A new era

The Democratic "100 hour" list:

• They vow to pass legislation implementing the September 11 panel recommendations: That's a whole lot of stuff to push through. Are they going to implement EVERY recommendation? Even the ones they have political differences with? I can't imagine that happening. Either way, this is just for show. They know that (1) they don't have time to read the entire report in 100 hours and (2) President Bush will veto this, as there are recommendations that just aren't good recommendations. The idea is a nice, get-us-elected sound-bite, but there's no way the Democrats are going to just rubber-stamp an appointed panel's recommendations. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. No one elected this panel - why should their recommendations be anything other than recommendations? We elect Congress so that the members of Congress analyze the merits of the recommendations and turn them into law where applicable - not to just rubber-stamp every idea an unelected body happens to put forth.

• Increasing minimum wage: I'm against increasing minimum wage. If the Democrats want to help the working poor, they can do it better by improving inner-city and rural education, fighting the drug problem, and ending the drop in wages due to the work done by illegal immigrants. Either way, this is bad for three reasons: (1) Artificially increasing wages leads to inflation. This will hurt all of those already making more than minimum wage and will mitigate the benefits that those making the minimum wage will see from the raise, (2) Higher minimum wages always yield greater unemployment. (3) The vast majority of people make over minimum wage. This is another show issue, and nothing more. The only people making minimum wage are those working at small businesses, many of which will be put out of business by this law.

• Expanding stem-cell reasearch: I'm all in favor of expanded stem-cell research, but I'm not generally one for governmental sponsorship for research to begin with. I'd rather see all government sponsorship of research ended in favor of private sector funding, but as long as that doesn't happen, I'd be in favor of the expansion of stem-cell research. Doesn't matter, though, as Bush will veto this.

• Allowing the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs: Another show issue, nothing more. at best, this is a short-term fix to the problem. Long-term, it could cripple domestic development of drugs. At worst, it's the Democrats showing their arrogance by pandering to people with the expectation that if they slam on "Big, Bad Business" then it will help them get reelected. Either way, this is getting hit up with a veto.

• Cutting interest rates on student loans: The only item which has a chance of passing. Personally, I'm concerned that making college more affordable is only increasing the cost of college. Harvard, for instance, has an endowment which pays out about $75,000 a year per student (undergraduate, graduate, doctorial candidate) in education expenses. On top of that, they charge about $48,000 a year in tuition to those whose families who make at least $50,000 a year (because a family can afford to spend more than its entire income sending a child to college, of course). They can charge the tuition, so they do, although there's no reason why the school needs to spend $110,000 a year per student on education (the difference is due to those who receive need-based and academic scholarships). Decreasing student loan interest rates makes college more affordable, so students can borrow more, so the schools charge more. In the end, the students will be making the same payments for the same amount and most of them will be graduating with degrees which won't help them get jobs. The government would be better off giving grants/scholarships to students studying degree-programs which will end up helping the economy - engineering, medicine, nursing, law, business, education, computers, applied sciences, foreign languages, etc. - and less money on 'personal development' degrees.

• Ending subsidies for oil companies while expanding renewable energy exploration: Gonna get a veto, wo why even bother? I'm against all corporate subsidies, but the Democrats hate oil companies so they may as well nail on them. Of course, if this passes it will only increase the price of gas. Not sure if that's their goal, but I'd be hard pressed in our local economy to do anything to decrease supply and increase the production price of gas.