People Power
Courtesy of Dr. Robert Reich, this is from a flyer being passed around in Wisconsin:
It’s emerging from the heartland – from Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa — and it is spreading across the nation. It doesn’t have a formal organization or Washington lobbyists beyond it, but it’s gaining strength nonetheless. Like the Tea Party did with Republicans in 2010, the People’s Party will pressure Democrats in primaries and general elections leading up to 2012 and beyond to have the courage of the party’s core convictions. But unlike the Tea Party, which has been co-opted by the super-rich, the People’s Party represents the needs and aspirations of America’s vast working middle class, along with the less fortunate.
The People’s Party is dedicated to the truth that America is a rich nation – richer by far than any other, richer than it’s ever been. The People’s Party rejects the claims of plutocrats who want us to believe we can no longer afford to live decently – who are cutting the wages and benefits of most people, attacking unions, and squeezing public budgets. The People’s Party will not allow them to turn us against one another – unionized against non-unionized, public employee against private employee, immigrant against native born. Nor will the People’s Party allow the privileged and powerful to distract us from the explosive concentration of income and wealth at the top, the decline in taxes paid by the top, and their increasing and untrammeled political power.
We have joined together to reverse these trends and to promote a working people’s bill of rights. We are committed to:
1. Increasing the pay and bargaining power of average working people. We’ll stop efforts to destroy unions and collective bargaining rights. Protect workers who try to form unions from being fired. Make it easier for workers to form unions through simple up-or-down votes at the workplace.
2. Requiring America’s super-rich to pay their fair share. Increase top marginal tax rates and the number of tax brackets at the top. Treat income from capital gains the same as ordinary income. Restore the estate tax. Revoke the citizenship of anyone found to be sheltering income abroad.
3. Protecting and expanding government programs vital to the working middle class and the poor. These include Social Security, K-12 education, Pell Grants for disadvantaged students, public transportation, Medicare and Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
4. Ending corporate welfare and cutting military outlays. Trim defense spending. End special tax subsidies for specific corporations or industries – at both state and federal levels. Cut agricultural subsidies.
5. Saving Social Security while making it more progressive. Exempt the first $20,000 of income from Social Security taxes. Make up the difference – and any need for additional Social Security revenues – by raising the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax.
6. Ending Wall Street’s dominance of the economy and preventing any future taxpayer-funded bailout. Break up Wall Street’s largest banks and put a cap their size. Link pay on the Street to long-term profits rather than short-term speculation. Subject all financial transactions to a one-tenth of one percent transactions tax.
7. Fully enforcing regulations that protect workers, consumers, small investors, and the environment. Raise penalties on corporations that violate them. Expand enforcement staffs. Provide more private rights of action.
8. Providing affordable health care to all Americans. The new health law isn’t enough. We’ll fight for a single payer – making Medicare available to all. End fee-for-service and create “accountable-care” organizations that focus on healthy outcomes.
9. Slowing and eventually reversing climate change. We’ll fight to limit carbon emissions. Impose a ceiling on emissions or a carbon tax on polluters. Return the revenues from these to the American people, in the form of tax cuts for the working middle class.
10. Getting big money out of politics. We’ll fight to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overrule Citizens United v. FEC. Require full disclosure of all contributions for or against any candidate. Provide full public financing for all presidential, gubernatorial, and legislative candidates in all general elections.
I don’t agree with everything there, but I think it’s a good basic outline of what is needed as a response to the current rampage of the plutocracy. This is what a true populist movement would do.
Comments are closed.
It’s emerging from the heartland – from Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa — and it is spreading across the nation. It doesn’t have a formal organization or Washington lobbyists beyond it, but it’s gaining strength nonetheless.
Unions don’t have a formal organization or Washington lobbyists?
The movement doesn’t, blackadder. That’s why our reptilian corporate masters (who, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I’m going to refer to as “your clients” from now on) fear it.
our reptilian corporate masters (who, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I’m going to refer to as “your clients” from now on)
You mean Donald Rumsfeld?
Does Rumsfeld serve the oligarchy’s interests? If so, then he’d be one, yes.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the basic premise, notwithstanding that I often play devil’s advocate in favor of the conservative position on tax increases. I do think they might have had a wider appeal if they had left government healthcare and global warming out of it. At least they had the sense to omit a pro-abortion stance.
The problem with our healthcare system is that it cost too much (limiting its availability to the common person) and the quality (number of mistakes) is too high. The only systems anywhere in the world that have solved both of these problems is a type of single payer system (the examples are in several countries and in our own VA system). This issue clearly belongs here as it is in need of the application of logic and fact over the belief of “fairness” and fear of government control.
Climate change belongs as well as it is an established problem that many want to pretend does not exist. The science is there and is constantly improving. It also will affect the common person and the poor much more than the wealth who can buy there way out of the mess being created.
Paul writes, “Climate change belongs as well as it is an established problem that many want to pretend does not exist. The science is there and is constantly improving. It also will affect the common person and the poor much more than the wealth who can buy there way out of the mess being created.”
I think that’s overly simplistic. The wealthy know as well as anyone that if global warming causes catastrophic damage, they will not escape harm. If the economic system collapses all their money won’t be worth beans. Rich people have as much interest as anyone, if not more, in maintaining a functioning and orderly society.
I guess my example lies in the short term (next hundred years). In that time frame Bangledesh will become flooded as will several islands in the Pacific, but much of the US and Europe (except for Florida and the Netherlands) will be high and dry. Also the wealthy and the wealthy nations will be able to cope with the effects for a much longer time frame than the poor will.
Also, please do not be confused. I consider myself part of the wealthy since I am in the upper 20% of the income in the wealthiest nation on the planet. The scariest thoughts I have center around Christs teachings as they relate to my responsibilities. But I do still have time to think about what we should do as a society.
Good stuff.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the basic premise, notwithstanding that I often play devil’s advocate in favor of the conservative position on tax increases. … At least they had the sense to omit a pro-abortion stance
It is interesting, through a combination of events — the success of this movement and the TEA Party, with the move away from polarization on foreign policy and cultural issues, we are seeing a restoration of economic issues being the primary division between the Right and the Left, with the likely result of a re-alingment along economic lines.
I think we may just be seeing the beginnings of such a realignment, Kurt. Such an event would be the death-knell of the current Republican Party, which is why I expect they’ll fight it with every weapon at their disposal.
I’m not so sure. There are millions of upper income gays who would join the Log cabin Club if the GOP would just tone down its hateful rhetoric and focus on conservative economic issues. The rise of the Neo-Cons in the GOP alienated many a white collar suburbanite who has no other major reservation about the GOP. I expect the two-party system will continue, simply with the division primarily along economic issues rather than foreign policy or cultural concerns.
If people voted their true economic interests, the Republicans would get no more than 20% of the vote in every election. That’s what all that cultural populism is for when it comes from the Republicans: it is to distract from their economic agenda.
Yes, but if people voted their economic interest, the GOP would re-orient itself to serve the top 50% of the electorate. Eisenhower Republicanism would be back in a jiffy.
Almost any alignment is better than the current one, at least from a Catholic perspective.
Indeed, Brett.
It is interesting how liberals like to spend other people’s money, reminds me that recently Michael Moore said that other people’s money was a national resource and that it needed to be redistributed. What is he doing with his millions? Rich liberals always get a pass.
What is he doing with his millions?
Um, speaking up for ordinary Joes?
You, in the other hand, are parroting the arguments of very, very rich people – ones, unlike Moore, who couldn’t care less about ordinary Joes.
But, you didn’t answer the question, what is Michael doing with his millions, has he given it to the poor and downtrodden union workers? He certainly has a big mouth. I am proud to be part of the conservative movement and I am not rich.
I did answer the question: he’s helping ordinary Joes have a voice. You, on the other hand, are working in a movement that is working to dis-empower ordinary Joes once and for all. You’re actually advocating for your own slavery. You do realize who benefits from Movement-conservative economics, right?
Michael Moore has a big mouth, but has he given his personal money to the poor. On his last movie he used nonunion help. I think that you have a warped view of the American economy. The problem is that too many want a government handout. This article reminds me of the book ” The Animal Farm”.
It has been my experience that when someone is accused of having a “big mouth” it is because what comes out of it challenges the accuser’s beliefs. Something to think about.
This assumes, of course, that liberals and other Democrats will get off their duffs and actually organize to the extent that the Tea Partiers do.
Liberals tend to be all talk and no go.
Matt writes, “You, in the other hand, are parroting the arguments of very, very rich people – ones, unlike Moore, who couldn’t care less about ordinary Joes.”
Mightn’t it be a tad uncharitable to assume that being very rich automatically makes one uncaring?
I was only talking about the ones “who couldn’t care less about ordinary Joes” Agellius. I actually know and respect people who are rich.
Matt writes, “I actually know and respect people who are rich.”
Me too. In fact, all of the rich people I have met have been very nice people.
There is a difference between being nice and not supporting programs for those who are less fortunate.
Yes. Of course. You can be nice and still believe that a particular program intended to help the less fortunate is not the best way to go.
Yes. Of course. You can be nice and still believe that a particular program intended to help the less fortunate is not the best way to go.
…or a particular program intended to help the unborn.
[Kurt: I let that through, but this thread is not about abortion. Let's stick to the topic, everyone. - Matt]
To Harry, How do you know too many people want a government handout. I know a lot of people need help and those who I know that need help don’t want a handout. THEY NEED HELP and for someone to say too many want a handout is ignorant and prejudiced.
Also, what is a handout and what is an important government program very much depends on whose ox is being gored. I was in a discussion once years ago in which someone was going on about government handouts, and I asked if he took the deduction on his federal taxes for his home mortgage. He almost blew a gasket: unlike “those people” he deserved his deduction.
For the record: the home mortgage interest deduction costs the Treasury about $100 billion per year. The budget for Federal welfare (TANF, food stamps, etc.) is about $95 billion.
David writes, “the home mortgage interest deduction costs the Treasury about $100 billion per year. The budget for Federal welfare (TANF, food stamps, etc.) is about $95 billion.”
I have a problem with characterizing not-taking money from citizens as “costing” the government money. This assumes the premise that the government is entitled to our money by default, and whatever it doesn’t take from us is a loss to the government.
On the contrary, it’s not the government’s money at all, unless the people consent to have it taken from them. In the case of the mortgage deduction, that is money that the people have not consented to have the government take. If the people were to so consent, then it would be a cost to the people. The government not-taking it is not a cost to the government.
Agellius, We are the government and I choose to help those in need through the power I have to tax myself as a member of that government. If we view the government as an aggressive enemy then it becomes what we believe it to be within one’s perception.
I support the government(me) to tax more in order to help more people who otherwise would not get the immediate help they need.
Ronald writes, “I support the government(me) to tax more in order to help more people who otherwise would not get the immediate help they need.”
Then why not send your entire paycheck to the government to be used to help the less fortunate?
Yes, I know, now I’m just being silly. But the point is, there has to be a limit on how much of our money the government takes in taxes. We only disagree on where the limit should be.
Apparently, we also disagree on whether it’s better to help the less fortunate by giving money to the government, or by giving it to, say, Catholic Relief Services.
Personally, if the mortgage interest deduction were eliminated, I would probably go into foreclosure.
Agellius –
Catholic Relief Services receives most of its funding from the government and lobbies for increased funding.
Cut CRS’s government funding, and they would be in foreclosure!
Kurt writes, “Catholic Relief Services receives most of its funding from the government and lobbies for increased funding. Cut CRS’s government funding, and they would be in foreclosure!”
I’m not sure what your point is. I used them as an example, for the sake of argument, of a private charity that you could give your money to in order to help the less fortunate, as an alternative to giving it to the government. I’m pretty sure it still works as an example, even if it does receive a lot of government funding, since it is nevertheless a private charity and not a government agency.
Agellius,
CRS is an example of how much subsidiarity is a feature of social programs developed by the American center-left. Partial public funding for efficient, helpful programs run by NGOs. This is how President Truman (D) and President Kennedy (D) set up these funding initiatives.
If your point is simply that it is virtuous to give to CRS, I fully agree. But I do find that some on the center-right are quick to suggest public action is ineffective and praise the virtues of “private charity” while naming charities that are largely publicly funded and themselves reject the theories of conservativism.
Liberalism stands for a mixed system of private and public charity and with much of the public action limited to funding, with program administration done by independent NGOs. I think this is a system that serves us well.
Kurt:
You write, “But I do find that some on the center-right are quick to suggest public action is ineffective and praise the virtues of “private charity” while naming charities that are largely publicly funded and themselves reject the theories of conservativism.”
I was drawing a contrast between charities that are run by the government and those that are run privately. Whether they are partially publicly funded or reject conservatism are irrelevant.
You write, “Liberalism stands for a mixed system of private and public charity and with much of the public action limited to funding, with program administration done by independent NGOs.”
I think you may be oversimplifying “liberalism”. As on the conservative side, it is not monolithic but has a lot of shades and variations.
Agellius,
I think we have had this discussion before. American liberals support program administration by NGOs with public grants. It has been the Right that has attacked this model.
The Right Wing pushes a false characterization of the center-left. Liberals have been the force behind creating a vast array of public-NGO partnerships that leaves program administration in the hands of the NGOs. We see repreated attempts by conservatives to strip funding and nothing to move government run programs towards such a model.
The sole exception might be conservatives support for elementary and secondary school vouchers. Other than that, can you name two other conservative initiatives towards this model? Bush’s faith based initative would not be an example, which simply moved money from some NGOs to others.
Kurt writes, “The sole exception might be conservatives support for elementary and secondary school vouchers. Other than that, can you name two other conservative initiatives towards this model? Bush’s faith based initative would not be an example, which simply moved money from some NGOs to others.”
I don’t know why I would want to name any conservative initiatives toward this model. The statement of mine out of which this side-discussion has grown, was “Apparently, we also disagree on whether it’s better to help the less fortunate by giving money to the government, or by giving it to, say, Catholic Relief Services.”
I’m not arguing that conservatives support the model you describe. I’m arguing that opposition to higher taxes does not equate to opposition to helping the poor.