The American people are angry at the Bush-McSame-Paulson plan that Congress stubbornly insists on using as a terrible foundation upon which to rest narrow, weak revisions that are really only helping Wall Streeters not the people on Main Street, no matter what the presidential candidates claim.
Progressive Democrats are in tune with the people's anger (as the 95 Democratic House no votes indicate) but is there an organized, effective progressive leadership with a plan that addresses the American people's demands and takes the bull by the horns with proactivity?
"Once again--sigh--what this financial mess shows is how the progressive movement is disorganized, incoherent and fragmented. The bankers are pretty clear what they want. The public has been heard loudly that it rejects the Paulson bailout for bankers. But, progressives? I think I've seen at least half a dozen different "THIS IS THE SOLUTION" suggestions coming in via e-mail and a few more floating around out there on the Internet (that apparently has become the only mass mobilization arena for some progressives).
"...this has to do with lack of leadership and coherence--and, so, we will get a whole bunch of paper floating around and it won't have the effect it should have--that is, capturing the anger bursting at the seams throughout the country and converting that anger into a long-term, sustained movement to defeat Market Fundamentalism--one that we will need no matter who is president after January 2009.
"I'm struck by how relatively narrow the proposals are. Most focus solely on narrow parameters of reacting to the bailout of bankers. That is, they inject some progressive elements, or at least reject the worst parts of the original Paulson plan, to make it more palatable but they do not demand a much broader vision of the economic crisis, and, thus, a demand that more be done as part of laying out a massive amount of money. I suggested yesterday some ideas but, c'mon, where is the creativity? Don't just think in the box you are told to think in. "Change To Win has a broader vision here--I like its focus on health care, retirement and a fair tax system. But, it's not clear what CTW has done to, for example, reach out to the AFL-CIO to forge a joint agenda and try to stoke public support for the vision.
"The Progressive Caucus in the House put together a package--but it's not even on their website so you'd have to go the SEIU site to see the principals. Again, I don't understand why the Caucus is so narrowly defining the "economic crisis" as limited to reacting to the Paulson plan; the plan seems to, at least in the version posted at SEIU, have even dropped Rep. Peter DeFazio's proposal for a tiny stock transactions tax, a good idea that should be a no-brainer and a way to raise $150 billion. It's a failure of imagination.
"When one of the most chattered about "improvements" to the bailout for bankers bill is raising the insurance limit for depositers from $100,000 to $250,000 (which, on its own, is not a bad thing), an idea incorporated as one of the five points of the Progressive Caucus' plan--supported by both Barack Obama (who has shown zero leadership on this issue and, in fact, was effectively supporting the basic premise of the bailout) and John McCain--you go to shake your head in sadness and amazement.
"C'mon, folks, you have a seething public out there. Take advantage of it."
Comments