Guest Blog: You Want My Vote?

Last night, President Obama held a town hall meeting with Hispanic voters during which he chastised the Democrats for not going to the polls. I guess he didn’t get the memo, but I found a copy.

Dear Mr. President, Democratic Representatives, State and National:
Your constituents are going on strike. Almost as far back as President Johnson, on the national and state levels, you have failed to come up with a single new, bold idea. Rather, you have told us repeatedly why we shouldn’t vote for the Republicans. And, you’re right.
All Republican policies support corporations/the wealthy because that’s where their campaign financing comes from. But, guess what? We already knew that.
And, you knew that because that’s where much of your financial support comes from. All the money in the world, however, isn’t going to help you if we don’t vote.
You need new ideas. You need a new way of messaging. Stop using the Republican message to argue against them. All you’re doing is reinforcing what they are saying. Use your own words. Be consistent. Peat and repeat! And, for the love, listen to the people that elected you. We’re tired of watching you getting kicked around like a poor puppy. Stand up for us. Stand up for yourselves.
Sincerely,
Democratic Voters Everywhere

A perfect example of what this memo is talking about happened beginning in January 2015. Most of us knew that the 5% education bill and the right-to-mooch bill would be up as soon as the new session started. We are talking about two issues that are the heart and soul of this country, getting an affordable, quality public school education and giving all workers a voice in their workplace. We assumed that you were working hard to block their passage. Unfortunately, we didn’t hear you. Every one of you should have constantly been in the press talking about these issues long before the bills were introduced, motivating the public to action. There should have been thousands and thousands of people gathering on the steps of the Capital. There should have been as many Republicans calling their legislator to voice their opposition. While there’s still some hope for the education bill, sadly right-to-mooch is a reality.
It’s up to you. If you want us to vote, then give us something to vote FOR.

Share:

Related Articles

12 thoughts on “Guest Blog: You Want My Vote?

  1. GB, thanks.

    IMHO, “income inequality” is an issue Dems can win on at the local, state and federal level.

    Even something that sounds as radical as a “basic income guarantee,” aka a “negative income tax,” has support from conservatives and Republicans.

    “Rethinking the Idea of a Basic Income for All”

    “In October, Swiss voters submitted sufficient signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would pay every citizen of Switzerland $2,800 per month, no strings attached. Similar efforts are under way throughout Europe. And there is growing talk of establishing a basic income for Americans as well. Interestingly, support comes mainly from those on the political right, including libertarians.

    The recent debate was kicked off in an April 30, 2012, post, by Jessica M. Flanigan of the University of Richmond, who said all libertarians should support a universal basic income on the grounds of social justice. Professor Flanigan, a self-described anarchist, opposes a system of property rights “that causes innocent people to starve.”

    She cited a paper by the philosopher Matt Zwolinski of the University of San Diego in the December 2011 issue of the journal Basic Income Studies, which also contained other papers by libertarians supporting the basic income concept. While acknowledging that most libertarians would reject explicit redistribution of income, he pointed to several libertarians, including the economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, who favored the idea of a basic universal income.

    Friedman’s argument appeared in his 1962 book, “Capitalism and Freedom,” based on lectures given in 1956, and was called a negative income tax. His view was that the concept of progressivity ought to work in both directions and would be based on the existing tax code. Thus if the standard deduction and personal exemption exceeded one’s gross income, one would receive a subsidy equal to what would have been paid if one had comparable positive taxable income.

    In 1965, Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, recommended to President Lyndon Johnson that he support Friedman’s idea of a negative income tax. Friedman provided illustrative figures to The New York Times showing how his plan would work. The maximum benefit would be $1,500 per year for someone with zero gross income, which would be about $11,500 in today’s dollars.

    Ultimately, Johnson rejected the negative income tax but appointed a commission that later recommended one. Johnson also supported an experiment by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that would run small pilot negative income tax programs in various cities and states to see how people responded.

    The negative income tax was revived by President Richard Nixon in an August 1969 proposal called the family assistance plan that had been developed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The New York Times columnist James Reston called it a “remarkably progressive welfare policy.”

    …”

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/rethinking-the-idea-of-a-basic-income-for-all/?_r=0

    Even if you don’t get a “basic income guarantee,” it pushes the less controversial “federal job guarantee,” to the political middle.

    “…The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements….”

    http://ineteconomics.org/blog/institute/plan-all-detroits-out-there

  2. Agree that President Obama is center-right and has missed key opportunities. Disagree 100% that the answer is to not vote. You write about the latest cuts to education funding and R2W. Well, there was a Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate against both. Sure, not everyone on the Left would have gotten their pony. Yet even a child can see the bigger picture. Perhaps less whining and more self-examination is in order?

    1. Emma, I agree with you for the most part. Yes, sucking your thumb or on a beer rather than voting is self abuse besides not being too bright of a strategy, current or long term.

      I was a Hillary guy because I did not think Obama was ready for prime time needing more experience learning his craft in the legislature. I believe he is not as much center right as he is too cautious with his background as a legal scholar which would also explain his “missed opportunities.”

        1. I don’t get the support for TPP; I see nothing in it for the American worker.

          I wouldn’t be surprised to see all the recent immigrants returning to their country of origin to get the high paying jobs. Then the unemployed American workers, formerly in the high paying manufacturing jobs, could replace them in the fast food, Walmart, and farm minimum wage jobs. Or the American worker could become illegals as they cross the border chasing their old jobs. YIKES! Perhaps my scenario is a bit too speculative or just dark humor, but outsourcing American jobs is bad business, bad economics, and just plain bad.

          1. It’s the oligarchs-only club done while hiding behind their Wall Street private equity funds. Since the oligarchs control the corporate media, there’s next-to-no coverage. GOP wants to “give” Obama authority to negotiate (fast track) the deal in SECRET. It’s a NAFTA replay. When that blew up, the GOP was only to happy to lay it on Clinton.

            “TransPacific Partnership: Fast Track to Financial Instability”

            By Kevin Gallagher, Associate Professor of International Relations at Boston University. Originally published at Triple Crisis

            “…Moreover, the TPP elevates the right of powerful corporations to directly sue the U.S. federal, state, or local governments and the governments of our trading partners for not deregulating. Such a dispute mechanism—referred to as investor-state-dispute resolution—stands in stark contrast with the World Trade Organization (WTO), where disputes are settled among nation-states and regulators.

            These are not theoretical possibilities, it has already happened: the Czech Republic recently had to dole out $260 million because the Czech government did not bail out a non-Czech bank after their financial crisis. Imagine the United States getting sued by Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, HSBC, and the rest for not bailing them out, too.

            ….

            Borrowing from an analogy from my colleague Anton Korinek, in a new paper in the Journal of Monetary Economics, financial deregulation is similar to relaxing safety rules on nuclear power plants: such a relaxation may reduce costs and increase profit for the nuclear industry, and may even reduce electricity rates. However, it comes at a heightened risk of a nuclear meltdown. Financial deregulation acts in the same way, it increases the profits of the financial sector at great risk and expense to the rest of society.

            http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/transpacific-partnership-fast-track-financial-instability.html

            From New Zealand:

            “The TPPA’s agenda of re setting global trading rules is without precedent,” Napier Grey Power representative Maxine Boag said. “Under the TPPA, transnational corporations will be able to dictate changes to New Zealand laws. It represents one of the greatest threats to New Zealand sovereignty, and it is being negotiated in secrecy.”

            One of the provisions of the TPPA allows corporations to sue governments if laws affect their profits, but does not allow governments to sue corporations for harm to the public or the environment.

            http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1502/S00325/rally-against-tppa-in-hastings.htm

            Again, U.S. press isn’t covering and when they do, here’s a strong Obama supporter, Jared Bernstein, Economics Ph.D. fighting FOR TPP in the Huffington Post.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/no-negotiating-a-currency-chapter-in-the-tpp-will-not-cause-a-trade-war-or-cost-us-jobs_b_6694342.html

          2. Another good read on T-PP.

            “Crunch Time for the Global Corporatocracy”

            “…As truth-out.org reports, the mainstream media’s complete and utter silence on one of the biggest stories of the year, maybe even the decade, is shocking but not all that surprising. After all, they and their corporate advertisers and backers want the TPP to be ratified.

            Resistance Rising

            As Congress prepares to vote on a so-called “Fast Track” bill aimed at bulldozing the corporate-friendly TPP into law before most members of the public even become aware of its existence, not to mention granting almost sole authority for crafting future trade agreements (such as TiSA) to the executive branch for the next four years, resistance is finally beginning to mount.

            Earlier this week Senator Elizabeth Warren penned an op-ed for Washington Post that was sharply critical of the trade agreement, in particular the innocuous-sounding Investor-State Dispute Settlement (on which you can read more here). Warren even went so far as to use the dirty “S” word (the new eleven-letter one, not the traditional four-letter one): …”

            http://wolfstreet.com/2015/03/01/crunch-time-for-the-global-corporatocracy/

  3. EmmaR. We lost by huge margins in the last election because Democrats didn’t vote. I think the point that the GB is making is, unless the Democrats start talking about their ideas rather than why you shouldn’t vote for the other guy, they can continue to expect lower voter turnout. Yes we had a gubernatorial candidate that was against both of these bills and I voted for her, but our candidate wasn’t terribly appealing to everyone and the campaign was run poorly. This just created apathy. This letter sounds to me like it’s totally about reflection. If we don’t get our act together, we can expect the same results.

    1. Nope – not voting is lazy and shameful. I am no fan of the DPW and I’m highly critical of The Democratic Party but I am less impressed by the petulance of this blog post. Mary Burke may have had weaker messaging but it was quite clear where she stood on any number of issues versus Walker. R2W would never have seen the light of day with her there to veto it. Every non-vote by a Democrat was a vote for Walker – this blogger disgusts me.

    2. Let’s not forget to include redistricting and outside money by the boatload either. Full color direct mailers from outside right-wingers lying about the progressive candidates, going to all households several times in the last week of October last. Cutting down the numbers of polling places, shortening the times and access points for early voting, confusing and threatening people over voter ID didn’t help turnout either.

      And no, LOTE messaging does not get people out to vote. “We are the more benevolent slave holders and rentiers, vote for us.”

      Until candidates/parties formulate a plan to rise up against the class war being waged against the right and the left nothing much will change as far as them attracting votes. There are many diverse groups skipping party ties all together, who are actually accomplishing progressive and sustainable programs and goals, across a range of issues.

  4. I’m not sure how you can blame President Obama for the utter and complete failings of the DPW. Politics is best driven from the bottom up, rather than top-down.

Comments are closed.