Whether it's the continuing difficulties in Iraq, the George Allen racial slur, the Mark Foley email sex scandal, the investigation of Curt Weldon, or the guilty plea of Bob Ney, it seems that the GOP is doing everything it can to ensure that it becomes the minority party in the Congress after the November elections.
There are a few notable exceptions to this consensus, though, including President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who all predict that Republicans will maintain their majority status in both houses of congress. While the President and Vice-President have predicted a tough race in which Republicans will emerge victorious, Limbaugh has predicted that Republicans will not only maintain their majority in the House, but they will actually win additional seats in the mid-term contests.
Personally, I think the entire Congress is in need of a major overhaul. Power tends to corrupt and the vast majority of the men and women in the House and Senate today have been in Washington far too long already.
With most polls showing Democratic candidates with huge leads over Republican candidates, the Congress may experience its biggest shake up since the 1994 elections. But is that really what America wants? Sure the current Congress is rife with scandal and corruption. Republicans in both the House and Senate have strayed far from their conservative roots and their base of support has been steadily eroding. But what happens to the country if Democrats really do win in November?
For starters, the American people can expect to be subjected to numerous congressional investigations on everything from weapons of mass destruction and domestic wiretapping, to the supposed torture of terrorist detainees and the government's alleged racist response to Hurricane Katrina. The hearings would be highly partisan on both sides of the aisle and the truly ugly nature of politics in Washington would be broadcast around the world for all to see.
Once the investigations reached the inevitable conclusion that everything was Bush's fault, likely Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers would be free to pursue his long-time goal of impeachment proceedings against the President. Make no mistake about it. This would be the long sought after payback for the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton.
With the casualty count rising daily in Iraq, a Democratic Congress would likely vote to de-fund the war, forcing a wholesale withdrawal of American troops while abandoning the more than 20 allied countries who also have soldiers in the war-torn country and the fragile Iraqi government that is relying on the United States to finish the job it started.
And, you can probably bank on an economic downturn if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House and John Murtha becomes Majority Leader. Rush Limbaugh, in the October edition of his Limbaugh Letter, quoted Howard Dean as saying, "We'll put a check on the President's crazy economic policies." That's Democrat-speak for rolling back President Bush's tax cuts.
Raising taxes on "the rich" seems like a good idea, but the markets typically respond negatively to tax increases on the people who do the majority of the investing and job creation in the country.
Government spending is also likely to increase, as hard as that may be to believe, with Charlie Rangel at the helm of the Ways and Means Committee. Citizens can expect to see a concerted drive for nationalized health care, more government regulation of industry, and increased social welfare funding.
Democrats need 15 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate to regain control of Congress. If they win the requisite number of races to become the majority party, there will likely be serious obstruction from both sides as a Republican President and a Democratic Congress block each other at every opportunity until the next round of elections in 2008.
I've never been one to pay much attention to the constant barrage of political poll results that fill the major networks and cable news channels. But this time around I am genuinely concerned. I fear they may, for once, be right in their predictions.
The Republican Party deserves a serious wake-up call, and it has done everything it can to make that happen for itself. But the consequences of a Democratic victory are frightening indeed. While the GOP may pay for its loss of focus at the polling booth, it is America that will pay if the Republicans lose control of the Congress.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
Rush Limbaugh Finds Opposition to Owning NFL FranchiseShould Rush Limbaugh be allowed by the NFL to become an owner? He is trying his hardest, but has already found some opposition among executives who don't support his hate speech.- Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno: Claims He is Not a PolarizerRush Limbaugh appeared on The Jay Leno Show Thursday night and the entire set tilted to the extreme right. Not really. Rush has lost quite a bit of weight, but that's another story and not at all what I meant -- alt...
Rush Limbaugh Agrees with Taliban and Iran: Obama Does Not Deserve Nobel...There are times, such as when President of the United States Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, that some conservatives react and the general public gets to see the...
Michael Steele Apologizes for Rush Limbaugh RemarksMichael Steele told D.L. Hughley that Rush Limbaugh was Saturday (February 28) "entertainment," agreed he was "incendiary" and said, "Yes, it's ugly." Two days later, in a state...- Rush Limbaugh on 77 WABC: Is Rush as Stale as Yesterday's Breakfast?Rush Limbaugh and his Apostles of Ideology believe they are the bearers of the One True Faith. Regular Republicans are plenty angry.
- A (Somewhat Livid) Response to "The Consequences of a Democratic Victory."
- Consequence of Democratic Win? Maybe No More Fear..
- Differences Between the House and Senate Health Care Reform Bills
- Merging the House and Senate Bills so Healthcare Will Move Foreword
- Rush Limbaugh Accuses Obama of Running World Biggest "Fonzie Scheme"
- Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann Fight Over Rush Limbaugh and Cornell
- Rush Limbaugh Racist Quotes: Appalling and Blatantly Inaccurate


48 Comments
Post a CommentIf you're a genuine republican, why did you get the stars wrong on the logo? They're supposed to be upside-down.
As for being "less rich," that's not what I said. Look at the concept. The value of your work (to you) depreciates as you climb the income ladder. For the government, it appreciates. For each person the cost-benefit analysis will differ. For some, the decision point may mean continued production. For others, it may not. But it is very much a personal choice. Progressive tax rates are too subject to the whims of the people in Washington.
Again, Jeff, what resources: food stamps, welfare, free clinics, public housing, child tax credit????? Where is the logic in that? I don't take the "Promote the General Welfare" Clause of the preamble to mean government should work to make society better for all by taking from the haves to give to the have nots.
Two points..first, much of the "American People" will demand nothing less than numerous investigations of what appear to be many criminal offenses. They may not, but only investigations will tell for sure. And about the tax, it doesn't make sense to say that those who are rich will choose to be less rich if they are taxed more. And the entire society will benefit. And as Mark pointed out, the rich use resources at a much higher rate than those less fortunate, and should pay more.
Quibble all you want, that is a personal choice. You may not have a problem with a 40% tax rate, but I do. That is, of course, unless everyone is paying 40%.
Also, I'll quibble with the concept that being taxed more removes the incentive to do better. I've worked for minimum wage and payed almost no taxes. I now make what would be considered pretty good money, and get taxed a lot more. I'd happily pay a 40% tax rate if I could make a million a year. Not to mention the tax shelters you can take advantage of...
Greg - I merely felt that consideration of the poor tends to be more in line with Christian philosophy than "every man for himself". In my opinion, originally, wealth was simply taken by force. Sometimes it still is. Capitalism allows it to be earned, but doesn't prevent it from being stolen. (The worst system ever invented, except for all the others...)I've known a lot of rich people. Some of them deserve it. Often they don't. But when you have money, you can take the time/risks/advantages of the system that poor people cannot take. You can perform mediocrely in the system, and either survive long enough to get better, or simply outwait your competition. Wealth buys many advantages.
And I'm not sure what government services the rich take advantage of more than the poor? Fire, police, welfare, free clinics, food stamps, etc., etc., etc.????
By raising the tax rate with increased levels of income, you take away incentive to continue to do more. Where that decision point is for any given individual will vary, but the concept is undeniable.
But I disagree about the inherent unfairness of the progressive tax. If you make x number of $ and are taxed at 30%, you take home 70 cents on the dollar. After x, you get taxed 40%. Now you take home 60 cents per dollar. After x+whatever, you get taxed 50%. Now you take home 50 cents per dollar. The value of your work depreciates for you, but appreciates for government. That may be okay with some, but not with me.