This is a rerun of a diary which I wrote about a month or so ago and posted on dkos. I am reposting it here in response to Welshman’s important challenge to transform the blogosphere into a more positive and constructive outlet for ideas and not just a forum where everyone takes their turn expressing their outrage and disgust with their ideological adversaries. This is an abbreviated version of a longer diary which didn’t receive much of a response over at kos, so I thought I’d try it out over here.
In this article, I will list some examples of, what I think, are winning concrete policy proposals for the Democratic Party: my own Positive Platform for the Democratic Party.
What the Democratic Party is for:
1) The Democratic Party stands for the elimination or, at least, the increase of the cap on the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation. It is also for maintaining the government’s obligations toward its own citizens by preserving the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security is an autonomous and extraordinarily successful system of financial insurance which should not be used to mask the government’s general fiscal irresponsibility.
This is a winning position because the Republicans have brought up the issue of the so-called “crisis” in Social Security’s long-term financing. We can turn that to our own advantage by proposing the elimination of the cap as one means, among others, of restoring confidence in SS’s stability while simultaneously turning this into a class (wedge) issue. We should also focus on the trust fund surplus and how the reckless fiscal policies of the current administration potentially threaten its ability to pay off its obligations.
As Paul Krugman recently put it in the NYRB:
- The Democratic Party stands for the right of all workers to a basic “living” wage. I’m aware of the usual criticism of this idea among small business and the labor unions. But as rba put in nicely in a recent comment:
In the Reagan years, public benefits [AFDC] were set at 87% of the poverty line, the minimum wage was 78%. If you add the additional taxpayer cost for medicare, food stamps, and a host of categorical programs, the costs go much higher.
So the Republicans paid people to stay home, while touting their expertise in managing the economy, and protecting the interests of the “small business community”.
Democrats should stop playing along in this charade. This is a winning position because it combines a clear moral message with a sound economic policy. It sends the message that Democrats are the party that truly cares about the needs and well-being of the working and lower-classes. During the 2004 elections, referendums on increasing the minumum wage were passed by solid majorities in all of the thirteen states in which they were conducted.
- The Democratic Party is for an increase on the amount of assets that it is necessary to own in order to become subject to the Alternative Minumum Tax (AMT).
According to this article in the NYT:
The same article then goes on to describe the deleterious effects that the AMT is having on housing prices and on other assets owned primarily by the middle-class. This could,therefore, be an effective way of getting back the approval of the middle-class citizens, described in the article, who might otherwise drift toward the anti-tax agenda of the right.
4) The Democratic Party is NOT the party of weakness. The Democratic Party is for the use of military force in the following circumstances:
a) Self-defence and collective self-defence: In the event of invasion or attack by foreign forces on its own soil or that of one of its allies, the Democratic Party believes that the use of force is not only appropriate but necessary in order to defend its borders and the lives of its citizens, and likewise with respect to its allies.
b) The pre-emptive (not preventive) use of force is justified only when the threat of imminent, preventable attack has been corroborated by solid and incontestible intelligence.
c) Humanitarian intervention to stop genocide and ethnic cleansings when they are actually taking place and not ex post facto. The Democratic Party believes that all such military intervention should be conducted mulilaterally and should be backed by the explicit authorization of UN resolutions when possible.
5) The Democratic Party is for encouraging energy conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy through tax incentives on research and development, higher taxes on the use of gasoline and other fossil-fuel based products, the expansion of the public transportation system to include rural or otherwise inaccessible areas, and other such measures.
6) The Democratic Party is for a CONSISTENT foreign policy with respect to the Middle East and other sensitive geo-political hotspots. It belives that one of the fundamental causes of the unrest and turmoil in the Arab world leading up to, and after, 9/11 is the hypocrisy inherent in the unwavering financial and military support that the US has demonstrated in the past and present toward such oil-rich feudal monarchies as Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, the current dictatorship in Egypt, Iran under the Shah, and Pakistan under Musharaff, while, at the same time, invading Iraq and condemning Iran for its alleged connections to terrorism.
7)The Democratic Party is for authentic nation-building with international support and under the supervision of the UN. “Freedom and liberty” cannot long survive under conditions of extreme poverty, unemployment, warlordism, disease and ignorance.
This is far from an exhaustive list of options and ideas and most of them are uncontroversial; but I think it is sufficient to initiate a wide-ranging,open and thoughtful discussion on the question of what exactly would the Democratic party do differently from the Republicans if they were in power.
For example, I often hear and read comments such as what are the Dems going to do about the “war on terror”?
This demonstrates to me two things:
1)That the conservatives have already won the linguistic battle on this, as on many other, political issues. And they will continue successfully framing the debate for just as long as the major media outlets (the disseminators of the framed or reframed message) remain in the hands of the Rupert Murdochs of this world. One of the major problems that can result from overemphasizing language and framing, in fact, is that of ignoring the fact that there are three aspects to the problem of regaining control and predominance in the political arena: message content, message packaging and message dissemination. 2)Since message proliferation (something I wish to adress in another article) is overwhelmingly in the hands of conservatives, liberals end up desperately trying to retroactively reframe the discussion in their own terms: an uphill battle indeed. It would seem much wiser and simpler to me to simply acknowledge existence of, for example, the war on terror and provide an alternative approach (message content) to dealing with it.
I would really like to read your comments and ideas on all of this. Thank you.
You can say (or not say) anything you want, but you can’t say it’s not positive and constructive.
When I wrote this thing up, I genuinely wanted to contrinute to the dialogue. Lately,I’m not sure there is one. I’ve had plenty of recommended diaried on dkos(yes, beleiev it or nor). Problem: they all had soemthing to do with scandals or potential scandals. I try something else….zero, nil, nul…
we are all slaves to ratings, or at least feedback.
When I write something and no one responds or recommends it, I try to take comfort in the fact that a lot of people still read it.
I’d like the Democratic Party to be FOR protecting individual liberties, rather than against the Patriot Act. It’s all nuance, but we could do better with the Live Free of Die crowd.
but I’ve always admitted to being a bit hypersensitive in that regard. And that’s an honest admission, at least!!
Well, I don’t blame you a bit for feeling hurt. You put in all your diaries a good bit of research and thought. Your presentation is lucid and interesting. It’s an injustice that some works of this kind go unheralded – and I’ve noticed that many do.
I’m speaking only for myself, and I don’t like admitting this, but lately I’ve gravitated toward the shorter, more sensational, and brutally critical diaries. “Bush Likens Self to Pope.” This is probably because I’m so angry ALL the time these days, I want some instant validation for my very negative thoughts.
I need to calm down before contemplating the future in a constructive way. With me, this is a phase. However, recent events conspire to extend such unabated ill humor. I can’t say if others feel this way. Constructive thinkers and readers and writers are apparently able to reconcile their ids with their intellects; and look ahead to plans and consequences.
Your diary should be required reading. But that makes it sound like an assignment – which wouldn’t attract people in my state of mind. I’m glad you reposted this; we should all recommend to keep it up for a while. Thank you.
This is what Bush said (as reported in NYTimes today)
after the Pope’s interment, referring to John PaulII, and by extension, of course………
“He was a rock in a sea of moral relativism.” There were other choice quotes.
that’s one of the more thoughtful and generous “meta”-comments about my diaries that I’ve probably ever read. “Should be required reading” is very kind indeed!!I don’t know know how to respond to that without sounding either falsely modest or ridiculously self-congratulatory….So,, I’ll just say thank you.
I would just comment that I hope I didn’t leave the impression that it’s not important to challenge and criticize the outrageous and often disgusting things that the Bush administration does. That aspect is very important. I fact, it’s the predominant strategy behind the recent success of the center-left in the Italian regional elections (subject for another diary) My point, and I think I agree with Welshman and others on this, is that there just seems to be an excess of that sort of thing (too much of anything in dangerous) and there should be some counterbalancing. I was just trying to provide an exampl to show that there IS really an enormous amount to discuss (I’ve touched on hardly anything at all here).
The neocons are trying to coopt the Pope. Well…it was to be expected and I wrote about that too. My first reaction was that we should try to fight back and “take back the Pope” for the left,as it were. I’ve changed my mind. I don’t think we should stoop to their level of manipulative tactics. You’re outrage is justified though. And the hypocrisy and bullshit should be pointed out by someone. Wolf Blitzer’s not up to the job apparently!!
we can’t use “recommend” as a way of saying – I read this, it’s important, thank you for this. Like your story about the events in Israel this morning. All I can do is wait, with some fear, to see what will happen there. So no comment on your story. But definitely read and pondered.
I think probably that while some people are still caught up in the outrage mode, more and more are taking on more of a “okay… now let’s figure out what next’ mode. Which is why you see the different sites springing up (some branched off from kos, but others as well), that focus more on policy and on things like that.
Thanks for putting this diary up for discussion, sounds like a great start.
welcome and I hope you’re right about the changing climate thing…..
Point 1: Social Security
Congress simply can’t retract the “full faith and credit” of the US Federal Goverment behind Treasury instruments without immediately causing a jump in borrowing costs (interest rate) of new instruments and a sharp decrease in the value of the dollar against other currencies. The jump in borrowing costs would lead to a decrease in valuations of current instruments affecting the capital ratios of current holders, primarily Money Market and Central Banks, with the potential of initiating a global monetary crisis.
Long term the SSI program, and their equivalent in other countries, will have to be adjusted and the sooner this is done the easier, and cheaper, it will be due to the functional aspect of compound interest.
So my take on this subject is the message, “We need to slightly adjust the SSI program to ensure its continual viability.”
2. Increase in minimum wage
This is a toughie. An increase in the minimum wage can drive marginal workers in marginal business into unemployment. It can drive marginal businesses into bankruptcy. (Note I wrote “can” not “does.”)
Stepping back, for a moment, let’s ask the question: What do we want? Do we want an increase in the minimum wage or do we a vibrant economy such that the lowest paid people can live in acceptable circumstances? (Ignoring the definition of “acceptable circumstances” for the moment.) My opinion is we seek the former in order to achieve the latter. If so, then increasing the minimum wage is a ‘tactic’ to achieve the goal and other tactics, that may be more effective, need to be investigated and proposed.
3. AMT
Again, raising the AMT is a result, methinks, of a broader issue: we want a society where the law is the same for the rich and the poor. I don’t give a damn if the AMT is raised, lowered, or eliminated but I deeply care if somebody can buy, or bribe, their way out from underneath the law.
4. Military Force, Use of
My feeling is that just because you can do something that doesn’t entail you should or are obligated to do something.
5. Energy Policy
Events are going to overtake us here. I think energy conservative and the introduction of energy alternatives will happen stemming from the rise in oil prices – peak oil & all that.
In my universe having the Democratic Party come out in favor of this would be like coming out in favor of, promoting, and passing laws to encourage breathing.
My addition to the discussion:
6. Systems Thinking
If we look at these as a system what we, at least what I, discover is the economic issues can be nudged to an inter-related network of positive feedback mechanisms. If monies are invested in alternative energy research the potential for alternative technologies is created. This, in turn, implies businesses – hiring workers – to make the machines to make the machines to make the goods that are sold, increasing economic activity, and yadda, yadda, yadda (economics jargon.)
At the same time, increase in oil prices intimates a shift from low-density to high-density housing, meaning a return to urban living. This indicates re-investment in urban infrastuctures indicating job creation in urban areas to do the work indicating an increase in economic activity in the urban areas, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Associated with these two positive feedback cycles are two negative cycles consisting of the demise of the automobile industry (one sixth of the US workforce) and the decline in values of real estate in ex-urban areas.
I’ve got some ideas on this but they are a subject for another post.
As to point one, I absolutely agree with you that reneging on the SS trust fund is functioanally equivalent to declaring the nation essentially banckrupt, with the result that the credit-rating of all US borrowing instruments would be undergo a radical devaluation and consequently more money would have to be printed lead possibly to another world-wide Great Depression (some economic historians beleieve this is precsily what happened in the late 1920s and 1930s). I’m not a economist (just a concerned dilletante, if you will) so I’m not really qualified to judge.
On the other hand,as you say, something does need to be done about the financing of SS over the long haul. I don’t know if what I sugested is the best solution from an economic perspective. There are certainly alterantives: raising the payroll tax in general, cutting benefits slightly, working-age postponement. All of them have siginficant disadvantages from a political, implementational POV, though.
Point 2: I recognize the standard criticism of a minimum wage increase in your comment here. There are studies that suggest it would increase unemplyment signifianctly and otheres which suggest it doesn’t.
In any case, I would just not that minumum wage increases were passed in all the states in which a referendum was conducted during the presidential election. It would definetly seem to be a winning psotion for Dems to take. Of course, I’m willing and,more importantly, policy makers should be willing
consider alterantives.
As to the energy crisis: inevitable or not, the Republicans will continue to do everything and anything they can to forestall the inevitable by invading oil-rich third-world countries on ridiculus pretenses, drilling in the most environmentally sensitive areas of the world and so forth. I think the Democrats should jumpon the badwagon of the inevitable,as it were, and hammer home to the American part which party is both more economically AND environmentally responsible thatn the other. And do it now, while the Repubs continue their reckless and ultimtaley futile policies of destruction.
You systems analysis is interesting and brings up the question of basic research in general (energy and other sceince) and their overwhelming importance in the success of the US economy. I live in Italy, at the moment, and I can tell you that one of the fundamental things that is holding back economic growth and, along with it, job creation in Italy right now, is an extrodinarily low rate of investiment–public and private–in scientific research and development. I have the numbers here somewhere or other, in case you’re really interested. In an case, that virtuous cycle that you refer to can’t get off the ground without substantial investment in, among other things, alternative energy sources (nuclear is one that I’d like to urge stongly but I’ll leave that alone for right now).
A very real problem we face is the assumption of linearality in a non-linear world. People generally think if you do A then B will result.
Not so.
It is mathematically proven, tho’ I can’t (and won’t) do it here, that doing A may result in B, C, F, Z, or A or even W(A) U wn(an)- the Hutchinson Operator for those ‘in the know.’
The thinking behind the Krupp factories pension scheme, all pension plans more or less, was the current generation of workers would produce goods and services to generate the money to pay for the previous generation(s) of workers. This worked fine when expanded to a national scale as long as demographic and economic growth was maintained.
What wrecked this was the Baby-boom following WW 2 when all the industrialized nations experienced a formidable demographic bulge. For the last 60 years this population growth ensured a net increase in the workers/pensioners ratio and an net increase in economic activity. Now the industrialized world is looking at the retirement of the bulge, a return to ‘historic’ demographic growth patterns, and a consequent return to ‘historic’ economic growth. (I’m keeping to only 3 factors just to keep things as simple as possible. There are other, just as important, affective feedback cycles going on as well.)
The retirement bulge is not merely an American problem but also a problem in Europe and Japan.
Everybody has been running around talking about national pension plans but it is the private pension plans that are going to be the most affected by the bulge. In the US every major corporations pension plan is bankrupt. Approximately $45 trillion ($45,000,000,000,000) is needed over the next umpty-ump years and they don’t have it. They don’t have hope one of even beginning to pay out this amount of money. Corporations in other countries are facing the same problem.
The problem is exacerbated in the US from the lack of private savings and the over-investment of private resources in real estate. Americans utterly depend on their homes continually increasing in value. I’m not going to comment on how idiotic this is.
The Republican plan to shift funds from the SSI program (at some undetermined but greater than $2 trillion cost) to private investment, primarily in corporate stocks, is even more daft as it totally ignores the fact these corporations are facing financial ruin from their own pension obligations. This is exactly what I mean by linear thinking. The privateers are assuming the underlying cause of the problems of SSI will not affect the pension plans of corporations and those affects will not be transmitted to the underlying finances of corporations.
Hardy-dee-har-har.
The affects of oil price rise now become important.
As oil prices rise the cost of POL to the consumer also rises. (No kidding, right?) No matter what the oil companies do, how much money they make, what dividends they pay the rise in oil prices have to affect the cost of … real estate. Marginal buyers will find themselves in foreclosure. It has to happen as those borrowers only have a finite amount of money to pay bills. Either they make the house payment or they pay for transportation POL. (oops, POL = petrol (gas), oil, and lubricants.) If they don’t pay for transportation then they won’t have a job and then they won’t have any money to pay for anything and they lose their residence anyway.
So now the question becomes: Who exactly is going to buy these foreclosed properties?
To shorten the discussion a bit, I don’t have a clue.
Ok, the banks get the property back and they sit on it until somebody comes along. No biggie. Right?
Wrong.
Banks have been ‘dis-intermediating’ their real estate portfolios. Meaning they have been grouping the loans into bonds, bond funds, or Real Estate Investment Trusts and selling them. Meaning they have to buy interest on those bonds, eventually pay the principal of the bonds back, or pay the dividends of the REITs. And guess who is one of the biggest buyers of these securities? Pension funds and insurance companies who sold annuities for – you guessed it – retirement income.
Oops.
And it gets even BETTER! I’m only going to mention the attempts to boost revenue by playing around with derivatives and the (totally insane) use of home equity for current consumption.
The situations are a bit, but not much, better in Europe and Japan, at least from reports in the financial press.
Ok. If you’ve read down this far you’re ready to slit your wrists. But the same analytical tools (Chaos math and Complexity theory) I’ve been using to depress you also gives us an intellectual means to determine, at best, or intimate, at worst, our path out of this mess: Sensitivity to Initial Conditions (SDIC.)
SDIC tells us small changes can effect large results. By injecting money into R&D new technologies and industries will, at some point, result. By injecting money into the urban, high-density areas, we mitigate the cost of transportation POL, saving those resources for industry, enter a virtuous job creation cycle in the urban areas, and ease the pain of monetary losses in the suburban, low-density, (mis)investment.
The good thing is we’re not really talking a whole bunch of money. $50 billion for R&D and maybe another $100 billion for urban investment to get the ball rolling. (Wild-Assed Guess) If it is done correctly and we hold our mouths just right this should be enough.
Peanuts compared to letting things go to hell.
reasoned and important posting once again. Thank you.
Let me just make some meta-observations (not really criticims) on your observations, as it were.
A very real problem we face is the assumption of linearality in a non-linear world. People generally think if you do A then B will result.
Not so.
It is mathematically proven, tho’ I can’t (and won’t) do it here, that doing A may result in B, C, F, Z, or A or even W(A) U wn(an)- the Hutchinson Operator for those ‘in the know.
I not a professional matematician nor an economist, but I’ve studied a relatively substabtial amount of the former on the way to fulfilling my requirements for a BS in Computer Science. I, personally, never suggested that, even in a realtively formalizable system (like physics) much less in the vast and quasi- infinite-variable complexities of social sciences, linear thinking is adequate to the formulation of solutions to our problems. I’m not familair with the Hutchinson operator, but I think what you’re referring to above can be summed in the colloqual phrase “the law of unintended consequences”.
You bring up an important problem which I didn’t touch on in my diary: the problem of unfunded or underfunded
private pensions. You’ve done a good job of illustrating how that problem is fundmantally interretaled with the SS problem and how the Republican’s plan would exacerbate both problems by essentialy dumping the SS problem onto an already seriosly compromised private sector. I’m profoundly oppose to the plans to reform SS for precisly that reason,among many others which I won’t go into.
It seems to me that the real estate bubble will collapse as soon as soon as rising oil prices aalong with falling dollar begin to show their effects on the
over-all inflation rate (CPI) and interest rates will have to climb as a result.
What I really didn’t know about and find extremelt disconscerting is this phenomonon which you refer to as
“dis-intermediation” on the part of the banks. I havent been follwoing the finacial or business news in the US all that closely in recent times and consequently this is the first I’ve heard about it. There’s something diabolically clever and manipulative about it that makes it not seem terribly surprising, however.
What you’re getting at fundamentally, I think,is the importantce, and the reasons for it, of emphasizing
reserach and developemnt. I think you are absolutely right about that, although I don’t think it would necessarily guarantee econimic growth and job creation all by itslef. Chaning the intial conditions can be extraordinaly powerfuland effetive indeed, but one has to determine preciely which initial conditons to amodify and by how much, as in any good exprimental simulation.
In any case, I’ll take that all that into account if I decide to take up someone’s suggestion to recompile and repost this diary in the future. I’t doesn’t seem to be getting very much input, though, so for the time being I’ll just leave it here and see if it stays up for a little while.
I think your post shows the difficulty of this medium. I can’t believe the number of words written, and time spent going over the same ground. I’m glad you re-posted here, for your content, and because fast responses generate too much static.
I agree with SS, and think the simple act of raising or eliminating the cap is not just a short-term solution. I’d replace “minimum” with “living” wage because that’s what people need to survive.
I’ve read alot on this one, and note that the same groups – management and labor – trot out the same arguments, have their legal teams at the ready, and submit the same briefs in court every single time the wage is increased or decreased. The net effect is neutral on the economy. At it’s peak in the early ’70’s the wage was about 107% of the poverty line, and we still had more McJobs than people to fill them.
<rant>
Who cries the loudest? Smaller companies that claim they’ll go out of business. But they don’t talk about is the burden they place on the rest of society who pick up the tab for public benefits paid to their employees: the “working poor”. Here’s the deal: in the “Raygun” years, public benefits [AFDC] were set at 87% of the poverty line, the minimum wage was 78%. If you add the additional taxpayer cost for medicare, food stamps, and a host of categorical programs, the costs go much higher.
So the Republicans paid people to stay home, while touting their expertise in managing the economy, and protecting the interests of the “small business community”. And the Democrats have gone along with this see-saw game knowing the wage won’t raise people out of poverty, and knowing the hidden costs to the rest of us.
Living wage, not minimum. </rant>
I agree with the rest of your points, but would stop @ “consistent foreign policy” on #6. I think we need to fit the problems inside the general policies we present to the world in all foreign relations.
I also have a request: would you be willing to recompile your list based on the responses, and resubmit this diary? It would be great if we could go all the way through the process of developing a “living” document.
If you are, [pimping] I’ve got a diary on how to vote on it here
I’m aware of the legendary welfare trap. In fact, I have some personal family experience with it. The Republicnas and some conservative Dems then went on to use this phenomenon as a club to batter single mothers and other
wefare cheats over the head with quite disgracefully. I wrote “minumum” wage because that’s still the generally used term but living wage is probably more appropiate for what I had in mind and is a good example of refraing the issue.
I would certainly be willing to recompile the list and make into a collaborative project.
Thank you. I think it’s really needed.