Tell me if I'm off base here, but I fear either party having total power. The entire 2 party system is a bad idea for that matter - discouraged by the founders and practice in no other major country in the world. BUT a WSJ article from a while back scares the hell out of me. I'm fairly liberal on most social issues, but the Journal hit on some meat that scares me.
Much of this is not necessarily a bad thing. But when enacted wholesale by one party in favor of one side of the various lobbies involved, it probably will not end well. Think if GW had a super majority and where we would be, I do not think it would be good.
Anyway, issues with a democratic super majority:
1) Hillary Care. Government health care for all along the liens of medicare and medicaid. As I stated before, if done right this could be a good thing (more efficient, more doctors, less mandates from various lobby interests). However, medicare and medicaid have proven that we do not have the foresight to do it right in this country at this time, the lobbyist are simply able to streamline their goals directly into laws.
We will either need to raise taxes 25% of more to cover it, go deeper into debt, or limit the effectiveness of the program. Get ready for Uncle Sam to tell you what medical procedures you really do, or do not need. It will be the governments job to tell you that it is no longer cost effective to keep your mother alive (if not, we will completely go broke).
Once on the books, like all other entitlements, it will never go away.
2) Sarbanes-Oxley times 2.
More ineffective federal regulation. You'll note that the last round of regulation didn't really DO anything. Just made it a large enough pain in the donkey to do business here to shift about 100,000 financial jobs over seas.
Regulation can be a good thing (particularly along the vein of FDIC, a voluntary program that mandates companies pay the cost of compliance in exchange for gaining public confidence ), but much/most is ineffective and expensive window dressing. When we start trying to "punish" companies in general for troubles in the past we kill businesses. An economic slow down is not a good time for such actions.
Again, with one party doing it the regulations will be ineffective. If it were just the republicans it would probably not have enough meat. Just the democrats it will probably be punitive in nature - showing the little guy how tough they are without really doing anything effective. The goal should be to restore confidence and make people properly away of the risks involved while holding parties responsible for failures, not prohibit risk and not to punish.
3) Union Yes!
Rules have been submitted and continuously rejected to allow "union shops" by a simple majority vote. If 50.1% of the shop signs a petition to have a union shop, everyone now pays union dues or must quit. Keep in mind everyone will know who has signed or not and be able to pressure accordingly.
The same measures enforce a "contract" if union negotiations fail after 130 days. No contract, but the company and other employees are forced in anyway.
The teachers union (IMHO one of the most destructive forces in education) would lower, reduce, or eliminate education standards. If you have heard my rants before, parents are responsible for our crappy education system. But removing the means to find out how bad it is and where it is bad is a step in the wrong direction.
GM bailout anyone? Expect failing legacy companies to be bailed out with even more fervor. At the moment the Democrats are crying foul (as well they should), but the gears will shift and rolls reverse. Can't let 350,000 union jobs fail just because of incompetent management and a greedy union.
4) Taxes.
No matter what scraps are thrown to the lower class, the goal is to raise taxes and give the government more money to spend. More money = more reliance on government = more power for government.
A primary target is to repeal the limits on taxable social security income. Thus changing a "security net" into a wholesale income redistribution scheme. You have plenty, that money now belongs to the people...
Again, when government gets more power - it never gives it up.
5) GREEN!
New buzz word in Congress will be green. It will be the same as all the old buzz words, mostly an excuse to do as they please while not making much progress towards the actual goal.
Cap and trade will be a new business tax and give all manufacturing jobs into the whims of the Federal government. You think we are losing industrial jobs now? The federal government will essentially decide what is, and what is not a good business model.
As any "green" advocate knows, what the federal government thinks is green... and what really is are often 2 different subjects. Think "safety." The crap that GW has done in the name of safety or stopping terrorism, much of it did nothing to help the actual problem that it was done in the name of. Same basic concept.
6) Free speech.
GW surely hasn't protected it too much. Democrats love free speech - unless it goes against them. Hannity, Rush, Reagan, or whoever else blathers on the radio every day. The ironically named "fairness doctrine" will dictate who can say what, when, and for how long on a given medium. Ironic that the party in power would hunt the talking heads of the party not in power under the guise of being "fair."
And this would include the internet. Democrats have introduced several bills to regulate speech on the internet. Not only patently a bad idea, but also totally impracticable without massive government intervention.
People, corporations, or random internet users should be ale to say whatever they want, as often as they want, where ever and however they want. That especially includes political speech. I don't care if the Sean Hannity show is a 4 hour commercial for the GOP, I don't listen and you don't have to either. It should be his prerogative to have a job serving as a platform to spout his agenda - that applies to conservatives, liberals, or Nazi's if they so choose.
7) Voting.
The article mentions voter registration. Currently you have to register in advance of voting to help protect against ACORN (I'm sure there are other examples) style fraud. Certainly in the name of "community organizers" such laws would be changed to allow more rapid and less stringent registration. Not sure why that would be wanted, but it is.
DC votes.
DC has long wanted a vote in the House. They were denied such a vote for a reason and it should remain. If you want to be represented in our nation, don't live in DC. Simple.
9) Income cap.
Telling people how much money they should be able to make. Cap CEO's, owners, whomever. Do it with tax structures, trust laws, or just a blatant statement.
As it stands companies are free to put packages to a vote with owners (and they often do). Unions use executive salaries in negotiations (as well they should). We are able to draw the best and the brightest because we pay the most. That does not always guarantee success, but it gives us a competitive advantage.
I hope companies are smart enough to avoid golden parachutes, white whales, and generally throwing money out the window. But that is the business of companies, shareholders, and employees... not the government. Unless of course the government owns a giant stake, at which point I want them to pay executives to salaries for performance as it saves me money! Come on companies, long term performance should pay... bah, that's an entirely different rant.
The Wall Street Journal, "A Liberal Super Majority," 10/17/2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
I could be wrong. But the article is right in spouting agenda items. Either party left untempered would pass poor legislation that serves their interest and their lobbyists. It is possible that the confidence they enjoy allows them to pass a wonderful and well thought out health care program, to cut spending, eliminate pork, find fair labor practices and guarantee free speech. But I doubt it.
In a two party system the incentive is to push the government as far in your direction as you can, when you can. Then try to concrete it in place such that it can not be pushed the other way. Entitlements are a great way of doing just that, limiting political speech would help accomplish that goal, empowering labor unions (which this time of the year can be mistaken for and sometimes are democratic campaign headquarters) will shuffle support and money in an effort to support that goal, and then change voting laws to help that goal.
I'm not trying to fear monger nor to BE fear mongered. I believe either party would do the same thing if they could. If the religious right won the day I'd rant about a gay marriage amendment, religion in the class room, and favors to business entities.
No one party should ever have total control, the ultimate failure of a bad system - that means I have to vote for Inhofe to make sure we have as many Republican senators as we can. The 2 party system should be killed as soon as possible.
/rant