Not Even The Washington Post…..
…Can avoid the fact that the Democrat's agenda for what they would do if they gain control is long on rhetoric but short on the details needed to make the plans workable. In other words it sounds good, but how do you do all that?
PERHAPS, AS President Bush says, it's too early for Democrats to be "measuring their drapes" in congressional leadership offices. But with it looking increasingly as if Democrats, after 12 years in the minority, will take over the House at least, it's worth looking at their stated agenda — "A New Direction for America" — for a glimpse at what a Democratic majority might entail.
On national security, the House Democrats' plan offers more goals than details. Who could disagree with promises to "eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban" or "redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea?" But the hard part — on which Democrats offer no details — is how that is to be done.
On Iraq in particular, the agenda calls for "the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces," with "Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Again, what's missing are the details of what "responsible redeployment" might look like. "Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency," the Democrats say. Okay, what if that insistence doesn't yield the desired result?
The magic promises of Rangel and others - that they can cut funding to the war without wreaking havoc on the troops simply don't work in the real world. So that alone is a deal breaker for a lot of people. The Democrats have Jim Webb giving radio addresses that essentially promise everyone a pony. The problem is, they do not appear to have the slightest clue how to make all those promises happen other than to cut funds. That is not a plan, that is a hope.
As to another piece of the security agenda, energy independence, the Democrats assert that they will "achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world" — a super-sized version of Mr. Bush's pledge to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." The Democratic plan for doing this — tax credits and research funds — sounds remarkably like the Bush approach, down to increased use of switch-grass ethanol. Unlike the president, the Democrats rightly frame energy independence as an environmental as well as national security issue; like the president, they're unwilling — for the obvious reason that they don't want to be branded as tax-raisers — to recommend a carbon tax.
Investor's Business Daily pointed out yesterday that virtually every Democrat in Congress has voted against expanded oil exploration off the coast of the US. They have completely blocked expanded drilling in Alaska. One of their standard ploys has been to go after energy companies. Here's the rub: if they do that, the average person will end up paying higher energy costs. Period. The money won't mystically come from the companies - it will come from you and I. Another way to describe this is that this will be a tax increase, hidden behind the rhetoric.
If even the WaPo can't see all of what is behind the rhetoric this year, you should be thinking about what all these promises mean in the long run. Then if the Dems to take over at least the House, hold on to your wallets. It'll be a bumpy ride.
