Want to win in 2014? A "Contract with Hard Working Americans" will do it

[BlueStreak]

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 11:48 AM - Edit history (3)

The problem we have today is that the Democratic Party doesn't stand clearly for anything. Obama has turned far right and there are no other leaders getting the attention needed on the true progressive values that the large majority of working Americans actually support. Our leaders are corporate-owned, plain and simple.

In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich single-highhandedly won an election for GOP takeover of the House by offering a seemingly simple and clear "Contract with America". In fact, most of the points in that contract were strongly against the interests of the average American, but Americans craved leadership so badly that they backed his plan. They preferred to follow a leader with a horrible plan than politicians who wouldn't lead at all. This isn't complicated If you want support, you need to give people reasons for choosing you.

If the party would run hard on this straightforward 10-point plan listed below, we would win the House in 2014 with 25 seats to spare, and there would be no serious challenge to maintaining a small majority in the Senate. I offer this list as a starting point. It is not perfect. it can be improved. I offer it as an illustration of what is possible. I also note that, while I don't think there is a single radical idea on this list, a large number of the corporate-owned Democrats out there would run and hide if this were ever offered as the basis for the campaign. But at least that would show us clearly what we are up against. SO without further introduction, I offer this humble

CONTRACT WITH HARD-WORKING AMERICANS

1) We will pass legislation that requires every profitable corporation to pay at least a minimal fair share of taxes. No more freeloading corporations. This legislation will include rewards for companies that creating good-paying jobs in America and severe penalties companies that moving jobs overseas. Ww will simply make it unprofitable for companies to move jobs offshore while still expecting to sell those goods back to the American consumer.

2) We will not approve any visa programs for workers to take high-paying jobs as long as the AMERICAN unemployment in those fields is above 4%

3) We will not approve the Pacific trade agreement in any form. We will undertake a thorough review of all current trade agreements including NAFTA and CATFA. In any case where these agreements have resulted in substantial off-shoring of good American jobs, we will pass legislation to enact tariffs to balance the playing field. If companies want to sell to American consumers, they must support American jobs, period.

4) We will eliminate all tax advantages gained by corporations hiding profits offshore. 50% of the money collected by stopping that tax evasion will go to reduce the tax rates on middle class taxpayers and small businesses under $5 million in annual revenue. The other 50% will go to reduce the national debt.

5) Will will raise the cap on social security and Medicare contributions to the first $500,000 of personal income, making these programs financially sound for the next 75 years without reducing any benefits.

6) We will eliminate the sales tax holiday that has allowed the biggest Internet retailers to destroy tens of thousands of local business coast to coast. Our cities and neighborhoods have a fundamentally higher quality of life when served by healthy locally-owned and operated businesses. We will give small businesses a level playing field.

7) We will move for a Constitutional amendment that requires the full budgets of every agency of government to be published to the citizens annually. While we all agree that a few vital activities must be conducted in secret, the taxpayers have a right to know every dollar they are spending.

** #8 originally missing -- added on edit **

8) We will vigorously enforce the "Buy American Act of 1933" which is still the law of the land, but routinely circumvented by thousands of waivers every year. The law simply says that when the government has a viable option to purchase goods and services American-made by American companies, they must do so. We will update this law to severely limit the waivers.

9) Starting in 2015, we will pass budgets form the military industrial complex that put us on course by 2025 for American taxpayers to spend no more on our combined military/defense/weapons industry than the next 5 largest national militaries combined. If we cannot defend the country adequately spending more than 5 times what any other nation spends, we will undertake a complete top-to-bottom house-cleaning to give us a fundamentally more efficient defense.

10) We will enact legislation to improve our national health care from 38th to top-10 worldwide by 2024, and reduce our total spending to no more than 50% more per capita than any other top-10 country spends. The savings we achieve will all be applied to covering every single citizen with decent, modern health care.

[NYC_SKP]

1. K/R, comment re #5 and #9:

For #5, why stop at $500,000? Go all the way and tax all income and use it to fund truly universal health care.

For #9 you wrote:

9) Starting in 2015, we will pass budgets form the military industrial complex that put us on course by 2025 for American taxpayers to spend no more on our combined military/defense/weapons industry than the next 5 largest national militaries combined. If we cannot defend the country adequately spending more than 5 times what any other nation spends, we will undertake a complete top-to-bottom house-cleaning to give us a fundamentally more efficient defense.

The "combined next 5 largest militaries" and "5 times what any other nation spends" are two different values.

I would be fine with either criterion, but it should indicate one or the other.

[BlueStreak]

3. I see your point on 9

You are correct, those could be entirely different standards. In fact they aren't, but it should be written better nonetheless.



Re: #5, I think it is important to get a real number in there so that people will immediately know we are talking about people who are quite comfortable, enjoying a very nice lifestyle, so this would hardly be a big sacrifice. In reality, an increase even to $250,000 would probably make those programs solvent for 75 years.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. That would require a very visceral rejection of the Plutonomy who are ruining it for workers.

Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900

"Average annual corporate profit growth under Obama is the highest since 1900, whereas profit growth declined during both Bush presidencies. As a share of the economy, corporate profits have never been higher.
Unfortunately, this profit deluge has not been shared by workers, whose wages as a percentage of the economy have fallen to all-time lows. Workers also got dinged by the recent increase in the payroll tax, which was large enough to wipe out a minimum wage increase in some states."


8 Huge Corporate Handouts in the Fiscal Cliff Bill
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/8-huge-corporate-handouts-fiscal-cliff-bill

"Throughout the months of November and December, a steady stream of corporate CEOs flowed in and out of the White House to discuss the impending fiscal cliff. Many of them, such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, would then publicly come out and talk about how modest increases of tax rates on the wealthy were reasonable in order to deal with the deficit problem. What wasn’t mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what’s known as “tax extenders”, or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill. But it is critical to understanding what is going on.

5) Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends 'tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,' which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, 'little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.' Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds."


The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama

Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html

U.S. banks in 2012 post highest profits since '06
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-fdic-earnings-idUSBRE91P0N820130226?utm_source=Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=de8376aab3-DD_2_27_132_27_2013&utm_medium=email#.US5jjkXSlU8.twitter

This Year’s Subsidy to Wall Street = the Amount of This Year’s Sequester Cuts
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/this-years-subsidy-to-wall-street-the-amount-of-this-years-sequester-cuts.html#.US_yiFwwnHY.facebook

Don’t Blink, or You’ll Miss Another Bailout
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100466032

America faces more than a dozen deadlines, all caused by billionaires and wealth transfer
http://americablog.com/2013/02/america-faces-more-than-a-dozen-deadlines-all-caused-by-billionaires-and-wealth-transfer.html

Bank Bailout 2: Obama Lets Mortgage Abusers Off the Hook
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-5

[BlueStreak]

6. I wanted to avoid a "soak the rich" or "income redistribution" position

realizing that we would need some support form people across the political spectrum. By focusing on specific root causes, it is a little harder to scream "class warfare". That would happen anyway, but the beauty of Gingrich's idea is that if you are campaigning on a simple 10-point plan like this, your rebuttal can begin with, "Excuse me, my plan doesn't say anything about income redistribution. I'm talking about the taxpayers having the right to know how their money is being spent. Are you opposed to that, sir?"

I don't underestimate the amount of resistance this program would get. Your post clearly shows what that would look like. But I think the best way to win is to smoke the bastards out. Make them fight on our terms -- these 10 points. (or an improved version of the 10 points.)

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. Most excellent. Run with it :) n/t

[markiv]

18. i fully agree with that, and it has always been my position

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 01:25 PM - Edit history (2)

all i've ever wanted is to quit screwing the working and middle class, i've never advocated just taking from the top 1 percent (even if much of it by now was unfairly gained)

the working/middle class has a far stronger argument for un-rigging the labor market for future earnings, than for damages for past rigging

for starters, you dont have to set a precedent for unrigging the current/future labor markets, and the middle/working classes can undo a lot of the damage on their own, probably more quickly than anything else

[HardTimes99]

4. I'm no big fan of Obama's centrist pose, but there is NO WAY HE HAS TURNED

"FAR RIGHT". Come on. Repeating such nonsense cheapens discourse and makes it more difficult to discern the truly 'far right.'

[BlueStreak]

10. How many of these points do you think Obama would vigorously support?

I'm not talking "Campaign-mode Obama" from 2008 and 2012. I'm talking about "second term Obama that doesn't have to run again".

He has given lip service to 1), 4), 6), and 10) but has actively worked against all of those.

On 5) he would never do this. Instead he has made it clear he would go after benefits. His position here is only moderately right-wing.

He is absolutely on the far right-wing side of 2), 3), 7), and 9).

I don't know what happened to 8). I guess the FISA court is still deliberating on that one.

Do you disagree with my assessment? His rhetoric is seductive, but his policies have become far, far right in most cases, and moving rightward by the day.

(I added point #8 to the OP, focusing on the Buy American Act of 1933, still in law, but ignored by every administration for 40 years. Obama is solidly on the right-wing side on that point.)

[bhikkhu]

5. Good points, but I think #3 is based on some misunderstanding

Trade agreements, in principle and generally in practice, regulate trade. Without trade agreements we have unregulated trade, which nations then can typically only influence by banning trade or raising tariffs. The trade deficit has been manageable based on a healthy export sector here, which has created a great many "hard working American" jobs in the last 4 years. Going the other way, in tricky economic conditions, would be a mistake. Hoover did that and his party paid the price for decades.

Regulating trade is much more preferable, and it would be a piece of ideological stupidity (on par with the RW's approach to many things) to promise not to pass any form of trade regulations.

[BlueStreak]

13. I take your point. A "contract" like this can definitely be improved.

I'm not against trade agreements, as an alternative to continuous tariff wars. The core issues is that practically all of our trade agreements suck.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. As a matter of semantics it sounds like it's dying to be co-opted by the GOP into

an attack on those receiving public assistance.

[BlueStreak]

11. So it is better to just remain vague and spineless, letting the GOP set the terms of the debate?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. OK, so run with it.

[markiv]

9. good common sense ideas neither party would ever adopt

because neither party is on the side of the American worker

havent been for at least 20 years

[BlueStreak]

12. I remain an optimist

But I am realistic. "The Party" would never take this forward. The beltway insiders have too much to lose. This has to be grass roots thing. This is what I hoped to see emerge from the Occupy movement. But in the end, they were a bunch of disorganized, lovable, big-hearted, well-meaning, passionate hippies.

[markiv]

15. it would have to be an awakening of middle/working class, from both parties

agreeing to disagree on many social issues, setting them aside, but uniting on the fundamental economic issues (trade agreements and guest worker visas in particular) that have absolutely rigged the labor markets against American workers for decades, and transfered almost all new wealth to the 1 percent

the closest thing we saw, was Perot's reform party 20 years ago. sure, it didnt take, but American workers have seen 20 years lost since, and the internet is a new factor that could much more quickly enable a new party

it would have to be lie a tent raising, a political coup, with both parties finding themselves locked out of a lot of offices, the day after the election, offices they felt they owned

[BlueStreak]

16. I agree with all of that, and argue this is the best way to get on with it

A short list, a specific set of very concrete ideas that are at the core of our economic / quality of life issues in America today.

We need focus to our debate. I am passionate about gun legislation, but honestly, that wouldn't change much for most Americans. Others are passionate about abortion, but again, that doesn't really change much for most Americans. I am passionate about climate change, but unfortunately most of that danger won't directly affect people alive today in a huge way. It is hard to make that relevant to people who choose to ignore that. It requires too much of a mental stretch.

The items on this list hit every American very hard TODAY, even it they don't yet understand that. This is the basis of the system that is designed to drive working Americans into the ground.

I agree that a major awakening is necessary. But nothing changes for the better until that awakening begins, and something like the Gingrich "Contract" is a powerful tool for unifying forces behind this change. Can it begin in time for the 2014 election? If Pelosi, Obama and the other major leaders embraced it, yes, it could.

Otherwise my question to Pelosi is "Why should America vote in a Democratic Majority to make you Speaker again?"

[markiv]

17. both parties already HAVE a contract

with the one percent, no matter what they tell you

i agree with all of yur list, but the trade agreements and guest visa programs are the highest priority for me, all the rest absolutely transfer the wealth, but the trade agreements and visa programs most directly rig the labor market against the worker

but like i said, both parties already HAVE a contract with the one percent, i offer the money they have received, and the policies they have delivered, as evidence

this party has in particular, ingratiated itself with the big tech wealth. While Spense Abraham, a republican, introdroduced the huge H-1b increases, Clinton et al got on board very quickly and have been sucking up to big tech money ever since

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I like it, but currently neither party will seriously try to

Enact such legislation, especially the military stuff. Nope...no way they will cut off the mic