TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

E-mail a friend

• TOPICS
• Economy
• Health
• Politics

 

Democrats rejoiced as the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress came to an end last week. Taking a lesson from Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" in 1995, newly elected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, swore to re-establish the Democratic party as a legitimate force in Washington politics. The plan was to quickly pass several pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, quantity does not always ensure quality. In those first 100 hours, Congress managed to push through several modest proposals, including ethics reform, increasing the minimum wage, and negotiating new prescription drug costs. Generally, these pieces of legislation were supported by Republicans, Democrats, and the public. But were we hoodwinked by Congressmen desperate to fall back into good graces with the weary public? Let's take a look:

Ethics First, Democrats wanted to deal with "Ethics Reform." The problem was that members of Congress were taking bribes from lobbyist. To combat this, they voted to punish lobbyist for offering inappropriate gifts to crooked Congressmen. One would assume that dealing with crooked Congressmen would mean establishing stronger standards for ethical behavior while a member of the body. Instead, and not surprisingly, the men and women of the 110th voted to put restrictions on what lobbyists could do, and in the process restricted American's first amendment rights to petition the government. Putting the blame on "evil" lobbyists for the inappropriate things that Congressmen are doing doesn't seem to get to the root of the problem. The best solution is to put stronger ethics rules in place, but this would involve publicizing that certain elected officials, possibly even some Democrats, need to be restricted like kindergarteners in time-out.

Minimum Wage For nearly 10 years, the minimum wage has been frozen at $5.15 an hour, so Congress voted to raise the minimum wage by $2.10. There is speculation concerning the implications of this kind of increase. One report was released by James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. According to Sherk, it basically boils down to cold hard economics: when companies have to fork out more money for each employee, they will be forced to cut down on the number of people they are able to employ. Nearly 2/3rds of all minimum wage studies confirm this reality. Obviously no one wants to see people struggling in dead end, minimum wage jobs, but the alternative, increasing the minimum wage, may very well do more damage than letting markets [and job skills] determine pay. After all, a minimum wage job is better than no job at all.

Medicare Part D Another problem Congress decided to tackle was the price of prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D. Currently under Medicare Part D, the government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with price negotiations between drug companies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBM), and sponsors of the drug plans. The new Congress struck this "non-interference" restriction. They claimed that they will negotiate prices for seniors in order to make drugs more available. In reality, "negotiation" means that the government will set prices below those already negotiated in the market. Again, this boils down to cold hard economics. Setting a market price below the optimal market equilibrium could result in fewer drugs being available overall and less drug innovation in the future.

This rush to pass legislation and prove Democratic legitimacy in lawmaking reminds me of the idiom "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats promised to deliver on traditionally liberal issues, but what will be the results of their hasty decisions? It will take more than 100 hours to figure this one out.