[Winstonm]

If the new Democratic Congress is to be viewed as a success, it will need a well thought out agenda that conforms to the concerns of the electorate who placed them in office. IMO, the Democrats have to be careful in realizing this was not so much a vote FOR them as AGAINST Bush/Cheney - it was not an ideologically based election so a number of Democratic ideas should be back shelved until they receive a true mandate for the concepts. I doubt this Congress will be able to override any vetoes, so instead of wasting time on legislation that will surely be vetoed, it seems better to review the oversight that was lacking over the past 6 years. Here are the items I hope to see investigated/changed/overturned:

Important Items for Congress to Address
1) The reason for the start of the Iraq war - poor intel or purposeful deception.
2) The Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the John Warner Defense Act.
3) Illegal wiretapping on Presidentail order alone - especially domestic.
4) Signing statements - I feel it is important to challenge the President's signing statements in order to find out if their use was simply informational or whether they were included to alter the laws. This would take a challenge and a Supreme Court ruling but is of paramount importance in order to define the power of the "unitary executive" and see if the courts uphold the Bushian/Cheney view or whether separation of powers still exists.
5) Re-balance the authorities of the 3 branches of government and reaffirm checks and balances.

Things that will only waste time for which no mandate was granted:
1) Gun control (Would be interesting to see if Bush would sign)
2) Abortion (Auto-veto)
3) Stem cell research (Auto-veto)
4) Global warming (Important but now is not the time)
5) Tax increases (Although this is a necessity and should be attempted.)

In my view, this is an important opportunity for Congress to stop and reassess the power shift caused by the puported "war on terror", determine how real that threat is, and work with the Supreme Court and the executive branch to find legal means to protect American soil from attack. After all, the definition of the Bush administration over the past 5+ years has been based on a single item: the war on terror. It is time for Congress to assume its oversight role and determine how real is that war as well as the ramifications of actions taken against that threat by the legislative branch and executive branch - their necessity as well as their legality - over the past 5+ years.

[hrothgar]

As I've noted in the past, my main concerns are structural issues...

Many of the issues that I'm going to raise need to be implemented at the State level, however, it would be a mistake to conclude that the impact of last week's elections were only felt at the National level.

1. Redistricting using objective criteria. My favorite scheme involves a spatial transformation based on population density combined with a smoothing algorithm for pre-existing edges like the Maine coastline. After a new map has been created, a set of N equal sized districts will be created as to minimize the sum of the borders of all the districts.

2. Fair voting:

Establish some real standards for electronic voting machines
Require the the same technologies be used on a statewide basis
Allocate voting machines and other such resources based on on population density

3. Energy reform: Eliminate the subsidies for ethanol and the like. These are primarily based on pork, not science. Phase in a big carbon tax over the next 10 years

4. Health care reform. (The US system is a disgrace)

5. "Network Neutrality": I actually go quite a bit further than most on this subject. I agree with the old metaphore that describes the Internet as the "Information Superhighway" and argue that the federal government should should be providing IT infrastructure in much the same way that they built interstate highways.

I'm in farily wide agreement with Pelosi's outline for the first 100 hours, which is described as

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

[helene_t]

Sounds good, Richard, just one thing I'm curious about:

Why should the federal government provide internet? Can't market forces be trusted?

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Nov 11 2006, 10:20 PM, said:

Sounds good, Richard, just one thing I'm curious about:

Why should the federal government provide internet? Can't market forces be trusted?

Markets are wonderful, if and when you have the necessary conditions in place that permit them to function smoothly. However, there are a LOT of cases where markets don't work well.

Externalities (pollution) is a classic example of market failure. So-called "natural monopoly" is another well known example. I won't bother giving a long lecture on the topic. I will merely note that

1. The Internet looks like a natural monopoly to me
2. Wikipedia has a decent article on the subject http://en.wikipedia....atural_monopoly

[Winstonm]

Quote

1. Redistricting using objective criteria. My favorite scheme involves a spatial transformation based on population density combined with a smoothing algorithm for pre-existing edges like the Maine coastline. After a new map has been created, a set of N equal sized districts will be created as to minimize the sum of the borders of all the districts.

2. Fair voting:

Establish some real standards for electronic voting machines
Require the the same technologies be used on a statewide basis
Allocate voting machines and other such resources based on on population density

3. Engery reform: Eliminate the subsidies for ethanol and the like. These are primarily based on pork, not science. Phase in a big carbon tax over the next 10 years

4. Health care reform. (The US system is a disgrace)

I agree wholeheartedly with #1 and #2 and believe it could be done in committee; however, #3 and #4, although right and proper, are issues that IMO would require an override of veto and unless the override could be assured would take up valuable time that could be used elsewhere. First things first - remove the power usurped by the executive branch else national security can be used as a rallying cry for halting energy reform.

Health care reform is critical but I doubt it is possible to do anything meaningful unless an override of veto is assured.

[Winstonm]

I view the internet as certainly within the scope of legislation as the "commerce clause" is applicable - and as Richard pointed out the Eisenhower administration used this clause to build the interstate system so it should be valid to use the same clause to improve the "information highway" system as this is surely an avenue of commerce. I am not savvy enough technically to know where the dividing line should be between government intervention and private enterprise, but I have no problem with government using its rightful constitutional authority.

[luke warm]

i pretty much agree with richard's list, except for the internet one... i think *all* governments should stay far away from any hint of control (this especially includes such things as the recently passed gambling bill)

i doubt richard and i agree on the methods used to accomplish some things on his list (for example, i see absolutely no reason america can't provide basic health care for all citizens - once the term 'citizen' is strictly inforced), but people should agree with strategic concerns first and argue about tactics later