Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
A 10-Step Program For Democrats in 2007
Also in Top Stories
Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle Is for Losers
Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post
U.S. Journalist Photographs Grisly Aftermath of Attack in Iraq, Gets Booted by Military
Dahr Jamail, IPS News
Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market
Paul Armentano, AlterNet
Bush Economy Sheds 62K Jobs in June; Sixth Straight Monthly Decline
Dean Baker, TruthOut.org
Our Government: Powerless to Outlaw Guns, Able to Outlaw Sexual Expression
Dr. Marty Klein, Sexual Intelligence
WALL-E: A World Without Us
Michael Dudley, City States
Even as Celebrities, Women Face a Double Standard
Vanessa Richmond, The Tyee
Now Let's Talk About Populism for Real
Ruth Rosen, Truthdig
The lesson from the 2006 election is that people want dramatic change, not poll-tested, cautious half-measures. So, let's be bold.
The threat to a progressive agenda is not the lack of hugs and soaring rhetoric. Rather, the challenge is pretty clear: Will Democrats be willing to break from the false worship of the twins gods of the so-called "free market" and so-called "free trade"? This worship has made Democrats quiver, tremble and crumble in the face of policies that have been devastating to our country and the world for the past several decades, and made them incapable of advancing ideas and proposals that people so desperately need.
"Free market" and "free trade" are both marketing phrases. There is no such thing as a "free market" because every corporation in America profits thanks to subsidized public goods like education, roads, the electric power grid, and (albeit, too permissive) regulatory management of the stock market, which imposes stability and deters dishonest behavior. So-called "free trade" is a mirage -- nothing is free about a global trading regime that has iron-clad protection for capital investment and corporate intellectual property, and thrives on controlling and suppressing wages of workers, particularly in China.
Will Democrats stand up and clearly say that the real choice is not over politically empty slogans or accusations of 'protectionism' but over what rules we want to govern how the economy operates for the benefit of our families and communities? Do we want rules that support people and their communities or rules that help powerful, global corporations? Once Democrats do so, the political road is easy because such a plea has broad support across the country, no matter how people define themselves ideologically. It comes down to this: Are you for everyone having health care, a fair wage, solid retirement, and being able to live in a democratic system that allows the people to decide how corporations behave?
Here are three things to do, pronto:
Health Care: A Universal Right -- With Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., leading the way, we can expect all sorts of half-measured, warmed-over Clinton-lite national health care plans, all of which will fail to solve the long-term moral and economic health care crisis. Most Americans who support a national health program favor a single-payer system, which keeps the private delivery of health care in the hands of physicians and hospitals, but takes away the moving of money from the insurance industry and places it under a single public agency. Sound familiar? Sure, it's called Medicare, which is why the bill by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., H.R. 676, is often referred to as "Medicare For All." Only a single-payer system will wring out the administrative savings -- as much as $300 billion per year -- that we can use to cover the current uninsured and make up the cost to provide full benefits to every American. Single-payer will increase our individual personal wealth far more than a minimum wage increase.
Energy Is Where Our Money Is Best Spent -- Lower energy costs. According to the Apollo Alliance 's plan, for a 10-year national investment of a bit more than $313 billion, we would generate $1.43 trillion in economic activity, $953.87 billion in personal income and over 3.3 million new good-paying jobs. That investment is maybe a fifth or less of what the Iraq war is likely to cost. Which would be a better return? Pass a bill now.
High-Tech And Progressive -- Spend $5 billion to set up a free wireless Internet network across the country for every American. Sociologist Joel Rogers calculates that wireless for a typical city of 150 square miles costs about $20 million to set up and, if you figure 200 such cities cover about 30,000 square miles, you cover 80 percent of the population at a total cost of $4 billion. Throw in another billion for the less populous areas and, presto, you've just lowered peoples' cost of living by hundreds of dollars a year (a whole lot more than the majority of people got from the Bush tax cuts). Now, do you think that might endear a whole lot of young people to the Democratic Party for a very long time ("Like Your Free Wireless? Thank The Democrats!")?
Once those first steps are under way, here are seven more proposals for a progressive future:
Taxes -- Let's have a field day here. It would be nothing short of scandalous if Democrats did not make a determined push to roll back the immoral Bush tax cuts for the very rich. Without the rollback, the top 1 percent -- those who pull in at least $1.3 million a year -- will pocket more than $347 billion in the next four years. Yes, the rollback would be devastating for people like the Goldman Sachs CEO, who just pulled in a $53 million bonus, and who might have to give up a smidgen more of his loot, perhaps reducing the size of his next mansion by one bathroom. Notice how that sum is just a bit higher than the Apollo Alliance's ten-year energy independence program? Let Bush veto the rollback and make it a 2008 election year issue: The Republicans want to keep giving the richest people more yachts and mansions but want you to keep paying more for gasoline, keep our country dependent on imported oil and do nothing about global warming.
Wall Street Fairness Tax -- Here's a way we could easily raise $50-$100 billion a year. We tax gambling in casinos, right? Why not tax Wall Street gambling? Every day, billions of shares are traded through financial systems that often have huge fluctuations. Rather than rewarding speculators who move hot cash in and out of investments, we should encourage what economists sometimes call "patient capital": making an investment in a company you think has potential and holding on to it. The Wall Street Fairness Tax would decrease volatility and reduce the incentive to jump in and out of investments quickly -- which is also destabilizing for U.S. companies and for other countries. The Wall Street Fairness Tax would be 0.25 percent of the value of a trade. Long-term investors would not feel the tiny tax because they are putting their money into a company for the long haul. You could even direct the revenue from the Wall Street Fairness Tax towards paying for single-payer health care or for a massive investment in public infrastructure. Let Bush veto this idea and then take the appeal to the country: Should Goldman Sachs be handing out $16 billion in bonuses to buy BMWs without a few cents going towards helping 48 million Americans get health care?
See more stories tagged with: resolutions, democrats, progressives, 2007
Jonathan Tasini is the the executive director of Labor Research Association. His blog, Working Life, chronicles the labor movement and other issues affecting American workers.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »