Running on the record

I have been interested to see that at least some Democratic candidates-- like Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.), & Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.)-- have begun to campaign on their records as promoters of health care reform. This is smart politics, as a solid majority of people recognize that health care reform was at least a step in the right direction. Even some who disagree are open to learning more about it, beyond the media spin, and may at least be convinced that the Republican alternative is worse for most Americans. The Democrats should now be aggressively pointing to any votes they have taken in the public (as opposed to corporate) interest while in Washington. Some "Blue Dogs" will have less of these votes than their more progressive colleagues. They also should be explaining to voters how their Republican opponents' promises, to cut taxes on the wealthy and "shrink big government," would work out in practice. Do we really want to lay off more police, food inspectors, etc.? Will we be better off if the social security program we've been paying into for so long is "privatized?" Most of all, voters are looking for leadership that will challenge the power of the plutocrats. Our system is so flooded with money that candidates are understandably nervous about offending potential fat-cat donors. This is not a normal election cycle, however. While most Americans are usually uncomfortable in bringing up class differences, the economic insecurity for most of us today has made issues of economic and social injustice carry special weight. People are angry, and will not forgive politicians who fail to consistently address their very real concerns. Democrats need to understand the anger and impatience, while calmly explaining to voters in clear fashion how they intend to make things better.

Money flows like water to GOP

This report shows just how critical it is for those of us in the netroots to labor mightily in opposition to the big-money machines on the right.



So get out there and work and keep the Republicans from doing even more damage to our country!

Jobs in the U.S.?

From today's Washington Post:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic plan to encourage companies to bring jobs back from overseas, as a united GOP caucus voted against a motion to debate the measure on the Senate floor.

The motion failed 53 to 45.

The legislation would have raised taxes on corporations that shift operations overseas, costing U.S. jobs. It also would have awarded companies that bring jobs back from abroad by offering a two-year hiatus from payroll taxes for those positions.

I wish I could say with confidence that the Democrats will run with this in a big way. The vast majority of voters, as opposed to big corporate donors, will resent the Republican vote against allowing this measure to come to the floor. Sadly, I suspect that too many Democratic candidates will allow fear of offending their corporate masters to keep them from jumping on this issue. The GOP will only pitch so many softballs over the middle of the plate. It's time to hit the easy home run, or just go home.

Redirecting resentment

Union membership in this country has steadily declined over the last decades, falling most sharply in the private sector. This has had a negative effect on all working Americans, reducing wages, benefits and job security. It has also hurt the bargaining power of surviving unions, leading some to allow employers almost free reign, in exchange for the dubious distinction of recognition as parties to contracts that offer less and less to workers. With less people in unions, and unions losing clout, many Americans today have no real direct experience of enjoying the benefits of union membership. This makes it possible for Republicans to call unions "special interests," on a par with those who own mineral rights on public lands, or importers of Russian mink. The teachers, police, and firefighters who were spared the ax, with the bill house Democrats just passed, are mostly union members. They do not enjoy anything like the wealth or power that an investment banker or corporate lobbyist does. Yet compared to many other working Americans, these folks have it pretty good. When you're working for a low wage with no benefits, the deal given to a cop or a school teacher seems sweet indeed. Moreover, the wages and benefits paid to these public sector union members come out of taxes. All of this might help to explain how a group of Republicans, who has vigorously fought for the interests of the very wealthiest among us, has managed to redirect some of the natural anger and resentment of the less affluent against "union special interests." This is discouraging, yet perhaps it is also what we might call a "teachable moment." Union members can point proudly to their relative strength. The recession has hurt us, the cops and teachers can say, but at least we have some protection. Wouldn't our country be better off if more workers were able to get a better deal than they're giving at WalMart? Instead of whining about fat union contracts, try to form a union and get yourself a fatter contract too!