« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats already forgetting the midterms?

By: RedState Insider (Diary)  |  November 19th, 2010 at 06:48 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

After the election, it seemed like the White House might have gotten the message. Obama said “the overwhelming message that I hear from the voters is that we…want you to work harder to arrive at consensus. We want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy…” White House officials were reported to be “deeply concerned about winning back political independents”. The FCC also seemed to get it. Chairman Genachowski said “At the FCC, our primary focus is simple: the economy and jobs.”

Message received, right?

Apparently not.

Now, in an astounding act of political and economic deafness, FCC Chairman Genachowski has apparently “touted net-neutrality regulations as one of the most important policies the country can adopt to improve its broadband deployment efforts”, and The Politico reports that they are “putting together a net neutrality proposal” which would apply net neutrality rules to wireless. And they may may try to jam it through in December.

Why now? “Lawmakers will already be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday, giving the FCC a small window to release a controversial order without immediate harsh reactions from Capitol Hill Republicans.”

I’m not sure why the administration thinks Congressional Republicans will let this happen. There may not be an Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman yet, but there isn’t much daylight between the candidates on this issue. If the FCC goes too far on this issue, they can expect a Congressional examination that would make the TSA blush.

Regulations that decrease investment and will lead to a loss of investment are no laughing matter in this bad economy. Americans will look to Congress to ask some tough questions on why the FCC and White House didn’t get the message after the midterms.

The question now is whether it was the FCC or the White House itself that didn’t get the message in the midterms. If they want to jam through these regulations, there is plenty more where the mid-terms came from.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    it was passed by unnamious consent today, to the tune of $1.15 billion, and, it also passed $3.4 billion in payments to the Native Americans. With the pigford case, it has already been widely reported that there are more plaintiffs, seeking funds than there even were black farmers in that time period. As to the Native American settlement, it’s as Van Jones said “give them the wealth.” Chuck Grassley has been pushing for black farmer discrimination since the Pigford case first came in to being, all those years ago. I guess Shirley Sherrod got that much richer today.

    Please will someone explain to me what passing something by unanimous consent means? Is it just a show of hands?

    Harry Reid is touting this as his first big win in the lame duck session.

  • swami7774

    the ability to hide a controversial vote behind a procedural move.

  • freemanja1991

    Republicans won due to voter error. Liberals are always right. Come on get with the liberal mentality.

  • NeoKong

    They lost the House and their filibuster proof majority.
    Who knows what will happen in 2010 but while this election showed the wrath of voter anger it also showed that even the most horrible candidates can still win against someone who makes them look like a troll.
    Maybe they figure that repealing a law is a lot harder than passing it so they will still try to shove as much as possible through and let the chips fall where they may.

    • edintexas

      They don’t have to “figure” repeal is much, much harder than passage, history tells them it is so. Every once in a great while a law gets repealed by Congress, usually to be replaced with an even more odious one. Example: The statutes which, at least until recently, were still on the books requiring drivers of motorcars to stop before a crossing, set off fireworks and/or other noise makers, and then continue on across the crossing. This was to avoid the motorcars scaring horse drawn wagons/carriages. And there were some of these still on the books as late as the 1980s (or later, maybe one or two still are).

      It is against a politician’s nature to repeal, it makes it seem that they might have made an error.

  • Finrod

    “The more you tighten your grip, [Democrats], the more [voters] will slip through your fingers”

  • Adjoran

    Pigford is a legal settlement. Congress doesn’t get to vote on the merits, the money has to be paid. I’m not sure about the Native American money, but it must be a similar situation or someone like DeMint or Coburn would have objected.

    The problem is when the Administration is full of radical leftists, they are going to keel over for these lawsuits by their constituent interest groups and pay them off with taxpayer money. The only way to stop it is to prohibit a specific settlement before it is reached, and you need majorities in both House and Senate and a Presidential signature for that.

    The solution is to never elect Democrats. It always comes back to harm the country. Electing Republicans often does, too, but the Democrats have been running about 100% awful for the last century or so.

  • renny

    get to make some of these decisions.

    The Sen. really has to stop sitting little o’s progressive judges on high benches, so that more of these kinds of decisions are stopped in the future.

  • bobmontgomery

    ….is on jobs and the economy…and at NASA, Job One is Muslim Outreach, and at the Department of Education, the main goal is to give kids food (thus assuring friends for life), at the Department of Energy, the focus is reducing the energy supply, for General George Casey, unit cohesion is a laughable concept – diversity is the key. Kathleen Sebelius’ prime concern is reducing the amount of health care services delivered. The EPA’s goal is a carbon exchange market for emissions traders and speculators. Robert Gates raison d’etre is to preside over the decline of the US military. And the latest job descrption? John Cornyn thinks his mandate is to inform the State of Delaware who it’s Republican candidate for Senator wll be.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Let them keep trying to “forge ahead for a better future for all their comrades” etc… while it would be nice to see them bend to the will of the American People it would only be a temporary charade that would last only as long as it takes for them to be in charge again…

  • Read Chesterton

    5×5!

  • izoneguy

    http://twitter.com/markknoller

    Obama joked he’d have AF-1 fly home via South America so he could see Hugo Chavez. Some joke.

  • http://www.walkerprise.com kingstonjw

    Seems like the string has diverged on several topics… but it seems to me that it could be a relatively easy decision to say:
    – no new spending unless there is a well articulated business case showing how the spending creates new and sustainable jobs, or a required constitutional purpose
    – no new legislation without a clear articulation of what it will cost in terms of new spending
    – reduce spending immediately where it does not have a direct and articulated influence to create sustainable jobs, sustainable business, or is constitutionally required

    Is that a bad idea?