A Democratic contract with America: How to retake the House and combat economic inequality

[eridani]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/22/1263930/-A-Democratic-contract-with-America-How-to-retake-the-House-and-combat-economic-inequality


?1373557421

As Democratic Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body, we propose a clear set of policies to address the most important issue of our time: income inequality.

First, we must define the problem and understand how we got here. After the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, our government shifted to a policy of trickle-down economics. Since that time, the government chose—through tax and other policies—to favor the wealthiest among us at the expense of average Americans.

From 1979 to 2007, the income of households in the top 1 percent went up by 275 percent. For households around the middle, their income went up by a little less than 40 percent, and for those near the bottom, income went up by a measly 18 percent. And in case you're wondering, this is after people paid income and other taxes to the government, and after government benefits were paid out. Right now, the income gap separating the top 1 percent from the rest of us is at its highest point since just before the Great Depression hit.

The top 1 percent have captured the lion's share of income growth in recent decades. That wasn't an accident, it was a result of tax cuts for the rich and other policies that our government enacted under Republican presidents named Bush and Reagan, which were partially undone by Democratic Congresses and presidents named Obama and Clinton.

Now is the time to finish that job. We must have a rising economy that really does lift all boats, not just redistribute wealth upward. In fact, that's the kind of economy we had from World War II until the 1980s. If you elect a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives in 2014, we can do it again.

[BlueStreak]

1. This is exactly right.

And every Democrat should get these 10 points tattooed on their hands if they can't remember them.

This is plain and simple -- and good policy. I wish they would have included something about reining in the NSA, but that would lose support among the spineless masses in the party. Every single one of these 10 points is hard hitting, will resonate with the public, and things that Republicans hate.

Take control of the debate.

[msongs]

2. and we can get all dems who are really closet republicans to keep quiet while this is done nt

[De Leonist]

3. Just one question

All things I can get behind being the Marxist America Hater that I am. But my only real issue with this article is what it says about Clinton I was a lad of 14 or 15 when he finished his second term. Is there any proof he actually tried to undo some of the some stuff put in place by the two republicans preceding him? Not trying to troll just looking for verification. I was a big fan of conservative radio host Mancow Muller in those days. So pretty much anything I heard about Clinton I heard through a republican filter.

[eridani]

5. He was a "New Democrat" DLC type

That is to say, an Eisenhower Republican who was good on social issues. Wingnuts disliked him for just being a Democrat, just like they hate Obama for the same reason, and of course for being black.

Clinton blocked some of the nastier Republican initiatives, but spent more of his political capital on NAFTA than on health care. Also responsible for putting a time limit on aid to dependent children, the telecommunications bill that accelerated media consolidation, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall that directly produced the finanical crash. The repukes sure don't hate him for any of that; they hate him despite all that.

[okaawhatever]

9. He signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall which was called the Graham, Leech, Bliley (all 3

Republicans) Act which passed with enough votes to override a veto so I'd hardly put that one in the Clinton column if I were being honest.
Regarding the time limits on aid to dependent children:

A central pledge of Clinton's campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care, and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Newt Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as 90 days. Gingrich promised that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.[17]
In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton,[18] Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities.

Many credit Clinton's effort (with Hillary often out campaigning as FLOTUS) at health care reform as the reason democrats were beaten so badly in the 1994 elections. After 1994 Clinton faced a republican majority in both houses, and a republican congress for the first time in what the 40-50 years?

Your memory isn't serving you well. You sound like a right wing talking point. Zero facts lots of hyperbole.


Clinton was not responsible for putting a time limit on aid to dependent children. In fact, Clinton vetoed the first version of the bill.
As to NAFTA and health care: Do you remember the 1994 mid-term elections? The Democrats took a beating over Clinton

[eridani]

10. NAFTA passed in 1993, band IMO was much more responsible for the 1994 debacle

--than the health care failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

The assault weapons ban didn't help either, though I regard that as an achievement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[okaawhatever]

12. Okay so let's say it was the assault weapons ban and NAFTA. That still doesn't make what you said

true.

[eridani]

13. If you don't believe that Clinton was DLC, ask him about it

He said so himself

[okaawhatever]

15. It doesn't matter whether he was or not, what I commented on were the inaccuracies in your

statements. Do you care to address that?

[eridani]

16. He could have vetoed repeal of financial reform

As president, he had a bully pulpit and could have used it to inform and hopefully outrage voters. There was no need to compromise on welfare "reform" at all--why not just keep vetoing?

[okaawhatever]

17. First, with financial reform there was an overwhelming majority of support. Citibank and Traveler's

had already merged and were given a year or two while legislation made it's way through Congress before fighting them in court. (and would scotus have upheld the ban?). There was a lot more to the financial reform than just the merging of banks with insurance & investment, and much of that was needed. Clinton fought for the community redevelopment portion of it and the privacy protections. Had he continued to fight it he would have had to deal with Citibank & Travelers in court so he couldn't just keep vetoing it. There are still a lot of people who claim that Gramm Leach Bliley didn't so much cause the crash, just that it made it harder to prosecute because guilty verdicts would have effectively closed the banks like it did the Savings & Loans and the economy at the time couldn't withstand the fall out.
Why didn't he keep vetoing the welfare reform? He ran on welfare reform. It was a hot button issue and the system was in need of repair. Clinton got training and workforce development programs put in place. After two years on ADFC you had to participate in job training or workforce development. That's what the chronically poor needed anyway. I don't know that anyone could have stopped the time limits (which I don't agree with as long as someone is getting training or fixing whatever problems they have) or limits on additional children. The right wing had done a great job of getting the message out that people were having tons of kids so they could collect more in welfare and they were "professional mothers" paid for by tax dollars. The image wasn't correct, but there was a lot of belief in it at the time. So Clinton, after running on welfare reform and help for those chronically on welfare got a jobs program and workforce training and you consider that losing? After two vetoes? C'mon, he faced the first Republican house in decades and welfare reform was still big from Reagan and Bush Sr. What do you think should have been done with welfare reform that Clinton didn't do?

[eridani]

19. Support by whom? Not the population of the country

It is just bullshit to accept conservative terms of debate instead of fighting back. the right wing getting their message out is a reason to avoid a countermessage? Not in my book.

[okaawhatever]

20. the bill was comprehensive and included many things which the American voters did support. Most

Americans aren't informed enough to know the long term effects of GLB. It's easy to see now the part it played in the financial crisis, but at the time that wasn't even on the radar. The final vote was 90-8 Senate and 362-57 in Congress. That's huge support.

[eridani]

21. Not Stiglitz and Krugman

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/krugman-and-stiglitz-our-most-widely-ignored-public-intellectuals.html

More fundamental to their marginalization is the relative radicalism of what Krugman and Stiglitz are advocating in our conservative era, one in which even Democratic presidents have done little to reverse unconstrained finance, shrunken government, and deepening inequality. To embrace their wisdom would require something close to a political revolution. So two of our most lauded economists remain prophets with little power to change events. America would be a far healthier country if they broke through.

More fundamental to their marginalization is the relative radicalism of what Krugman and Stiglitz are advocating in our conservative era, one in which even Democratic presidents have done little to reverse unconstrained finance, shrunken government, and deepening inequality. To embrace their wisdom would require something close to a political revolution. So two of our most lauded economists remain prophets with little power to change events. America would be a far healthier country if they broke through.

[okaawhatever]

22. Once again, changing the topic. Where were these two guys during the passage of GLB? Hint: Stiglitz

had just left the Clinton Administration for the World Bank. He was Chairman of Clinton's economic advisers. When I was looking up his title during the Clinton administration I found this quote which I find very revealing:
In a September 19, 2008 radio interview with Aimee Allison and Philip Maldari on Pacifica Radio's KPFA 94.1 FM in Berkeley, California, Stiglitz implied that President Clinton and his economic advisors would not have backed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had they been aware of stealth provisions, inserted by lobbyists, that they overlooked.

Also, Stiglitz was "removed" from the World Bank or whatever you want to call it when Bush came around. Depending on the source it was because of his support of the WTO protests in Seattle or his criticism of the effects of World Bank and IMF policy towards third world countries. That should tell you what kind of power large corporations wield in our economic affairs.

Krugman was mostly an academic back then and while he may have been a very vocal opponent of GLB and other things at the time, it wasn't enough to sway opinion or cause a backlash.

I agree with both Krugman and Stiglitz on economic matters. I bought Stiglitz's book "The Price of Inequality" which every American should read but do you think it outsold one of Palin's books? Probably not. Stiglitz and Krugman have great policies and insight, but getting them implemented is another matter entirely.

[eridani]

23. If Democrats won't fight to get them implemented, who will? n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. DLC corporatist from day one. He talked about social issues and took

a pass at health care, but shit-canned it to get "his" economic plan through which, in addition to NAFTA, finished up the groundwork 41 had made for the corporate monoliths to form. The Clinton administration set the precedents for petty fines being an acceptable alternative to anti-trust prosecutions.

Most of all, IMO, the worst thing he did was to legitimize the obscene notion that compromising with terrible ideas by accepting bad ideas is the best we can do.

[pampango]

4. Fantastic 10 action points. A Democratic Contract with America would be a great

thing.

[hfojvt]

6. nice essay, except for one part

the simple fact that both Clinton and Obama continued the trickle down policies. Continued AND promoted them.

[eridani]

7. Democrats from now on will have to run against Clinton and Obama

The Rise of the New New Left
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html#url=/articles/2013/09/12/the-rise-of-the-new-new-left.html

The argument between the children of Reagan and the children of Clinton is fierce, but ideologically, it tilts toward the right. Even after the financial crisis, the Clinton Democrats who lead their party don’t want to nationalize the banks, institute a single-payer health-care system, raise the top tax rate back to its pre-Reagan high, stop negotiating free-trade deals, launch a war on poverty, or appoint labor leaders rather than Wall Streeters to top economic posts. They want to regulate capitalism modestly. Their Reaganite Republican adversaries, by contrast, want to deregulate it radically. By pre-Reagan standards, the economic debate is taking place on the conservative side of the field. But—and this is the key point--there’s reason to believe that America’s next political generation will challenge those limits in ways that cause the leaders of both parties fits.

<snip>

It is these two factors—their economic hardship in an age of limited government protection and their resistance to right-wing cultural populism—that best explain why on economic issues, Millennials lean so far left. In 2010, Pew found that two-thirds of Millennials favored a bigger government with more services over a cheaper one with fewer services, a margin 25 points above the rest of the population.

While large majorities of older and middle-aged Americans favored repealing Obamacare in late 2012, Millennials favored expanding it, by 17 points. Millennials are substantially more pro–labor union than the population at large.

<snip>

Most striking of all, Millennials are more willing than their elders to challenge cherished American myths about capitalism and class. According to a 2011 Pew study, Americans under 30 are the only segment of the population to describe themselves as “have nots” rather than “haves.” They are far more likely than older Americans to say that business enjoys more control over their lives than government. And unlike older Americans, who favor capitalism over socialism by roughly 25 points, Millennials, narrowly, favor socialism.

[hfojvt]

8. maybe in ten or twenty years that will be true

right now I am not convinced that millenials dominate the electorate enough to even defeat Hillary in the primary.

Most of her supporters from 2007 are still alive, still voting, and still big fans - for whatever reasons.

[RainDog]

11. More women than men earn minimum wage

And more minority women than white women earn minimum wage.

[Kingofalldems]

18. I've been saying (and posting) this for years.

'America needs a raise' is a winning campaign slogan.