough enough in dealing with terrorism, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows. The poll taken over the weekend also found that most surveyed believe that Republicans have a clearer plan for managing foreign affairs and the economy. Even a majority of Democrats say their party is too liberal. The poll suggests that public support for Bush's leadership on Iraq and terrorism, and the Democrats' perceived lack of a plan for the economy, may have been significant factors in the GOP election sweep that gave it control of Congress. "This election doesn't give Bush a mandate, but it certainly means that his political enemies should never underestimate him again," said Stephen Hess, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution. Overall, 57% of those polled said Democrats are not tough enough on terrorism, while 64% said Republicans are. And 54% of Democrats polled said the party needs to moderate its liberal message. "Democrats are holding back more than Republicans on attacking Iraq, and we need to clamp down on Saddam Hussein," said Democrat Bill Howard, 68, a retired equipment operator in San Angelo, Texas. However, Democrats do not appear to be moderating their leadership after the elections. House Democrats are expected to elect a liberal, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, as their new leader over moderate Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee. Pelosi is the only Democratic leader in Congress to oppose the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Now that Republicans are in control of Congress and the White House, their chance of staying in power will be determined by whether they can solve key problems. Overall, 50% of those polled said the GOP has a clear plan for curing the country's ills; just 30% of respondents said the Democrats do. And with one party in charge, three of four respondents, 74%, expect things to be accomplished. Among them: The creation of a homeland security department. Making tax cuts that were enacted last year permanent. But 52% of those polled oppose additional tax cuts being considered by Bush to stimulate the economy.

To: calgal who wrote (795)	11/13/2002 12:27:49 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 1604

OUTSIDE THE BOX URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110002614 Left-Handed Compliment Nancy Pelosi is true to her ideals. What a disaster for the Dems. BY PETE DU PONT Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST The House Democratic Caucus is about to choose a new leader, following Dick Gephardt's decision to leave that vale of tears for the Elysian fields of a 2004 presidential campaign. You can blame Mr. Gephardt for failing to win back control of the House after the Republican sweep of 1994; he tried and failed four times. But you can't blame him for wanting to leave that liberal Democratic snake pit where on a daily basis he tried to bring reason as well as electoral success to a couple of hundred people each of whom deeply believes that he should have Mr. Gephardt's job. Presidential campaigns are not easy, but they are a lot more fun than trying to reason with the the Black Caucus or the Blue Dogs, to say nothing of the Baghdad Boys. So whom are the Democrats going to choose to replace Mr. Gephardt? Someone from the far left of course, for they blame their Election Day disaster not on failing to convince blue-collar, middle America that there is in fact a sound Democratic program for the nation, but on insufficiently motivating its core left constituencies. Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe's primary goal was revenge: the defeat of Gov. Jeb Bush to punish his brother for "stealing" the Florida election in 2000. That was more important than a Democratic economic program or winning the House and Senate. So there was no message and there were few victories. Democrats failed to honor the George McGovern constituency by opposing the war in Iraq. They failed to honor the Fritz Mondale constituency by demanding tax hikes. And that, liberal Democrats will tell you, is why they lost. So the first step to recovery is the election of a far-left leader, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Her congressional district gave Al Gore a 61-point margin over President Bush in 2000, and the president outpolled Ralph Nader by a mere six points. Ms. Pelosi is articulate and telegenic, and she represents the beliefs of her district as elected officials are supposed to do. But the Eighth District of California doesn't even come close to representing America, so to place someone of her philosophy in charge of the Democratic caucus is risky. The far left will be delirious, but if the Pelosi program becomes the Democratic program, President Bush's opponent in 2004 may lose as badly as Messrs. McGovern and Mondale did when then ran for president. What is the Pelosi program? It is opposition to American military intervention (she voted against the 1991 Gulf War and authorizing the use of force against Iraq this year), support for higher taxes (she voted for the Clinton tax increases and against the Bush tax cut); opposition to free trade (she voted against giving the president "fast track" negotiating authority). She is against the death penalty, against school choice of any kind (even for poor children in unsafe schools) and against expanded personal health insurance (medical savings accounts). She also voted against the welfare-reform bill that President Clinton signed into law, which freed more than seven million people from dependence. She voted for partial-birth abortion, in which a living baby is killed as it emerges from the birth canal. The ACLU gave her a 93% rating last year, People for the American Way, 94%. Her Americans for Democratic Action rating was 100% and her lifetime American Conservative Union voting record is 2%. Now that is far left. Mr. Gephardt and Tom Daschle were against the Bush tax cut, but when asked if they would repeal it, they always hedged. Ms. Pelosi would say Yes! Yes! That is what the Democratic Party is for--higher taxes! The Democratic Party is not without good ideas, but repealing the Bush tax cuts and adopting the French foreign policy--talk nicely and never threaten a terrorist--are not among them. The Democrats might want to abandon the legacy of Messrs. McGovern and Mondale and instead go back to being the party of JFK, who put through a substantial tax cut to "get America moving again," pushed a free-trade bill through Congress, dealt with the Cuban missile crisis much as Mr. Bush is dealing with the Iraqi threat, and famously declared "Ich bin ein Berliner." There are a lot of ideas swirling about in the Democratic Party. Ted Halstead, author of "The Radical Center," a book about liberal policy alternatives, offered three in the Nov. 8 Washington Post, starting with "enabling all Americans to divert part of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts, with matching sums provided by the federal government on a progressive basis to top off the accounts of low income workers." Then came "embracing school choice on the condition that it is paired with national equalization of school funding on a per pupil basis," and "mandatory private health insurance, just as we have mandatory car insurance," with the government helping low-income families pay the premium. These are big ideas, and there are lots of questions about them, but do you suppose the far left and Nancy Pelosi would ever allow the consideration of any of them? Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat, sees what is happening: "We've got the left turn signal on, and we're headed down another rabbit hole to political oblivion." If that is the course the Democrats desire, Nancy Pelosi is exactly the right person to lead them down the path. Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears Wednesdays.