Madam Speaker

Note:This was originally dated earlier today, but I wanted to bump it up to the top of the blog.

Yesterday morning, I was watching a biographical spot about Nancy Pelosi on one of the networks (ABC, NBC, or CBS, since that's all I get for news).

The funny thing was, the voice-over said that she quickly learned about politics and was not afraid to withhold favors or positions from Democrats that didn't vote the right way.

That struck me as odd because that is one of the criticisms people have about effective Republican leaders. I guess it's only a bad thing when the GOP is tending their flock, or cracking their whip, as the case may be.

I have no doubt that once she gets down to business, things will not look much different than they did when the Republicans ran things. The one bit of rhetoric that I did not buy this election is that the Republicans are mean, nasty, play dirty tricks, etc., and the Democrats will be so nice and non-partisan.

There will be more compromise with the new balance of power because the President will have veto power, but that is not because of any congeniality on the part of the Democrats. Not that I blame the Dems for wanting to get their agenda on the table.

So, how about that agenda?

[Pelosi] said Democrats would return to power without rancor, but with a forward-looking vision, outlining an agenda that includes enacting recommendations of a commission impaneled after the Sept. 11 attacks to look at terrorist threats, raising the minimum wage, reducing college costs, pushing for more stem-cell research and working for lower medicine prices.

Here's my take on those agenda items:

September 11 Commission recommendations. That's not a bad thing. I would think it would be a good thing, right? Too bad the President didn't bother letting the American people know that he has enacted many of the provisions and that many others are going to have a cost so huge that it might not be feasible to enact them - according to the commission itself! All I can say is that I am real excited about biometric passports and the national ID cards. But, wait. Didn't the GOP get all kinds of flack for the Real ID bill? That was directly from the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Hello, Big Brother? Are you ready to meet your new Party?

Raising the minimum wage. Apparently, economists say this shouldn't have a sizable impact on unemployment. (Yes, Dems, it does cause a rise in unemployment when you raise the minimum wage. I bet they don't tell you that at the rallies.) I wonder though how it will impact prices. I remain cautiously optimistic, since some states already have the higher minimum wage, including Vermont.

Speaking of which, did you know that nearly half of the civilian workforce works in places where the minimum wage is already higher than the federal number. (That came from the NYTimes, not Rush Limbaugh, by the way.) And I wonder why, if America was voting for an increased minimum wage, why do not all states have a higher minimum? Curious.

Reducing college costs. Okay, what? You can't change the cost of something. You can reduce the price that is paid for it, but the expense incurred to provide a good or service - the cost - there is little you can do to change. Let's assume they want to reduce the price. What about the cost? Someone will have to pay it.

Oh, yeah! I forgot, tax the rich!

More stem-cell research. Personally, this is not a huge issue for me, so I'll sit this one out.

Working to lower medicine prices. This could be a disaster, depending on how it is done. Government should not be in the business of setting prices. It never works out to be a good thing. (See what I said about college costs above.) All I can say is, with both price controls and lawsuits poised to become the new trend, sell, sell, sell (your drug company stock, that is)!

So, that's my brief look at the Democrats immediate agenda. I'm not at all happy about it, but it's nothing apocalyptic - yet. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.