Krugman on the Democrats' post-election agenda

Knock on wood, the Democrats appear likely to take the House in the midterm elections and have a shot at the Senate as well. Sensible people hold off speculating as to what the Democrats should do if returned to power until after Diebold, Inc. tells us who the victor is. But Paul Krugman tosses his ideas into the ring today, and I follow like a lemming off of a cliff. Paul says:

Now that the Democrats are strongly favored to capture at least one house of Congress, they're getting a lot of unsolicited advice, with many people urging them to walk and talk softly if they win. I hope the Democrats don't follow this advice -- because it's bad for their party and, more important, bad for the country. In the long run, it's even bad for the cause of bipartisanship.

In particular, the public wants politicians to stand up to corporate interests. This is clear from the latest Newsweek poll, which shows overwhelming public support for the agenda Nancy Pelosi has laid out for her first 100 hours if she becomes House speaker. The strongest support is for her plan to have Medicare negotiate with drug companies for lower prices, which is supported by 74 percent of Americans -- and by 70 percent of Republicans!

What the make-nice crowd wants most of all is for the Democrats to forswear any investigations into the origins of the Iraq war and the cronyism and corruption that undermined it. But it's very much in the national interest to find out what led to the greatest strategic blunder in American history, so that it won't happen again.

Krugman is conflating a couple of different ways Democrats can stick it to Republicans after November 7. Some ways are good politics for Democrats and good for the country as well; some are not.

I would not hold Congressional hearings on the origins of the Iraq war. Yes, Americans deserve to know the answers to a host of questions. But Congressional hearings are unlikely to add significantly to what we've already learned from the slew of books that have come out recently. Furthermore, such hearings would likely be seen as merely partisan payback and a distraction from the more important question, what do we do now?

I would use hearings to prepare the ground for important new legislation. If the hearings dig up dirt on Republicans along the way, that's all well and good. Let's start with hearings on corruption in Washington, especially ties between Congresspeople and lobbyists through the K Street Project. Lay out for the American people how utterly corrupt Congress has become, and then put together some reforms that will put an end to it (for awhile at least) - Feingold's absolutist rule against accepting favors of any kind from lobbyists, elimination of earmarks, further restrictions on the revolving door between Congress and lobbying groups, etc.

A useful compendium to this set of investigations would be a parallel investigation into corruption in the executive branch: evidence that the SEC is playing favorites in its investigations into insider trading, the ease with which industry lobbyists have taken over the agencies that are supposed to regulate their industries, etc. This is stuff the people need to know, and it's also stuff that will help make the point for why we need a Democrat in the oval office in 2008.

It sounds like the Democrats are already planning a quick push on a few easy (for Democrats) pieces of legislation: higher minimum wage, giving Medicare the ability to negotiate over drug prices. I'd follow this up with a series of hearings on poverty/stagnating living standards of the working class, and health care. The goal would be to help frame the issues for the 2008 election and prepare the way for a serious anti-poverty program and the introduction of universal health care.

Two issues that need to be handled VERY gingerly: Iraq and taxes. The Democrats should recognize that on Iraq, the President as commander in chief is going to have to take the lead. The Democrats could pass a resolution demanding a withdrawal of troops, or cut off funding for the war, but this would (a) not be helpful, since Bush would ignore the former and rally the Republicans to defeat the latter, and (b) would be potentially politically disastrous. Democrats should make clear that they expect Bush to lead, but at the same time demand a plan to wind down the war and get us out. They can make it clear that they will lend support to a sincere effort on the part of the Bush Administration to get us out, provided that Bush stops using Iraq as a partisan weapon and dumps Donald Rumsfeld.

On taxes, the Democrats should just do nothing for awhile. They should not play into Republican stereotypes by raising taxes (even if only on the rich) as soon as they come to power. They should make clear that Bush made this mess, Bush will need to get us out of it, and Democrats will gladly support any plan from the Bush Administration that tackles the budget deficit without further cutting programs that help the poor and middle class. That is, try to get Bush II to do what Bush I did in 1990 when he went back on his "no new taxes" pledge. If, as is likely, Bush II won't raise taxes, never fear: the tax code will snap back to its 2000 form soon enough (2011) with no action, and at any rate a Democratic president in 2008 can propose a broad set of fiscal reforms to close the deficit (my favorite: a progressive and "green" consumption tax).