1968: Eugene McCarthy-->RFK-->HHH-->RMN
3
One word: infrastructure. Bernie understands that we need programs that will both provide jobs and rebuild what we've allowed to crumble for the past forty years. We need bridges that don't fall. Water that isn't poison. Schools with enough good teachers, enough books, and enough lab equipment to educate the populace for the 21st century.
9
WE DON'T NEEED "BIG-PROGRAM LIBERALISM" . . .
...rather an even playing field for all, the reversal of SOTUS' Citizen's United decision, and a nation where all have one vote and people pay their fair share of taxes.
Instead, we have an autocracy run by the one-tenth of "1%" who via lobbyists actually create an autocracy ... and it seems to be growing even a far more entrenched manner.
"A government by the people for all the people." Isn't this be our system of republican democracy?
...rather an even playing field for all, the reversal of SOTUS' Citizen's United decision, and a nation where all have one vote and people pay their fair share of taxes.
Instead, we have an autocracy run by the one-tenth of "1%" who via lobbyists actually create an autocracy ... and it seems to be growing even a far more entrenched manner.
"A government by the people for all the people." Isn't this be our system of republican democracy?
3
The problem with incremental tweaks and nudges is that they make our institutions more complex. Complexity leads to opacity, opacity to corruption.
This is why people feel alienated from government. Right wingers clutch their pearls over the thought that someone, somewhere is gaming the system and collecting "welfare" they don't deserve. The rest of us are more reasonably concerned about billionaires buying political influence and opting out of the tax system.
Simplifying our tax code and grouping our social programs in a few big institutions or umbrella programs would help clarify things. People would have a better sense of what they pay into the system and what they can expect to get out.
Simplicity and transparency would help clarify people's relationship with government. It might also put some of the scaremongers and conspiracy theorists out of the business.
This is why people feel alienated from government. Right wingers clutch their pearls over the thought that someone, somewhere is gaming the system and collecting "welfare" they don't deserve. The rest of us are more reasonably concerned about billionaires buying political influence and opting out of the tax system.
Simplifying our tax code and grouping our social programs in a few big institutions or umbrella programs would help clarify things. People would have a better sense of what they pay into the system and what they can expect to get out.
Simplicity and transparency would help clarify people's relationship with government. It might also put some of the scaremongers and conspiracy theorists out of the business.
6
I'm trying to remember 'those bad old days' when we actually paid for our own
College tuition . When people actually worked 2 jobs to make ends meet.
When no one ever heard of food stamps. Now we have the democrats wanting to one up each other as to how much they can give away fo free. it's hard to recognize this country now, but if sanders or Clinton get in, this country that
Was once great because of the many people who worked hard to make it that way will be over.
College tuition . When people actually worked 2 jobs to make ends meet.
When no one ever heard of food stamps. Now we have the democrats wanting to one up each other as to how much they can give away fo free. it's hard to recognize this country now, but if sanders or Clinton get in, this country that
Was once great because of the many people who worked hard to make it that way will be over.
7
I have just returned from a couple of weeks in the US on holiday. I was struck by amazing similarities between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the second political party in the UK. Both are promising a world of milk and honey, provided by the state and funded by the bankers and the infamous 1%.
The young of course love the story. They are having to compete in global market where their peers in Asia Pacific are formidable competition. Life is tough and only going to get tougher. As global inequality declines it emphasises the national difference between those with marketable skills and those who have little to offer (probably the majority of the young in the UK and US). This group are screaming, frightened and clinging onto anybody who promises them a rosy future. Of course neither Sanders or Corbyn would ever be able to deliver and would make the situation ten time worse. The young don't want to hear that. Hopefully, when Sanders is forced to go from blue sky promises to a detailed explanation of how his world will work, the idiocy of his ideas will be exposed, even to idealist young.
The young of course love the story. They are having to compete in global market where their peers in Asia Pacific are formidable competition. Life is tough and only going to get tougher. As global inequality declines it emphasises the national difference between those with marketable skills and those who have little to offer (probably the majority of the young in the UK and US). This group are screaming, frightened and clinging onto anybody who promises them a rosy future. Of course neither Sanders or Corbyn would ever be able to deliver and would make the situation ten time worse. The young don't want to hear that. Hopefully, when Sanders is forced to go from blue sky promises to a detailed explanation of how his world will work, the idiocy of his ideas will be exposed, even to idealist young.
17
John F. Kennedy promised to put a man on the moon within a decade. He didn't promise to put a man in, say, the Cayman Islands.
20
Going back to the New Deal will not be politically feasible. Moreover, we already know it doesn't work very well. Take away financial incentives and personal motivation declines. On the other hand, concentrating wealth to the 0.1% of the population is a recipe for social unrest.
Rather than reinstate "Welfare as we used to know it", let's raise taxes on higher incomes and cut taxes to lower incomes. In addition to raising top tier tax rates, tax evasion loopholes should be closed. Corporations should be financially disincentivized to hide income offshore. Estate taxes should be bolstered.
We don't need a return to the New Deal. We need wealth redistribution - by taking as little away from the middle class as possible, not by giving them inefficient programs rife with waste, inefficiency, and corruption.
Rather than reinstate "Welfare as we used to know it", let's raise taxes on higher incomes and cut taxes to lower incomes. In addition to raising top tier tax rates, tax evasion loopholes should be closed. Corporations should be financially disincentivized to hide income offshore. Estate taxes should be bolstered.
We don't need a return to the New Deal. We need wealth redistribution - by taking as little away from the middle class as possible, not by giving them inefficient programs rife with waste, inefficiency, and corruption.
1
This is a myopic, narrow view of federal fiscal policy. Nowhere is attention paid to the billions wasted on national defense/homeland security, corporate welfare and bailouts, agricultural subsidies, etc. Not a word about closing inefficient tax loopholes. No discussion of even minimal reasonable reimbursement caps on Medicare, Medicaid and other health care programs. Nothing relating to strategically aligning federal spending with growth or prosperity initiatives. Most significantly, no mention of our woefully inadequate and crumbling infrastructure. We already pay enough taxes to fund most of what we need to do to make this country worth living in and economically competitive. All it takes is a realization that it's not 1945 any more and a reordering of priorities to meet modern imperatives.
15
Here is what I don't get: The author discusses using big programs to connect the "government with the people." Does not the fact that there is this "need" highlight the problem we have. As a more libertarian leaning individual I want to see more local control, where my connection is the human to human relationship I have with my government. I understand that I would have to sacrifice "big" things: Interstate highways, NASA, Strongest military in the world. But the things that really matter: civil rights, property rights, self determination. These would still exist. And we could have avoided the huge divided in our country created by big government forcing big programs that small majority believed in. Let the changes be slow and gradual. Let large majority believe in them on their time.
1
"Incrementalism" all to often amounts to "moving the deck hairs on the Titanic." The "pragmatism" urged here is usually a process-focused attempt to secure concensus rather than serious reform, focused on the ultimate end desired. It makes too many concessions to the powers that currently are, and to today's norms, without considering then real needs of the people and what the people could acheive if enough of them meant business. The Progressive era before WWI, and, yes, the New Deal come to mind.
The small-bore steps this column extols are really only a capitulation to the worse excesses of neo-Liberalism, and an acceptance that corporatism is the rule of the road. These premises might make interesting politics for some, and will certainly provide full employment for many Democratic pols and consultants, et al, but they are bad for the American people.
It is hopeful that so many Americans, left, right and center, seem to realize this fact, and are girding for the long, hard task of rebuilding political participation that rewards the commitment of ordinary people, rather than just using them.
That Mr. Schmitt misses all this may be due in part to the good, relatively cheap health insurance he probably has in his well paid position. If he were paying $800/month -- on top of a large subsidy -- on a middle class income for health insurance through healthcare.gov, he would see why his schemec to cut in corporate America leave most ordinary people (out in the) cold.
The small-bore steps this column extols are really only a capitulation to the worse excesses of neo-Liberalism, and an acceptance that corporatism is the rule of the road. These premises might make interesting politics for some, and will certainly provide full employment for many Democratic pols and consultants, et al, but they are bad for the American people.
It is hopeful that so many Americans, left, right and center, seem to realize this fact, and are girding for the long, hard task of rebuilding political participation that rewards the commitment of ordinary people, rather than just using them.
That Mr. Schmitt misses all this may be due in part to the good, relatively cheap health insurance he probably has in his well paid position. If he were paying $800/month -- on top of a large subsidy -- on a middle class income for health insurance through healthcare.gov, he would see why his schemec to cut in corporate America leave most ordinary people (out in the) cold.
8
There are two kinds of revolutions: The one at the ballot box, and the one in the streets. Hopefully Bernie Sanders will accomplish his "political revolution." If not, we will see heads roll...literally.
2
No. But the Era of Big-Program Conservatism of Immediate Tax Cuts for the Rich and Endless War never seems to end.
6
The importance of restoring equity in the U.S. seems to elude the long time view that big government somehow works against the ability of the nation to generate new wealth, new jobs, the funds that are needed to support our modern state, and discourage innovation, risk taking, and ultimately economic expansion. The fact is that without these kinds of programs our prospects for long term economic growth which provides all the things we need as a nation will not happen. The ability of people to see a profit from their investments is just great with a slow economy that does not provide people with good jobs, so long as sales are good with good margins businesses and investors can make money while the country as a whole declines. The very wealthy have found good ways to make lots of new wealth without making much of it in the U.S. and thus not having to share much if any of it with either U.S. workers nor the entire society through taxes. With the consumers in the U.S. facing limited increases in new wealth, they will not provide opportunities for businesses to prosper by expanding production of goods and services, anywhere, which means it will require the development of a large middle class in countries like China and India for the world economy to expand as it has in the past. The big liberal programs funded by higher taxes on all will help to preserve the ability of Americans to prosper and to help maintain a foundation for future economic growth.
5
So, if one defines 'big government programs' as 'liberal' what, pray tell, is the military-industrial complex?
I listen with fascination as one discusses states such as Virginia and South Carolina which are bathed (sustained?) by military dollars, and yet no one sees this as 'liberal' in the sense of being big government.
Well, it is. I've long argued that the U.S. military is, by far, the biggest social (welfare) program that we have. Nothing remotely compares to it. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are dwarfed, in terms of bureaucracy and incestuous private contracts, by the military.
Prior to WWII conservatives were steadfastly against fat cat alliances between the government and military interests, and yet now this is worshipped by the current crop of GOP contenders as somehow being patriotic and American?
The military is the biggest welfare queen out there.
I listen with fascination as one discusses states such as Virginia and South Carolina which are bathed (sustained?) by military dollars, and yet no one sees this as 'liberal' in the sense of being big government.
Well, it is. I've long argued that the U.S. military is, by far, the biggest social (welfare) program that we have. Nothing remotely compares to it. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are dwarfed, in terms of bureaucracy and incestuous private contracts, by the military.
Prior to WWII conservatives were steadfastly against fat cat alliances between the government and military interests, and yet now this is worshipped by the current crop of GOP contenders as somehow being patriotic and American?
The military is the biggest welfare queen out there.
15
This essay clearly states why supporting Hilary Clinton over Sanders will produce the best change for real liberal reform.
Populists like Sanders and the radicals on the right promise big changes, they rarely achieve them. Radical change gave Germany a sorry couple of decades ending in war and over promising in Chile made the Pinochet dictatorship possible. We are the strongest economy in the world today our problems are how we distribute our good fortune, fixing this requires careful steps not grand schemes.
Populists like Sanders and the radicals on the right promise big changes, they rarely achieve them. Radical change gave Germany a sorry couple of decades ending in war and over promising in Chile made the Pinochet dictatorship possible. We are the strongest economy in the world today our problems are how we distribute our good fortune, fixing this requires careful steps not grand schemes.
6
Is the era of big-program liberalism over? Gawd, we can only hope! I get tired of people pointing to Roosevelt's New Deal as some kind of shiny star for socialism. It wasn't. Social Security, and later Medicare, have been about the only two successful programs ever created by the Fed. Bot require people to work and pay into an insurance trust fund. Congress has abused the social security trust fund by spending it down to nothing and now wants to "reform it." That's always code for "we spent it." As for Medicare, Obama used that perfectly good program to finance his Frankensurance.
As Margaret Thatcher said, and Great Britain probably wished it had listened, "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
As Margaret Thatcher said, and Great Britain probably wished it had listened, "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
8
"These policy machinations should not be confused with 'triangulation' — the modest, symbolic gestures adopted by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to show a recognition of conservative values. These are intended instead to make progress toward big goals by putting together various moving pieces."
Most of this article, and the quote above, read like a movie/TV script. From "Gaslight" to "Alias" and countless other movies, plays and TV shows, it is the "No, no, no... everything is all right the way it is. You're just confused. Let me help you..." Then either comes the bludgeon or the chloroform and the protagonist wakes up in a cell...or doesn't wake up, OR the heroine realizes what is happening, snaps to and turns the tables.
The the sleeping giant of the US electorate is waking up. We've been asleep too long.
Most of this article, and the quote above, read like a movie/TV script. From "Gaslight" to "Alias" and countless other movies, plays and TV shows, it is the "No, no, no... everything is all right the way it is. You're just confused. Let me help you..." Then either comes the bludgeon or the chloroform and the protagonist wakes up in a cell...or doesn't wake up, OR the heroine realizes what is happening, snaps to and turns the tables.
The the sleeping giant of the US electorate is waking up. We've been asleep too long.
7
Why was this piece even accepted? Obama would obviously have attempted to legislate and implement large progressive programs if he would have had the congressional votes. The New Deal liberal framework is still a viable theory, but a variety of institutional obstacles (gerrymandering and campaign finance liberalization, for instance), "market" and "freedom" propaganda, citizen confusion and lack of involvement (midterm election turnout among liberals) has curtailed implementation of that framework since the days of the first Nixon Administration.
6
We know that being born into a single parent family is the greatest predictor of a failed life outcome.
Before liberals "helped" blacks by passing president Johnson's "Great Society" programs, a black baby was about as likely as a white baby to be born into a two parent family.
Welfare programs only paid women and children who did not have a man in the home.....so it was setup as a disincentive to couples.
The illegitimacy rate for blacks is now 70%. You can't fix their lack of preparedness for school by waiving the criteria to qualify, yet they try. It starts at home, with two parents, and they no longer have them.
Black men make up about six percent of the population but commit about fifty percent of all violent crimes, including murder. That is a result of being brought up in broken homes.
The black family has been destroyed by liberal policies, something that neither slavery nor segregation could do.
Liberal Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan first realized the unintended consequences of welfare programs just a few years after implementation. He was also a sociologist. He called the unintended consequences "iatrogenic government", meaning caused by the government programs.
Liberal politics produces a culture of dependency and a government riddled with rent-seeking -- the manipulation of government power for private advantage.
The politics of envy and promises of government largesse are a disaster for our culture and economy.
Before liberals "helped" blacks by passing president Johnson's "Great Society" programs, a black baby was about as likely as a white baby to be born into a two parent family.
Welfare programs only paid women and children who did not have a man in the home.....so it was setup as a disincentive to couples.
The illegitimacy rate for blacks is now 70%. You can't fix their lack of preparedness for school by waiving the criteria to qualify, yet they try. It starts at home, with two parents, and they no longer have them.
Black men make up about six percent of the population but commit about fifty percent of all violent crimes, including murder. That is a result of being brought up in broken homes.
The black family has been destroyed by liberal policies, something that neither slavery nor segregation could do.
Liberal Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan first realized the unintended consequences of welfare programs just a few years after implementation. He was also a sociologist. He called the unintended consequences "iatrogenic government", meaning caused by the government programs.
Liberal politics produces a culture of dependency and a government riddled with rent-seeking -- the manipulation of government power for private advantage.
The politics of envy and promises of government largesse are a disaster for our culture and economy.
2
Markets are the best way we know to allocate resources. This is the argument against liberalism/socialism. People should be allowed to choose how they allocate their resources both because it feels morally correct (or, rather, it feels morally incorrect to instruct people how to allocate their own resources), but also because this tends to result in the most efficient use of limited resources. Or at least the most utility.
The problem is that this really only works when everyone starts with the same resources. By introducing inheritance and limited liability to "free" markets, we have fundamentally broken them. No market can be actually free when certain people have so much more *unearned wealth* than others who work for every penny. No market can be actually free when the owners of corporations are not held responsible for the actions of the companies they own.
I agree that big government programs can be inefficient and immoral, but inherited wealth and limited liability are what create the need for these programs. If everyone actually started with an even shot, and were held accountable for their actions, I would have no problem getting rid of most of the social safety net. Because people would actually get what they earn, not what they inherit or fleece from the public.
The problem is that this really only works when everyone starts with the same resources. By introducing inheritance and limited liability to "free" markets, we have fundamentally broken them. No market can be actually free when certain people have so much more *unearned wealth* than others who work for every penny. No market can be actually free when the owners of corporations are not held responsible for the actions of the companies they own.
I agree that big government programs can be inefficient and immoral, but inherited wealth and limited liability are what create the need for these programs. If everyone actually started with an even shot, and were held accountable for their actions, I would have no problem getting rid of most of the social safety net. Because people would actually get what they earn, not what they inherit or fleece from the public.
4
If everyone started with the same resources, in a year, most people would lose their "fair share" to those more talented, aggressive, bright, and even cunning.
There is no "fair" shot in life, and you can't make it so by demanding the government redistribute it. All you do is create incentive for those who have it, to take it elsewhere.
There is no "fair" shot in life, and you can't make it so by demanding the government redistribute it. All you do is create incentive for those who have it, to take it elsewhere.
4
I call b.s. Many initiatives have been called "impossible" in history, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet it passed. This essay is just a subtle pro-Clinton propaganda piece, something the New York Times is suddenly full of...first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they FIGHT you...and then you (we) win.
11
The writer mistakes the current process, with partisans carrying the bag for corporate interests, as something us Americans prefer and the only route for the future.
It's not.
That's the entire point to the appeal of Bernie Sanders' campaign -- it tells the truth about our current screwed-up system and offers a vision for our collective governance that really involves the people and is truly for the people.
It's not.
That's the entire point to the appeal of Bernie Sanders' campaign -- it tells the truth about our current screwed-up system and offers a vision for our collective governance that really involves the people and is truly for the people.
13
To tell you the truth, it's a bit tedious to hear pundits explain why policies that enjoy supermajority support in poll after poll are not possible in a democracy. It's even more tedious to be lectured on why it's important to never, ever even try to get these reforms enacted.
America is on the brink of engaging an unprecedented number of young voters. If we fail to take advantage of the opportunity in front of us, we will not only have failed an entire generation but we'll also be guaranteeing that they never engage again. We'll be handing the forces of corporatism and cynicism a resounding victory. In the face of that prospect, we ought to be asking ourselves: Cui bono?
America is on the brink of engaging an unprecedented number of young voters. If we fail to take advantage of the opportunity in front of us, we will not only have failed an entire generation but we'll also be guaranteeing that they never engage again. We'll be handing the forces of corporatism and cynicism a resounding victory. In the face of that prospect, we ought to be asking ourselves: Cui bono?
7
Bernie is pushing big liberal programs that regular people can understand. It's why he was successful in New Hampshire. Overly technocratic, market-heavy incrementalism won't win the hearts and minds of young voters who are saddled with insurmountable debt, third world infrastructure, and their parents' skyrocketing medical expenses (problems that will only get worse without bold changes in policy). Third Way incrementalism is done.
5
Schmitt, like many other commenters, misses the point that Sanders makes often -- he can't do it alone. In addition, Schmitt misses the point of making the arguments -- loudly and often -- against what the US has become since the Reagan years, which I recall were often said to be the Reagan Revolution. This, Schmitt, is the counter-revolution. And it's about time.
5
Schmitt and his ilk don't want the people to notice that the money we speak of was taken away from its proper place under reagan, and those living wages and the fair taxes that supported the people & infrastructure that made those 1%ers so wealthy, never went away.
What happened aside from moving manufacturing offshore to further hobble the organizing ability of Unions who kept the 1% in check, was that taxes were lowered to irrationally low rates (to starve the government of the cash) and the increased profits from lower wages for jobs taken off shore and the lowered wages for the jobs that stayed (as bait) were re-distributed to the 1%. That is where intentional re-distribution did take place.
All Bernie wants is to re-regulate the economy to stop corporations and banks from being so big they can exert undue influence on the government directly and indirectly.
What happened aside from moving manufacturing offshore to further hobble the organizing ability of Unions who kept the 1% in check, was that taxes were lowered to irrationally low rates (to starve the government of the cash) and the increased profits from lower wages for jobs taken off shore and the lowered wages for the jobs that stayed (as bait) were re-distributed to the 1%. That is where intentional re-distribution did take place.
All Bernie wants is to re-regulate the economy to stop corporations and banks from being so big they can exert undue influence on the government directly and indirectly.
4
Your "new more incremental approach" is not being invented by Clinton or Obama but by the GOP. By turning the word "liberal" into an epithet so they they now concede that and use "progressive" as a euphemism, not because government programs are unpopular - Medicare enjoys 77% popularity overall and 71% among Republicans.
They must move in tiny stealth projects because any new major proposal would be browbeaten as "slavery" and "totalitarianism" 24 hours per day and time that could be spent debating its actual merits would be spent batting down one insane "lie of the year" after another about how it would kill children and mainly funnel money to terrorists.
If the GOP would take a pledge, like a drunk in recovery, to argue new government programs on their objectively estimated costs and benefits, we could go right back to the era when big programs were developed.
It's not just public good programs that are unproposable to this Congress; imagine an Apollo proposal now, or a Mars project. Hopeless.
What if a corporation were limited to an "incremental" approach in management, no big changes? Investors would call it a dinosaur, unable to pivot, certain to be outcompeted by "nimble" companies. Management would be changed.
You don't need an opposition to the GOP that concedes that "liberal" is bad and accepts an "incremental" approach; you need new management.
They must move in tiny stealth projects because any new major proposal would be browbeaten as "slavery" and "totalitarianism" 24 hours per day and time that could be spent debating its actual merits would be spent batting down one insane "lie of the year" after another about how it would kill children and mainly funnel money to terrorists.
If the GOP would take a pledge, like a drunk in recovery, to argue new government programs on their objectively estimated costs and benefits, we could go right back to the era when big programs were developed.
It's not just public good programs that are unproposable to this Congress; imagine an Apollo proposal now, or a Mars project. Hopeless.
What if a corporation were limited to an "incremental" approach in management, no big changes? Investors would call it a dinosaur, unable to pivot, certain to be outcompeted by "nimble" companies. Management would be changed.
You don't need an opposition to the GOP that concedes that "liberal" is bad and accepts an "incremental" approach; you need new management.
5
I supporterof democratic liberalism because we all have the right to give our oponion policy in modern societies Congratulation Bernie Sanders
2
Do your homework! Obamacare was not the "last big piece of the New Deal's agenda!" That agenda would have been free, universal health care - as it is in most other developed countries, rather than a subsidy for entrepreneurial insurers and corrupt drug manufactures like Shkreli! The problem with this "left-right" hypothesis is that it doesn't work. That hardly justifies Sanders, but it does highlight the failure of Obama to realize his vision and both Clinton's to even understand what that vision - of the 1930's - was. And that vision was not just "big programs," but, rather, a set of pragmatic and practical interim solutions that showed government is actually a part of the governed, and that division between rich and poor, black, white, gay, women and men are means by which we learn how to work together, not against one another. That, not coincidentally, is much closer to Sanders than to Clinton (either one of 'em), since the guys from DOMA and the era of big money are really useless in solving problems.
2
Your incremental change has one huge catch. Incremental change leftward will be removed by incremental change rightward as we cycle through phases to arrive back at the mean. Just look at all Republican Presidential candidates position on the ACA, climate change, and HUGE tax cuts for the Plutocrats. You are actually making a case for the Bernie revolution. I don't believe this was your intent.
6
I see little difference between the incrementalism of Obama and Hillary vs. BIll's triangulation. The end result is the same: no real progress on big goals. The author's example of the MyRA retirement savings account is absurd. Yes, it is low-risk and and low-cost. But it is also very low-benefit.
4
The era of “big-program liberalism” has been over for 45 years – since Reagan took office in 1980 and began systematically dismantling and selling off the government he was elected to lead. Finally, the people are figuring out that the compromises Clinton and Obama made to wrest total control from the Republican money changers have not been good enough. All those free market, no taxes, deregulation slogans and practices demonstrably decreased opportunity, poisoned and killed people, and did nothing to enhance the quality of life of the working stiffs of America.
Perpetual war, constantly increasing military expenditures, and chest thumping about keeping America safe have not produced much applause from the masses either. Why, otherwise, are people flocking to Trump’s boast to “Make America Great Again” and Sanders claim to make America fair again. The leaders of our 2-party system are surprised and appalled at being spat upon by so many noisy voters as Trump followers sway to the tune of, “You say you want a revolution” and Sanders seeks a revolution to resurrect government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I - for one - am rooting for the revolution without walls, boasts, guns, and hatred of other people. Cheers to knowledge, education, fairness, and diversity.
Perpetual war, constantly increasing military expenditures, and chest thumping about keeping America safe have not produced much applause from the masses either. Why, otherwise, are people flocking to Trump’s boast to “Make America Great Again” and Sanders claim to make America fair again. The leaders of our 2-party system are surprised and appalled at being spat upon by so many noisy voters as Trump followers sway to the tune of, “You say you want a revolution” and Sanders seeks a revolution to resurrect government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I - for one - am rooting for the revolution without walls, boasts, guns, and hatred of other people. Cheers to knowledge, education, fairness, and diversity.
4
I'm way to impatient for baby step to incremental change ......man up Schmitt. I realize the odds are 99 to 1 but I Feel The Bern...... don't you.
4
Aha. Are you going to staple this article on the ballot in November?
Dear voter:
You don't know what you want! You're too dumb to understand how things work in Washington! You must vote for the candidate that us Washington elite think it best. We still let you vote, because we know that people want a democracy, but democracy is just too risky. We don't like the feeling it gives us arrogant elitists that want to control your world!
Dear, dear voter, don't take it upon yourself to believe you have a democracy! Believe us when we tell you that you don't. You can't. We won't let you have one.
Dear voter:
You don't know what you want! You're too dumb to understand how things work in Washington! You must vote for the candidate that us Washington elite think it best. We still let you vote, because we know that people want a democracy, but democracy is just too risky. We don't like the feeling it gives us arrogant elitists that want to control your world!
Dear, dear voter, don't take it upon yourself to believe you have a democracy! Believe us when we tell you that you don't. You can't. We won't let you have one.
2
When I think about how poor a job any particular government agency might be doing I always wonder how much of the problem is due to lack of resources. A business has a simple metric; it keeps adding resources as long as those resources add to overall profit.
Government agencies have no such metric. The metric ought to be "service to the citizen" but not only is it hard to measure, it doesn't speak at all to how efficiently the taxpayer resources allocated to the agency are used, and the constant din from the right that government is bloated, ignorant, feckless, and lazy makes us skeptical of providing an agency more of our tax dollars. And, of course, when we perceive that our tax dollars are helping THEM more than they are helping US all bets are off.
The DPS (Driver's License) is a good example. The long lines are not due to inefficient processing; it has been my experience that once you get to the clerk you are processed efficiently. The problem is that there are too few clerks to keep the wait times to just a few minutes, and after all, how much tax money should be spent to reduce a 90 minute DPS experience every few years to a 10 minute experience?
Government agencies have no such metric. The metric ought to be "service to the citizen" but not only is it hard to measure, it doesn't speak at all to how efficiently the taxpayer resources allocated to the agency are used, and the constant din from the right that government is bloated, ignorant, feckless, and lazy makes us skeptical of providing an agency more of our tax dollars. And, of course, when we perceive that our tax dollars are helping THEM more than they are helping US all bets are off.
The DPS (Driver's License) is a good example. The long lines are not due to inefficient processing; it has been my experience that once you get to the clerk you are processed efficiently. The problem is that there are too few clerks to keep the wait times to just a few minutes, and after all, how much tax money should be spent to reduce a 90 minute DPS experience every few years to a 10 minute experience?
3
Let's have a look at 2012 US budget from history tables (I can't find anything reliable for more recent ones):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/... , Table 3.2
We see that Medicare (571) accounted for roughly 500 billions, and Social Security (651) - for 810; together they got 1.31 trillion (roughly).
However, we see that non-universal "Health" (mostly Medicaid) cost 350 billions; income security (600) without federal employee retirement (602) and unemployment compensation (603) cost another 300 billion, and assorted social and education services (500) cost another 70 billion.
Now, in 2013, the "non-big-programs" that covered only targeted subgroups cost 60% of the "big programs"; now they cost even more than that. Is everybody happy about these "small" programs as they are about Medicare/Medicaid combo?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/... , Table 3.2
We see that Medicare (571) accounted for roughly 500 billions, and Social Security (651) - for 810; together they got 1.31 trillion (roughly).
However, we see that non-universal "Health" (mostly Medicaid) cost 350 billions; income security (600) without federal employee retirement (602) and unemployment compensation (603) cost another 300 billion, and assorted social and education services (500) cost another 70 billion.
Now, in 2013, the "non-big-programs" that covered only targeted subgroups cost 60% of the "big programs"; now they cost even more than that. Is everybody happy about these "small" programs as they are about Medicare/Medicaid combo?
Funny how analyses like these always fail to mention $1,000,000,000 per annum for "defense and security".
1
Wish we were free to choose.I have no problem with Democrats wanting cradle to grave welfare,as long as they choose and pay for it.Let me live a free life,with self dependency.Not right,that Democrats come after me,to support their programs.If Democrats are correct,that the majority of Americans favor their policies,they should be able to pay for it,themselves.
1
The problem with programs for poor people is that they are poor programs. One other problem is that our politicians, in an attempt to ally themselves with those who "don't" need or qualify for government assistance, set the limits for assistance too low in terms of income or assets. Why must someone be in abject poverty before qualifying for help with housing, food, medical care, etc.? It's not liberal or conservative to help people avoid the consequences of being unable to find a job no matter how hard they try. It's not liberal or conservative to make sure that there is decent affordable housing for all. It's not liberal or conservative to see to it that everyone has access to the health care they need. The same goes for ensuring that all children, no matter what their economic status is, receive a solid education from well qualified teachers. It's common sense. If we want a society where normal adults can be productive, happy, well-fed, and healthy, it makes sense to have programs in place to keep all of us from falling into abject poverty. Trying to avoid helping those we believe unworthy winds up hurting all of us.
We shouldn't have to beg for the basics in life if we're as rich a country as we claim to be. Businesses spend too much time and money on avoiding taxes, hiring Americans, etc. For most of us to have a decent life we need to earn decent money. It's too bad our politicians don't agree.
We shouldn't have to beg for the basics in life if we're as rich a country as we claim to be. Businesses spend too much time and money on avoiding taxes, hiring Americans, etc. For most of us to have a decent life we need to earn decent money. It's too bad our politicians don't agree.
1
The Sanders campaign has created enthusiasm and interest and participation of younger voters. It is possible that the votes of these young inspired voters will change the Congress. Also to get things done you start way out on your own views and make small compromises..you don't BEGIN in the middle.
3
"...new, more incremental liberalism, which centers on advancing liberal goals without big, universal programs."
We haven't seen much of that in the last 30 or so years. We've only seen stepping backwards toward the haves and the have-nots. Our hard-earned dollars go to oligarchs and wars. Our infrastructure dying. Our once great public education system in the toilet. Collective bargaining outlawed. Voters rights restricted, and the vast political process sold to the highest bidder compliments of the highest court in the land. Monopolies reign, in the media as well as the "free"-market. Credit card interest rates legally set above 25% - usury. Where's the incremental liberalism? There's only 'them' and 'us'.
We haven't seen much of that in the last 30 or so years. We've only seen stepping backwards toward the haves and the have-nots. Our hard-earned dollars go to oligarchs and wars. Our infrastructure dying. Our once great public education system in the toilet. Collective bargaining outlawed. Voters rights restricted, and the vast political process sold to the highest bidder compliments of the highest court in the land. Monopolies reign, in the media as well as the "free"-market. Credit card interest rates legally set above 25% - usury. Where's the incremental liberalism? There's only 'them' and 'us'.
4
We'll see how the American taxpayer votes in 2016. Will they vote for "everything is free" Bernie who just asks them to send their wallets to Washington D.C. or any Republican who believes that money is better spent in the hands of the people who actually earned it.
So what will it be America, vote for the laggards and deadbeats of society by electing Comrade Bernie or go back to the roots of America when people took responsibility for themselves and their families.
Please note I left Hillary's name off this post since she will be spending quality time in jail for her email scandal.
So what will it be America, vote for the laggards and deadbeats of society by electing Comrade Bernie or go back to the roots of America when people took responsibility for themselves and their families.
Please note I left Hillary's name off this post since she will be spending quality time in jail for her email scandal.
3
That's the spirit, John. The Founders' generation didn't have no stinkin' healthcare, mass education, police forces, highway system, or organized national defense -- why should we?!
Actually you can hang onto your wallet if Sanders wins, for healthcare at least, seeing as that single-payer is more economically efficient than we do it here now.
Actually you can hang onto your wallet if Sanders wins, for healthcare at least, seeing as that single-payer is more economically efficient than we do it here now.
2
What exactly is Bernie promising that Hillary does not?
1) Single payer health care? No, Hillary was for that last election and is working with what we have to get to the same place.
2) Free college? Hillary is for free community college. Its the same thing, only Hillary leaves a little capitalism in place to encourage competition.
3) Break up/tax Wall street bad behavior? No real difference here except Hillary's plan is more comprehensive.
4) Refinance student loans? Hillary has the same plan.
5) Eliminate Isis? Wait, Bernie has a plan for this? Not really.
6) Stand up to Putin and China? Wait, Bernie has no experience at this. Putin will be licking his chops waiting to negotiate with Bernie.
7) Eliminate trade deals? Wait, isn't this the same plan as Trump?
8) Energy independence? Hillary is for that too.
9) Bernie has a history of getting support from both parties to get legislation passed? No he doesn't. Hillary has far more experience at this and was in Congress a lot less time. If Bernie couldn't get it done in 26 years in congress, why should we think he can get it done as President?
So basically, Hillary does 99% of everything Bernie does on social issues, and has a foreign policy plan that is light years ahead. We would we elect Bernie, when he is really just Hillary-lite?
1) Single payer health care? No, Hillary was for that last election and is working with what we have to get to the same place.
2) Free college? Hillary is for free community college. Its the same thing, only Hillary leaves a little capitalism in place to encourage competition.
3) Break up/tax Wall street bad behavior? No real difference here except Hillary's plan is more comprehensive.
4) Refinance student loans? Hillary has the same plan.
5) Eliminate Isis? Wait, Bernie has a plan for this? Not really.
6) Stand up to Putin and China? Wait, Bernie has no experience at this. Putin will be licking his chops waiting to negotiate with Bernie.
7) Eliminate trade deals? Wait, isn't this the same plan as Trump?
8) Energy independence? Hillary is for that too.
9) Bernie has a history of getting support from both parties to get legislation passed? No he doesn't. Hillary has far more experience at this and was in Congress a lot less time. If Bernie couldn't get it done in 26 years in congress, why should we think he can get it done as President?
So basically, Hillary does 99% of everything Bernie does on social issues, and has a foreign policy plan that is light years ahead. We would we elect Bernie, when he is really just Hillary-lite?
3
One person can be trusted to do these things.. The other one is Hillary
5
These "patches" to help people are very underwhelming, overly complex and simply don't address the vast problems of the citizens of the Untied States.
They represent an imagination failure.
We can do much better!
They represent an imagination failure.
We can do much better!
3
Trump is just too vulgar for middle America so the GOP will nominate anyone but him. A Bernie vs. any-other-GOP-candidate race would end up looking like the 1972 election: Nixon 520, McGovern 17.
While all of this may be true, our intermittent recessions will continue until the middle class is given back the purchasing power they lost over the past decade or two. So all the interest rate cuts and now talk of negative interest rate are just failed experiments. Perhaps, the negative interest rates may work if the are applied to college loans and non jumbo mortgages. There I go again with my wishful thinking.
3
I like the idea both of single payer healthcare, and of free college tuition. But I find it troubling that we are not able to have a rational discussion about what they would entail. I say this as someone living abroad in a country (France) that offers both national healthcare and free college tuition. The system is very different from the US and has some good points and some bad points, and I think we need to have a discussion about this, and whether or not we really want to imitate the European system. Unemployment is high in most of Europe right now, especially among young adults, and economic optimism is low. Most doctors I have seen here (private practice) have warned me to stay away from the hospital system. Emergency rooms can reject you (we were nearly rejected - good thing I argued on behalf of my very sick child). College is free here - but attendance is more restricted than in the US. And there's no "going back to college." The education system is punitive, competitive, and not into creative expression or the individual. And there are no frills, like gyms, nice dorms, many student services or student centers, like exist in the US. The benefits of these programs may well outweigh their problems, but we need to have a real discussion about the drawbacks and compromises that we will need to make, and whether we want to imitate these "happy" countries (a huge number of French people are on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds, and they are worried about money, too).
4
An interesting post. Too many Americans look to places like Europe and see a panacea with no pitfalls and costs, without realizing the rationing and, as the disclaimer often says on some ads, "some restrictions apply"., i.e., that universal is not always so universal. We have also fallen into the trap of believing that the veneer of plushness or style equals quality, one of the best examples being colleges. Factored into those ever rising tuitions are those needlessly fancy facilities you mention, hotel like dorms, resort style gyms, layer upon layer of administrators (often equal to or more than the number of instructors!) to address individual constituencies, none of which really have much to do with the bottom line point of getting an education (for somehow we managed to educate students in years past without making the campus look and feel like a five star resort). The bottom line is nothing is really free, from the taxes to pay for that "free" stuff from the government to the real world restrictions that must be imposed.
3
Maybe as more and more Americans travel internationally or connect virtually with people from around the globe it will continually expose how backwards our political system, our healthcare system, our social safety net, including unemployment and the focus on individually-funded 401k retirement system, our education system, our infrastructure, and our overall quality of life seem to be relative to the rest of the modern, western world. The American public is tired of the government working for corporations and the 1% while ignoring the interests of everyone else.
I would bet that eliminating the influence of money in the political system might radically change the priorities of our elected officials - when they are forced to reckon with the people who elect them instead of the corporate money paying for their success at just about every level of our government.
I would bet that eliminating the influence of money in the political system might radically change the priorities of our elected officials - when they are forced to reckon with the people who elect them instead of the corporate money paying for their success at just about every level of our government.
2
It's all fun and games for giving out free stuff until you run out of money to pay for it all.
5
The extremes may be intrinsically unstable. During the Great Depression in Nebraska, Senator Norris, the father of TVA, was replaced by Sen.Wherry, a McCarthy supporter. in Wisconsin Sen. Lafollette was replaced by Sen. McCarthy.
Big anything is bad - government, pharma, banks etc. And the reality is that big government is potentially the worst - only it can imprison you, take your property and ultimately oppress you. As bad as the banks and pharma are, they can't do this.
5
Add this in - in the private sector non-performance or failure gets you booted, unlike in government as we've seen time and again.
3
"Is the Era of Big-Program Liberalism Over?"
With any kind of luck.
With any kind of luck.
5
Unless...indeed until...Liberals accept the fat that the ACA has not worked as *sold* and *advertised* nobody will ever trust any Big Government program to work.
All that the ACA did was say, hey here is cheap insurance, BUT you gotta buy the car. If the deductibles are too high...as they are...and rates keep going up...as they are...and nobody is saving $2500 a year...as is a fact...and coverage is beign decreased...as it is...and insurance companies keep leaving...as they are...it is seen by most intelligent people as a lie.
Libs say the Iraq war was based ona lie. Ok fine. So too was the ACA. Yes people died in the war. Now, people may die due to the ACA. It is happening. Why argue over a lie?
Be honest. Its best in the long run IF you want to see other programs that could help.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid worked alone. That is why the Dems suffer in the votes subsequent to the forced passage of the ACA. Post ACA nearly 1000 Dems have been voted out, the House went to the GOP for a Generation, and the Senate looks to be in GOP hands for at least another cycle.
Yell all you want. These are facts.
All that the ACA did was say, hey here is cheap insurance, BUT you gotta buy the car. If the deductibles are too high...as they are...and rates keep going up...as they are...and nobody is saving $2500 a year...as is a fact...and coverage is beign decreased...as it is...and insurance companies keep leaving...as they are...it is seen by most intelligent people as a lie.
Libs say the Iraq war was based ona lie. Ok fine. So too was the ACA. Yes people died in the war. Now, people may die due to the ACA. It is happening. Why argue over a lie?
Be honest. Its best in the long run IF you want to see other programs that could help.
Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid worked alone. That is why the Dems suffer in the votes subsequent to the forced passage of the ACA. Post ACA nearly 1000 Dems have been voted out, the House went to the GOP for a Generation, and the Senate looks to be in GOP hands for at least another cycle.
Yell all you want. These are facts.
3
This article might as well be called 'The Era of Big-Program Liberalism Is Over!'.
Don't sell out NYT.
Don't sell out NYT.
1
If the New Hampshire primary results are an indication, we're moving into the Yoodge Deal Era. Under T-Rump's scenario we make yoodge deals to beat the Chinese and the Mexicans. Under Bernie's scenario we make yoodge deals for the people to have education, health care and real democracy.
1
I'm not so sure that the "Era of Big-Program Liberalism" is over, but it's more than abundantly clear that there is no shortage of corporate-funded think tanks and foundations willing to pay good money to academics and policy "experts" to say that it is.
3
With this front page Op-Ed singing the praises of Hillary Clinton's "incremental" progress, The Times has obviously declared war on Bernie Sanders. But it bears note that the Times has also declared war on Teddy Roosevelt. This is what Roosevelt had to say about incremental, patch work approaches:
"“Where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government...
“The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. It is impatient of the utter confusion that results from local legislatures attempting to treat national issues as local issues. It is still more impatient of the impotence which springs from overdivision of governmental powers, the impotence which makes it possible for local selfishness or for legal cunning, hired by wealthy special interests, to bring national activities to a deadlock." (Osawatamie, Kansas 1910)
So... there you have it. Hillary, the Times and some tank called "New America Institute" want to "progress" forward to some time prior to 1910.
"“Where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government...
“The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. It is impatient of the utter confusion that results from local legislatures attempting to treat national issues as local issues. It is still more impatient of the impotence which springs from overdivision of governmental powers, the impotence which makes it possible for local selfishness or for legal cunning, hired by wealthy special interests, to bring national activities to a deadlock." (Osawatamie, Kansas 1910)
So... there you have it. Hillary, the Times and some tank called "New America Institute" want to "progress" forward to some time prior to 1910.
3
I am proud to be a bleeding heart liberal Democrat, that sees
Sanders' extravagantly social programs would cost Americans dearly and raise taxes much more than he tells us. For instance, what no one is questioning is exactly how Bernie will pay for his ultra socialist programs such as free education for all and universal health care. For example, free education: what must be asked is how will quality teachers be paid, if reasonable salaries are not paid, there will be no quality teachers, then how will classrooms and educational buildings be maintained and furnished not only with student seating but teacher’s desks and office supplies, paper, computers, printers, etc., as well as expensive course equipment needed to keep up with the latest pedagogy, how will teacher’s teaching manuals be provided, these are not cheap books! how will textbooks be provided to students, if education is free students would not be required to buy their own hundreds of dollars textbooks; how will administrators be paid, they certainly can’t be expected to work for free, there would be no one who would do that! how will the grounds around the buildings be maintained, can’t let it go to a jungle! how will campuses be kept safe, protected, as a campus protection force will be needed especially for female students. It is not so easy to provide free education, not by taxing only the wealthy corporatocracy? This is considers only one of his plans and has to be paid for by heavily taxing all Americans!
Sanders' extravagantly social programs would cost Americans dearly and raise taxes much more than he tells us. For instance, what no one is questioning is exactly how Bernie will pay for his ultra socialist programs such as free education for all and universal health care. For example, free education: what must be asked is how will quality teachers be paid, if reasonable salaries are not paid, there will be no quality teachers, then how will classrooms and educational buildings be maintained and furnished not only with student seating but teacher’s desks and office supplies, paper, computers, printers, etc., as well as expensive course equipment needed to keep up with the latest pedagogy, how will teacher’s teaching manuals be provided, these are not cheap books! how will textbooks be provided to students, if education is free students would not be required to buy their own hundreds of dollars textbooks; how will administrators be paid, they certainly can’t be expected to work for free, there would be no one who would do that! how will the grounds around the buildings be maintained, can’t let it go to a jungle! how will campuses be kept safe, protected, as a campus protection force will be needed especially for female students. It is not so easy to provide free education, not by taxing only the wealthy corporatocracy? This is considers only one of his plans and has to be paid for by heavily taxing all Americans!
4
He has talked at length about how it will be paid for. If you don't want to look it up then it is your problem.
1
Well, of course that is the easiest and safest thing to say and it may turn out to be true. But it has never been clearer that voters in both parties are rejecting the politics of the status quo and are demanding sweeping changes. One of the most interesting things I hear both in Iowa and in NH, were voters who said if they did not support Trump, they would support Sanders. With our political gridlock it seems that nothing but incremental things will get done but maybe that is about to change. Would anyone a year ago predicted where we are at in this presidential cycle? I don’t think so.
2
Bernie's message has two purposes. First, he's letting us know what he'd ideally like to accomplish. From single-payer healthcare, to a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, he has proposed a host of measures that he cannot accomplish alone. His supporters are under no illusion that he will be able to enact such legislation under a Republican-controlled Congress. This is less important than it might seem due to the next point.
The second purpose is perhaps more important. Bernie is anchoring his positions to the left of the progressive spectrum. By starting off from what he wants to get done, rather than what he thinks can get done, he has much more power in future negotiations over legislation. Hillary has taken the same route as Obama by proposing the legislation that she thinks can be passed, rather than telling us what needs to be passed. We saw how poor that tactic was, as Obama's meager stimulus package and healthcare acts got whittled away. Had he started with bolder opening position, those pieces of legislation would have ended up being closer to what he wanted to get done than they ended up. Bernie is not going to repeat this mistake.
The second purpose is perhaps more important. Bernie is anchoring his positions to the left of the progressive spectrum. By starting off from what he wants to get done, rather than what he thinks can get done, he has much more power in future negotiations over legislation. Hillary has taken the same route as Obama by proposing the legislation that she thinks can be passed, rather than telling us what needs to be passed. We saw how poor that tactic was, as Obama's meager stimulus package and healthcare acts got whittled away. Had he started with bolder opening position, those pieces of legislation would have ended up being closer to what he wanted to get done than they ended up. Bernie is not going to repeat this mistake.
3
I had to laugh at this foolish article headline. As others have pointed out it seems ironically backward. The Era of Big-Program Liberalism has been in famous retreat since the Reagan Years. It is scorned and vilified by Republicans running both houses of congress, the Supreme Court majority and most state governments. Yet just now, after all these years, it finally has a new, real champion and the citizens are finally starting to awaken from their right-wing induced coma. After decades of incrementalism and increasing systemic failure as a result, Big- Program Liberalism is in fact, maybe, hopefully going to make a well- deserved comeback, just in time to save us from the tired, defeatist, wrongheaded Mark Schmitt Hillary shills the NY Times irresponsibly tries to shove down its increasingly irritated reader's throats.
6
Social progressiveness will not work in this country. Bernie Sanders will not work in this country.
All liberal proposals depend on EVERYONE chipping in so EVERYONE can gain. We do not have a country that supports that possibility, sociologically and demographically. We are a lopsided country with a shrinking middle-class plus upper class that support close to 50% of the rest of the country.
- We have large inner cities with low job skill rates.
- We have massive immigrant populations, both legal and illegal, with low literacy, and zero advanced job skill.
- We have broad swathes in middle of our country with low skill/income-opportunities.
Yes, we also have a problem with the ultra-rich having too much lobbying power. However, you can't continually milk the richest to support the large missing chunk who won't contribute. That's not viable long term.
We are not Canada or Denmark. At some point the politically correct fantasies have to stop. We can observe economic realities without judging and being racist.
Here is Canada:
76.7% White
14.2% Asian
2.9% Black
1.2% Latin American
Here is the US:
63.7 % White
4.7 % Asian
12.2 % Black
16.3 % Hispanic or Latino
Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans are underrepresented in economic status. Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian are over represented, and Whites are average. (Wikipedia)
Find any Sweden-like area in the USA. Secede. And Bernie's ideas will work perfectly.
All liberal proposals depend on EVERYONE chipping in so EVERYONE can gain. We do not have a country that supports that possibility, sociologically and demographically. We are a lopsided country with a shrinking middle-class plus upper class that support close to 50% of the rest of the country.
- We have large inner cities with low job skill rates.
- We have massive immigrant populations, both legal and illegal, with low literacy, and zero advanced job skill.
- We have broad swathes in middle of our country with low skill/income-opportunities.
Yes, we also have a problem with the ultra-rich having too much lobbying power. However, you can't continually milk the richest to support the large missing chunk who won't contribute. That's not viable long term.
We are not Canada or Denmark. At some point the politically correct fantasies have to stop. We can observe economic realities without judging and being racist.
Here is Canada:
76.7% White
14.2% Asian
2.9% Black
1.2% Latin American
Here is the US:
63.7 % White
4.7 % Asian
12.2 % Black
16.3 % Hispanic or Latino
Overall, households headed by Hispanics and African Americans are underrepresented in economic status. Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian are over represented, and Whites are average. (Wikipedia)
Find any Sweden-like area in the USA. Secede. And Bernie's ideas will work perfectly.
4
That's a lot of information, but it's still not enough to obscure your inherently racist premise: We can't have an equitable society because we have too many Black and Latino Americans.
2
@Ceaden
No.
Racist would be if I said there is something inherent about skin color which causes economic struggle. Blacks and and Latinos struggle economically in many modern Western countries for a whole slew of reasons that have nothing to do with their race and skin color. Discrimination and the difficulty of escaping the cycles of poverty in inner city life are just some of the reasons. Cultural challenges (often the result of generations of discrimination) such as extremely high rates of absent black fathers are another reason. (Which Obama has spoken openly about many times.) Many Latinos are also struggling to integrate in terms of literacy compared to other immigrant sectors such as Asians, the reasons are complex.
The bottom line is that it is irrelevant why Blacks and Latinos struggle economically in many modern Western countries, but reality is that it places a large burden on the rest of the tax paying society. Perhaps we are morally obligated to shoulder that burden after all we put them through. I can certainly hear that, but we already maxed out. Milking the rich will not work long-term. You will notice that all the countries that Bernie likes to point to as successful models, Denmark, Canada, etc. are white as driven snow. (percentage wise) It's not a coincidence.
Another important point is that those countries are small- tiny compared to US. Waste and fraud expand exponentially.
We can't commit national economic suicide for political correctness.
No.
Racist would be if I said there is something inherent about skin color which causes economic struggle. Blacks and and Latinos struggle economically in many modern Western countries for a whole slew of reasons that have nothing to do with their race and skin color. Discrimination and the difficulty of escaping the cycles of poverty in inner city life are just some of the reasons. Cultural challenges (often the result of generations of discrimination) such as extremely high rates of absent black fathers are another reason. (Which Obama has spoken openly about many times.) Many Latinos are also struggling to integrate in terms of literacy compared to other immigrant sectors such as Asians, the reasons are complex.
The bottom line is that it is irrelevant why Blacks and Latinos struggle economically in many modern Western countries, but reality is that it places a large burden on the rest of the tax paying society. Perhaps we are morally obligated to shoulder that burden after all we put them through. I can certainly hear that, but we already maxed out. Milking the rich will not work long-term. You will notice that all the countries that Bernie likes to point to as successful models, Denmark, Canada, etc. are white as driven snow. (percentage wise) It's not a coincidence.
Another important point is that those countries are small- tiny compared to US. Waste and fraud expand exponentially.
We can't commit national economic suicide for political correctness.
3
Are the war on Iraq,the proposed war on ISIS or the 2 million person US military force big government programs?Government funding of public colleges in the 50"s and 60's was enormously successful and important to the future of this country as was building the national highway system.Sanders only wants to extend "Big-Program Liberalism" where it has already proven successful such as Medicare, lowered college tuition and Social Security.He wants to shift tax revenue away from programs that don't work ….trying to control the rest of the world through military might…..to programs that do.I"ll bet that if these proposals are clearly laid out before them,he would have the support of a large majority of the American people.
5
Mr. Sanders gets cheers for these ideas, as he did from voters in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary with his resounding victory. But his view is being challenged by a new, more incremental liberalism....
^ I wonder what rock his supporters are living under.
Everything Sanders wants to do is based on sweeping legislation passed by a socialist supermajority.
Sanders denounces even the Democrat congressional establishment, which in turn does not support his ideas - which are certain death to their electoral prospects.
Which leaves us in total amazement at the inability of his supporters to face the reality that an elected Sanders is guaranteed to get absolutely nothing done.
Krugman at least has figured this out.
The rest of the progressives are just being willfully obtuse, or pandering.
^ I wonder what rock his supporters are living under.
Everything Sanders wants to do is based on sweeping legislation passed by a socialist supermajority.
Sanders denounces even the Democrat congressional establishment, which in turn does not support his ideas - which are certain death to their electoral prospects.
Which leaves us in total amazement at the inability of his supporters to face the reality that an elected Sanders is guaranteed to get absolutely nothing done.
Krugman at least has figured this out.
The rest of the progressives are just being willfully obtuse, or pandering.
3
The only part of this article that makes any sense is the part that says "there are many downsides" to the incremental approach Clinton and Obama favor. The chief downside is that this approach simply doesn't solve the problems it's aimed at.
Look at the major policy initiatives of the Obama years and the result is the same in every case - big problems have not been solved. His financial reform legislation did not solve the problem of "too big to fail." His mortgage relief program did not solve the problem for most people who were stuck with unaffordable mortgages. Obamacare did not solve the problem of millions of uninsured, it merely reduced it by a few percentage points. His stimulus program did not restore robust economic growth. In each case, the program was just too small to solve the problem it was aimed at. No wonder Clinton is struggling to sell this approach in her campaign. How do you get people excited about policies that don't solve anything? Beats me.
Look at the major policy initiatives of the Obama years and the result is the same in every case - big problems have not been solved. His financial reform legislation did not solve the problem of "too big to fail." His mortgage relief program did not solve the problem for most people who were stuck with unaffordable mortgages. Obamacare did not solve the problem of millions of uninsured, it merely reduced it by a few percentage points. His stimulus program did not restore robust economic growth. In each case, the program was just too small to solve the problem it was aimed at. No wonder Clinton is struggling to sell this approach in her campaign. How do you get people excited about policies that don't solve anything? Beats me.
2
I think Mr. Schmitt's column doesn't see the bigger picture. At a minimum, what struck me most about last night's results is that the winner in each party could easily be called a strong advocate for very big government.
I think that represents an important but little-discussed shift among voters.
I think that represents an important but little-discussed shift among voters.
2
Well, Mr. Schmitt, my social media feed is full of folks of all ages wanting their fair share of this big, recovering economy. They are sick to death of paying enormous medical insurance bills, only to discover all the charges that are "out of network" when they finally have to be treated in a hospital. They are tired of worrying how they will pay for their kids' state college tuitions and the enormous fees that are tacked on. They are tired of wondering whether they can ever retire, even those of us who have been working hard (the 40 hour work week is a distant memory!) and saving, feeling that our savings are invested in a system that is both opaque and rigged against us.
They are beginning to understand that they have to get out and VOTE in EVERY election.
That's what's filling up my social media feed, Mr. Schmitt. Sir, you and the Times are behind the times.
Feel the Bern!
They are beginning to understand that they have to get out and VOTE in EVERY election.
That's what's filling up my social media feed, Mr. Schmitt. Sir, you and the Times are behind the times.
Feel the Bern!
3
So lets see. We got incrementalism with the Clinton presidency in 1992 - 98. And then Obama 08 - 16. Yes, and things have actually gotten worse for everyone except the top 1%. SO - how does it work? Answer: it doesn't time to speed up the clock. A lot. This column represents the same old DLC, neoliberal thinking that threw us into this howl in the first place.
4
No matter which democrat wins (if one does), there will be no advance in social programs incremental or revolutionary. The republicans will still control the congress and they are hell bent on dismantling the existing social programs as well as many regulatory agencies (e.g. EPA). Any tax changes will benefit the already rich. Here are two troubling books that spell out the Republican agenda in detail: "Why the Right Went Wrong" by E.J. Dionne and "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. Nothing short of chilling.
JD
JD
2
Step one: Contemplate the 4 Trillion Dollars that has been spent on The Great Society
Step two: Go to any inner city and see how it is working.
Step two: Go to any inner city and see how it is working.
6
With every barrier Sanders overcomes, we see more "NYT Picks" comments telling his supporters to calm down and remember it will be important to vote for HRC come November. Most Democrats began this election cycle with the idea they’d vote for one of the two, but given the campaign so far, and the behavior of the media (including this paper), I wonder how this will play out if Sanders fails to secure the nomination.
HRC's campaign, and its surrogates, have dismissed and disparaged Bernie, his ideas and his supporters, with little explanation beyond the observation his has clear proposals that do not look effortless. Hillary herself has acted un-presidential, -showing personal insult and anger at the notion the Democratic Party today is too entwined with special interest. This REALITY is what most concerns a MAJORITY of Democrats. Not only does she fail to acknowledge this fact, -she gets angry when it’s mentioned.
As Sanders support has grown, surprisingly she has failed to clarify her own goals. Why does she believe it unrealistic to return to banking laws we already had most of the 20th century, or to tax high speed trading? I used to think I’d vote for her, but at this point I wonder if I ever could. "I am a female non Republican" does not do much for me, particularly if she believes controlling special interests is "overly idealistic" goal.
HRC's campaign, and its surrogates, have dismissed and disparaged Bernie, his ideas and his supporters, with little explanation beyond the observation his has clear proposals that do not look effortless. Hillary herself has acted un-presidential, -showing personal insult and anger at the notion the Democratic Party today is too entwined with special interest. This REALITY is what most concerns a MAJORITY of Democrats. Not only does she fail to acknowledge this fact, -she gets angry when it’s mentioned.
As Sanders support has grown, surprisingly she has failed to clarify her own goals. Why does she believe it unrealistic to return to banking laws we already had most of the 20th century, or to tax high speed trading? I used to think I’d vote for her, but at this point I wonder if I ever could. "I am a female non Republican" does not do much for me, particularly if she believes controlling special interests is "overly idealistic" goal.
6
I fully remember the 60's when we thought liberal America would just get more and more liberal. It took a while to realize that the pendulum was swinging in the other direction.... And wow did it with the election of Reagan.
The pendulum is swinging back again, the left is getting stronger, the right is getting frantic as it sees its mandate slipping away.
Times change... this time it is Mr. Schmitt is not seeing that ... yet!
The pendulum is swinging back again, the left is getting stronger, the right is getting frantic as it sees its mandate slipping away.
Times change... this time it is Mr. Schmitt is not seeing that ... yet!
2
I swear I've been reading and re-reading this essay, with only the names changed to protect the innocent, since election day, 1980. When will essay-writers learn that nothing is forever, and that all they accomplish with their declaration that "'X' is gone forever!" is to make themselves look both politically and historically naive?
3
This writer supports the old "neo"-liberals, such as those that Clinton, and, sadly, Obama, use to placate the poor without disturbing the class structure that benefits them and their friends. Rather than offering reasonably priced comprehensive programs that benefit everyone, such as Medicare, Obamacare is a complex program that hides massive corporate profits and provides paltry benefits to the underclass while leaving undisturbed gold-plated insurance policies such as the one that cured my husband's cancer.
However, only if programs benefit everyone well will they survive the political gales that pass through Washington. Single-payer health care promises to be such a durable and equitable program. This is one important reason that I support Bernie Sanders' vision and candidacy.
The New Deal and the Great Society programs worked and their expansions can also work! No one can honestly claim that America lacks sufficient wealth to make every American safe and comfortable. We just need to free up the unused money.
However, only if programs benefit everyone well will they survive the political gales that pass through Washington. Single-payer health care promises to be such a durable and equitable program. This is one important reason that I support Bernie Sanders' vision and candidacy.
The New Deal and the Great Society programs worked and their expansions can also work! No one can honestly claim that America lacks sufficient wealth to make every American safe and comfortable. We just need to free up the unused money.
1
I feel the burn. Bernie Sanders is promising free college education, educational loan debt forgiveness, free healthcare and he will tax the wealthy to pay for it. However, the real problem is a conservative controlled Congress and Senate. Unless the young cheering masses for Bernie show up to vote in the mid-term elections it really isn’t going to matter if Sanders becomes President. President Obama has proven that fact. I desperately want Hope and Change but that needs to be applied to all branches of government.
29
Sanders is indeed promising everything will be 'free' for everyone, but a few 'bad' people, whose fault it is that you borrowed and spent all that money.
That so many young people love this message is not surprising, as few of them have ever paid a bill. Their parents do and their children want this to go on forever and ever.
That so many young people love this message is not surprising, as few of them have ever paid a bill. Their parents do and their children want this to go on forever and ever.
2
I see the Times is still campaigning for Clinton. Her college affordability solutions again target the middle class to graduate with overwhelming debt burdens, while low-income students graduate debt-free because they are afforded subsidies instead of massively exploitive loans, as if knocking off a percentage point of interest is going to at least shut people up a little. It is but one example of how her policies would continue the march to obliterate the middle class and make us all slaves to corporations.
6
This dismissive attitude towards the passion and excitement Sanders evokes in his supporters is exactly why Dems have pathetic voter turnout year after year. People in this country yearn for sweeping change, corporations fear it, so of course a NYT article and the establishment is against major change.
If you're not voting on something that excites you, then why vote?
If you're not voting on something that excites you, then why vote?
3
How about a follow-up, titled "Could the Era of Big-Program Liberalism Be on the Way Back?" It's just as plausible a scenario, given that "the current political configuration" supposedly marking bold leadership's death knell could change with one wave election. A Sanders presidency, which is certainly worth speculating about, would be based on FDR and Johnson-type conceptions of governance; were a new congress swept in by Bernie's energized constituency as well, we would likely see a new era of big programs and big changes. (Example: Big green-energy and infrastructure programs. Discuss.) It's only dreamer talk until it happens.
2
It was big government programs, and unions, that created the huge expansion of the American middle class after WWII. A period of great prosperity...Much has changed in the world since then, but all the more reason we need government on the side of the people. Not the side of the big corporate interests which is what it is today.
4
And where did the Clinton/Obama incremental change lead us? Nowhere. The 99% is still losing its toehold in the middle class while the rich get richer by exporting their jobs to China. Bill Clinton encouraged that. Barack Obama encouraged that. And the 99% kept losing.
Great changes occur when the public is ready to support them, and a leader comes along who can speak for them. In times of economic crisis, those leaders tend to be liberal.
Bernie Sanders roars, as FDR did. Hillary Clinton makes little mewing noises. Like the rest of the political/media establishment, she is completely clueless about what working Americans want and need, a Herbert Hoover when we need an FDR.
Great changes occur when the public is ready to support them, and a leader comes along who can speak for them. In times of economic crisis, those leaders tend to be liberal.
Bernie Sanders roars, as FDR did. Hillary Clinton makes little mewing noises. Like the rest of the political/media establishment, she is completely clueless about what working Americans want and need, a Herbert Hoover when we need an FDR.
6
There's nothing "liberal" about big government programs, at least as applied in recent history. Some other term would be more appropriate, since "liberal" has its roots in freedom, and big government is the antithesis of freedom.
4
I thought Bill Clinton already proclaimed the era of big government was over.
3
There is no doubt that tax policies, in general, since the Reagan administration, have fundamentally change America for the worse. There is far to much money in the hands of far to few people, and that includes the very wealthy far left Democrats. Neither of those groups is going to give up their wealth without a fight. BUT, for America to survive, WE must move back to the middle of the political road. That means that Republicans can NOT just stop progress because there is a cost to it. This also means that the Left wing has to learn to SHUT down programs that do not work, and to consolidate programs when there are multiple and duplicate ( like Federal Food Programs 43 of them) programs.
To accomplish this, I seriously believe that America needs a new third party, for the time being lets call it the "Middle of the Road" party that will serve on two or three terms in office and will listen to the moans and cry's of both ends and re-set or cancel ALL government programs so that they are properly financed, efficiently run, and do the jobs they were designed to do. Additionally the FIRST jobs of this new party would be to re write campaign finance laws and the entire U S Tax code.
Yes, sadly, I at 75 still have a bit of the dreamer in me that we all had as a child. Will I ever live to see this wondrous new government? Seriously, I've got my doubts. But I still get a bit of pleasure telling people what I Dream the solution is. Have a nice day.
To accomplish this, I seriously believe that America needs a new third party, for the time being lets call it the "Middle of the Road" party that will serve on two or three terms in office and will listen to the moans and cry's of both ends and re-set or cancel ALL government programs so that they are properly financed, efficiently run, and do the jobs they were designed to do. Additionally the FIRST jobs of this new party would be to re write campaign finance laws and the entire U S Tax code.
Yes, sadly, I at 75 still have a bit of the dreamer in me that we all had as a child. Will I ever live to see this wondrous new government? Seriously, I've got my doubts. But I still get a bit of pleasure telling people what I Dream the solution is. Have a nice day.
4
Hear, hear, Larry! Sign me up for the "Middle of the Road" party right away! Thirty years your junior, though, I can't imagine something so sensible & pragmatic coming about in MY lifetime, much less yours.
Heels are dug in. Animosity flows in all directions. People want 100% of what they want & wont settle for less. Compromise has become a four letter word. "The time for talking is over". And worst if all, we're convinced WE'RE right & THEY'RE wrong thanks to the groupthink the internet so easily enables.
Here's to "The Middle"! May we rise!
Heels are dug in. Animosity flows in all directions. People want 100% of what they want & wont settle for less. Compromise has become a four letter word. "The time for talking is over". And worst if all, we're convinced WE'RE right & THEY'RE wrong thanks to the groupthink the internet so easily enables.
Here's to "The Middle"! May we rise!
1
This article seems to present "Big-Program Liberalism" as a short-term aberration that arose in the era of F.D.R., had its day, and is now on the way out. The author should step further back, and remember that big government arose as a way of reining in the runaway excesses of Big Wealth and Big Monopolies at the end of the nineteenth century -- excesses that continued, despite the introduction of Income Tax a century ago, until the stock market collapsed in 1929. People didn't think that government was the problem then: they knew that sometimes big business and unbridled wealth are the problem. But the Mellons, the Scaifes, the Koches and their supporters have never stopped trying to climb back on top. They won their first, partial victory in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Since then, the Democrats that Mr. Schmitt favors have busied themselves rearranging the deck chairs instead of asking why there aren't enough deck chairs for everyone. Meanwhile, the success of Sanders and Trump shows that there's a lot of grumbling going on below decks -- not just among the third-class passengers, but in the boiler room as well. Will the intransigent right accept Clinton-style incremental change any more than they ever accepted the "social revolution" of Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or Lyndon Johnson? As long as it curbs the wealth and power of the super-rich, never.
7
If Sanders were elected President, the Democrats would also have to sweep Congress in order for any of his idealistic visions to have any traction. Democrats sweeping Congress whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is, is hardly likely.
Hillary Clinton is the practical choice for the Democratic nominee. She offers the depth of knowledge of foreign policy and certainly is knowledgable when it comes to how things actually get done in Washington. She would have the best chance of being able to work with a Republican Congress because the progressive changes she offers are, as stated here, tweaks, rather than grand sweeping changes.
In no other election in memory has it been so important for a Democrat to be elected President, in order to preserve progress that has come at great sacrifice. I really wish I could believe that if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, he would be elected President, but George McGovern comes to mind, and what it meant to this country when Richard Nixon was elected by such a huge margin.
Hillary Clinton is the practical choice for the Democratic nominee. She offers the depth of knowledge of foreign policy and certainly is knowledgable when it comes to how things actually get done in Washington. She would have the best chance of being able to work with a Republican Congress because the progressive changes she offers are, as stated here, tweaks, rather than grand sweeping changes.
In no other election in memory has it been so important for a Democrat to be elected President, in order to preserve progress that has come at great sacrifice. I really wish I could believe that if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, he would be elected President, but George McGovern comes to mind, and what it meant to this country when Richard Nixon was elected by such a huge margin.
23
You seem to forget that Nixon first won by running against Hubert Humphrey -- who represented the "practical" faction of the Democratic Party -- after the "idealists" were brutally put down.
I'm going to disagree with this statement. There is the down ballot effect of those who liked the POTUS candidate enough to vote for them and will likely vote the candidates who align with the POTUS down ballot....so they end up voting for progressives down ballot. There is a reason why in 2008 and 2012 democrats gained seats in congress. It's the down ballot effect the POTUS has on other elections.
HRC won't even get out the vote, never mind turn the Senate blue. Sanders is the only one who could turn the Senate blue and if he can't no one can. Voters will vote change or the country is not ready yet.
4
Incrementalism is the equivalent of "a few more crumbs" for the masses. It is designed to placate progressives with the notion that something is being done, however ineffective it might be to truly solving the problem. Moreover, a major difference between the Bernie Sanders approach to solving problems versus the Obama / Clinton approach is that Bernie is a true fighter. Neither Obama or Hillary fits that mold.
7
Bernie's a communist. Now the dems can be represented correctly. No hiding behind terms like liberal/progressive/socialist. Just come right on out and be the inner commie the dem base is made of. You will have trouble winning the White House but at least you're finally being honest about your beliefs.
2
Communists believe in the social (i.e., state) ownership of the means of production. Unless I am missing something, Bernie Sanders is not advocating that.
4
The problem with this new approach that targets tiny slices of the population for benefits and programs is that the majority are left on the sidelines and, as in the case of the those still suffering from the aftermath of the recession, angry and dissatisfied.
The Affordable Care Act is a prime example of the approach and not a final New Deal program. It helped fewer than 10% of the population and hurt nearly as many. That "winners and losers" outcome that seems central to the new incremental liberalism, of which the ACA is such a prime example, is the big problem for Democrats and for President Obama.
Too many losers, too many people left out, too many angry voters.
The Affordable Care Act is a prime example of the approach and not a final New Deal program. It helped fewer than 10% of the population and hurt nearly as many. That "winners and losers" outcome that seems central to the new incremental liberalism, of which the ACA is such a prime example, is the big problem for Democrats and for President Obama.
Too many losers, too many people left out, too many angry voters.
5
Broad sweeping change cannot happen without taking a big broom to the republican house and senate. And the people who need broad sweeping social change the most, those who live in the states where under employment is high and health care is still out of reach, where college education is still a dream, will not vote for a democratic socialist. There will be no Bernie Sanders coat tails. None. So what will a President Sanders be able to achieve toward his agenda. Probably as much as Senator Sanders has been able to achieve.
20
Git rid of the gerrymandering and find a better way to elect representatives than the linking together of various cities and districts that have nothing to do with each other so you can assure a win for your side by limiting the number of purple areas there can be.
1
Challenge accepted.
1
If changes are "invisible changes," do they even exist? What if their benighted beneficiaries never see them? How can they vote for them? Why would they vote for them? The utter elitism of this piece is jaw-dropping.
8
The challenge with "Big-Programs" is that they never have to adapt to changing circumstances and eventually get overwhelmed by bureaucracy and ineptitude.
Take a look at the companies that were in the Dow Jones index in 1950. Most of them are gone now or are shells of what they were (e.g., AT&T, Bethlehem Steel, Kodak, Sears, Westinghouse, Woolworths) but government programs live on forever.
More specifically, look at the rotten core of the Veterans Administration health care. Both Sanders and Prof. Krugman lauded it as a paragon of government efficiency until well beyond the point of parody.
BTW, it doesn't mean that government programs aren't necessary but rather the inability to force them to change dooms them to long-term structural problems. Simpler measure such as Social Security are much easier to administer and therefore better programs.
Take a look at the companies that were in the Dow Jones index in 1950. Most of them are gone now or are shells of what they were (e.g., AT&T, Bethlehem Steel, Kodak, Sears, Westinghouse, Woolworths) but government programs live on forever.
More specifically, look at the rotten core of the Veterans Administration health care. Both Sanders and Prof. Krugman lauded it as a paragon of government efficiency until well beyond the point of parody.
BTW, it doesn't mean that government programs aren't necessary but rather the inability to force them to change dooms them to long-term structural problems. Simpler measure such as Social Security are much easier to administer and therefore better programs.
3
There are a few things we know for sure. We know that the population has become so large that we have added stress on all our resources. We know that living in very close proximity with our neighbors forces us to either cooperate or man the battle stations.
Government… especially a democracy… is supposed to be our platform for cooperation. In the early days of our nation, a dissatisfied mill worker could pack up and go stake out a claim to land out west. He could live by his own rules because the nearest neighbor might be 30 miles away. He could be totally independent because he didn’t need the government to provide services and security.
Those days are over. One way or another, we now have no choice but to cooperate with each other. Independence served us well in a different era. But we now have no choice but to band together for the common good. Government can and should be our platform for doing that. Whether it’s Bernie’s vision or Hillary’s, more government is going to have to be our direction if we plan to hold together as a nation. The questions are, how can we get there without too much pain, and how can we make it fair for most… if not all.
Government… especially a democracy… is supposed to be our platform for cooperation. In the early days of our nation, a dissatisfied mill worker could pack up and go stake out a claim to land out west. He could live by his own rules because the nearest neighbor might be 30 miles away. He could be totally independent because he didn’t need the government to provide services and security.
Those days are over. One way or another, we now have no choice but to cooperate with each other. Independence served us well in a different era. But we now have no choice but to band together for the common good. Government can and should be our platform for doing that. Whether it’s Bernie’s vision or Hillary’s, more government is going to have to be our direction if we plan to hold together as a nation. The questions are, how can we get there without too much pain, and how can we make it fair for most… if not all.
7
It's the "we now have no choice" mindset that always gets you into trouble. Americans have always cooperated with one another. You could hardly have a functioning society without it. I would contend that we have seen that the feds are incompetent and incapable and yet you would hand these same people your fate. No thank you. We are $19 trillion in the hole and still enthusiastically digging. And that federal gov't is the one holding the IOU over all our heads like the Sword of Damocles.
Big Program liberalism is not over; it's right around the corner...and it is exactly what is needed at this moment in time. It will be easy to enact once president Sanders is in office, along with a progressive (notice how I didn't say Democratic?) congress.
4
"...advancing liberal goals without big, universal programs..."
DNC, "third way" Democrats instead want big, expensive privately run but taxpayer subsidized programs - ACA being a prime example. Funded by taxes and cuts to Medicare, it resulted in handsome profits to the private insurance sector.
This isn't 'liberalism", it's moderate Republicanism.
DNC, "third way" Democrats instead want big, expensive privately run but taxpayer subsidized programs - ACA being a prime example. Funded by taxes and cuts to Medicare, it resulted in handsome profits to the private insurance sector.
This isn't 'liberalism", it's moderate Republicanism.
7
Cut the defense budget by a minimum of 50%. Withdraw all American troops from foreign soil, and eliminate all expenditures for ineffective weapon systems. That will provide the resources to solve many problems.
1
And try to avoid being near tall buildings in major cities.
1
My fellow Americans should take home the message from the New Hampshire primaries that small, nearly invisible incremental change is not working.
Even Obamacare -- a kludge meant to protect the private insurance industry -- is a poor substitute for the real thing.
Both Sanders and Trump derive their support from people who now see that the status quo was created at their expense and that there is no future for most Americans without overthrowing the rigged game we've been conned into.
Even Obamacare -- a kludge meant to protect the private insurance industry -- is a poor substitute for the real thing.
Both Sanders and Trump derive their support from people who now see that the status quo was created at their expense and that there is no future for most Americans without overthrowing the rigged game we've been conned into.
6
“It’s more than just congressional intransigence . . . that led liberals to move beyond big new programs.” True dat: As Bernie Sanders ruefully notes, too many Dems feel they ought not challenge the big money folks who have skewed the entire system to their benefit. But that’s not pragmatism; it's cowardice.
“Passage of the Affordable Care Act finally put in place the last big piece of the New Deal’s agenda.” No, the ACA is only a modest step toward necessary reform. Compared to its peers, our nation continues to spend far too much for inferior outcomes. The REAL New Deal agenda won’t be fulfilled until we embrace some form of single-payer-Medicare-for-all-the-public-option.
The New Deal’s (and Fair Deal’s and New Frontier’s and Great Society’s) investments in education, infrastructure, environmental protection and social fabric are what kept this country moving forward in the century past. “More Tinkering” (what a stirring slogan!) has nothing in common with that tradition. Working on the edges “to achieve big change without big new programs” has already turned out to be both bad politics and bad policy. If it loses its connection to its populist, New Deal roots, then the Democratic party has nothing to offer -- and the game will be over for both the party and the middle-class, mobile, open democracy it is honor-bound to uphold.
“Passage of the Affordable Care Act finally put in place the last big piece of the New Deal’s agenda.” No, the ACA is only a modest step toward necessary reform. Compared to its peers, our nation continues to spend far too much for inferior outcomes. The REAL New Deal agenda won’t be fulfilled until we embrace some form of single-payer-Medicare-for-all-the-public-option.
The New Deal’s (and Fair Deal’s and New Frontier’s and Great Society’s) investments in education, infrastructure, environmental protection and social fabric are what kept this country moving forward in the century past. “More Tinkering” (what a stirring slogan!) has nothing in common with that tradition. Working on the edges “to achieve big change without big new programs” has already turned out to be both bad politics and bad policy. If it loses its connection to its populist, New Deal roots, then the Democratic party has nothing to offer -- and the game will be over for both the party and the middle-class, mobile, open democracy it is honor-bound to uphold.
8
Schmitt seems to be living in a Rip Van Winkle world. The liberalism that he describes has been on the decline since the election of Ronald Reagan. This decline has led to ever-increasing inequality among Americans, and requires more serious action than the incremental Obama/Clinton approach which Schmitt lauds. Bernie Sanders' popularity is the result of a desire by much of the U.S. population--especially the millennial generation--to reinstate and strengthen those policies, which gave us the greatest overall prosperity that the world has ever known. The only reason for the subsequent decline is that the most greedy among us saw that the increasingly wealthy middle class was ripe for the picking, and colluded with Iran and other foreign powers to steal the keys to the kingdom.
4
The New Deal destroyed jobs, farms, farmers, food, employment, and people's lives. Let's hope Bernie has no chance to create a New New Deal, because FDR's ruined the economy. Of course, the economy is pretty ruined at this point anyway, so any Newer New Dealers will simply blame someone in a previous administration.
4
Wow, what history book did you read "the New Deal destroyed jobs, farms, farmers, food, employment and people's lives"? Let me guess, you also believe in "intelligent design" and that "global warming is a hoax" .
2
This article highlights exactly what this election, at least on the Democratic side, is about. Incrementalism, one small policy change at a time, has failed the middle and lower classes in the U.S.. A major reason has been, as pointed out by the 2014 study of U.S government policy decisions by Gilens and Page that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." This has continued whether the president is Republican or Democrat and is related to campaign financing and lobbying. It has left the average citizen feeling disempowered and helpless - and now, in this election, angry. Sanders favors a big government program approach, but he is aware that to implement it would require nullifying the effect of big money on policy decisions in Washington - something that could be partially accomplished through campaign finance reform and reversal of Citizens United, but which would also require a mass popular movement favoring his kind of programs. The real question is whether the American people are sufficiently motivated to mount such a sustained popular movement. If not, he will be, effectively, a lame duck from the time of his election. Any other candidate will continue the incrementalism that continues to serve the wealthy and business interests.
6
Since the 70s in the U.S. there has been a measurable shift in power and wealth from the middle class to a much smaller group. This shift has been the consequence of public policy adopted at the Federal and State levels.
The result of the is shift is, more and more, the largest part of the U.S. population lacks the power and economic resources to address on their own problems presented in the current economic, political, and social circumstances. Sanders and Trump are speaking to this growing group. The choice they face is, increasingly, between a form of near-indentured servitude to employers and financial institutions and some form of help from their government.
People are beginning to realize that corporate-led growth capitalism leaves them no choice but to turn to government. This realization will be the driving force of politics for the next 20 years. “Big-program liberalism” circa 1960 has been out of fashion, true, but I’d guess it will be making a comeback.
The result of the is shift is, more and more, the largest part of the U.S. population lacks the power and economic resources to address on their own problems presented in the current economic, political, and social circumstances. Sanders and Trump are speaking to this growing group. The choice they face is, increasingly, between a form of near-indentured servitude to employers and financial institutions and some form of help from their government.
People are beginning to realize that corporate-led growth capitalism leaves them no choice but to turn to government. This realization will be the driving force of politics for the next 20 years. “Big-program liberalism” circa 1960 has been out of fashion, true, but I’d guess it will be making a comeback.
4
You are talking republican light policies, which are no regulations and more privatization and keeping the profit gougers in place in the health industry, military war mongering industry, big agri industry. We do have big programs but they are private for profit industry like prison industry and all these industries are being subsidies by us tax payers at huge costs.
We want to take these big profit gouging industries out of the equation and we the people (government) run certain programs that only tip the playing field in favor of huge profits for a few and not the many.
I recent this editorial by the New York Times and how stupid do you believe we the people are. Do you think we cannot see thru you? The media conglomerates are right behind Campaign Finance Reform. Anti trust laws must be used to break up the to big for their britches media conglomerates.
We want to take these big profit gouging industries out of the equation and we the people (government) run certain programs that only tip the playing field in favor of huge profits for a few and not the many.
I recent this editorial by the New York Times and how stupid do you believe we the people are. Do you think we cannot see thru you? The media conglomerates are right behind Campaign Finance Reform. Anti trust laws must be used to break up the to big for their britches media conglomerates.
2
The title of this piece promises a two sided discussion, but long before the last paragraph it betrays itself as having the rhetorical value of a tract put out by the Jehovah Witnesses. ("Is God a myth?")
History's over according to Schmitt. ACA was "the last big piece of the New Deal's agenda" and it's all incrementalism from now on. Of course, that means Sanders is out of it, right?
Our ears are deafened and our hearts quickened by the negative drum beating the Times has, without exception, given Sanders in literally every article and opinion piece. The shame here is that all the NYT has to do is write a few pieces that objectively lay out the Sanders program, without undercutting him every chance it gets. Then some of its more cogent criticisms might actually obtain an audience. Is the newsroom listening?
History's over according to Schmitt. ACA was "the last big piece of the New Deal's agenda" and it's all incrementalism from now on. Of course, that means Sanders is out of it, right?
Our ears are deafened and our hearts quickened by the negative drum beating the Times has, without exception, given Sanders in literally every article and opinion piece. The shame here is that all the NYT has to do is write a few pieces that objectively lay out the Sanders program, without undercutting him every chance it gets. Then some of its more cogent criticisms might actually obtain an audience. Is the newsroom listening?
4
An ever so subtle plea to vote for Hillary. Must not sound shrill or desperate as that could backfire (see Albright/Steinem). We are indeed in the age of acquiescence, a time to settle, a time to tread lightly lest we awake the ire of the masters-of-the-universe whose benevolent guidance is so crucial to our well being. It appears Bernie did not get that memo, and like myself is old enough to have lived the generation-long dismantling of our society for no better reason than greed. Expect the fear mongering to reach a fever pitch as the establishment is starting to sweat.
6
The a the age of any size program liberalism is over. Not only will we not see new programs, current programs will be scaled back. It's already happening and will continue to happen.
Why? There just is not enough money. Given the size of the countries debt and its budget deficit, there is nowhere to go but down. Sure, the government can try raising taxes, but we already are close to the point where tax rate increases will reduce the tax take ( Laffer Curve ).
Also the interest on the national debt is taking more and more of the budget, even at theses incredibly low interest rates. If rates rise even modestly it will really blow a hole in our budget. Right now the Fed is trying to keep rates low but it may lose control of rates.
So the discussion going forward will not be so much " what new programs should we have? " as " where can we cut existing programs? ".
Why? There just is not enough money. Given the size of the countries debt and its budget deficit, there is nowhere to go but down. Sure, the government can try raising taxes, but we already are close to the point where tax rate increases will reduce the tax take ( Laffer Curve ).
Also the interest on the national debt is taking more and more of the budget, even at theses incredibly low interest rates. If rates rise even modestly it will really blow a hole in our budget. Right now the Fed is trying to keep rates low but it may lose control of rates.
So the discussion going forward will not be so much " what new programs should we have? " as " where can we cut existing programs? ".
1
Not enough money?--Look closely at the fraction of money spent on the military industrial complex in the budget--how about taking a trillion dollars away from the perennial, disastrous F-35 program (https://www.rt.com/usa/311126-f-35-problems-extremely-expensive/), or taking away the huge industrial welfare largess(see e.g., GE's negative income tax and corn ethanol for fuel which takes more energy to produce than it creates) or not bailing out "too big to fail" wall street banks. How many billionaires have made their fortunes off of government military-industrial programs? This is the age when any size program of the military industrial complex, industrial welfare, wall street welfare is over.
4
". . . the best way to keep deficits under control is to keep the economy growing and to reduce health care spending, which again means more tinkering."
If Mr. Schmitt thinks "more tinkering" with our rube goldberg health care system can significantly reduce health care spending, he is delusional. On the other hand, more tinkering is a convenient snipe hunt to divert attention from the obvious need for another big government program.
If Mr. Schmitt thinks "more tinkering" with our rube goldberg health care system can significantly reduce health care spending, he is delusional. On the other hand, more tinkering is a convenient snipe hunt to divert attention from the obvious need for another big government program.
4
This is claptrap! The only time people get help is when the Democrats control the White House and the Congress. (last case in point the ACA). The only reason Obama could not do more is because of the republican house and later the senate. There is no new theory of government just typical Clitonian doublespeak. The number of "pundits" currently spouting this incremental half loaf drivel all seem to have gotten the Hillary talking points memo. When will the Clintons stop insulting us?
3
Until the Dems can come up with a plan to recapture the majorities in Congress and state levels, no big program will ever be passed! The Repubs will continue to chip away at Medicare, SS, and the ACA. The deficit has been reduced appreciably under the Obama administration - no small feat considering he entered the White House with two unpaid-for wars and a financial crisis. But look at the some of the comments here and you would think that the deficits are exploding all because of Obama's policies. My God, even Obama's most recent budget won't even be considered by Ryan and Co.! How unreasonable and more importantly, governing averse could these people be?? As long as the Republicans are in control in most of the branches of gov't, state and local, there will be no new programs, only a reduction in the existing ones, esp. if a Repub wins the White House, which is looking more likely with each passing day, with all the squabbling going on between the Dems!
I want the new New Deal, thanks.
6
I think the popularity of Bernie and his acceptance by so many people is the first step in shedding our crony capitalist system. Our economic system undercuts our citizens and our democracy. I'm not sure how much of that is caused by corruption and greed or is inherently a weakness in unregulated capitalism. No
"ism" should override reality.
"ism" should override reality.
4
"These policy machinations should not be confused with “triangulation” — the modest, symbolic gestures adopted by the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s to show a recognition of conservative values."
Does the author mean NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, mass incarceration, those symbolic gestures?
Does the author mean NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, mass incarceration, those symbolic gestures?
4
New Hampshire
Race Population % of Total Total Population 1,316,470 100
White 1,236,050 93%
Hispanic or Latino 36,704 2%
Asian 28,407 2%
Two or More Races 21,382 1%
Black or African American 15,035 1%
Some Other Race 12,062 Below 1%
American Indian 3,150 Below 1%
Three or more races 1,336 Below 1%
Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander 384 Below 1%
Native Hawaiian 120 Below 1%
nuff said....the bigger states do not look like this and they have more delegates.
Race Population % of Total Total Population 1,316,470 100
White 1,236,050 93%
Hispanic or Latino 36,704 2%
Asian 28,407 2%
Two or More Races 21,382 1%
Black or African American 15,035 1%
Some Other Race 12,062 Below 1%
American Indian 3,150 Below 1%
Three or more races 1,336 Below 1%
Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander 384 Below 1%
Native Hawaiian 120 Below 1%
nuff said....the bigger states do not look like this and they have more delegates.
"A program that covers everyone avoids the class conflict..."
The problem is that not everyone want to be "covered"--i.e., "buried alive"--by government "programmes" and vehemently resent the efforts of government to dragoon them into those programmes.. Call it foolish if you like. Accuse us of denying our own best interests. But freedom includes the freedom to be foolish--ignoring, of course, that many of us think it utterly foolish to become dependent on government. Many of us don't want a "connection between [ourselves] and government," that "connection" being way too much like a leash.
The problem is that "covering everyone" doesn't even come close to avoiding "class conflict." Inevitably, some will be forced to pay more than others for these programmes and, contrary to what Democrats seem to believe, not all of us are all that interested in being forced to pay other peoples' bills.
The problem is that not everyone want to be "covered"--i.e., "buried alive"--by government "programmes" and vehemently resent the efforts of government to dragoon them into those programmes.. Call it foolish if you like. Accuse us of denying our own best interests. But freedom includes the freedom to be foolish--ignoring, of course, that many of us think it utterly foolish to become dependent on government. Many of us don't want a "connection between [ourselves] and government," that "connection" being way too much like a leash.
The problem is that "covering everyone" doesn't even come close to avoiding "class conflict." Inevitably, some will be forced to pay more than others for these programmes and, contrary to what Democrats seem to believe, not all of us are all that interested in being forced to pay other peoples' bills.
1
Does anyone talk about the common good before? Or just their own little tribe/self?
3
Define "common good." Your definition may or may not correspond with mine. In fact, yours could even utterly contradict mine.
The opposite may be happening with America's northern neighbor. Much money is now being spent by the newish Liberal Party government in Canada. Tories were hated by many during their years of power because all they seemed to do was make "cuts" to every part of government. Other people loved it, because they thought that spending of governments for decades had gone out of control. Justin Trudeau's government has stated loudly that is now spending, spending, spending. More, more and more. Is that the way to during the world's economic instability? CANADA. Lots of questions unanswered.
This article is the shadow government coming momentarily into the light to explain that in America, the building of democracy is given over to the wealthiest among our population, wherein we can forget education and comprehensive healthcare for those who literally feed those wealthiest for starvation wages, through physical labor and where the young and the elderly can hope for nothing in their futures, and nothing from their pasts as workers in this country. We don't need you anymore. We have gained the power to move on without you, so get used to it. Senator Sanders is the voice I wish to share in for a democratic future in America. The Republicans, the Clintons, can move on without my vote.
4
You're no gardener but you are a communist. Congrats!! Your belief system has been responsible for the deaths of over 100 million in the last century alone. To state that you are small minded and a bigot would be obvious but it is the genuine complete misunderstanding of how market economies function that qualifies you for Communist of the Day.
A gardener and social democrat for many years now. Your over-reaction reminds me of the elder couple who came to my door the other day, the husband, a local tea-party republican come looking for my vote. I asked if he would advocate for our less wealthy neighborhoods and if we who own our homes, paid in full, might hope to see some of the taxes we pay come into the neighborhoods in which we live. He sneered as his face turned crimson in over-reaction, as you seem to do. His wife who accompanied him, a stranger to me, kissed me before she left, making him all the angrier, more reactionary than he was during our initial conversation. I don't know her personally, but I do thank her for the hope she shared with me.
2
The editorial views expressed in the NYT are sounding more and more like the less extreme WSJ views. As long as we have Big Finance, Big Pharma, Big Defence contractors, Big Energy, Big Insurance and all of the other big corporate oligarchies who value the quarterly balance sheet and share price above the public good, we will need Big government and and programs like Social Security to provide some balance and protection for the citizens.
4
You do understand that it was Big Gov't that begat the other Bigs you condemn right?
You need to go back to a good history class. The big private Trusts and corporate interests predate any large social programs.
4
One of the side effects of the internet and the connected world is most Americans understand that the big program Liberalism works in most of the developed world. When you stack America up against any other developed country it comes up very short in big programs that benefit most Americans and those few programs are always under threat by Conservatives. What seems to be the answer for the present day minor American Liberalism is the Conservative cry “nothing beats privatization, why we can cut your taxes!” Unfortunately after this 40 year experiment, with minor tax cuts for anyone but the very wealthy, a major economic meltdown and extreme income inequality, possibly Americans are ready to try big program Liberalism. It appears to Americans the only people who have benefited from the minor American programs are the big corporations and the very rich. Americans would like benefits for the 99% which are not under threat every time there is an election. Americans can actually understand such concepts as universal health insurance, living minimum wages, subsidized housing for the homeless and child care for working class families, education that doesn’t bankrupt graduates. Yes America will have to cut back money for the most expensive military in the world but possibly the this would raise real opportunities in America so much that the angry voter would not exist anymore. Mr.Schmitt may be missing the point Americans want a big program Liberalism in the 21st century.
6
Look at Schmitt's example of the Clinton plan for paying for college: "to provide grants to states to help them provide free tuition at community colleges; to expand regulation of predatory loan servicers and education programs; to enact a “Borrower Bill of Rights”; and to allow students to refinance their loans at lower rates.
This plan has four parts, and three of them are about lending money to students. And who benefits when "big government" supports money-leaning? Big banks.
Bernie Sanders, QED. It's not how she votes, it's what she proposes.
This plan has four parts, and three of them are about lending money to students. And who benefits when "big government" supports money-leaning? Big banks.
Bernie Sanders, QED. It's not how she votes, it's what she proposes.
5
And absolutely nothing to reduce the outlandish increases in college tuition!
3
First several points. Mr. Sanders proposals have been shown to vastly under estimate costs and have no mechanisms to create price controls. As a result, economists have rated his proposed 2.2% across the board income tax hike as needing to be more like 6%. And the author said this was only on $250,000 and above. Wrong it is on everyone.
Mr. Sanders has been openly saying that America should be like Denmark or Sweden. Those countries have maximum tax rates of between 55 and 60%. But they are applied to incomes as low as $60 - $75,000. This would be a massive tax increase on the middle class. Also, these countries have a national sales tax (VAT) of 25% and a 7% social security tax. Interestingly, the Scandinavian countries have lower corporate taxes than the US.
So if Mr. Sanders wants to remake America to look like Sweden or Denmark, to get a realistic idea of the true costs, we should look at the tax structures of those countries. I think almost all Americans would be shocked at how much more they would pay the federal government after nationalizing 20% of the economy.
Mr. Sanders has been openly saying that America should be like Denmark or Sweden. Those countries have maximum tax rates of between 55 and 60%. But they are applied to incomes as low as $60 - $75,000. This would be a massive tax increase on the middle class. Also, these countries have a national sales tax (VAT) of 25% and a 7% social security tax. Interestingly, the Scandinavian countries have lower corporate taxes than the US.
So if Mr. Sanders wants to remake America to look like Sweden or Denmark, to get a realistic idea of the true costs, we should look at the tax structures of those countries. I think almost all Americans would be shocked at how much more they would pay the federal government after nationalizing 20% of the economy.
I have to wonder if all these Bernie-supporters who comment in the NYT actually KNOW any conservatives (even moderate ones). I'm a Bernie-loving liberal, too, but there isn't a snowball's chance in Congress that he'll actually be elected by conservative or moderate voters.
Didn't anybody read the article on the UAE's creation of a Happiness Ministry? Buried in the article, it stated that Americans are still the 15th happiest people on earth (above even the UK and Switzerland!). Despite all the polarization and political hype and anger, Americans are still pretty darned happy. Unfortunately for us (mostly for my kids), I think it will take a lot more pain before there is a true "revolution" in our politics.
Didn't anybody read the article on the UAE's creation of a Happiness Ministry? Buried in the article, it stated that Americans are still the 15th happiest people on earth (above even the UK and Switzerland!). Despite all the polarization and political hype and anger, Americans are still pretty darned happy. Unfortunately for us (mostly for my kids), I think it will take a lot more pain before there is a true "revolution" in our politics.
1
Since when is a 1960's, 1970's proportional level of government funding for government regulators, meat inspectors, OSHA folks, college support, clean water, clean air "big program liberalism". Capitalism doesn't work very well without trust. Someone's got to do tha regulatin'. It won't regulate itself, or rather we've seen what happens when it does and it isn't good.
6
Belief in and the practice of positive government is an imperative. It has and does work. Misrule is of course an alternative choice with a popular lobby.
2
Just because Obamacare didn't originate from scratch doesn't mean it wasn't a gigantic government program. If affected very single aspect of health insurance, which, in turn, affected every person's health care.
Obama's still driving the big-spending juggernaut. Look at his budget proposals. His "safety net" has become the equivalent of a big government program. He's expanded it to the point where people cannot leave it.
Obama's still driving the big-spending juggernaut. Look at his budget proposals. His "safety net" has become the equivalent of a big government program. He's expanded it to the point where people cannot leave it.
1
When loss of economic opportunity and security afflicts not just one but several generations, as has happened to America's middle class, incremental promises aren't enough. The Republicans, pushed by their conservative wing, proposed sweeping change - deregulation of Wall Street, treaties promoting globalism, the weakening of labor unions, curbing of civil rights, tax cuts favoring the wealthy, expanded gun ownership - and by and large delivered. Hence the groundswell for Bernie Sanders and the righting of wrongs that only massive federal action can achieve.
7
"Incrementalism" is good for you.
If you are one of the 0.1%.
But only if you are one of the 0.1%.
If you are one of the 0.1%.
But only if you are one of the 0.1%.
5
You are missing the point. With the present Congressional configuration incrementalism is the only way to improve US society, waiting for the big revolution may mean waiting for the next generation, in the mean time we will all be worse off (except of course the 0.1%, who will prosper even more).
Then the best approach for remaking the political landscape is to build a national movement that will elect Democrats to state legislatures in 2020. One of my deepest concerns about Mrs. Clinton as President is that her approach to governance provides little impetus for overturning Republican control in the states.
Imagine for the moment the 2020 Presidential election with Clinton as the incumbent. It will be the end of a twelve-year period of slow economic growth and continued redistribution upward much like the last four years. Will she be able to mobilize voters across the country to overturn Republican state legislatures and create more competitive legislative and Congressional districts? I doubt it. Like Obama, I expect her to eschew the bully pulpit and work on the "submerged state." That won't change American politics for the better. Sanders may not accomplish much more in his four years, and he might even choose not to run for re-election in 2020. But he will take to the pulpit and attempt to change the rhetoric and the agenda of American politics. Mrs. Clinton doesn't have the personality or politics to pursue a strategy of mass mobilization as we head into the next decade. Sanders has both.
Imagine for the moment the 2020 Presidential election with Clinton as the incumbent. It will be the end of a twelve-year period of slow economic growth and continued redistribution upward much like the last four years. Will she be able to mobilize voters across the country to overturn Republican state legislatures and create more competitive legislative and Congressional districts? I doubt it. Like Obama, I expect her to eschew the bully pulpit and work on the "submerged state." That won't change American politics for the better. Sanders may not accomplish much more in his four years, and he might even choose not to run for re-election in 2020. But he will take to the pulpit and attempt to change the rhetoric and the agenda of American politics. Mrs. Clinton doesn't have the personality or politics to pursue a strategy of mass mobilization as we head into the next decade. Sanders has both.
2
The Obama-Clinton approach is the only one which will work given the sorry Republican congressional slate who are so open about being slaves to the wealthy and huge corporations that its ridiculous. However, in many cases the compromises to true stable financial lives for non-wealthy Americans falls far short. For example. during the Obama years, he has managed to keep Medicare despite the Tea Party, bu nth benefits it pays have been quietly gutted without any notification to the American People. Just one example is Medicare's payment for a patient's medication if the patient is admitted under what is called "outpatient observation." The patient is held in the hospital just like an in-patient, and is not told about the "outpatient observation" code assigned by the doctor upon admission. The code means essentially that the patient is hospitalized to see if their condition improves or worsens; and the patient only learns of this coding when they get a bill informing them that Medicare has denied the costs of ALL their medications, and patient owes the hospital, for example, $1900 (the hospital's so called "normal charge") for their routine medication, where if Medicare paid the bill before this secret change, they may have only reimbursed the ACTUAL cost of the mediation - say $15. I think this explains Bernie Sanders popularity. Masses of Americans are getting sick of the diminution of their ability to financially survive so the ultra wealthy can make even more money.
4
Just more of the NYTimes shilling for Clinton.
1
Couple of issues:
1) The author conveniently side steps both the relative transience of extra-legislative policy initiatives as well as the role of the judiciary. Not to mention the public distaste for backroom politics and black-box government. I thought that's why Clinton is experiencing image problems.
2) Incremental policy initiatives result in incremental change. The result is an endless fight for initiatives that should have already been in place but are only advocated in hindsight. For example, students that lost their insurance and couldn't find a decent job in the mid-2000's weren't helped by the "till 26" provision of the ACA. A similar narrative is unfolding around college tuition and loans right now.
In short: small change results in policy drift. A ceaseless floating back and forth in the prevailing political tide but never proactively benefits anyone. By the way, I'd consider the ACA a big government program. Do you think that benefit of the ACA could have been quietly ear marked?
3) I think you've slightly misrepresented Sanders. From my understanding, he's not "promising" a political revolution. He's "calling" for a political revolution. Small but important distinction.
1) The author conveniently side steps both the relative transience of extra-legislative policy initiatives as well as the role of the judiciary. Not to mention the public distaste for backroom politics and black-box government. I thought that's why Clinton is experiencing image problems.
2) Incremental policy initiatives result in incremental change. The result is an endless fight for initiatives that should have already been in place but are only advocated in hindsight. For example, students that lost their insurance and couldn't find a decent job in the mid-2000's weren't helped by the "till 26" provision of the ACA. A similar narrative is unfolding around college tuition and loans right now.
In short: small change results in policy drift. A ceaseless floating back and forth in the prevailing political tide but never proactively benefits anyone. By the way, I'd consider the ACA a big government program. Do you think that benefit of the ACA could have been quietly ear marked?
3) I think you've slightly misrepresented Sanders. From my understanding, he's not "promising" a political revolution. He's "calling" for a political revolution. Small but important distinction.
7
The "till 26" provision is a farce. Young people of 26 should not be mooching off parents anyways -- they should be working and have their OWN insurance!
In a healthy economy, no adult of TWENTY SIX should still be on the parent's dole.
Also, it does you no good unless your parents are working, and relatively well off -- and they have to have good health insurance THEMSELVES. If your parents are broke or out of work, this provision doesn't help you at all! Also, it is not "free" -- the parent's insurance changes a lot to keep that adult child on the policy.
It's another Obama "epic fail".
In a healthy economy, no adult of TWENTY SIX should still be on the parent's dole.
Also, it does you no good unless your parents are working, and relatively well off -- and they have to have good health insurance THEMSELVES. If your parents are broke or out of work, this provision doesn't help you at all! Also, it is not "free" -- the parent's insurance changes a lot to keep that adult child on the policy.
It's another Obama "epic fail".
1
What is not discussed is that the millennials (born after 1982) are now taking control of the conversation, much as the baby boomers did in the late 60s. This generation is bigger than the baby boom generation.
Baby boomers - have dominated the conversation since they came of age and will not go quietly into the night - but leave they must for the future has arrived.
Baby boomers - have dominated the conversation since they came of age and will not go quietly into the night - but leave they must for the future has arrived.
4
The millennials voting for Sanders are still a minority. They can set up the conversation for the future but they will not be the deciding factor in the 2016 election.
1
Funny though -- the Millennials were supposed to be a "birth death" generation, as families today and in the 80s did not have lots of children like in the 50s.
So something drastic happened in the last 10 years to increase the number of Millennials PAST the biggest generation in history (boomers) -- and it was massive immigration but especially illegal immigration and "anchor babies".
Oh -- and Millennials do not vote. If you were born in 1982, you are today 34 years old -- middle aged. Not a teen or 20-something. If Millennials were voting, we would have seen that for the last 15 years.
So something drastic happened in the last 10 years to increase the number of Millennials PAST the biggest generation in history (boomers) -- and it was massive immigration but especially illegal immigration and "anchor babies".
Oh -- and Millennials do not vote. If you were born in 1982, you are today 34 years old -- middle aged. Not a teen or 20-something. If Millennials were voting, we would have seen that for the last 15 years.
Many of us hope that the era of big-program liberalism is dead, but it is an outright falsehood to suggest that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are the people leading us away from it. Where Mr. Obama is concerned, Obamacare, HARP and his efforts in the student loan realm make clear that he is prepared to advance universal redistributive programs whenever he can get away with it. As a presidential candidate, Hillary has already outlined a list of entitlement-type giveaways, and the cheers of her adoring liberal fans, has proclaimed that she will tax the wealthy to pay for them.
This editorial post has one simple goal in mind. To paint Hillary Clinton as a "more practical" alternative to Bernie Sanders, who is at least honest about his plans to transfer wealth downward to the maximum degree possible. In reality, all three are hopeless progressives, who detest the concepts of personal liberty, individual accountability and private property because they believe the world should be run by liberal elites who know best how we all should live.
This editorial post has one simple goal in mind. To paint Hillary Clinton as a "more practical" alternative to Bernie Sanders, who is at least honest about his plans to transfer wealth downward to the maximum degree possible. In reality, all three are hopeless progressives, who detest the concepts of personal liberty, individual accountability and private property because they believe the world should be run by liberal elites who know best how we all should live.
Perplexing title to this article: Seems to me Big-Program Liberal programs stopped emerging 30 years ago, and their strength has been eroding since. The question, in the present climate of Bernie Sanders is, are they making a comeback? Most, or maybe all, of the programs Mr. Sanders supports have been successful in other industrial countries. And the squeezed populace may finally be realizing that they have been sold fake solutions that did not work for them.
49
The article is also functioning as a misdirect since what Sanders proposes is mainly regulation that controls corporations and big banks bringing them all down to a manageable size that prevents them from being able to wield so much power over our government. The increase in medicare and other ideas for improving the lives of citizens by removing unnecessary burdensome fake capitalist versions of the same things isn't as big as those who oppose it want us to think.
Its the regulation of the moneyed whom have had control over our government and been systematically destroying it and making agencies into ineffectual figureheads for 36 years.
Its the regulation of the moneyed whom have had control over our government and been systematically destroying it and making agencies into ineffectual figureheads for 36 years.
4
Ask the populace of Cuba, Venezuela, and China how well the policies of Mr Sanders are working for them.
It's fairly easy to redistribute wealth, and make the poor content for a short while. What is hard to do is convince the middle class and business entrepreneurs to continue to work hard and create wealth simply so it can be redistributed. Socialism fails because nobody will work hard to create wealth. Things such as medical breakthroughs, electric cars, smart phones, clean energy will never be invented.
It's fairly easy to redistribute wealth, and make the poor content for a short while. What is hard to do is convince the middle class and business entrepreneurs to continue to work hard and create wealth simply so it can be redistributed. Socialism fails because nobody will work hard to create wealth. Things such as medical breakthroughs, electric cars, smart phones, clean energy will never be invented.
Eliot, No one is trying to redistribute wealth or even advocating it, well no one but GOP drones trying to maintain the absolutely unacceptable status quo.
What Mr Sanders proposes is reintroducing the regulations that kept the economy stable and corporations and banks small enough that they could not exert undue influence over the government and so that if they failed they would not bring down the whole economy with them.
China is better off now than they have ever been and they are 100% capitalist in all things but the government. I'd think a GOPer would approve of that. There are no more starving children to admonish you child for not eating with.
Cuba is less well off yet they have a better medical system than we do only lacking in the things we do not allow them to import. Their doctors and medical science is better than ours in a lot of ways and they cure disease that would kill you here. I don't remember the name but they invented the cure.
I don't think you actually know what you think you know.
What Mr Sanders proposes is reintroducing the regulations that kept the economy stable and corporations and banks small enough that they could not exert undue influence over the government and so that if they failed they would not bring down the whole economy with them.
China is better off now than they have ever been and they are 100% capitalist in all things but the government. I'd think a GOPer would approve of that. There are no more starving children to admonish you child for not eating with.
Cuba is less well off yet they have a better medical system than we do only lacking in the things we do not allow them to import. Their doctors and medical science is better than ours in a lot of ways and they cure disease that would kill you here. I don't remember the name but they invented the cure.
I don't think you actually know what you think you know.
1
Let's not ignore the fact that President Obama has been forced to enact incremental change given our non-functioning, intransigent legislative branch. Has he had a choice?
I believe that racism has played a very a significant role in the difficulties Obama has faced. All one needs to do is read the NYT editorial today about the "Republican Budget Tantrum" which documents a "new low in Republican efforts to show disdain for President Obama." We are overdue for some major changes in our political system and society.
I believe that racism has played a very a significant role in the difficulties Obama has faced. All one needs to do is read the NYT editorial today about the "Republican Budget Tantrum" which documents a "new low in Republican efforts to show disdain for President Obama." We are overdue for some major changes in our political system and society.
27
He had two years to do it his way. Also, most every president in history has had opposition congress for part or in most cases, the majority of their stays in office. Congress did not suddenly turn petulant and obstinate 8 years ago. the President has no negotiating skills. He never understood that taking 100% of the pie, as he did for two years, does not set one up for long term relationships. Even when you can take all of the pie, it's best to leave some for everyone. You might need their help someday.
I agree with your reasoning! But i do wonder why Obama has been so mum about all the attacks being set against him and his programs!?
What Senator Sanders proposes has been done before and gave us the best 50 years this nation has ever seen. You can keep trying to promote the GOP’s fear based dogma with silly excuses to call it something else because you are supporting Hilary but the simple fact is a vote for Hilary is a vote for more of the same governmental weakness that lets big business run our country as they see fit with no regard for Us.
Here is what this Bernie backer wants; Banks and corporations (and a GOP if we can manage it) that are small enough to drown in a bathtub.
This was one of the purposes of the high tax rates we used to have. It kept corporations and banks from getting so big they could bully the government and essentially take over the political parties. Yes the Clintons are part of that system of serving business interests and helping them stay on top.
We also had laws that prevented the greedy from simply moving their business overseas. It kept us stable and wealthy and growing at a normal human pace. Once removed we are well you can all see it, we are basically a third world country literally ready to collapse into chaos due to a single natural or man made disaster. NOLA, Detroit, Flint, …….
Here is what this Bernie backer wants; Banks and corporations (and a GOP if we can manage it) that are small enough to drown in a bathtub.
This was one of the purposes of the high tax rates we used to have. It kept corporations and banks from getting so big they could bully the government and essentially take over the political parties. Yes the Clintons are part of that system of serving business interests and helping them stay on top.
We also had laws that prevented the greedy from simply moving their business overseas. It kept us stable and wealthy and growing at a normal human pace. Once removed we are well you can all see it, we are basically a third world country literally ready to collapse into chaos due to a single natural or man made disaster. NOLA, Detroit, Flint, …….
17
Magic,
My first thirty four years I watched Canada trying to catchup to the United States of America my last 34 years I have watched us catch up and pas and now we seem to be pulling away.
When I see Bernie called an extremist I am just flummoxed. Here in 2016 Quebec we have more than Bernie is promising, we even have $5 a day daycare. My government owned bank is in competition with some of the largest banks in the world and Bloomberg rates my bank the strongest in North America. Here in Quebec the too big to fail banks must compete with a bank that just does a better job with our money.
I won't say Bernie is a conservative but if he is left of center one would need a micrometer to measure the distance.
My first thirty four years I watched Canada trying to catchup to the United States of America my last 34 years I have watched us catch up and pas and now we seem to be pulling away.
When I see Bernie called an extremist I am just flummoxed. Here in 2016 Quebec we have more than Bernie is promising, we even have $5 a day daycare. My government owned bank is in competition with some of the largest banks in the world and Bloomberg rates my bank the strongest in North America. Here in Quebec the too big to fail banks must compete with a bank that just does a better job with our money.
I won't say Bernie is a conservative but if he is left of center one would need a micrometer to measure the distance.
8
I don't quite see it the same as you, sir. But I at least appreciate you informing the public that today's liberal is NOT the same as the liberalism of the 1950s and 60s. In that you are correct. But in your assessment of "incremental liberalism," there is little evidence except in two quarters: abortion and homosexuality, both almost not political issues at all, but both which dominate the new liberalism. And for those of us from the old liberalism, we would like to bid good riddance to the new one that is hung up on homosexuality and baby killing as the political goals to end all political goals.
5
From the article . . . "His proposals for single-payer health care, free college tuition and paid family leave financed through a small payroll tax . . . "
Are you SERIOUS? I'm at a loss for words. These multi -trillion dollar costs will be funded through a SMALL payroll tax?
Are you SERIOUS? I'm at a loss for words. These multi -trillion dollar costs will be funded through a SMALL payroll tax?
4
Bernie must believe no one noticed Vermont's single payer proposal died because it was (no surprise) too expensive.
Yes, gjd... The worst abusers on Wall St. got rich on fractions of a penny per transaction; but there were lots of transactions, just like there are lots of workers. Get it?
1
It would have to be a HUGE payroll tax, to get the Scandinavian style benefits that Mr. Sanders proposes -- at least double the current tax burden, PLUS a VAT on every single purchase. Swedes pay a 28% VAT, the Danes pay 25%.
Think about what you purchase regularly and then slap 25% extra on that -- food, too! -- and you still have to pay your LOCAL and STATE sales taxes.
DO THE MATH. It's not a "small payroll tax". It would be a giant tax increase in every form of taxation that exists, plus many new taxes.
Think about what you purchase regularly and then slap 25% extra on that -- food, too! -- and you still have to pay your LOCAL and STATE sales taxes.
DO THE MATH. It's not a "small payroll tax". It would be a giant tax increase in every form of taxation that exists, plus many new taxes.
The hippie Democrats knew what they were doing in Austin, Texas in the '70's when they elected a state senator named Lloyd Doggett to clean up cronyism in the state. He lead the charge for a good government bill known as "Sunset Legislation" that put every state agency out of work each decade unless reauthorized by a majority vote in the Legislature. While not perfect, this tactic updates agencies' missions and keeps them relevant. And without this renewal agencies get calcified, entrenched, constipated and owned by special interests.
Revolution comes when institutions don't evolve. Doggett is Austin's Congressman now and he would make a good President.
Revolution comes when institutions don't evolve. Doggett is Austin's Congressman now and he would make a good President.
3
1. America is the richest big country in the history of mankind. Average American today is in the top 5% richest people in the world and top 1% richest who ever lived.
2. America cannot live within its means and simply spend what is makes.
The conflict these 2 truths raise will need to be resolved soon. Can you guess how?
2. America cannot live within its means and simply spend what is makes.
The conflict these 2 truths raise will need to be resolved soon. Can you guess how?
No J. Number 2 doesn't make sense.
Substitute the actual names of the perpetraitors [sic] in every place you have said "America" and you've really got something there.
Correct. The richest country in the world going $19T into debt doesn't make sense. That is my point.
The alternative to a government program is usually privatization so the wealthy can jack up prices and make profits. Or paperwork asking for tax breaks, which will always help the rich more. Or just a partial needs-based compromise. One example of the latter: It took my family 10 hours to fill out a financial aid form, even though we won't qualify it had to be done. Why do the citizens of almost every other developed nation get 'free' (tax-paid) tuition, and we don't?
This doesn't have to be portrayed as ideological. A population just needs to decide how much it is willing to spend on 'the commons' and what should be included. Republicans would mostly vote to let the middle-class become poor, and only spend money on weapons (really not even military salaries or health benefits)...maybe settle on 20% of gdp for the commons, and keep driving up the national debt to try to force further cuts, while Democrats mostly would only flinch and say enough at 33% (and hence would also drive up the debt less).
This doesn't have to be portrayed as ideological. A population just needs to decide how much it is willing to spend on 'the commons' and what should be included. Republicans would mostly vote to let the middle-class become poor, and only spend money on weapons (really not even military salaries or health benefits)...maybe settle on 20% of gdp for the commons, and keep driving up the national debt to try to force further cuts, while Democrats mostly would only flinch and say enough at 33% (and hence would also drive up the debt less).
6
Sounds like weak tea. Hope we can do better. Go Bernie.
8
The thesis here seems a bit questionable given the rising visibility of inequality and anger of the of the public as is being evidenced by the results of the primaries. Are Republicans going to fight the next election on the basis of attacking the 47%, the moochers? Republicans constantly claim the country is ideologically center right. Even if this still true (and it seems questionable given the last six presidential election results) their problem is that the country is functionally liberal. This shows even on the Republican side for whom all federal spending is evil unless it's directed to my state, my donors, solving a catastrophe, or boosting the military. For example Flint or that nuclear fuel processing plant in SC. Republicans love small government until some natural disaster hits, a product kills people, the financial system collapses, a plane fall out of the sky. Recent examples: Sandy, Ex Im, Ignition switches. It's the hole in the doughnut of Republican philosophy.
7
What the author writes of, is really, The Social Democratic Welfare State Model , pursued by all western democracies. There are examples of course where such a model is working. Germany, and the Nordic countires are examples, as is our northern neighbor, The Canadians. The Clintons are tradtional insiders, who have experience with the limitations of Government being the total redistributor of wealth. The Social Democratic Welfare State Model has numerous benefits for equalization, but in our large populated country, the math shows it is not sustainable. Germany makes it work, as they export key end products, with few, or no competitors, and export all over the world, as well as controllong export GDP to EU memebers. Nordic cradle to grave taxation in exchange for security is a culture. How we could get here from where we are , is un-clear. So few of us pay so much of the taxation. Can we pay more, is questionable. The banner of tz the 1% smells they have yhe ways and means to minimize taxation. Comprehensive tax reform is needed howere our lawmakers refuse to breach the idea.
1
Read Eurpean capitalism would not have survived w/o social welfare programs.
The Democrats need to stop the takeover of all the governorships by the GOP. Until they stop the bleeding and start fielding viable candidates for governors, their control of the states and voting districts (remember, next redistricting is in 4 short years) will be eroded further. This is true whether or not the next POTUS is Democratic or Republican.
13
Our author never once mentions the biggest program of all - the US military. Why does it go without saying that we need a big government program called the 'military' to ensure common defense, but not a big program to ensure basic healthcare for all citizens?
14
So Sanders' view is "being challenged by a new, more incremental liberalism, which centers on advancing liberal goals without big, universal programs — an approach being invented by President Obama and Mr. Sanders’s opponent, Hillary Clinton"? Gee whiz 'n Golly! Now I have to bide my remaining time, quietly whisper thanks for 'small favors' and forevermore listen to "makers and takers" Ryan look alikes.
Yeah, it's beginning to feel like "No Country for Old Men".
Where is this country's old verve? Oh, by the way, have we of a certain "ilk" forgotten this little mal mot: "If liberalism discredited itself, Obama woulda never gotten elected, and the New Deal woulda gone by the wayside, and LBJ woulda never gotten the Great Society. Liberalism does not discredit itself. It has to be explained and beaten back."
(Rush Limbaugh)
Gone are the days...
Yeah, it's beginning to feel like "No Country for Old Men".
Where is this country's old verve? Oh, by the way, have we of a certain "ilk" forgotten this little mal mot: "If liberalism discredited itself, Obama woulda never gotten elected, and the New Deal woulda gone by the wayside, and LBJ woulda never gotten the Great Society. Liberalism does not discredit itself. It has to be explained and beaten back."
(Rush Limbaugh)
Gone are the days...
4
As long as this country still manages to educated its young to have a heart, the social programs that built our nation will continue to build us all into a country that is EQUALLY wealthy, wise, healthy and strong. The only thing that can stop this is if those young people do not carry through, register, and VOTE.
The Republicans know this and are doing their best to discourage that.
There seems to be no doubt that the young voters can save this country in November. We all must help them to make it happen.
The Republicans know this and are doing their best to discourage that.
There seems to be no doubt that the young voters can save this country in November. We all must help them to make it happen.
2
Is the Era of Big-Program Liberalism Over? NO!!!
When we have long periods of Conservative economic policy it always results in income inequality and financial market instability. The Conservative economic policy has always been to shift the cost of government on the lower classes by reducing taxes. They want a laissez-faire regulatory environment which leads to financial instability.
These policies were started by Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover in the 1920's which led to income inequality and the Great Depression. This was followed by a progressive era initiated by FDR which re-balanced the social contract and led to a forty year era of sustained growth and emergence of a middle class. Ronald Reagan renamed the same policies "supply side economics" and once again imposed them on the country. George Bush put these policies on steroids. The outcome was the same - income inequality and financial instability a.k.a the Great Recession.
Now America is in the mood to re-balance the social contract. This will occur one way or another. It will be done either by political means or by force. Either by the ballot box or by the pitch fork, torch, and guillotine. That's the way this always ends when the elite start believing that they have a right to everything and don't have to pay for anything.
When we have long periods of Conservative economic policy it always results in income inequality and financial market instability. The Conservative economic policy has always been to shift the cost of government on the lower classes by reducing taxes. They want a laissez-faire regulatory environment which leads to financial instability.
These policies were started by Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover in the 1920's which led to income inequality and the Great Depression. This was followed by a progressive era initiated by FDR which re-balanced the social contract and led to a forty year era of sustained growth and emergence of a middle class. Ronald Reagan renamed the same policies "supply side economics" and once again imposed them on the country. George Bush put these policies on steroids. The outcome was the same - income inequality and financial instability a.k.a the Great Recession.
Now America is in the mood to re-balance the social contract. This will occur one way or another. It will be done either by political means or by force. Either by the ballot box or by the pitch fork, torch, and guillotine. That's the way this always ends when the elite start believing that they have a right to everything and don't have to pay for anything.
6
This piece is very oddly timed, coming as it does on the heels of a decisive Sanders victory. The fact that Sanders is doing as well as he his--and Trump, too, who is not exactly a small-government conservative--seems to speak directly against the thrust of this article's point--that big government programs are a dying breed. That is, in part, precisely what is in question, and to make the point now that big gov. programs are on the way out, is to read into the crystal ball precisely when it is becoming more and more blurred.
3
If Barack Obama is the epitome of incremental reform rather than of large, overarching programs affecting large classes of people, what exactly was Obamacare? And if the future belongs to such a supposed incremental approach and not to big programs such as being pushed by Bernie Sanders, why does he seem to be winning the Democratic primaries?
Much is being made of the split on the right between the GOP establishment and much of its base, and how clueless that party's elites are to the policy wishes of most of its supporters. Apparently the same situation pertains on the left as well, with wishful prognostications such as this positing futures according to the desires of the Democratic establishment while that future may be being taken out of its hands by its own voters.
Much is being made of the split on the right between the GOP establishment and much of its base, and how clueless that party's elites are to the policy wishes of most of its supporters. Apparently the same situation pertains on the left as well, with wishful prognostications such as this positing futures according to the desires of the Democratic establishment while that future may be being taken out of its hands by its own voters.
1
You know your perspective is skewed when you consider Obamacare incremental change.
1
No, but the Era of Hot Button Clickbait is going strong..
9
People like big programs. They want someone else to pay for them. This is what always limits big programs, the middle class does not want to pay, and, without them, there is not enough tax money to pay for all of the new, big, programs.
6
Take another look at a pie chart of all federal government spending. That enormous, more than 50% wedge is one place where the tax money can come from -- in the corporate welfare disguised as a defense budget.
8
This article is predictable as the result of Sanders' success . The writer should concentrate on this fact. Either the government works for the people or it works for the oligarchs. One way or another the oligarch class will fall. It's up to the writer and the New York Times to decide which side of history they want to be on. The rest of us have already made that choice.
14
Which big programs aren't still in place? The military/industrial complex is thriving, making millions of dollars worth of bombs to drop in deserts. Big Ag just gets more support every year. Big Pharma just gets whatever it wants since we don't negotiate. Big Insurance gets the corporate punch it needs to provide less quality & higher CEO salary. Industrial Private Prisons are bankrupting states and incarcerating millions of minorities for minor offences. Seems to me the rigged Wall Street system is doing fine for the 1%, just doesn't have much to offer me. No more incrementalism. I'm working for Bernie!
12
Relatively soon just the INTEREST on our national debt will be larger than our entire military budget so I suggest you concentrate on the REAL problem instead of the same old, same old.
3
It really is time to acknowledge that the big earners in this country don't receive the bulk of their pay in a weekly paycheck. As a result, much of their earnings are either beyond the reach of the taxman, or taxed at such a low rate that the rest of us are, in effect, subsidizing them. We should begin taxing all of the compensation of the wealthy, no matter how received, including interest and dividends, at a rate upwards of 40% and to have them contribute 6.2% of all their compensation to the social security system and at least 1.45% of all their compensation to the medicare system.
7
I'm always amazed at how many legal immigrant families come here, work hard, take advantage of our education system, and live much better lives than they were living in their native countries.
Many native born citizens pass up these same opportunities and sit around and whine about how bad it is. I've had the opportunity through military service and a career with a defense contractor to spend time in places as one of my coworkers liked to say "Mother Theresa wouldn't come to". The United States has its problems but its still a place that provides excellent opportunities. Those opportunities may not be in the place you want to live, or where your family is. You might have to be mobile like the legal immigrants.
Many native born citizens pass up these same opportunities and sit around and whine about how bad it is. I've had the opportunity through military service and a career with a defense contractor to spend time in places as one of my coworkers liked to say "Mother Theresa wouldn't come to". The United States has its problems but its still a place that provides excellent opportunities. Those opportunities may not be in the place you want to live, or where your family is. You might have to be mobile like the legal immigrants.
10
Well said, Ken. The idea that somehow the American dream is out of reach is pure fiction concocted by the lazy and envious. Work hard, study hard, live below your means, and save, save, save.
1
How can government serve all its citizens through universal programs when they refuse to truly enforce existing immigration laws?
Who is paying for the healthcare and education of everyone who lands here illegally? How much can they really wring out of billionaires?
'Open immigration cannot exist with a strong social safety net'
Democrats need to choose who they are supporting because right now they only talk about helping American citizens. Actions speak louder than words.
Who is paying for the healthcare and education of everyone who lands here illegally? How much can they really wring out of billionaires?
'Open immigration cannot exist with a strong social safety net'
Democrats need to choose who they are supporting because right now they only talk about helping American citizens. Actions speak louder than words.
5
And this is why the hold that the Supreme Court has put on Obama's Clean Power Plan is so important. The Supreme Court has likewise invoked the "Take Care" clause in the Constitution which requires the President to faithfully execute the laws of this nation.
By contrast Obama (and his protege Hillary) are pushing for the "submerged state" (meaning Executive Orders, regulation and financial incentives) to clandestinely transform America without Congressional approval. By contrast, the Constitution calls for a system of "checks and balances" where the President (in most cases) may NOT act alone and instead needs to cooperate with Congress to get things done.
As has been noted before, Hillary and Sanders have fairly similar goals - to turn America into a European-socialist nation. While I disagree, I can at least respect Sanders who wants to do so with the support of the people and their representatives in Congress. By contrast, Obama and Hillary treat America like the frog in the slowly warming pot where "Citizens don’t see or feel these initiatives." The problem with this is that eventually the water boils and the frog dies.
By contrast Obama (and his protege Hillary) are pushing for the "submerged state" (meaning Executive Orders, regulation and financial incentives) to clandestinely transform America without Congressional approval. By contrast, the Constitution calls for a system of "checks and balances" where the President (in most cases) may NOT act alone and instead needs to cooperate with Congress to get things done.
As has been noted before, Hillary and Sanders have fairly similar goals - to turn America into a European-socialist nation. While I disagree, I can at least respect Sanders who wants to do so with the support of the people and their representatives in Congress. By contrast, Obama and Hillary treat America like the frog in the slowly warming pot where "Citizens don’t see or feel these initiatives." The problem with this is that eventually the water boils and the frog dies.
5
Economic systems are not like the the beautifully self-contained systems one finds in nature or physics or mathematics, as much as many economists want them to be. They are human-made and therefore imperfect, and it is the role of government to regulate them so that they work effectively for as many people as possible and create an equal playing field for all: if you put in an honest day's work to the best of your individual abilities, you should be able to have a solid roof over your head a reasonable distance from your workplace, and pay a proportionate share of taxes to cover schools, health care, infrastructure and public safety.
For some reason there are many people in the United States who agree with what I just said while voting for politicians who don't. They demand just as many government services as everyone else while trying to deny them to others. This is fundamentally illogical and unfair, but they've got an entire political party to back them up.
Carter, Clinton and Obama tried to negotiate this political terrain by "reaching across the aisle" with piecemeal legislation. This doesn't really work for anyone: the insufficient programs that result are ineffective, and the Republicans get more intransigent despite these efforts.
If we elect Clinton the gridlock will just continue. If we elect an "establishment" Republican the cycle will continue. That's why Sanders and Trump are winning; being "realistic" isn't realistic anymore.
For some reason there are many people in the United States who agree with what I just said while voting for politicians who don't. They demand just as many government services as everyone else while trying to deny them to others. This is fundamentally illogical and unfair, but they've got an entire political party to back them up.
Carter, Clinton and Obama tried to negotiate this political terrain by "reaching across the aisle" with piecemeal legislation. This doesn't really work for anyone: the insufficient programs that result are ineffective, and the Republicans get more intransigent despite these efforts.
If we elect Clinton the gridlock will just continue. If we elect an "establishment" Republican the cycle will continue. That's why Sanders and Trump are winning; being "realistic" isn't realistic anymore.
5
where do you find these establishment types who cannot see the forest for the trees. This person obviously never has seen or experienced people power. He has not seen what the power of a Sanders who all people can see that Bernie cares. This writer is establishment who forget Obama's bailout of banks (His version of hope and change) Holder's lack of jailing bankers, Bush's Iraq war, Federal Reserve destroying savers, bad behavior bring rewarded and lobbyist working against the people. This writer does not hear or feel the anger for he is part of the problem. A great big wave is forming (people like this writer does not think a 20 plus point trouncing of Hillary is sending a message. How about letting me write an editorial. How
about asking Obama, Billy Clinton if this is all a reaction to their version of being a Democrat.
about asking Obama, Billy Clinton if this is all a reaction to their version of being a Democrat.
1
I like Bernie and his new deal ideas- I really do. I love the fact that his appeal is getting young people to get involved in the voting process- that is worth gold.
I just want to caution folks.....if we really want another New Deal- and I do- we also need to prepare people of the cost of these programs. We have had low taxes for so long- it will be a major sticker shock in terms of the tax increases. Bernie's numbers don't add up so in the end, he will have to raise taxes in order to achieve his proposals. If we go too far to the left and have too high a tax bill- there will be a backlash. That's why governing from the middle/left may not make everyone happy- but it does have a better chance to make progressive policies a reality in increments that will be acceptable to everyone. People say they want change- but the Dems couldn't even get the vote out n the last mid term election when control of the Senate went to the GOP. We need commitment long term to sustain change and we need people to vote even when they see their taxes go up and not turn out to be so called Reagan democrats- that would be a disaster. Something to consider...
I just want to caution folks.....if we really want another New Deal- and I do- we also need to prepare people of the cost of these programs. We have had low taxes for so long- it will be a major sticker shock in terms of the tax increases. Bernie's numbers don't add up so in the end, he will have to raise taxes in order to achieve his proposals. If we go too far to the left and have too high a tax bill- there will be a backlash. That's why governing from the middle/left may not make everyone happy- but it does have a better chance to make progressive policies a reality in increments that will be acceptable to everyone. People say they want change- but the Dems couldn't even get the vote out n the last mid term election when control of the Senate went to the GOP. We need commitment long term to sustain change and we need people to vote even when they see their taxes go up and not turn out to be so called Reagan democrats- that would be a disaster. Something to consider...
6
You're writing to tell us - the day after Bernie Sanders won 60% of the vote in New Hampshire - that 'big-program liberalism' is over. Then you proceed to point out for us how Hillary and Obama are basically middle of the roaders, i.e. center-right conservatives, because they are all about creating mere 'complicated' re-arrangements and 'nudges' to existing programs (your words).
Is the era of 'big-program liberalism' over? Read the news. It's not!
Is the era of 'big-program liberalism' over? Read the news. It's not!
3
The "more incremental liberalism" spoken of by Mr. Schmitt, the author of this piece, isn't really liberalism at all. As "invented" by President Obama, it was a way of advancing ideas that used to enjoy bipartisan support. Remember, what is now known as Obamacare was based largely on the health care plan put in place in Massachusetts under Republican governor Mitt Romney.
The battle of what government should be and what it should do used to be more clearly drawn, with liberal Democrats on one side, and conservative Republicans on the other. While the two parties differed in their idea of how government should function, they were largely in accord that the country needed certain things. The approach differed, but the goals used to be the same, which is why Eisenhower supported Social Security and built the Interstate Highway System. Even Nixon was a liberal by today's standards.
In the last 35 years, however, the Republican Party has simply abandoned conservative principles to become the anti-government party of rich individuals and corporations. Congressional Republicans worked as hard as they could to prevent the fixing of catastrophic problems coused by the last Republican presidential administration. They did so quite openly, brazenly, and proudly. They have become "anti-America" if America has a Democratic president.
You don't take back the government from such people with "incremental liberalism". You call them out, build a movement, and sweep them out.
The battle of what government should be and what it should do used to be more clearly drawn, with liberal Democrats on one side, and conservative Republicans on the other. While the two parties differed in their idea of how government should function, they were largely in accord that the country needed certain things. The approach differed, but the goals used to be the same, which is why Eisenhower supported Social Security and built the Interstate Highway System. Even Nixon was a liberal by today's standards.
In the last 35 years, however, the Republican Party has simply abandoned conservative principles to become the anti-government party of rich individuals and corporations. Congressional Republicans worked as hard as they could to prevent the fixing of catastrophic problems coused by the last Republican presidential administration. They did so quite openly, brazenly, and proudly. They have become "anti-America" if America has a Democratic president.
You don't take back the government from such people with "incremental liberalism". You call them out, build a movement, and sweep them out.
2
It's a myth that conservatives fully supported Romneycare or the Heritage's plan. They did not. Even Romney admitted that his predecessor loosened controls to the point where costs could not be contained.
1
Yes, dead and buried, thank goodness. The electorate is angry at government and will never trust a 'big-program' idea again. Translated 'big-program' means a big entitlement. We cannot pay for the entitlements we have and liberals what to start more. Insane.
6
How about safe streets and bridges. Clean air and water. good schools and well maintained national parks. Adequate and guaranteed pensions for our workers.
How about schools where students can participate in sports or music without having to pay hundreds of dollars that puts a hurt on many family budgets,
I don't know what has happened to this country but the legislatures seem not to address the real problems that face people on the streets where they live. Too many are caught up in social issues or gun issues. These should be side shows and nit the main event.
The Congress says it is going to work on a budget, The infighting has already begun, The President's OMB has already been spurned. Let's see how much of this budget sets aside money to address the issues noted above,
How about schools where students can participate in sports or music without having to pay hundreds of dollars that puts a hurt on many family budgets,
I don't know what has happened to this country but the legislatures seem not to address the real problems that face people on the streets where they live. Too many are caught up in social issues or gun issues. These should be side shows and nit the main event.
The Congress says it is going to work on a budget, The infighting has already begun, The President's OMB has already been spurned. Let's see how much of this budget sets aside money to address the issues noted above,
1
Too big to govern. Just look at the rollout of Obamacare, only a front end system and not even a complete processing system, if there's any doubt the government has grown too big for administrators to manage.
Combing the unwieldiness of big government with an executive not up to the task gets us a disaster followed by Congress' jamming on the brakes.
Combing the unwieldiness of big government with an executive not up to the task gets us a disaster followed by Congress' jamming on the brakes.
1
We can pay just fine what we can't seem to do is tax fairly.
The huge "increase in wealth" to the 1% over the last 36 years is the money that used to go to paying living wages and taxes that kept the people working and the government functioning to create the society and economy that made those people wealthy to begin with.
For 36 years they have been taking that wealth away from where it should go and allowing the nation to fall to pieces. Each day as it gets worse it becomes more and more easy for them to do as they please and extract even more wealth from us.
The huge "increase in wealth" to the 1% over the last 36 years is the money that used to go to paying living wages and taxes that kept the people working and the government functioning to create the society and economy that made those people wealthy to begin with.
For 36 years they have been taking that wealth away from where it should go and allowing the nation to fall to pieces. Each day as it gets worse it becomes more and more easy for them to do as they please and extract even more wealth from us.
This is the only way to drive reform "in the current political configuration." There the author is correct. President Obama became a pragmatist and incrementalist by default not by choice. Neither he nor most Democrats consciously choose a strategy of piecemeal change that the author concedes is largely invisible. What the author describes is not a post-New Deal change in strategy but a largely failed attempt to work from within to hold back the complete capture of government by financial interests. Bernie Sanders has elected to attack the political configuration rather than continuing the futile approach of the last two decades. What many Americans are saying, even if the NYT won't admit it, is that the era of low ambition pragmatism and appeasement needs to end.
1
So the choice is between rearranging the deck chairs or turning the ship to avoid the wall of ice bergs. We've tried selling off the furniture and moving it around. We see where the greed based economy with almost no restraint has gotten us in less than a generation. It is time that we do some serious remodeling.
4
In other words, let them eat cake. Expect more articles like this from the New York Times and others but the electorate isn't listening. They want the big ideas Bernie is demanding. They want government to work for them. This train has left the station. There's no stopping it now.
5
Oh, you wish. Sorry dear, there is going to be a big resurgence of Big-Program Liberalism with the election of Clinton or Sanders.
You can start your "big government is being too nice to the poor" rant now.
Started? When has it ever stopped.
You can start your "big government is being too nice to the poor" rant now.
Started? When has it ever stopped.
2
As much as I like it, the free tuition gambit, as Bernie expresses it, assumes Federal takeover and control of State and Local education institutions such as the SUNYs and CUNYs. I don't see what mechanism could be put in place to effect that. And i am afraid that any grants or incentives would simply be swallowed by the Governors and Mayors and diverted to more "pressing" needs. The best way to accomplish this is to restore the direct Federal grants to students themselves like the old Pell Grants that vanished under Reagan and others.
3
"And the cautiousness of most Democratic candidates about taxes makes it difficult to push for new programs." Cautiousness? Really? How much of this purported cautiousness is really caution, and how much is unwillingness to bite the hand that feeds them -- the hand from which tax increases must come, and the hand that funds their campaigns?
1
IMO, the 'Era of Big-Program Liberal' was emphatically over the day America elected Ronald Reagan, and survives today only because politicians can be so easily bought by wealthy oligarchs, and coprporatons with 'personhood'. America will acceleratingly continue on this path until we reach the kind of anarchy that triggered the Bolshevik revolution.
1
Big government liberalism never went away, folks. That's just something some Americans like to pretend away.
The Defense Department is the largest social welfare program on the planet at over $625 billion a year, and America's right-wing champions feeding that beast evidenced by numerous House measures to increase defense spending by $50 billion/year.
In early 2005, after President Bush gleefully admitted that his re-election victory afforded him "political capital", he squandered it all on his scheme to privatize Social Security. That didn't crash and burn because of liberals, that happened because Republican voters aged 65+ went crazy over his attempt to do that. By the way, voters over 65 are a majority Republican, just like those employed in America's armed services.
In every poll you can find, a majority of voters, including Republicans, say they want Medicare strengthened, not weakened or cut or worse, privatized.
Republicans enjoy their socialist-capitalist hybrid of a country, and so too do Independents, only more often than not, these people have been brainwashed to believe that "liberalism" and "socialism" are bad words.
The Defense Department is the largest social welfare program on the planet at over $625 billion a year, and America's right-wing champions feeding that beast evidenced by numerous House measures to increase defense spending by $50 billion/year.
In early 2005, after President Bush gleefully admitted that his re-election victory afforded him "political capital", he squandered it all on his scheme to privatize Social Security. That didn't crash and burn because of liberals, that happened because Republican voters aged 65+ went crazy over his attempt to do that. By the way, voters over 65 are a majority Republican, just like those employed in America's armed services.
In every poll you can find, a majority of voters, including Republicans, say they want Medicare strengthened, not weakened or cut or worse, privatized.
Republicans enjoy their socialist-capitalist hybrid of a country, and so too do Independents, only more often than not, these people have been brainwashed to believe that "liberalism" and "socialism" are bad words.
96
They love their conscious dissociation too.
Look, I agree that the Defense Department spends too much money principally because we perceive ourselves as the "world's policeman". But that $625 bn you mention is only 18% of our budget and far smaller than the $2.4 tn or 63% of our budget in redistribution programs.
And yes, people generally like programs like Social Security and Medicare. Why wouldn't they ? The average person collects about $200,000 in Medicare benefits but only pays about $61,000 in Medicare taxes and premiums. As any cashier knows, if you keep handing out two $10 bills in exchange for a $5 bill, you quickly run out of money. Social Security is forecast to be insolvent within 15 years.
Sure, we need to take care of our elderly who cannot take care of themselves. But we also need to do it in a way where we can pay our bills and not rack up so much debt that we now owe $19 trillion or about 102% of GDP. That puts us in the company of Belgium and Portugal and not too far from Greece.
Giving money to help others is humane. But giving away everything to the point of destitution is lunacy.
And yes, people generally like programs like Social Security and Medicare. Why wouldn't they ? The average person collects about $200,000 in Medicare benefits but only pays about $61,000 in Medicare taxes and premiums. As any cashier knows, if you keep handing out two $10 bills in exchange for a $5 bill, you quickly run out of money. Social Security is forecast to be insolvent within 15 years.
Sure, we need to take care of our elderly who cannot take care of themselves. But we also need to do it in a way where we can pay our bills and not rack up so much debt that we now owe $19 trillion or about 102% of GDP. That puts us in the company of Belgium and Portugal and not too far from Greece.
Giving money to help others is humane. But giving away everything to the point of destitution is lunacy.
1
@Princeton2015: I agree with you on some points, but on SS and Medicare you are incorrect.
SS will not be "insolvent" in 15 years; it will have enough funds on hand at minimum to pay 75% of benefits. The payroll will have to go up to make up the shortfall. The payroll tax is unrealistically low and has not been changed in eons.
You state the average person gets $200K in benefits but only pays $61K in taxes & premiums. You are way off. It's $300K in benefits, but about $100K in taxes & premiums. And you forget a big thing -- INTEREST. If I paid nothing for SS and Medicre payroll tax, then I'd have had that $100K WITH INTEREST over 40 years. Do you know how much interest compiles in FOUR DECADES? Before 2009 and Obama, people actually got interest on their savings! At one time, in the 80s, I was getting 11% interest on savings. Up until Obama, I was getting at least 3%. DO THE MATH.
With INTEREST, people pay in about $100K -- and take out $300K -- meaning they actually leave a little bit on the table.
You also forget the many people who paid in for a lifetime, then die and collect nothing back. My mom died at 57. My uncle at 63. They did not collect one dime of SS or Medicare, but paid in each for over 35 years.
SS will not be "insolvent" in 15 years; it will have enough funds on hand at minimum to pay 75% of benefits. The payroll will have to go up to make up the shortfall. The payroll tax is unrealistically low and has not been changed in eons.
You state the average person gets $200K in benefits but only pays $61K in taxes & premiums. You are way off. It's $300K in benefits, but about $100K in taxes & premiums. And you forget a big thing -- INTEREST. If I paid nothing for SS and Medicre payroll tax, then I'd have had that $100K WITH INTEREST over 40 years. Do you know how much interest compiles in FOUR DECADES? Before 2009 and Obama, people actually got interest on their savings! At one time, in the 80s, I was getting 11% interest on savings. Up until Obama, I was getting at least 3%. DO THE MATH.
With INTEREST, people pay in about $100K -- and take out $300K -- meaning they actually leave a little bit on the table.
You also forget the many people who paid in for a lifetime, then die and collect nothing back. My mom died at 57. My uncle at 63. They did not collect one dime of SS or Medicare, but paid in each for over 35 years.
1
As soon as I caught the drift of this piece, I scrolled down and sure enough, saw it issued from the "New America Foundation."
Its purveying of shop-worn, Clintonesque, third way, end-of-welfare-as-we-know-it type ideas was the giveaway.
It's ideas like these that now seem old-fashioned.
In our post-recession, post-Piketty world, large segments of the population are realizing that these old ways of capitulating to the wealthy, to corporations, and to neoliberal orthodoxy have outlived their usefulness.
"New America": any time a group has to call itself new, you can tell history is passing it by.
Its purveying of shop-worn, Clintonesque, third way, end-of-welfare-as-we-know-it type ideas was the giveaway.
It's ideas like these that now seem old-fashioned.
In our post-recession, post-Piketty world, large segments of the population are realizing that these old ways of capitulating to the wealthy, to corporations, and to neoliberal orthodoxy have outlived their usefulness.
"New America": any time a group has to call itself new, you can tell history is passing it by.
5
The thing is, if people could earn a living wage so that a bump in the road didn't drive them into in debt, paying 29% interest or more, there would be less of a need for big government programs. Bernie Sanders message is not only that he will create those programs, but also that billionaires will pay their fair share.
And it's not just a matter of taxing the rich. Repealing Glass-Steagall, entering
into democracy-destroying trade deals, appointing big-money insiders like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as policy makers and advisers, were incremental changes in the wrong direction. When those incremental changes mount up and the upward redistribution of wealth (and power) leaves the average citizen behind, small steps do not do the trick. A reversal, a revolutionary reversal, even, is what is needed.
And it's not just a matter of taxing the rich. Repealing Glass-Steagall, entering
into democracy-destroying trade deals, appointing big-money insiders like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as policy makers and advisers, were incremental changes in the wrong direction. When those incremental changes mount up and the upward redistribution of wealth (and power) leaves the average citizen behind, small steps do not do the trick. A reversal, a revolutionary reversal, even, is what is needed.
8
Framing this as "Big Program" (aka "Big Government") and "Liberalism" buys into the Clinton and for that matter conservative talking points. Buy that language and your open to years of conservative propaganda. Seems like NYT pundits and guest opinions approach this as defending Clinton or attacking Sanders on these terms. Noted by many commenters for at least several weeks.
Talk in actionable terms with real meaning to real people.
Talk in actionable terms with real meaning to real people.
5
This is really a sneak attack against Sanders along the lines of Brooks, bait and switch/trojan horse columns.
The far right has gained control through big policy so clearly it works. Sanders is saying fight fire with fire rather than trying to have to tunnel out deceptively like those Mexican drug lords who dig tunnels to escape from jail.
To recommend to sneak out like some sort of criminal is no way to be a leader. No, stand up and be counted for what you believe.
The far right has gained control through big policy so clearly it works. Sanders is saying fight fire with fire rather than trying to have to tunnel out deceptively like those Mexican drug lords who dig tunnels to escape from jail.
To recommend to sneak out like some sort of criminal is no way to be a leader. No, stand up and be counted for what you believe.
4
I think America has turned into a country where people want big programs but do not want to pay for them. I am sure most Americans would agree free college for all is very nice, tell them their taxes will go up 5% to pay for it and see what happens. Same holds true for health care. Ask anybody if they want free health care and you will get "Sure" tell them their taxes will go up 10% to pay for it and see the outcome. There will always be people who do not want to be part of a big program and will get the supreme court to allow them to opt out. The days of FDR and LBJ are gone, small programs and fixing the ones on the books are the way to go.
6
What Mr. Schmitt should be asking is whether the era of incrementalism, always ineffective, is now ending. We haven't seen incrementalism when it comes to fashioning big government programs for corporations and the wealthy. Their employees in Congress and elsewhere in the permanent government are quite effective on their behalf. Yes, Bernie's approach won't work unless we have a wave election at all levels, but we the people haven't exactly had much to vote for in the past.
It appears to me that NH voters last night in both parties voted for dramatic action by government. They might use different language, but they want action.
It appears to me that NH voters last night in both parties voted for dramatic action by government. They might use different language, but they want action.
8
"It’s more than just congressional intransigence and polarization that led liberals to move beyond big new programs."
No, actually that's it. And it's Republican intransigence, especially regarding taxing and big government programs. It's the Fox News/talk radio misinformation system that makes large segments of the public unaware that Medicare is a government program or that governments provide the roads they drive on, etc., etc. Yes, and "on the one hand this, on the other that", uncritical journalism that gives equal weight to truth and falsehood.
So Liberals do the best they can under the circumstances.
No, actually that's it. And it's Republican intransigence, especially regarding taxing and big government programs. It's the Fox News/talk radio misinformation system that makes large segments of the public unaware that Medicare is a government program or that governments provide the roads they drive on, etc., etc. Yes, and "on the one hand this, on the other that", uncritical journalism that gives equal weight to truth and falsehood.
So Liberals do the best they can under the circumstances.
8
The analogy below was written to cover the case of health care, but the principle applies to this column. That is that because we deny a basic fact, we have to adopt extremely complex policies to make things appear to work.
Another fact denied is that every time we have balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a depression.
The Heliocentric Theory of Health Care Reform
Before Copernicus and Kepler, people generally believed the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, but as we got more data it became increasing hard to reconcile this basic idea with the observed facts. People thought up the Ptolemaic system in which the heavenly bodies didn't just revolve around the earth, but they revolved in small circles called epicycles as they went around the earth. That eventually turned out not to be sufficient, so they hypothesized epicycles within the epicycles. The last iteration of the Ptolemaic system was an incredible complicated mess that was almost beautiful in it's complexity.
That's what we are doing today with health care reform. We wanted a "uniquely American solution." We wanted to keep the private insurance industry. We wanted the sun to go around the earth.
So we talk about mandates, exchanges, reference pricing, death spirals, etc. The problem of adverse selection is an example. We need some more epicycles. We wound up with a bill with thousands of pages whose result is unknown.
Another fact denied is that every time we have balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a depression.
The Heliocentric Theory of Health Care Reform
Before Copernicus and Kepler, people generally believed the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, but as we got more data it became increasing hard to reconcile this basic idea with the observed facts. People thought up the Ptolemaic system in which the heavenly bodies didn't just revolve around the earth, but they revolved in small circles called epicycles as they went around the earth. That eventually turned out not to be sufficient, so they hypothesized epicycles within the epicycles. The last iteration of the Ptolemaic system was an incredible complicated mess that was almost beautiful in it's complexity.
That's what we are doing today with health care reform. We wanted a "uniquely American solution." We wanted to keep the private insurance industry. We wanted the sun to go around the earth.
So we talk about mandates, exchanges, reference pricing, death spirals, etc. The problem of adverse selection is an example. We need some more epicycles. We wound up with a bill with thousands of pages whose result is unknown.
3
Here is what I love about Bernie. He is bringing back "We the people of the United States of America". Going to vote for Bernie no matter what you print.
Bernie 2016
Bernie 2016
6
Massive tax cuts for the rich are big programs.
So are bank bailouts, dismantling of welfare "as we know it," a couple of wars charged to the nation's credit card, voter suppression, non-regulated fracking, open carry and the outlawing of abortion clinics.
From the supposedly progressive side we got a few band-aids when intrusive surgery was needed: ACA instead of single-payer, Dodd-Frank instead of Glass-Steagal, unworkable assistance hand-outs for millions of foreclosed working class families instead of a massive rescue plan (that would have cost much less than bank bailout with a much better outcome.)
The problem isn't about incremental vs radical choices in the political game: it is about fairness and honesty in governing, something the NYT seems to have lost sight of.
So are bank bailouts, dismantling of welfare "as we know it," a couple of wars charged to the nation's credit card, voter suppression, non-regulated fracking, open carry and the outlawing of abortion clinics.
From the supposedly progressive side we got a few band-aids when intrusive surgery was needed: ACA instead of single-payer, Dodd-Frank instead of Glass-Steagal, unworkable assistance hand-outs for millions of foreclosed working class families instead of a massive rescue plan (that would have cost much less than bank bailout with a much better outcome.)
The problem isn't about incremental vs radical choices in the political game: it is about fairness and honesty in governing, something the NYT seems to have lost sight of.
8
"Be bold and giant forces will come to your aid." Incremental liberalism is left wing Republicanism masquerading as a moderate Democratic philosophy. Every time any big Democratic program designed to enhance the welfare of most Americans is suggested, those most entrenched beneficiaries of the status quo oppose it vehemently with complaints that either it won't work or it will cost too much. They lie. Their biggest fear is that it will take power from them. Conservatives do not oppose change; they just oppose change that benefits people other than themselves.
There are watershed moments in history where big changes are needed, where incrementalism does not work. Free public college education is such a change. More than 100 years ago, free public education through high school came into effect. No doubt many conservatives opposed it. Who can now say that it was a bad idea? Contemporary commerce now demands workers with a Bachelor's Degree. It is the 21st century version of a high school diploma. And the student loan program is just a scam among bankers and colleges with the complicity of the federal government that guarantees the loans. Recent graduates become indentured servants in order to pay their loans. It's a great way for the political/corporate establishment to keep them under control. A college education should lead to greater intellectual freedom not to fiscal oppression.
There are watershed moments in history where big changes are needed, where incrementalism does not work. Free public college education is such a change. More than 100 years ago, free public education through high school came into effect. No doubt many conservatives opposed it. Who can now say that it was a bad idea? Contemporary commerce now demands workers with a Bachelor's Degree. It is the 21st century version of a high school diploma. And the student loan program is just a scam among bankers and colleges with the complicity of the federal government that guarantees the loans. Recent graduates become indentured servants in order to pay their loans. It's a great way for the political/corporate establishment to keep them under control. A college education should lead to greater intellectual freedom not to fiscal oppression.
2
This is a concise summary of Clinton's platform. And a recognition that the hidden nature of the inadequate and admittedly modest benefits does not tend toward support among voters. I believe with Bernie the era of big programs will prove to be alive and well.
I think Bernie, not Hillary, is Obama's successor. Obama was stymied by congressional obfuscation and dysfunction. Dems need to focus more down-ticket than we have, and gerrymandering and the like is a big part of the problem. Bernie understands this and that is why he is calling for a revolution, meaning among other things that we must vote in a congress who will work with Bernie to bring about progressive change. Obama failed to focus on this. (I think he has been a great president and I supported him in both 2008 and 2012. )
Bernie can do it. Obama led the way and now, 8 years later, Bernie will succeed. I'm off to make another donation to Bernie. Yes, we can!
I think Bernie, not Hillary, is Obama's successor. Obama was stymied by congressional obfuscation and dysfunction. Dems need to focus more down-ticket than we have, and gerrymandering and the like is a big part of the problem. Bernie understands this and that is why he is calling for a revolution, meaning among other things that we must vote in a congress who will work with Bernie to bring about progressive change. Obama failed to focus on this. (I think he has been a great president and I supported him in both 2008 and 2012. )
Bernie can do it. Obama led the way and now, 8 years later, Bernie will succeed. I'm off to make another donation to Bernie. Yes, we can!
2
It's over only if you start to dismantle those programs.
1
Universal healthcare was instituted by Otto von Bismark in 1883, a royalist, not a liberal. Let's end portrayals of healthcare as a liberal program. It is a National Security program. Social Security, free college education for those qualified, the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and the rebuilding of our national infrastructure are all National Security issues. Only greedy idiots want to carve up every bit of what makes our country great, what makes our country possible for the profit of a handful of disloyal monsters who send our jobs and their profits overseas. How stupid are our leaders that they fail to rally around a message of hope and prosperity and abandon petty fiefdoms intent on pursuing the "top dollar". Health, infrastructure, education, renewable energy are not "big liberal" programs. Health, infrastructure, education, renewable energy are National Security issues and we fail to act at our peril.
5
It is called seeking a Fair Deal. What appears evident from the NH election & Iowa is that large numbers of Americans in both parties object to the current economic and political system structures, and seek a change.
4
Clinton's approach--tweaking and tinkering--is "if you can't beat them, join them." This is not a new liberalism, it is a moderate Republican approach, We have had enough of tinkering and tweaking; witness Obamacare, which leaves most people high and dry from deductibles, exclusions and copays, and leaves 29 million uninsured. It is a gift to big insurance.
Progressive programs are what the people want, and this is why we gave such a victory to Sanders. Ms. Clinton does not know what the word "progressive" means and has just stolen it from Sanders.
We are feeling the Bern.
Progressive programs are what the people want, and this is why we gave such a victory to Sanders. Ms. Clinton does not know what the word "progressive" means and has just stolen it from Sanders.
We are feeling the Bern.
115
You won't feeling the Bern so much if he wins the primaries and loses the White House to a Republican which will fundamentally change our country's ideals and trajectory with a Republican Congress and three or four Supreme Court Justices.
Well Nancy G if that happens we might finally get the revolution in the streets we should have had after this happened.
Wiki
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
Wiki
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
Not long ago Barack Obama told his followers that deficits and large debt are the biggest threat to American. In fact he said GW was unpatriotic and un-American.
It's not "triangulation", whatever that is, but the believe that government can drive the economy and solve all ills. But that is a false God.
Democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves these days love to pick the winners and losers.
Whereas the Conservatives believe everyone should have an opportunity. The further this country sinks into debt, the faster those opportunities disappear.
And Sanders should take a good look at the socialist states that are falling apart right before us, perhaps a side trip to Venezuela.
It's not "triangulation", whatever that is, but the believe that government can drive the economy and solve all ills. But that is a false God.
Democrats, liberals, progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves these days love to pick the winners and losers.
Whereas the Conservatives believe everyone should have an opportunity. The further this country sinks into debt, the faster those opportunities disappear.
And Sanders should take a good look at the socialist states that are falling apart right before us, perhaps a side trip to Venezuela.
5
"Is the Era of Big-Program Liberalism Over?"
NO!
NO!
2
The important part of this article is here:
"There are many downsides to building policy this way. It’s unlikely that the MyRA, for example, will be enough to meet the shortfall in Americans’ retirement savings or reduce inequality of wealth."
'nuff said.
"There are many downsides to building policy this way. It’s unlikely that the MyRA, for example, will be enough to meet the shortfall in Americans’ retirement savings or reduce inequality of wealth."
'nuff said.
2
How does the title of this column even make sense? How can one question if the "Era of Big-Program Liberalism is Over"...when that' what Bernie Sanders is all about?
Make no mistake, Republicans will rightly block every new program that Liberals propose--but Liberals want a much bigger role for government. The Left will not be happy until 99% of Americans are wards of the state--and the other 1% are in chains. Liberal hatred of successful people (those who eschew government help) knows no bounds. Their plan is to confiscate and spend. Big Liberal programs are part of their plans.
Make no mistake, Republicans will rightly block every new program that Liberals propose--but Liberals want a much bigger role for government. The Left will not be happy until 99% of Americans are wards of the state--and the other 1% are in chains. Liberal hatred of successful people (those who eschew government help) knows no bounds. Their plan is to confiscate and spend. Big Liberal programs are part of their plans.
1
Liberals don't hate success, they hate thieves and crooks and so should you, your brain has been washed by Fox and Rush, your just plain wrong but a conservative would never admit to being wrong about anything, ever.
2
Add up all the Federal, state and local taxes. Look at the 2% growth rate. Look at the demographics of an aging population. Watch corporations shifting money off shore. The log jam is in the math whether stupidity in Washington abets it or not.
2
A farmer tills the soil, fertilizes, plants, irrigates, and nutures the land. Is that a "transfer program"? The people of the people of the United States of Amerca are in investment in every aspect of national worth. The working class generates wealth that floats upward and STAYS there. That's not right.
Bernie wants the system to work for all classes of people. No Giveaways, only investments in human capital.... producing constructive and meaningful futures bolstered by education, training, jobs, infrastructure and a healty productive, taxpaying life. The economic machine must work for all the legs of production, not just the capitalist speculators.
Bernie wants the system to work for all classes of people. No Giveaways, only investments in human capital.... producing constructive and meaningful futures bolstered by education, training, jobs, infrastructure and a healty productive, taxpaying life. The economic machine must work for all the legs of production, not just the capitalist speculators.
1
Bill Clinton introduced us to neoliberalism, which accepted Ronald Reagan's premise that "government is the problem" and accepted the belief that market forces can deliver services better than the government. Democrats, afraid to reject Mr. Reagan's philosophy for fear of losing the huge donations needed to remain in office, have wholeheartedly embraced neoliberalism's faith in the "magic of the market". Because of this embrace of neoliberalism we now have:
=> Free trade agreements that offshore jobs, suppress wages, and increase environmental degradation and the wages of the oligarchs
=> "Emergency managers" making decisions on public policy based solely on reducing spending
=> An infrastructure that cannot be fixed because our public funds have been redirected to provide corporate tax breaks
=> Deregulated for-profit charter schools that reward shareholders but exclude the neediest children
=> Eviscerated government workforces that cannot deliver services resulting in a self-fulfilling prophesy regarding the ability of government to function effectively.
Bernie Sanders is pointing out what most citizens in this country realize: the road of deregulated capitalism conservatives AND neoliberals want us to travel on favors the 1% at the expense of everyone else and, if followed to its end, will lead us to a government by the Trumps, of the Trumps, and by the Trumps. To coin a phrase: "Enough is enough!"
=> Free trade agreements that offshore jobs, suppress wages, and increase environmental degradation and the wages of the oligarchs
=> "Emergency managers" making decisions on public policy based solely on reducing spending
=> An infrastructure that cannot be fixed because our public funds have been redirected to provide corporate tax breaks
=> Deregulated for-profit charter schools that reward shareholders but exclude the neediest children
=> Eviscerated government workforces that cannot deliver services resulting in a self-fulfilling prophesy regarding the ability of government to function effectively.
Bernie Sanders is pointing out what most citizens in this country realize: the road of deregulated capitalism conservatives AND neoliberals want us to travel on favors the 1% at the expense of everyone else and, if followed to its end, will lead us to a government by the Trumps, of the Trumps, and by the Trumps. To coin a phrase: "Enough is enough!"
92
Wrong on your point about infrastructure. The Hoover Dam would never have been built if the EPA had existed at that time, and they will try to prevent any major infrastructure improvements in the future, because of some soon-to-be-extinct toad.
The era of big government programs is over. But the era of authenticity in politicians is in. And if those politicians, like Bernie, are able to dream big, people are able to feel that genuine enthusiasm. They are tired of the Obama type politician and negotiator that gives away what leverage he has, and then leans on his supporters to approve the damaged deal/program.
So while people understand that these programs cost money, their money, a true visionary, a true leader, can persuade them that sometimes, these programs and ideas are a good idea.
This is an election about change. And if the programs are pitched and justified with the change mantle, they may stand a chance.
So while people understand that these programs cost money, their money, a true visionary, a true leader, can persuade them that sometimes, these programs and ideas are a good idea.
This is an election about change. And if the programs are pitched and justified with the change mantle, they may stand a chance.
2
Well, of course party "leaders and strategists" see any outsiders as losers. When the average net worth of a member of Congress is $1.08 million, the two major parties must be seen as the tools of oligarchy. If a class war is impending between the privileged 1 percent and the 99, on which side might we expect these millionaires to line up?
IRS data for 2010-2014 establish the entry point for the top 1 percent of earners at $380,354 of annual income. But to continue the discussion of wealth or net worth: 80 percent of top net worth families are in the top 5 percent by income, according to a Times article, "Measuring the Top 1% by Wealth, Not Income," 17 January 2012.
There is only one candidate remaining in the 2016 Democratic primary whose net worth is less than a million dollars: Bernie Sanders. He is the only one on "our side."
IRS data for 2010-2014 establish the entry point for the top 1 percent of earners at $380,354 of annual income. But to continue the discussion of wealth or net worth: 80 percent of top net worth families are in the top 5 percent by income, according to a Times article, "Measuring the Top 1% by Wealth, Not Income," 17 January 2012.
There is only one candidate remaining in the 2016 Democratic primary whose net worth is less than a million dollars: Bernie Sanders. He is the only one on "our side."
1
On January 31 George Soros contributed $6 million to the main PAC supporting Hilary Clinton. On February 9 Mark Schmitt, who directed a program on political reform at Soros' Open Society Institute has a times op-ed published saying Bernie Sanders ideas on reform are out of step in an era where big-program liberalism is over. The era of big-program liberalism may or may not be over but it is evident the era of big donor string pulling (which Sanders condemns) is in its hey day.
1
Nonsense. Really.
Complicated, means tested, labyrinthine, difficult--all translate into expensive bureaucracies to administer while hiding inefficiencies, corruption, political favors to friends and the rigging of the whole system against the 99% (exactly what we have today).
Worst of all, that kind of system make everyone suspicious of government.
Our collective taxes should be intended for the benefit of all Americans. Government benefits in turn should be consistent, reliable, transparent and explainable to an 8 year old (ditto for how our taxes are assessed and collected).
Only that way we will start to believe in our government again.
Complicated, means tested, labyrinthine, difficult--all translate into expensive bureaucracies to administer while hiding inefficiencies, corruption, political favors to friends and the rigging of the whole system against the 99% (exactly what we have today).
Worst of all, that kind of system make everyone suspicious of government.
Our collective taxes should be intended for the benefit of all Americans. Government benefits in turn should be consistent, reliable, transparent and explainable to an 8 year old (ditto for how our taxes are assessed and collected).
Only that way we will start to believe in our government again.
5
Bernie Sanders and his increasingly shrill adherents represent the left's version of the Tea Party, they are ideologues who are absolutely convinced that their view of reality is the only one, period. No compromise, no discussion, it's time to take off the gloves and get into bare knuckles politics.
As a strong liberal I find these people just as bizarre and disturbing as the Tea Partiers on the right, I can only understand them in social terms (extremists) and not in any way as a means to work out political solutions in this complex society. For me Bernie Sanders, just like Trump, represents a pile of half-baked ideas based on anything but realistic, viable approaches. And like Trump, Sanders lacks the experience to even begin realizing these ideas, they're simply untested, pie-in-the-sky fantasies.
Just as the Tea Party ripped open the Republican Party into a dangerous free-for-all, Bernie Sanders has ripped open a divide in the Democratic Party. The only good I see in Sanders is that the Republicans will come to see Hilary as reasonable Democrat and will be more careful about attacking her.
As a strong liberal I find these people just as bizarre and disturbing as the Tea Partiers on the right, I can only understand them in social terms (extremists) and not in any way as a means to work out political solutions in this complex society. For me Bernie Sanders, just like Trump, represents a pile of half-baked ideas based on anything but realistic, viable approaches. And like Trump, Sanders lacks the experience to even begin realizing these ideas, they're simply untested, pie-in-the-sky fantasies.
Just as the Tea Party ripped open the Republican Party into a dangerous free-for-all, Bernie Sanders has ripped open a divide in the Democratic Party. The only good I see in Sanders is that the Republicans will come to see Hilary as reasonable Democrat and will be more careful about attacking her.
1
But, of course, in negotiations you *have* to start asking for more than you can conceive of getting.
1
The era of big government programs is indeed over for one simple reason – they don’t work. Bernie advocates Medicare for all. Heaven help us! That would be the end of medical innovation and any semblance of quality health care. Think the VA – is there really a person in the US who would want to have their only choice of healthcare to be the VA? I think not. For goodness sake, the legions of big government programs advocates couldn’t even put up the Obamacare website! We had a dozen people who know what they are doing – from the innovative private sector – fix in a few weeks what the big government program types had failed at with 1000s of people and months of work. Has anyone ever been to the motor vehicle department? The war on poverty has been run by the big government program types for 50 years – and has been a total failure. Do we really want to emulate France? The answer is a simple and strong No!
Young people are of course inspired by Bernie’s promise of free everything and the government solving all your troubles. It would be great if anyone could deliver such a nirvana. But we have seen big government fail time and time again. Bernie is selling vapor ware – looks great on the package but is doesn’t work.
I am totally energized by Kasich’s performance in New Hampshire. He has the heart of a liberal, but the brains of a conservative. He knows what government can do and – more importantly – he knows what government can’t do.
Young people are of course inspired by Bernie’s promise of free everything and the government solving all your troubles. It would be great if anyone could deliver such a nirvana. But we have seen big government fail time and time again. Bernie is selling vapor ware – looks great on the package but is doesn’t work.
I am totally energized by Kasich’s performance in New Hampshire. He has the heart of a liberal, but the brains of a conservative. He knows what government can do and – more importantly – he knows what government can’t do.
16
Sad.
3
Of course belief that the private capital is going to solve all your problems is just as delusional--it's just a delusion that's more appealing to those who have private capital.
All you're giving us are empty phrases. Single payer health care works, as illustrated by numerous other countries with better outcomes and much lower costs than the U.S.
2
Chaining the American people to govt programs, and relying on those programs for success is not a recipe for greatness. It's a recipe for generations of reliance on govt.
To answer the headline, Oh God lets hope so!
To answer the headline, Oh God lets hope so!
The author doesn't provide a logical basis for his conclusions. He says that since 2011 the Obama administration and some undefined Congressional "colleagues" have been taking an incremental approach rather than proposing big programs; then he jumps with no evidence whatsoever to the conclusion that big programs can't work.
2
I ask the Times for articles on the effects of increasing automation on society, and I get these timid, blind, nearly frivolous articles on incrementalism and the end of big government. What exactly are the chuckleheads at the Times doing to earn my money?
1
Right, you own the NT Times.
Ironically, the incremental approach only gives corporate interests ammunition to claim that "initiative" and "entrepreneurship" are being hamstrung by an ever-proliferating morass of paperwork and red tape. We get "diversity officers" along with a diverse population of underpaid and insecure workers. We get another layer of paperwork and legal boilerplate handed down by the same malignant insurance and pharmaceutical bureaucracies, while small business suffocates.
"Rearrange the pieces" -- or the deck chairs? To a vast middle class in the process of going under, such tinkering is obscene when the iceberg is all it finds visible.
"Rearrange the pieces" -- or the deck chairs? To a vast middle class in the process of going under, such tinkering is obscene when the iceberg is all it finds visible.
3
The greed junkies (the 1%) have been destroying this country for the last thirty years, its way pass time for an interdiction.
4
Liberals need to mount the sort of determined, coordinated campaign to bend the narrative that Conservatives have. It took them a long time to go from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan, and beyond, but they never became as disheartened as the writer of this article.
2
I am not a Bernie Sander's supporter, but I do not think I have seen an article that is trying so hard to put down the policies of a candidate. To say that incrementalism is the path that Obama chose since 2011 is one of the most disingenuous statements I have heard in a long time. Hmm, let's think about the reasons why he has "chosen" to take things in small steps...
3
The people are speaking loud and clear but for some reason the supposed experts like the author of this piece, are not listening. Incrementalism is NOT A CHOICE! Its dead on arrival, kaput, over with. The electorate are like a leviathan that is slow to move, but once it starts to build momentum, look out, because it will crush anything in its path including and especially the small minority of monied interests that are currently running the show.
7
Incrementalism, the politics and economics of the status quo, equals 'Chinese water torture' -- Trickle... Trickle... Trickle,,,
And, much as the proverbial frog in the kettle, gradualism can ultimately translate to virtual inaction or "too little too late."
And, much as the proverbial frog in the kettle, gradualism can ultimately translate to virtual inaction or "too little too late."
4
Progressive ideas such as Medicare for all became reality first in Europe after the total economic collapse due to WW II.
Perhaps it will take a similar economic collapse in the USA to convince people that class differences are moot. We are all Americans first.
Perhaps it will take a similar economic collapse in the USA to convince people that class differences are moot. We are all Americans first.
3
BIG STEPS, LITTLE STEPS FDR inherited a country paralyzed by the Great Depression. His programs for priming the pump and restarting the nation were expansive. And effective. Of course they were and still are attacked by many who see government as the enemy. That's a tautology. The government is us; so we are our own worst enemies. How does that work, exactly? For one, that illogical thinking results in fragmented legislation. Witness the purposely manufactured logjam in Congress. Beyond that, the claims that we needed to build a new economy have proven to be disastrous for many, due to loss of jobs, loss of homes and loss of pensions. That helped the 1%, but not the rest of us. I agree with Obama that the best approach is incremental. In fact, he has repeatedly gone out of his way to observe past practices that are functioning well . Such as the GOP plan for universal health care in Romney's Massachusetts. Much good did it do the President. He's been polloried and ridiculed for what? Borrowing his health care mechanisms from a GOP plan that worked well? I believe that any program that's going to work, given the foreseeable political climate of polarization, must be modified incrementally in order to have any chance of implementation. Though the shoddy mortgage loan package seems to have been of a piece. We're still recovering from that government program. So it's true that not all legislation works well. Get over it and move on!
Romneycare did not "work well" in Massachusetts, which is a wealthy, mostly white state where BEFORE Romney, they already had 92% of the people on health insurance.
Romneycare drastically raised costs, and created a system where MA residents have the highest health care costs in the nation, and costs RISE about 35% a year. It is a miserable burden on taxpayers, and part of the reason they call it "Taxachusetts".
Obama also took the very worst thing about Romneycare and adopted it -- the dread "individual mandate". Many people in MA had to pay HUGE HUGE fines when they could not afford the cheapest policy -- not unlike "Bronze policies" today, which have giant deductibles and pay for almost nothing.
Romneycare drastically raised costs, and created a system where MA residents have the highest health care costs in the nation, and costs RISE about 35% a year. It is a miserable burden on taxpayers, and part of the reason they call it "Taxachusetts".
Obama also took the very worst thing about Romneycare and adopted it -- the dread "individual mandate". Many people in MA had to pay HUGE HUGE fines when they could not afford the cheapest policy -- not unlike "Bronze policies" today, which have giant deductibles and pay for almost nothing.
The no tax increase on under $250,000 is a big lie, a 25 cent gas tax is not a tax increase? Medical deduction from 7.5% to 10% is not a tax increase? 100,000 kids from SA on your local property tax school bill is not a tax increase?
1
There is no way to give Americans "Scandinavian style socialism" without Scandinavian style taxes.
Sweden has a 65% tax rate, plus a 28% VAT on every purchase. Denmark has 61% tax rate, plus 25% VAT on every purchase -- and oh yeah, if you want a CAR, there is a 180% excise tax on that. (No wonder they bike everywhere.)
When Americans are willing to pay these tax rates, we can have every single social welfare benefit that they have.
Also: these nations have ZERO illegal immigration and secure borders. As Dr. Krugman has said, you cannot have a social welfare state AND illegal immigration. Scandinavian nations have the strictest controls on immigration of any kind. Do not believe me? Try sneaking into Sweden or Denmark and taking advantage of their "free" health care or welfare programs -- see how fast they deport your mangy butt back home.
Sweden has a 65% tax rate, plus a 28% VAT on every purchase. Denmark has 61% tax rate, plus 25% VAT on every purchase -- and oh yeah, if you want a CAR, there is a 180% excise tax on that. (No wonder they bike everywhere.)
When Americans are willing to pay these tax rates, we can have every single social welfare benefit that they have.
Also: these nations have ZERO illegal immigration and secure borders. As Dr. Krugman has said, you cannot have a social welfare state AND illegal immigration. Scandinavian nations have the strictest controls on immigration of any kind. Do not believe me? Try sneaking into Sweden or Denmark and taking advantage of their "free" health care or welfare programs -- see how fast they deport your mangy butt back home.
Soc. Sec. was a BIG change with lots of pushback. The sky was supposed to fall.
Medicare was the end of the world. Lots of pushback.
Civil Rights was huge and took a county full of folk to make it successful. We still are feeling he pushback.
The Suffragette movment for the right of women to vote shook the nation. Lots of pushback!
The list is long.
Big changes require guts and passion. They require the populous to get behind them and push!
Yes, of course there will be the disgruntled. Those in fear of change. Those with something to lose for the betterment of all.
Funny how those became the backbone of the citizens. They are beloved by the majority and are the 3rd rail in politics that no one should touch. Despite the Consevatives attempts to do just that involving everything that helps the citizen. Go figure.
Stop being afraid of change for the better!
It does happen if we ALL believe and push!
#UsNotMe
Get! Out! and Vote!
Medicare was the end of the world. Lots of pushback.
Civil Rights was huge and took a county full of folk to make it successful. We still are feeling he pushback.
The Suffragette movment for the right of women to vote shook the nation. Lots of pushback!
The list is long.
Big changes require guts and passion. They require the populous to get behind them and push!
Yes, of course there will be the disgruntled. Those in fear of change. Those with something to lose for the betterment of all.
Funny how those became the backbone of the citizens. They are beloved by the majority and are the 3rd rail in politics that no one should touch. Despite the Consevatives attempts to do just that involving everything that helps the citizen. Go figure.
Stop being afraid of change for the better!
It does happen if we ALL believe and push!
#UsNotMe
Get! Out! and Vote!
108
And those disgruntled and in fear of change are called REPUBLICANS
1
Well here's some "change." Force the banks to break up, then required them to split off personal passbook savings accounts from the prime interest rate to compete for individual savings business and give American an incentive to save money, instead of spend it.
The consumerism society that we have become is not sustainable. The Great Recession was proof of that. Everything from welfare that rewards the pregnancies of single females like they were disabled, or something, to the Earned Income Tax Credit is set up to directly dump tons of money into the system to keep the economy humming.
The grocery industry thanks you for the expanding food assistance and eliminating the requirement that single females with children be employed even 20 hours a week. The utility companies thank you for funding H.E.A.P, again this year. The universities and colleges, government employees, thank you for subsidizing their various departments so they can keep their bloated budgets for tenured perks. Public education thanks you for mortgaging your home, again, to pay property taxes that keep increasing while the quality of public education decreases. Big box stores thank you for the less-than-40-hour work week that keeps their employees on food assistance and government-subsidized health care.
These haven't been big changes. They have been incrementally deceitful policies enacted by a legislature that are making themselves wealthier off our collective national misery.
The consumerism society that we have become is not sustainable. The Great Recession was proof of that. Everything from welfare that rewards the pregnancies of single females like they were disabled, or something, to the Earned Income Tax Credit is set up to directly dump tons of money into the system to keep the economy humming.
The grocery industry thanks you for the expanding food assistance and eliminating the requirement that single females with children be employed even 20 hours a week. The utility companies thank you for funding H.E.A.P, again this year. The universities and colleges, government employees, thank you for subsidizing their various departments so they can keep their bloated budgets for tenured perks. Public education thanks you for mortgaging your home, again, to pay property taxes that keep increasing while the quality of public education decreases. Big box stores thank you for the less-than-40-hour work week that keeps their employees on food assistance and government-subsidized health care.
These haven't been big changes. They have been incrementally deceitful policies enacted by a legislature that are making themselves wealthier off our collective national misery.
So the Times brings in Mark Schmitt to beat down M. Sanders the day after Mrs. Clinton collapses in New Hampshire.
Pitiful, just pitiful.
Pitiful, just pitiful.
14
If the era of big-program liberalism is over it is because of the success of the Reagan Revolution - build up government debt and wasteful defense spending to a level that it becomes nearly impossible to start any meaningful large programs that will benefit the majority of the people in the country. There is always money for tax cuts for billionaires, another fighter jet that doesn't work and no one needs, etc. but there is never enough money for debt free college, universal healthcare or expanding Social Security.
Of course the fact that we are generally saddled with politicians who no longer think big and a corporate media that mirrors their incrementalism or negativism doesn't help.
Of course the fact that we are generally saddled with politicians who no longer think big and a corporate media that mirrors their incrementalism or negativism doesn't help.
2
I support Bernie Sanders.
I agree with his policies.
But I remember George McGovern.
I agree with his policies.
But I remember George McGovern.
1
How many more government programs can possibly be invented? And how much more are we supposed to pay for? the social welfare safety net is well in place and works amazingly well. At some point, people do have to take accountability for themselves and improve their lives. In reference, there are countless skill workshops and job training programs for the unemployed that are never close to filled to capacity because it's easier to collect the food stamps, live in section 8 housing, work for minimum wage and simply complain about your lot in life. While it is true that some folks have had bad breaks, those programs are there for a hand up, not for a handout. The American way has always been that you keep what you work for, and its still true today. People love to say that the American Dream is a myth. May be, but I'm an immigrant that came to this country when I was a child, studied as much as the next kid in high school, joined the military, used the GI Bill, and am working on my 3rd degree now. I may not be rich, but that's not what the American Dream is all about. Rather, its about a country that gives opportunities to all. As long as you have a bit of dedication, a bit of courage, a bit of motivation, more than likely you are going to be Ok. Maybe not rich, but pretty good.
26
That Gi Bill that you have and are benefitting from is a massive Government Program that I, who was never in the military and who opposes most of our military adventurism, support with my taxes. I support the GI Bill, Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, public schools, despite the fact that I benefit from none of them directly. And because I am taxed to support them I do not get to "keep what I earn," as you put it. Either we are all in this together or we are not. If not, then kiss your GI Bill benefits goodbye. Bernie knows what he is talking about, just as FDR dis. Bernie is not proposing a bunch of new programs. He proposes expanding existing programs such as Social Security and Medicare. His only truly new program is public financing of public college education. I'm 71 and not likely to benefit directly from such a program, but because I want to live in a well educated society, I will gladly support, with higher taxes on my middle class income if necessary, such a public investment program.
Along with the creation and rise of the billionaire class, arose poverty, governmental discourse, and terrorism. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math of disparity, or to help us notice that the only lines longer than the one outside of the ISIS recruiter's office are those of politicians pandering to oligarchs for money, it only takes a lovable, cranky old senator from Vermont.
5
A program proffered during a campaign is really an ideal. It is a candidate saying, here is my vision of how we should be.
The great feature of Bernie Sanders' rhetoric is that he makes no bones about how tough it will be, and how it will take the concentrated effort of ordinary Americans to recapture the USA. And thus he can do two things at once:
1) introduce inspiring human centered programs the rest of the world already has in place but look politically impossible in the US
2) tell people that if they want them they can have them but *they* have to do the work to get them
It's that second part that was missing in Barack Obama's first campaign. People elected him and waited for a miracle from the comfortability of their electronic devices. I think the youth voting for Bernie are more worldly, and realize what a backwater the US when it comes to living a decent life (just look at our quality of life indicators). They see how much better life is in other industrialized countries and are realizing it is up to them to secure that for themselves here. I think the millennial just may be willing to work for it in a way their parents were not, because hoodwinked by Reagan, or simply overwhelmed by more work, not enough pay, higher bills, more stress.
They want big programs because they aren't scared of big government. They know they have it in the form of the security state. 'Well, if you are going to read my email at least have the decency to buy me a cup of coffee...'
The great feature of Bernie Sanders' rhetoric is that he makes no bones about how tough it will be, and how it will take the concentrated effort of ordinary Americans to recapture the USA. And thus he can do two things at once:
1) introduce inspiring human centered programs the rest of the world already has in place but look politically impossible in the US
2) tell people that if they want them they can have them but *they* have to do the work to get them
It's that second part that was missing in Barack Obama's first campaign. People elected him and waited for a miracle from the comfortability of their electronic devices. I think the youth voting for Bernie are more worldly, and realize what a backwater the US when it comes to living a decent life (just look at our quality of life indicators). They see how much better life is in other industrialized countries and are realizing it is up to them to secure that for themselves here. I think the millennial just may be willing to work for it in a way their parents were not, because hoodwinked by Reagan, or simply overwhelmed by more work, not enough pay, higher bills, more stress.
They want big programs because they aren't scared of big government. They know they have it in the form of the security state. 'Well, if you are going to read my email at least have the decency to buy me a cup of coffee...'
2
FDR saved capitalism during the Great Depression. Obama had to save it again during the Great Recession. I doubt it will be rescued for a third time if there is another economic meltdown. "Liberalism Lite" is not the answer to the crisis of confidence in this presidential campaign. An emerging olgiarchy threatens our democracy. Citizens feel seduced and abandoned by politicians in both parties who care about them only when they come courting them for their votes in n election. Clinton represents the old guard as do sisters Albright and Stienem. That is why younger women in the Democratic Party are attracted to Sanders. They feel gender politics is just another empty promise. They want a politician who puts his or hers money where his or hers mouth is. Schmitt's "Liberalism Lite" is not the answer nor what the New Deal was about, namely, democracy in action for the people. Only big-program liberalism addresses their concerns and hopes for the future of our country and the viability for our democracy.
83
Sanders is an illusion on the left as much as Palin was an illusion on the right.
This will amount to nothing and then Clinton will still be there.
This will amount to nothing and then Clinton will still be there.
How about when you put you faith in a government run by men and women you are destined to be let down.. Government will fail.. always have and always will. What made this country great was that it was a country governed by the people. The federal government has gotten too far from what it was intended for and now people believe it is there to save them from the world. We are no longer a nation built upon self reliance and determination, but rather what can somebody else do for me that I'm incapable of doing for myself.
Whatever the government does, it will NEVER be enough and eventually will destroy itself from within..
Whatever the government does, it will NEVER be enough and eventually will destroy itself from within..
I think Bernie would make a pretty good president, but I think Hilary (with Bill at her side) will be a better one. Bernie and Hilary are both sensible and skilled politicians, but Hilary has a better mind for details, I think. The only problem with the Clintons is that they always bend to pressure. When there was pressure on the right, they bent to the right. With Bernie applying pressure from the left, they have bent to the left and will continue to do so. Hilary for President! Bernie for Gadfly-in-Chief!
My little country, Sweden, has a big program, Universal Health Care, that has resulted in long life expectancy for its people and in the best record for pre, peri, and post natal infant and maternal mortality in the world. My big country, the USA, has successfully avoided that Big Program with less than successful results. My big country does have Big Programs, the prime example of which is the Program to Bring Down Saddam Hussein, the man the USA once supported.
I'll take Universal Health Care thank you.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
I'll take Universal Health Care thank you.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
6
Sweden doesn't even remotely have the longest life expectancy in the world; it's about 10th internationally behind places like Japan, Spain and (of all places) Australia. (Strange because Australia has some of the highest rates of obesity and smoking in the world.)
And the range isn't as much as you think. It's 83 (average) in Sweden, and 79-80 in the US. But that doesn't take into account race. Different races have different life expectancies.
If you compare "apples to apples" -- and only use middle class white Americans vs. middle class white Swedes -- the differences completely disappear and the average life expectancy is almost exactly the same.
So actually what this "proves" is that Swedish style health care has no apparently effect on longevity -- the exact opposite of what you state. BTW, this is all also true regarding pre-peri-post natal infant and maternal mortality. It's the same, if you compare "apples to apples". Where it fails is in accounting for the life styles and choices of poor black and hispanic Americans, as well as the illegal aliens we have to deal with -- that Sweden is smart enough to keep out.
And the range isn't as much as you think. It's 83 (average) in Sweden, and 79-80 in the US. But that doesn't take into account race. Different races have different life expectancies.
If you compare "apples to apples" -- and only use middle class white Americans vs. middle class white Swedes -- the differences completely disappear and the average life expectancy is almost exactly the same.
So actually what this "proves" is that Swedish style health care has no apparently effect on longevity -- the exact opposite of what you state. BTW, this is all also true regarding pre-peri-post natal infant and maternal mortality. It's the same, if you compare "apples to apples". Where it fails is in accounting for the life styles and choices of poor black and hispanic Americans, as well as the illegal aliens we have to deal with -- that Sweden is smart enough to keep out.
"But if this is the only way to drive reform — and in the current political configuration, it is — then politicians in both parties will have no choice but to find ways to achieve big change without big new programs."
When the right wing found they couldn't incrementally change things to their liking, what did they do? They changed the political configuration instead. And with the will to do so, we can change the political configuration back again.
When the right wing found they couldn't incrementally change things to their liking, what did they do? They changed the political configuration instead. And with the will to do so, we can change the political configuration back again.
2
"government programs. Expansive initiatives that provide benefits to “a broad cross-class constituency,” as the Harvard political sociologist Theda Skocpol puts it, such as Social Security and Medicare, are not only good policy, they’re at the heart of liberal politics. They remind citizens of the essential role of government in providing security and economic opportunity.". there is no proof whatever that the government plays any such essential role. in fact, to the contrary, historically, the government has demonstrated that it is not only an impediment but even an insurmountable obstacle, to both economic opportunity (read Murray Rothbard) and security (read Molinari to Tannehill).
"But it fits well with the methods employed by the Obama administration in the years since the president realized that he could not expect to achieve an ambitious program with a deeply partisan Congress and a Republican House."
So, 99% of Americans are supposed to accept a partisan Congress and an obstructionist Republican party as the status quo, the immutable reality?
No thanks.
If we are the 99%, we need to strip away the working class voters from the Republicans. We will only do that if we work to show misled Republican working class voters that democratic socialism is the only force that keeps capitalism healthy, that keeps capitalism from descending into oligarchy and fascism.
So, 99% of Americans are supposed to accept a partisan Congress and an obstructionist Republican party as the status quo, the immutable reality?
No thanks.
If we are the 99%, we need to strip away the working class voters from the Republicans. We will only do that if we work to show misled Republican working class voters that democratic socialism is the only force that keeps capitalism healthy, that keeps capitalism from descending into oligarchy and fascism.
1
The Clinton/Obama incrementalism in both domestic and foreign policy is not what the people want. This philosophy has simply made the rich richer and increased our maddening role as "World Cop".
Bernie Sanders and the people want a political revolution. The super-rich Clintons and New America may desire the status quo, but the people want real change. We want to end military interventions in foreign civil wars; we want to reverse inequality, not take baby steps while the super-rich suck our blood.
Mr. Schmitt, you suffer from the same blind spots as most of The NYT: you live in an elite bubble. You do not know what life is like for ordinary folks. You have looked the other way while the rich and powerful have usurped the political process at the expense of the people. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You need to open your eyes and ears. Look at what your incrementalism has done. It is a "yuge" failure.
Bernie Sanders and the people want a political revolution. The super-rich Clintons and New America may desire the status quo, but the people want real change. We want to end military interventions in foreign civil wars; we want to reverse inequality, not take baby steps while the super-rich suck our blood.
Mr. Schmitt, you suffer from the same blind spots as most of The NYT: you live in an elite bubble. You do not know what life is like for ordinary folks. You have looked the other way while the rich and powerful have usurped the political process at the expense of the people. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You need to open your eyes and ears. Look at what your incrementalism has done. It is a "yuge" failure.
2
The last I checked, we were a two party state. And the Republicans speak often of dismantling the welfare state. The future agenda of the Democrats depends, in part, on the future agenda of the Republicans. Also, cataclysmic crises can affect the role of the government. What if, for example, the sea level were to rise enough to flood populated coastal ares?
"Is the Era of Big-Program Liberalism Over?"
So we're going to trot out a shoddy retread of Bill Clinton's 1992 Republican Lite "The era of big government is over," an pretend we're not trying to pass off the discredited Democratic Leadership Council strategy as some new pragmatism and realism?
We have Big Corporations, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. The whole point of Big Government, and Big Government Programs, is that citizens absolutely need size and organization to counter other large forces, to counter the leverage of every other massing conglomeration.
We've seen all too well the consequences of Big Special Interests tearing down the rights of citizens to vote, to unionize, to counter concentrated wealth, to pool their own power.
Big-Program Liberalism has never been more essential than it is now.
So we're going to trot out a shoddy retread of Bill Clinton's 1992 Republican Lite "The era of big government is over," an pretend we're not trying to pass off the discredited Democratic Leadership Council strategy as some new pragmatism and realism?
We have Big Corporations, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. The whole point of Big Government, and Big Government Programs, is that citizens absolutely need size and organization to counter other large forces, to counter the leverage of every other massing conglomeration.
We've seen all too well the consequences of Big Special Interests tearing down the rights of citizens to vote, to unionize, to counter concentrated wealth, to pool their own power.
Big-Program Liberalism has never been more essential than it is now.
152
"We have Big Corporations, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. The whole point of Big Government, and Big Government Programs, is that citizens absolutely need size and organization to counter other large forces, to counter the leverage of every other massing conglomeration."
Have you ever considered you have this backwards ? The big conglomerations are a response to big government ? Can a small doctors office navigate the intricacies of the ACA billing procedure ? Can a small general contractor keep up with the paperwork required to build on US installations ? The answer to both of these is no.. That's why you see BIG corporations dealing with BIG government.. The 2 are joined at the hip..
Have you ever considered you have this backwards ? The big conglomerations are a response to big government ? Can a small doctors office navigate the intricacies of the ACA billing procedure ? Can a small general contractor keep up with the paperwork required to build on US installations ? The answer to both of these is no.. That's why you see BIG corporations dealing with BIG government.. The 2 are joined at the hip..
If you think big government is a solution and not part of the problem, you haven't been paying attention. Look at the IRS, the VA, etc. Even the EPA doesn't do its job when told about the water in Flint.
More taxes, more spending, more hiring of government crony employees, doesn't result in better government. We've not seen evidence of that. Actually, it seems to make things worse.
More taxes, more spending, more hiring of government crony employees, doesn't result in better government. We've not seen evidence of that. Actually, it seems to make things worse.
Precisely. Big Government to balance Big Capitalism. It's absolutely necessary, and it's a legitimate variation on an old and hallowed theme: balance of powers.
Can someone please explain to me why:
Anyone in America, who works 40 hours a week, or more, is poor ?
Medical Care has to be so expensive.
People who make millions by doing nothing more than shuffling
our pension funds back and forth - via the Stock Market - are not taxed
like the worthless greend-mongers they are.
College loans can not just be set at 2 %.
Why, since all money is now electronic, it cannot be shared more equally.
Why most of the money for Government Programmes ends up going to
the government workers than those in need.
Anyone in America, who works 40 hours a week, or more, is poor ?
Medical Care has to be so expensive.
People who make millions by doing nothing more than shuffling
our pension funds back and forth - via the Stock Market - are not taxed
like the worthless greend-mongers they are.
College loans can not just be set at 2 %.
Why, since all money is now electronic, it cannot be shared more equally.
Why most of the money for Government Programmes ends up going to
the government workers than those in need.
3
Ah, someone from Berkeley (the fantasyland of white lefty liberals). Because otherwise I was going to say, are you nuts? People have worked 40 hours and MORE all through history and still been poor.
Do think a janitor or cleaning lady, working 40-50 hours a week in 1960 was "rich"? or even middle class? Do you think someone working as a clerk at Woolworth's was living a middle class lifestyle in 1950? or 1970?
People had much more modest standards back then. The average house was 1100 square feet and had ONE bathroom and no air conditioning -- and millions thought that was paradise, and raised 3-5 kids in such a home. Today, it would be considered very substandard. Today, the poorest people on welfare have the latest fancy smartphones and a pricey data plan.
Medical care? It's expensive because A. we have cutting edge care, if you want it or need it -- high tech stuff, new drugs, fancy new hospitals with every amenity -- and B. we have the highest paid doctors, nurses, hospital administrators in the world, and a Big Pharma industry that is protected from competition and allowed to fix pricing. Oh, and Big Insurance, which wrote the ACA for their own benefit and to ensure we'd never, ever, EVER have single payer in our lifetimes.
College loans? They can't be set at 2% because if they were, NO banks would take on the risk of loaning $250K to a 17 year old nincompoop who intends to spend 7 years partying and getting a BA degree in "gender studies".
Do think a janitor or cleaning lady, working 40-50 hours a week in 1960 was "rich"? or even middle class? Do you think someone working as a clerk at Woolworth's was living a middle class lifestyle in 1950? or 1970?
People had much more modest standards back then. The average house was 1100 square feet and had ONE bathroom and no air conditioning -- and millions thought that was paradise, and raised 3-5 kids in such a home. Today, it would be considered very substandard. Today, the poorest people on welfare have the latest fancy smartphones and a pricey data plan.
Medical care? It's expensive because A. we have cutting edge care, if you want it or need it -- high tech stuff, new drugs, fancy new hospitals with every amenity -- and B. we have the highest paid doctors, nurses, hospital administrators in the world, and a Big Pharma industry that is protected from competition and allowed to fix pricing. Oh, and Big Insurance, which wrote the ACA for their own benefit and to ensure we'd never, ever, EVER have single payer in our lifetimes.
College loans? They can't be set at 2% because if they were, NO banks would take on the risk of loaning $250K to a 17 year old nincompoop who intends to spend 7 years partying and getting a BA degree in "gender studies".
1
"But his (Sanders') view is being challenged by a new, more incremental liberalism, which centers on advancing liberal goals without big, universal programs — an approach being invented by President Obama and Mr. Sanders’s opponent, Hillary Clinton."
Obama's and Clinton's incremental DEM liberalism = traditional moderate GOP minimalism.
Obama would not be POTUS if he campaigned advocating policies the Times is now calling "incremental liberalism." Millions of disappointed Obama voters consider him a failed DEM liberal, more a successful GOP moderate.
Under Obama, too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks are bigger, Obama-care is modeled on GOP Romney-care, minority vote suppression is thriving, the decades long middle class decline is accelerating, ...
Disappointed Dem voters, most particularly young DEM voters, don't want another Dem POTUS candidate promising more baby steps. They are turned off by Hillary claiming she knows how to succeed building incrementally on top of President Obama's incremental gains more than offset by incremental losses.
Obama's and Clinton's incremental DEM liberalism = traditional moderate GOP minimalism.
Obama would not be POTUS if he campaigned advocating policies the Times is now calling "incremental liberalism." Millions of disappointed Obama voters consider him a failed DEM liberal, more a successful GOP moderate.
Under Obama, too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks are bigger, Obama-care is modeled on GOP Romney-care, minority vote suppression is thriving, the decades long middle class decline is accelerating, ...
Disappointed Dem voters, most particularly young DEM voters, don't want another Dem POTUS candidate promising more baby steps. They are turned off by Hillary claiming she knows how to succeed building incrementally on top of President Obama's incremental gains more than offset by incremental losses.
1
A first era of big-program liberalism has clearly been over for some time now. The question is whether Sanders represents the inception of a new era of big-program liberalism. His campaign's success, especially its overwhelming support from young constituencies, may reflect a new sentiment that rebels against the hollow promises of piecemeal programs. Piecemeal might be effective if it is used to seriously target the populations most in need of assistance, but too often it has been a matter of unfocused, insignificant work. Perhaps the young are fed up with "equality of opportunity" and associated meaningless rhetoric; I know I am.
We don't want equality of opportunity. We want equality of prosperity.
We don't want equality of opportunity. We want equality of prosperity.
63
"We don't want equality of opportunity. We want equality of prosperity."
That's socialism. I understand that the word no longer scares you but here's the problem. "Equality of prosperity" means that everyone gets the same regardless of the value of the services they provide to others. And if you are going to give me the same regardless, why should anyone go to college ? Why should anyone work hard ... or work at all ?
It gets worse than that because someone needs to pay for all that free healthcare and free college and such. That requires A LOT of money. In Europe, they solve this problem by taxing EVERYONE highly. As an example, Denmark taxes even its poorest citizens a 25% VAT (sales) tax and most people pay a minimum 35% income tax.
But that's not what liberals want here. Instead, they want the rich to pay for everything. It is already the case that the top 20% pay 84% of all income taxes. But liberals want even more. At some point, taxes are high enough that the rich choose not to work so hard themselves. Why open another store when the government will just tax away most of the earnings ? In France (which is a lot more tolerant of taxes than we are), they instituted a millionaire tax ... and so many of the rich left the country, that their President was forced to retract the tax.
In other words, what you end up with in this liberal utopia isn't European socialism (where everyone pays high taxes). Instead, it's the Bolshevik revolution.
That's socialism. I understand that the word no longer scares you but here's the problem. "Equality of prosperity" means that everyone gets the same regardless of the value of the services they provide to others. And if you are going to give me the same regardless, why should anyone go to college ? Why should anyone work hard ... or work at all ?
It gets worse than that because someone needs to pay for all that free healthcare and free college and such. That requires A LOT of money. In Europe, they solve this problem by taxing EVERYONE highly. As an example, Denmark taxes even its poorest citizens a 25% VAT (sales) tax and most people pay a minimum 35% income tax.
But that's not what liberals want here. Instead, they want the rich to pay for everything. It is already the case that the top 20% pay 84% of all income taxes. But liberals want even more. At some point, taxes are high enough that the rich choose not to work so hard themselves. Why open another store when the government will just tax away most of the earnings ? In France (which is a lot more tolerant of taxes than we are), they instituted a millionaire tax ... and so many of the rich left the country, that their President was forced to retract the tax.
In other words, what you end up with in this liberal utopia isn't European socialism (where everyone pays high taxes). Instead, it's the Bolshevik revolution.
Your last sentence is appalling! What if you have all of the opportunities in the world, and you don't seize them, and, therefore, do not prosper, why should you then deserve 'equality of prosperity?' You cannot be serious with your statement. How do you suppose you should receive 'equality of prosperity', if you don't even seize your opportunities to succeed. Am I, and others supposed to provide that for you????
in fact, you do want equality of opportunity for without it you cannot have equality of prosperity.
So the era of big government is over - from Reagan's brain to the Clinton's agenda.
Good to know.
Good to know.
1
None of the big programs Bernie is talking about would cost more than a war in Iraq or Afghanistan. So, um, who are the "big program" people again?
Also, I fail to see incremental programs and invisible nudges could reduce the overall cost of, say, repairing our dilapidated infrastructure. At best, the same number of bridges would cost the same either way. But a big, accelerated push would likely reduce overall cost to the economy by reducing auto repair costs that come with crappy roads and moving goods and people more efficiently sooner than a billion band aids dribbled out over 60 years would.
This op-Ed presents a false choice. NYT should hire a logic 101 ombudsman. Neither big programs or small nudges are the perfect fix for every problem. Duh. I would have thought the so-called pragmatists would be comfortable with "right-sizing" solutions to fit the scale of each problem on a case-by-case basis. But no, it's gotta be invisible nudges from now on, no exceptions, and no big programs (except wars and bailouts) ever again. Now who sounds like the radical ideologue?
Also, I fail to see incremental programs and invisible nudges could reduce the overall cost of, say, repairing our dilapidated infrastructure. At best, the same number of bridges would cost the same either way. But a big, accelerated push would likely reduce overall cost to the economy by reducing auto repair costs that come with crappy roads and moving goods and people more efficiently sooner than a billion band aids dribbled out over 60 years would.
This op-Ed presents a false choice. NYT should hire a logic 101 ombudsman. Neither big programs or small nudges are the perfect fix for every problem. Duh. I would have thought the so-called pragmatists would be comfortable with "right-sizing" solutions to fit the scale of each problem on a case-by-case basis. But no, it's gotta be invisible nudges from now on, no exceptions, and no big programs (except wars and bailouts) ever again. Now who sounds like the radical ideologue?
3
With apologies to Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David - Shorter Schmitt: "Neoliberalism: The Show About Nothing"
2
It's funny how we always have billions, even trillions to wage more war or 'regime change' somewhere, yet never have enough to do what's humane for our own citizens.
Community college was free in 60s and 70s, books affordable, UCLA affordable. The wealthy still enjoyed their yachts. But today those yachts are as large as cruise liners, equipped with helios while homeless live under the freeway a few blocks away.
Basic human decency needs to return.
Only one candidate is embodying it, telling the truth and that it's we the people who must mobilize & demonstrate democracy or oligarchy will continue to condescend to ignore the electorate.
Basic human decency shouldn't be this hard a sell but we're in Ayn Rand land, and our representatives are corrupted by their donors on both sides. This must stop. Let New Hampshire be the first bell ringing.
Community college was free in 60s and 70s, books affordable, UCLA affordable. The wealthy still enjoyed their yachts. But today those yachts are as large as cruise liners, equipped with helios while homeless live under the freeway a few blocks away.
Basic human decency needs to return.
Only one candidate is embodying it, telling the truth and that it's we the people who must mobilize & demonstrate democracy or oligarchy will continue to condescend to ignore the electorate.
Basic human decency shouldn't be this hard a sell but we're in Ayn Rand land, and our representatives are corrupted by their donors on both sides. This must stop. Let New Hampshire be the first bell ringing.
195
California may have once had "free" community college, but not other states. I attended a community college here in Ohio, back in the middle 70s and it was affordable but absolutely NOT free. And they nickel and dimed students a lot, charging for parking (even though the place was way out in the countryside, and had acres and acres of parking).
Things were not perfect in the 50s, 60s or 70s, and it is really odd to hear lefty liberals whinging like it was some lost paradise! They were enraged and angry at "the system" back then, too! Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were not equal. There wasn't even MEDICARE until 1965!
There was no fantasy then, and no candidate (certainly not an old, rich, white Marxist Socialist from the white state of Vermont) is going to hand it to you on a silver platter.
Things were not perfect in the 50s, 60s or 70s, and it is really odd to hear lefty liberals whinging like it was some lost paradise! They were enraged and angry at "the system" back then, too! Women were not equal, blacks were not equal, gays were not equal. There wasn't even MEDICARE until 1965!
There was no fantasy then, and no candidate (certainly not an old, rich, white Marxist Socialist from the white state of Vermont) is going to hand it to you on a silver platter.
@Julie. I am with you on what things should be like. And we do have countries in the west which have successfully implemented these social systems and are quite prosperous. What we miss is that there is a general consensus among the public that this is a good system, where the individual sacrifices are worth it for the greater good (like pay more taxes for example). To our north, Canada also has a universal health program with people paying significantly higher taxes.
There is no such consensus that exists in the US. Maybe (I say maybe because I do not have the numbers), there is a majority who want all this too, but the truth of the matter is that for the foreseeable future, we have a republican house and senate, which (as has been proved over the last few years) will stonewall anything that is remotely seen to be part of the democrat agenda. We need a president who can work the system, because right now that is the best we can hope for.
What we need for a revolution, is the enthusiasm that we see today in the presidential primaries to be reflected in the state and senate elections. That is where the revolution will be most successful in effecting change. A bernie sanders presidency will send a message, yes, but it will not lead to any change.
There is no such consensus that exists in the US. Maybe (I say maybe because I do not have the numbers), there is a majority who want all this too, but the truth of the matter is that for the foreseeable future, we have a republican house and senate, which (as has been proved over the last few years) will stonewall anything that is remotely seen to be part of the democrat agenda. We need a president who can work the system, because right now that is the best we can hope for.
What we need for a revolution, is the enthusiasm that we see today in the presidential primaries to be reflected in the state and senate elections. That is where the revolution will be most successful in effecting change. A bernie sanders presidency will send a message, yes, but it will not lead to any change.
That's because the rich get to decide where their taxes go. They'll fund imperialism but not social programs for the weak.
1
in which money does NOT generate power. (typo)
1
The political revolution Bernie talks about isn't about him or his Presidency. It's a sea change in American politics, which began with Occupy Wall Street (if not before at the WTO protests in Seattle) and will continue until "by the people, for the people" actually means electing people into office who understand that the market is not a democratic institution and that politics is a sacred sphere in which money does generate power.
98
re: actually means electing people into office who understand that the market is not a democratic institution
^ who are these people? you realize that even voting for sanders does absolutely nothing to change who is running for congress.
even if we pretend that sanders can win, and we pretend that this means democrats win congress - then these are precisely the same democrats who are already in congress - plus whatever mostly blue-dog democrats that you will need o have ***any chance*** of taking back the senate.
there is a complete lack of logic and even honesty in the political thinking of sanders supporters.
it's easier to believe that many are actually GOP, because at least their support for sanders makes sense!
^ who are these people? you realize that even voting for sanders does absolutely nothing to change who is running for congress.
even if we pretend that sanders can win, and we pretend that this means democrats win congress - then these are precisely the same democrats who are already in congress - plus whatever mostly blue-dog democrats that you will need o have ***any chance*** of taking back the senate.
there is a complete lack of logic and even honesty in the political thinking of sanders supporters.
it's easier to believe that many are actually GOP, because at least their support for sanders makes sense!
Government for the people by the people ? When you have unelected unaccountable bureaucrats in agencies that hold more power than the elected representatives, you have a government for and by the the government. That's the EPA making rules and regulations that destroy an entire industry, or define a mud puddle in my back yard as a wet land, or HHS rewriting the ACA to fit the needs of the administration, or BLM deciding what can and cant be done on public land.. This is the rabbit hole the left has taken us down..
"Passage of the Affordable Care Act finally put in place the last big piece of the New Deal’s agenda."
False!
The ACA is essentially the right-wing Heritage Foundation's alternative to the Clinton administrations early 90's attempt at a health care plan.
It's high time for a real democratic solution to America's medical insurance crisis.
Singe payer Medicare for All as proposed by John Conyers (HR676) and co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders is the real New Deal approach.
Every other advanced nation in the world has a universal coverage single payer type of medical insurance plan that costs them less than half of what we pay in America.
Single payer is affordable and practical; read T. R. Reid's "Healing of America" for a great survey of single payer systems around the world.
Sanders Warren 2016!
False!
The ACA is essentially the right-wing Heritage Foundation's alternative to the Clinton administrations early 90's attempt at a health care plan.
It's high time for a real democratic solution to America's medical insurance crisis.
Singe payer Medicare for All as proposed by John Conyers (HR676) and co-sponsored by Bernie Sanders is the real New Deal approach.
Every other advanced nation in the world has a universal coverage single payer type of medical insurance plan that costs them less than half of what we pay in America.
Single payer is affordable and practical; read T. R. Reid's "Healing of America" for a great survey of single payer systems around the world.
Sanders Warren 2016!
14
To have a decent society, one must pay taxes, and there is absolutely no good reason not to have taxes as this country did in the 1950s and 1960s in order to get the nation into better shape. We do not need liberal Republicanism among Democrats; we need the Democratic wing of the Democratic party to fight. That is what Bernie Sanders represents. Incremental liberalism on President Obama's part may be pragmatic in the face of furious opposition, but in most cases it simply represents Democrats' moral and political cowardice.
5
How can the era of big government programs be over? Bernie Sanders, political alchemist, promises to pass new ones, without Congress, and pay for them without taxing anyone but a handful of the most odious billionaires. All we have to do is "believe."
3
Many Democrat politicians are spineless opportunists who figure they can offer something just to the left of the Republican right-wing agenda and the public will buy it as the softer, gentler alternative. If they have a motto it is "Think small". They yearn to wear the old moderate Republican mantle (see: "Blue-Dog Democrat") -- like a whole party of bumbling Jeb Bushes. They aren't progressives or in any way relevant to ordinary Americans. Is it any coincidence that the public chooses Republican bluster and false promises over Democrats who offer nothing at all?
A gaggle of Democrat representatives whined recently that Obama's modest progressivism cost them seats. In fact it was them running against him and his policies that cost them seats and put us in this position. Obama's "incrementalism" is actually desperate rule bending and the only thing standing between us and Republican-ALEC-Koch driven disaster right now. We don't need more "incrementalism" -- we need to turn the tide.
Polls consistently say what ordinary people want and need. For example, they need Healthcare. And yet why do polls say they are split over the ACA? Because of the absence of Democratic defenders of it! Do it, own it and be proud of it -- that will get you elected. Bernie Sanders knows this and he knows what else we need: affordable college, decent jobs and a fair cut of the pie.
Democrats: do it and own it or get out of the way.
A gaggle of Democrat representatives whined recently that Obama's modest progressivism cost them seats. In fact it was them running against him and his policies that cost them seats and put us in this position. Obama's "incrementalism" is actually desperate rule bending and the only thing standing between us and Republican-ALEC-Koch driven disaster right now. We don't need more "incrementalism" -- we need to turn the tide.
Polls consistently say what ordinary people want and need. For example, they need Healthcare. And yet why do polls say they are split over the ACA? Because of the absence of Democratic defenders of it! Do it, own it and be proud of it -- that will get you elected. Bernie Sanders knows this and he knows what else we need: affordable college, decent jobs and a fair cut of the pie.
Democrats: do it and own it or get out of the way.
3
From Wkipedia:
"Between 2003 to 2009, 17 opinion polls showed public support for a single-payer system.[25] These polls are from sources such as CNN,[26] AP-Yahoo,[27][28] Quinnipiac,[29] New York Times/CBS News Poll,[30][31] Washington Post/ABC News Poll, [32] Kaiser Family Foundation[33] and the Civil Society Institute. [34]
In October 2003, a Washington Post poll found that 62% supported "a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers."[35]"
But we didn't listen to the people.
"Between 2003 to 2009, 17 opinion polls showed public support for a single-payer system.[25] These polls are from sources such as CNN,[26] AP-Yahoo,[27][28] Quinnipiac,[29] New York Times/CBS News Poll,[30][31] Washington Post/ABC News Poll, [32] Kaiser Family Foundation[33] and the Civil Society Institute. [34]
In October 2003, a Washington Post poll found that 62% supported "a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers."[35]"
But we didn't listen to the people.
3
@Len: OK! let's listen to the PEOPLE! let's run government based on polls!
I agree! because 62% of the public ALSO oppose gay marriage and want to restore traditional marriage and religious freedom! and 62% ALSO oppose abortion on demand, and want to restrict abortion to rape, incest or the health of the mother.
Oh wait. What's that? Now you do NOT believe in legislating based on stupid polls?
I agree! because 62% of the public ALSO oppose gay marriage and want to restore traditional marriage and religious freedom! and 62% ALSO oppose abortion on demand, and want to restrict abortion to rape, incest or the health of the mother.
Oh wait. What's that? Now you do NOT believe in legislating based on stupid polls?
Concern Citizen: When it comes to governing by polls (or what majorities want), there is an important distinction between human rights/social initiatives and general delivery of services.
Democracy at its crudest is mob rule and tramples all over rights. Therefore on rights issues we balance majority desires against constitutional and (more fundamentally) human rights.
When it comes to health care or even tax rates, what the majority wants can be the best choice. You need to weigh it against efficiency, economic incentives and effective long term strategies for growth or at least sustainability. The US can easily afford Sander's programs but it would require clawing back that part of the pie that the 1%+ has skimmed off since the 1980's. If instead, wages had matched productivity growth, we'd also have more consumer demand and a much stronger economy as well.
It really is win-win but the "think small" DINOs can't see the big picture. They think Obama's rear-guard action of slowing Republican austerity and tax cuts is viable long term. It isn't -- at some point there will be a Republican president again and all the incrementalist tweaks (including the ACA) will be washed way like they never existed.
Bill Clinton offered 8 years of competent government but the legislative agenda was largely Republican -- wars on Drugs, welfare cuts and de-regulation. So long term the Republicans are getting what they want. Hillary is no better and a warmonger to boot.
Democracy at its crudest is mob rule and tramples all over rights. Therefore on rights issues we balance majority desires against constitutional and (more fundamentally) human rights.
When it comes to health care or even tax rates, what the majority wants can be the best choice. You need to weigh it against efficiency, economic incentives and effective long term strategies for growth or at least sustainability. The US can easily afford Sander's programs but it would require clawing back that part of the pie that the 1%+ has skimmed off since the 1980's. If instead, wages had matched productivity growth, we'd also have more consumer demand and a much stronger economy as well.
It really is win-win but the "think small" DINOs can't see the big picture. They think Obama's rear-guard action of slowing Republican austerity and tax cuts is viable long term. It isn't -- at some point there will be a Republican president again and all the incrementalist tweaks (including the ACA) will be washed way like they never existed.
Bill Clinton offered 8 years of competent government but the legislative agenda was largely Republican -- wars on Drugs, welfare cuts and de-regulation. So long term the Republicans are getting what they want. Hillary is no better and a warmonger to boot.
2
It's funny that HRC and Obama are offering Stalin, saying that what every industrialized country has given their citizens is not workable in the freedom loving, opportunity illusion, offered by the good old flag waving USA. More war in Afghanistan and weapons of mass destruction. Even Putin looks good now.
1
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized."
Daniel Hudson Burnham
Daniel Hudson Burnham
2
Mark proposes measured change. A timid approach of changing seats rather than changing the coarse of the ship of state. He advances the thinking of n`t.
1
No, in case you weren't paying attention, Bernie Sanders won tonight.
8
The current incremental programs basically suck. The ACA simply provide more people with health insurance and only a fool thinks health insurance is health care. Our expensive college system is unaffordable. Europe does both cheaper, and healthcare much better. We could borrow Europe's model and save money. We might have to replace fees with taxes, but would save money.
5
Come on - Obama re-treaded a Heritage Foundation program for healthcare reform and had the Heritage Foundation allies scream "socialism". That should tell you how bankrupt that idea is.
3
I think you forgot something. The ACA is a massive piece of legislation.
3
Read the piece again. The author refers to the ACA as the last piece of the New Deal.
Massive, yes! But it still 'needs work'. Eliminating it is definitely NOT an acceptable option!
You don't get much more "big-program" than the Clintons. Their big program is their personal enrichment.
7
So the day a Big-Program Liberal wins New Hampshire in a landslide, the NYT publishes an op-ed saying that big-program liberalism is dead. I guess you could say this is the best counter-indication in the world, sort of like predicting Dow 36000 just before the stock market crashes. Or I guess we could all ask, Is there anyone with a thinking brain among the NYT editorial staff?
30
Perhaps the point is that the numbers do not add up. People may want big programs, but they want someone else to pay for them. The someone else's do not have enough income to be taxed to pay for the programs, so the middle class will also have to pay, and they likely will not vote to tax themselves.
2
Is the era of democracy is over? Discussion of the political economy today is framed by the Right not as questions about what we need & how to accomplish it, but as directives about what is allowed. This ideology pretends that the economic gods must be appeased by regular sacrifices of whatever the government does on behalf of its citizens.
There simply is no such thing, in experience or in theory, as a modern, corporate, financialized economy without "big government". Not only are the channels of capital, of banking & investment, government channels, but the big "liberal" programs, the safety net & the infrastructure, are there to do things that private capital does not. Politics is appropriately about deciding how to do these things efficiently and fairly. Contemporary right-wing ideology simply tells us, ignoring the experience of history and other countries, that the answers are given & must be submitted to.
Of course there are impossibilities. Maybe we can't have a society in which some people take home several hundred times as much as others after taxes, without letting those others go without medical care. Maybe we can't have an economy driven by frantic individual borrowing & spending and still guarantee ourselves social security. But those are choices that capitalism & democracy require us to to make, and they can only by made politically.
There simply is no such thing, in experience or in theory, as a modern, corporate, financialized economy without "big government". Not only are the channels of capital, of banking & investment, government channels, but the big "liberal" programs, the safety net & the infrastructure, are there to do things that private capital does not. Politics is appropriately about deciding how to do these things efficiently and fairly. Contemporary right-wing ideology simply tells us, ignoring the experience of history and other countries, that the answers are given & must be submitted to.
Of course there are impossibilities. Maybe we can't have a society in which some people take home several hundred times as much as others after taxes, without letting those others go without medical care. Maybe we can't have an economy driven by frantic individual borrowing & spending and still guarantee ourselves social security. But those are choices that capitalism & democracy require us to to make, and they can only by made politically.
14
Being concerned about the welfare of people, I see big government programs as the only viable alternative. Ceding control to the wealthy and corporations, essentially what the anti-government focus of Republicans, has only led to decreases in the quality of life for most Americans. For some of us, the favored few, the educated, those with technical skills, the wealthy, life has improved under corporatization and increasing plutocracy, as we've accumulated much of the prosperity of the last few decades. Universal programs are the only real, time-proven, option.
18
What bothers me is that the Republicans seem to have zero concept of a common good. I'm not completely happy with the Democrats but at least they embrace the idea of "society" as opposed to some Randian rugged individualist fantasy.
2
The entire premise of this article is that we accept things they way they are and work within the boundaries set for us - by the GOP. It's intransigence and obstructionism are taken as a given, go unchallenged, and force everyone else to do things their way.
I reject that premise. So do many millions of Americans who have finally woken up to the hollowness of the status quo. In 2008 and 2012 we voted for a candidate who talked the talk of transformative change - and then adopted incrementalism in power, being a "realist" and "pragmatic."
The result was to allow the Republicans again and again to set the terms of debate and constrain the parameters of action. The stripping of the public option from Obamacare is an egregious example. Obamacare's incrementalism still leaves 29 million Americans uninsured. There other examples of such baby-step mediocrity, not least relative inaction on climate-change, which threatens civilization itself.
By the terms of Mr. Schmitt's own argument, incrementalism does not even reach its own goals: "It's unlikely the MyRA, for example, will be enough to meet the shortfall in Americans’ retirement savings or reduce inequality of wealth."
So no change, then. And we're asked to support THAT?
Enough tinkering at the edges. Enough conceding to the obstructionist right.
It's time for real change, driven by a peaceful, popular uprising. Even if Bernie is not successful in 2016 he has started something. The tsunami is coming.
I reject that premise. So do many millions of Americans who have finally woken up to the hollowness of the status quo. In 2008 and 2012 we voted for a candidate who talked the talk of transformative change - and then adopted incrementalism in power, being a "realist" and "pragmatic."
The result was to allow the Republicans again and again to set the terms of debate and constrain the parameters of action. The stripping of the public option from Obamacare is an egregious example. Obamacare's incrementalism still leaves 29 million Americans uninsured. There other examples of such baby-step mediocrity, not least relative inaction on climate-change, which threatens civilization itself.
By the terms of Mr. Schmitt's own argument, incrementalism does not even reach its own goals: "It's unlikely the MyRA, for example, will be enough to meet the shortfall in Americans’ retirement savings or reduce inequality of wealth."
So no change, then. And we're asked to support THAT?
Enough tinkering at the edges. Enough conceding to the obstructionist right.
It's time for real change, driven by a peaceful, popular uprising. Even if Bernie is not successful in 2016 he has started something. The tsunami is coming.
41
If Bernie is your nominee and is not successful, we get a GOP POTUS who will pack the SCOTUS so that we can look forward to Citizens United with bells on, to the reversal of Roe V Wade, and to much more control by the plutocracy: privatization of the military, the police, and more privatization of the judicial system and education. But you'll have the satisfaction of being pure in heart. And remember, the Supremes rule for their lifetimes--40 more years of Scalia and Thomas look-alikes.
1
.... and 2016 is not one minute too soon!
1
That is no less true of Hillary.
So your point is that if the Democratic nominee is not successful we get a GOP president and SCOTUS appointees?
True.
But also true of Hillary, who is no shoe-in for the White House, given the cargo holds of baggage she brings to the table and her increasingly evident problems with electability.
No it's not "purity of heart" but a desire for REAL CHANGE, not incremental tinkering that, by this column's own admission, changes little or nothing and fails to reach even the modest goals it sets itself.
So your point is that if the Democratic nominee is not successful we get a GOP president and SCOTUS appointees?
True.
But also true of Hillary, who is no shoe-in for the White House, given the cargo holds of baggage she brings to the table and her increasingly evident problems with electability.
No it's not "purity of heart" but a desire for REAL CHANGE, not incremental tinkering that, by this column's own admission, changes little or nothing and fails to reach even the modest goals it sets itself.
Why big programs now? Income inequality effects have caught up with us all economically and have become apparent to everyone. Same for the impact of Citizens United and undue influence of moneyed interests. Same with relentless, unnecessary and exorbitantly expensive wars (lives lost, injuries, $4 trillion wasted, loss of strategic leverage now and into the near term). Look beyond the dichotomy of big-small, beyond progressive-conservative, and beyond framing this as capitalism-socialism. US citizens are expressing their needs and concerns in actionable terms of democratic opportunity--socially, economically, and politically. We are wanting in all three. People are fed up and Sanders presents a cogent vision with tangible solutions to these problems.
The poor and middle class, if engaged, will carry the day in 2016 and 2018.
Independent and Boomer for Bernie
The poor and middle class, if engaged, will carry the day in 2016 and 2018.
Independent and Boomer for Bernie
28
The era of big programs is not over: the pendulum swings, especially when there is a democracy that allows votes by the uninformed.
The Sanders message is understandable--up to a point. He makes the mistake of playing to those bereft of historical perspective. Simply put, the rich and powerful do it to the poor and the weak--always and everywhere--except when the poor and the weak combine to protect themselves with programs. The Robber Barons weren't called that for nothing.
An assessment of the character of Woodrow Wilson (Margaret McMillan, Paris 1919) was that "he spoke for the dispossessed, the disenfranchised and all those who had been left behind by the rapid economic growth of the late nineteenth century." Maybe he did, but this attests to the divisions in society long before Sanders. Thucydides would agree, having remarked that "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."
But there have been FDRs and LBJs and those who gave them power to act. Their significant actions didn't flow from isolated philosophy but followed some striking tragedy such as the great depression or a presidential assassination.
The Sanders message is understandable--up to a point. He makes the mistake of playing to those bereft of historical perspective. Simply put, the rich and powerful do it to the poor and the weak--always and everywhere--except when the poor and the weak combine to protect themselves with programs. The Robber Barons weren't called that for nothing.
An assessment of the character of Woodrow Wilson (Margaret McMillan, Paris 1919) was that "he spoke for the dispossessed, the disenfranchised and all those who had been left behind by the rapid economic growth of the late nineteenth century." Maybe he did, but this attests to the divisions in society long before Sanders. Thucydides would agree, having remarked that "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."
But there have been FDRs and LBJs and those who gave them power to act. Their significant actions didn't flow from isolated philosophy but followed some striking tragedy such as the great depression or a presidential assassination.
3
Government policy in the future will likely be complex, incremental and often invisible, not sweeping? Government will be more a rearranging of the pieces of existing programs, using regulations, incentives to states, tax credits and “nudges” informed by behavioral economics in place of direct spending? This will clearly be what Cornell political scientist Suzanne Mettler calls a “submerged state”? Citizens won't see or feel these initiatives and may not know they are benefiting from a government initiative at all?
Sounds to me like the perfect God state. I neither see nor feel it, do not know if I am being benefited or not. I am probably being nudged this way and that but cannot really tell (so much for not only free will, but my free will is in hands of other people, the state) and of course if I am not up to par in the grand design, well I suppose the state can not only withdraw its invisible hand (for that is what the state becomes--it replaces and takes over roll of invisible hand or God of market proposed in classical free market economics) it can punish me at will. If I cannot see or feel it and can be nudged this way and that, certainly the power exists to dump me by the wayside or set up a series of "reverse nudges" to throw me into despair, leave me not only to my own wits but block efforts in various direction for success, with ultimate result of suicide. Sounds like the perfect state merging free market, government control and internet surveillance technology.
Sounds to me like the perfect God state. I neither see nor feel it, do not know if I am being benefited or not. I am probably being nudged this way and that but cannot really tell (so much for not only free will, but my free will is in hands of other people, the state) and of course if I am not up to par in the grand design, well I suppose the state can not only withdraw its invisible hand (for that is what the state becomes--it replaces and takes over roll of invisible hand or God of market proposed in classical free market economics) it can punish me at will. If I cannot see or feel it and can be nudged this way and that, certainly the power exists to dump me by the wayside or set up a series of "reverse nudges" to throw me into despair, leave me not only to my own wits but block efforts in various direction for success, with ultimate result of suicide. Sounds like the perfect state merging free market, government control and internet surveillance technology.
Schmitt's analysis omits the one category of spending that challenges his thesis that the appetite for ambitious programs has disappeared. Neither party opposes efforts to devote large resources to the military. The U.S. has created a war machine unparalleled in history, at least in terms of cost, but congressional demands for further expansion persist.
Schmitt's conclusions would thus have been more persuasive had he observed that they applied mainly to domestic spending. Sharp cuts in defense spending would provide funds for coping with internal challenges. That shift in resources, however, would require different priorities than those favored by the Republican-dominated Congress.
This conclusion would lead naturally to a discussion of the GOP bias against the federal government as an agent of social change, a bias to which Schmitt alludes only indirectly. While cost would probably deter even a Democratic Congress from approving Mr. Sanders' ambitious program, the GOP would balk at any program designed to reduce economic inequality.
Investment in better health care, improved education, and a restored infrastructure would strengthen the America's economy as well as improve the lives of its citizens. One of the richest countries in the world has more than adequate resources to accomplish these goals. Schmitt has focused on the wrong cause. The problem stems from the wrong priorities, from a determination to pursue imperial ambitions rather than domestic welfare.
Schmitt's conclusions would thus have been more persuasive had he observed that they applied mainly to domestic spending. Sharp cuts in defense spending would provide funds for coping with internal challenges. That shift in resources, however, would require different priorities than those favored by the Republican-dominated Congress.
This conclusion would lead naturally to a discussion of the GOP bias against the federal government as an agent of social change, a bias to which Schmitt alludes only indirectly. While cost would probably deter even a Democratic Congress from approving Mr. Sanders' ambitious program, the GOP would balk at any program designed to reduce economic inequality.
Investment in better health care, improved education, and a restored infrastructure would strengthen the America's economy as well as improve the lives of its citizens. One of the richest countries in the world has more than adequate resources to accomplish these goals. Schmitt has focused on the wrong cause. The problem stems from the wrong priorities, from a determination to pursue imperial ambitions rather than domestic welfare.
10
The Republican candidagtes of today want no programs at all. Hillary tells us the best we can do is creep by them in tiny steps, calling that incremental progress the new normal.
This author evidently believes Hillary.
There is another voice out there, and it just won the first election. Bernie says we can do more, we must do more, and the voters just said yes by a big margin.
Bernie is correct, and Mark Schmitt/Hillary are wrong.
This author evidently believes Hillary.
There is another voice out there, and it just won the first election. Bernie says we can do more, we must do more, and the voters just said yes by a big margin.
Bernie is correct, and Mark Schmitt/Hillary are wrong.
56
Bernie hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. In a cycle that will see the pendulum swing away from Democrats, you want to nominate an unelectable? Or show us where he can get 270 Electoral College votes. Moral victories are worse than useless.
2
No objection to big government programs when they are necessary, just the way we pay for them. Social Security and Medicare should be paid for out of general revenues and their funding should come from ordinary income taxes, not a tax on working. Failing that, SS and Medicare taxes should at least be deductible for federal income tax purposes.
The main problems seem to be a shortage of living-wage jobs and general wage stagnation for all but the top 10% or so. The first will probably only get worse as automation and artificial intelligence improve, and that will not make the second problem any better. Like it or not, the next big government program, one that will be necessary, will be a stipend covering the basic costs of living for anyone who needs it.
The main problems seem to be a shortage of living-wage jobs and general wage stagnation for all but the top 10% or so. The first will probably only get worse as automation and artificial intelligence improve, and that will not make the second problem any better. Like it or not, the next big government program, one that will be necessary, will be a stipend covering the basic costs of living for anyone who needs it.
5
To end Social Security and Medicare, make them part of general revenues. As separate "insurance" plans they are solvent and not subject to political aberrations. Adjustments to contributions or elimination of the "ceiling", and legislating capacity to Medicare by reforming the Tauzin restriction preventing Medicare from bargaining for the best price for pharmaceuticals. (Tauzin whored his seat in Congress to secure a job worth millions from Pharma) The intent of the prescription drug plan was to "starve the beast" by bankrupting Medicare.
Since productivity and wages were "divorced" in 1986 and wages spiraled down from that point, restoring the wages lost by way of taxes on the beneficiaries of the "divorce" to pay for "the basic costs of living for anyone who needs it."
Since productivity and wages were "divorced" in 1986 and wages spiraled down from that point, restoring the wages lost by way of taxes on the beneficiaries of the "divorce" to pay for "the basic costs of living for anyone who needs it."
7
First paragraph, bad ideas. Last statement, How about if a 40 hr workweek at minimum wage didn't REQUIRE government assistance?
1
Kathleen has it right. With the advance of technology, the hard facts point to the future impossibility of creating what we now define as "jobs" for everyone. This is already evident now -- look just at the difficulty of the current generation of quite well educated youth to find good jobs, not to mention those with less education or skill levels. The trend will continue, and maybe speed up much faster than we think. So, the challenge will be to find answers to how to distribute "income" in ways other than through wages and salaries associated with "jobs." If we are to live on into the future (say another 500 years, or quite a bit longer than that), it's obvious that this must/will be done. I wonder how it was done on other planets out there.
Another article disgusing the failed neoliberal recipe we have taken during the last 30 years. It does not work for the average person, although it works for big corporations.
Last night people supported the new deal approach that Sanders has consistently advocated for. Yours is another "realist" approach that leaves the 99% behind just as incrementalism and centrism have done in last few decades. We have instead more inequality and concentration of wealth, students' exaggerated levels of debt, stagnant salaries, uninsured people, and a whole sense of insecurity.
This article shows how the economic, political, and academic elite are divorced from the needs of ordinary people. They want to impose their sclerotic vision on the rest of us. This time is not going to work. I understand you try to persuade us to your selfish interest, though.
Go Sanders!
Last night people supported the new deal approach that Sanders has consistently advocated for. Yours is another "realist" approach that leaves the 99% behind just as incrementalism and centrism have done in last few decades. We have instead more inequality and concentration of wealth, students' exaggerated levels of debt, stagnant salaries, uninsured people, and a whole sense of insecurity.
This article shows how the economic, political, and academic elite are divorced from the needs of ordinary people. They want to impose their sclerotic vision on the rest of us. This time is not going to work. I understand you try to persuade us to your selfish interest, though.
Go Sanders!
92
Mr. Schmitt denies it, but he is describing triangulation precisely. God willing, we are witnessing its death throes. What is the point of pushing for an incremental change like Obamacare when Democrats won't even defend it or point to its successes? Just pointing to the Republicans and saying "We're not as bad as them" won't cut it anymore.
Big social changes never happen overnight -- until they do. Consider same sex marriage, which 10 years ago had every Republican falling over themselves to condemn it. Today, they won't touch the issue. Time to do this with economic issues, clearly, definitively, and in language that voters can understand. So far, only Sanders is doing this.
Big social changes never happen overnight -- until they do. Consider same sex marriage, which 10 years ago had every Republican falling over themselves to condemn it. Today, they won't touch the issue. Time to do this with economic issues, clearly, definitively, and in language that voters can understand. So far, only Sanders is doing this.
78
This sets an impressive level of tone-deaf "analysis" on a day when Bernie Sanders's supporters show a keen appetite for something quite different from the sleepy, don't-bother-me incrementalism that has been a prescription for, well, nothing.
30
The ridicule directed at Bernie Sanders's free college tuition program has no actual basis in fact. Indeed, it's the clearest case of how skewed the American perception of government spending is.
Bernie Sanders' program would require state and federal governments to contribute $70 billion a year to provide college education for those who can get into a 4 year college.
The F-35 program has cost the federal government $1.5 trillion so far. That single defense program would pay for Bernie Sander's college program for 21 years.
The Sanders proposal is far from perfect, but also far from crazy. We think nothing of investing $1.5 trillion (and rising) into a troubled defense program that delivers few advantages in the current counter-terror war, but whose expensive stealth features might be obsolete by the time we face China or Russia in a future conflict. When it comes to making Americans competitive in a world where unskilled labor cannot provide middle class lifestyles, suddenly we are a nation of penny-pinchers.
Bernie Sanders' program would require state and federal governments to contribute $70 billion a year to provide college education for those who can get into a 4 year college.
The F-35 program has cost the federal government $1.5 trillion so far. That single defense program would pay for Bernie Sander's college program for 21 years.
The Sanders proposal is far from perfect, but also far from crazy. We think nothing of investing $1.5 trillion (and rising) into a troubled defense program that delivers few advantages in the current counter-terror war, but whose expensive stealth features might be obsolete by the time we face China or Russia in a future conflict. When it comes to making Americans competitive in a world where unskilled labor cannot provide middle class lifestyles, suddenly we are a nation of penny-pinchers.
36
If you think struggling state governments that are barely solvent have some magical wallet full of billions of dollars, you are nuts.
Any money would have to come from the Federal government, and it is $18 TRILLION in debt already.
BTW: that means YOU. It means YOU will be taxed, and heavily -- plus a VAT on every single purchase -- so somebody's slacking loser kid can spent 7 years getting a BA in "gender studies" and not pay a dime.
We don't need more college graduates. We already have so many that it skews the job market and has rendered a 4 year degree no more valuable than a high school diploma.
Any money would have to come from the Federal government, and it is $18 TRILLION in debt already.
BTW: that means YOU. It means YOU will be taxed, and heavily -- plus a VAT on every single purchase -- so somebody's slacking loser kid can spent 7 years getting a BA in "gender studies" and not pay a dime.
We don't need more college graduates. We already have so many that it skews the job market and has rendered a 4 year degree no more valuable than a high school diploma.
3
As a percentage of GDP, the debt owed outside our federal government is about 74% of GDP. It was 109% in 1946 followed by 27 years of Great Prosperity. During this period we INCREASED the debt in dollars by 75%.
BTW the debt was 16% of GDP in October of 1929.
In case you want to bring up the Europe was rubble myth, look at http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/pdf/G1.1.pdf. It shows the percent of the world's output from the various regions, America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, from 1700 - 2012. During the the post WWII period Europe's percentage was constant at about 38%. America's went down from slightly more than Europe's to slightly less.
You could also look at our balance of trade which fluctuated a bit around zero. We did not get prosperity off of others.
English and French industries were largely untouched during the war. Of course it would have taken a miracle for Germany to quickly recover, but if you look up :German Miracle" or "Wirtschaftswunder", you can see that was exactly what happened.
BTW the debt was 16% of GDP in October of 1929.
In case you want to bring up the Europe was rubble myth, look at http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/pdf/G1.1.pdf. It shows the percent of the world's output from the various regions, America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, from 1700 - 2012. During the the post WWII period Europe's percentage was constant at about 38%. America's went down from slightly more than Europe's to slightly less.
You could also look at our balance of trade which fluctuated a bit around zero. We did not get prosperity off of others.
English and French industries were largely untouched during the war. Of course it would have taken a miracle for Germany to quickly recover, but if you look up :German Miracle" or "Wirtschaftswunder", you can see that was exactly what happened.
2
I'm a Sanders supporter. But if he's elected, I can see fighting for years and years to get national healthcare.
Highly likely that the fools will be out in force this fall and vote in righties to congress. A sure recipe for nothing.
Highly likely that the fools will be out in force this fall and vote in righties to congress. A sure recipe for nothing.
3
Actually, I would say that the era of Americans believing corporate media's defeatism and pro-big business message is what is over. The voters just spoke in New Hampshire and exit polls of Democratic voters show over 60% want single-payer universal health care.
35
"But without new programs, it really is possible to deny the need for broader tax increases, as Mrs. Clinton does. There is no need for revenue to reduce future budget deficits; the best way to keep deficits under control is to keep the economy growing and to reduce health care spending, which again means more tinkering."
No, it really isn't possible. That's because retirement of the Baby Boomers will cause Social Security and Medicare to swallow up the rest of the United States budget. It will require massive new revenue streams to offset. None of the presidential candidates are talking about it, but we will be soon enough. It would be nice to see the Times leading the conversation. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eric-schnurer/2013/10/16/baby-boomer...
No, it really isn't possible. That's because retirement of the Baby Boomers will cause Social Security and Medicare to swallow up the rest of the United States budget. It will require massive new revenue streams to offset. None of the presidential candidates are talking about it, but we will be soon enough. It would be nice to see the Times leading the conversation. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eric-schnurer/2013/10/16/baby-boomer...
Cost for health care per person in PPP dollars in 2013:
US - 8713
OECD average - 3453
UK (socialized) - 3235
Canada (Medicare for ALL) - 4351
Australia (similar obesity smoking and drinking) - 3866
Switzerland (strongly regulated private insurance) - 6325
The Netherlands (partially like the Swiss) - 5131
France - 4124
Germany - 4819
Italy - 3077
Japan - 3713
Sweden - 4904
See any savings there, dubious?
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/oecd-health-statistics-2014-frequ...
US - 8713
OECD average - 3453
UK (socialized) - 3235
Canada (Medicare for ALL) - 4351
Australia (similar obesity smoking and drinking) - 3866
Switzerland (strongly regulated private insurance) - 6325
The Netherlands (partially like the Swiss) - 5131
France - 4124
Germany - 4819
Italy - 3077
Japan - 3713
Sweden - 4904
See any savings there, dubious?
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/oecd-health-statistics-2014-frequ...
2
"But his view is being challenged by a new, more incremental liberalism, "
It would be more accurate if this were properly reversed:
"But her view is being challenged by a new, bolder, liberalism". But of course then you couldn't paint Hillary as the "underdog" which you would so like to do now, right?
America doesn't need "incremental" change - we are dying the "death of a thousand paper cuts" by the assault on the working and middle class that has been ongoing for almost four decades. We need a massive push back against this cancer, and Sanders is the only one who is prescribing this approach. If you would open your partisan eyes and ears, you would notice the widespread anger aimed at the establishment, of which you and Hillary are card-carrying members.
It would be more accurate if this were properly reversed:
"But her view is being challenged by a new, bolder, liberalism". But of course then you couldn't paint Hillary as the "underdog" which you would so like to do now, right?
America doesn't need "incremental" change - we are dying the "death of a thousand paper cuts" by the assault on the working and middle class that has been ongoing for almost four decades. We need a massive push back against this cancer, and Sanders is the only one who is prescribing this approach. If you would open your partisan eyes and ears, you would notice the widespread anger aimed at the establishment, of which you and Hillary are card-carrying members.
53
Across the entire economy some large government-administered programs still make sense economically and as matters of social justice. It isn't an accident that every other advanced democracy has (1) a single-payer, government-run option for health insurance, (2) far lower administrative costs for providing health insurance, (3) dramatically lower per-capita outlays for health, and (3) better, often significantly better, health outcomes. Obamacare has turned out to be the "Health Insurance Industry Profit Guarantee Act".
24
Not every country with universal healthcare has a single payer plan. Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, South Korea, and Switzerland achieved universal health care through insurance mandates. A number of other countries have achieved it through a two-tier system, where the government provides or mandates catastrophic or minimum insurance coverage for all residents (or citizens), while allowing the purchase of additional voluntary insurance or fee-for service care. For instance, in France the government pays for about 73% of healthcare. 92% of the French have supplemental, private health insurance, which in most cases is through their employers. The government pays for the 73% through payroll taxes paid by employers and employees, and income tax. French workers contribute about 13% of their earnings to the public sector healthcare fund. In France, the government sets prices for medical services, so they are transparent, which means there is no uncertainty what a provider will be paid. Regulation of prices is the major factor in reducing the amount paid by the French for healthcare. The government sets what it considers a fair price for all appointments and procedures, and then pays 70% of that cost. The patient or his/her insurance company pays the rest. Doctors in France do not make as much as they do in the US, but they do not have big debt after med school. Hospitals are not paid nearly as much in France as in the US.
3
Only 3 nations on earth have single payer. So you are wrong.
"Single payer" is not the same as "universal health care". There are many effective ways to provide universal coverage, and we need to stop getting stuck on single payer, as if it were the only option.
NOTE: all those nations that have effective universal coverage, ALSO pay doctors, nurses and hospital administrators about half (or less) what we pay in the US. If you can sell that to doctors and nurses in the US -- to take a 50% pay cut for the good of the public -- I will take my hat off to you.
"Single payer" is not the same as "universal health care". There are many effective ways to provide universal coverage, and we need to stop getting stuck on single payer, as if it were the only option.
NOTE: all those nations that have effective universal coverage, ALSO pay doctors, nurses and hospital administrators about half (or less) what we pay in the US. If you can sell that to doctors and nurses in the US -- to take a 50% pay cut for the good of the public -- I will take my hat off to you.
3
@jas2200: Your point being?
Or maybe you didn't have a point but were just writing facts.
Disembodied facts, meaning nothing?
Chris Matthews just said that Hilary's problem is her campaign has no soul.
Meaningless, decontextualized facts, a campaign with no soul.
So I guess this article IS about Hilary's lack of soul.
Or maybe you didn't have a point but were just writing facts.
Disembodied facts, meaning nothing?
Chris Matthews just said that Hilary's problem is her campaign has no soul.
Meaningless, decontextualized facts, a campaign with no soul.
So I guess this article IS about Hilary's lack of soul.
It's postponed: 1. It is being blocked by Republican Party at all costs, because it tends to promote equality, 2. it is learning to be smarter and more effective.
When finally let out of the gate, I think it will be more effective than ever. We just have to elect people that believe in statecraft.
When finally let out of the gate, I think it will be more effective than ever. We just have to elect people that believe in statecraft.
13
Actually, no. The rejection of Hillary Clinton's "incremental" "soft" liberalism is a sign that most of the 99% are no longer willing to wait. Let's face it folks, progressive income / wealth / inheritance taxation and social security "entitlements" have done more in the last 75 year to reduce inequality and poverty. We need more "Big Program" Liberalism, not less.
46
I am afraid the facts are not on your side, Scott. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over because he knew it had failed the people it was meant to serve. The best social welfare program in the world is a job. The left has unfortunately forgotten that. They focus on giving people fish instead of helping them provide for themselves. Go into the inner cities of this country and ask the people what 50 years of liberalism has done for them -- nothing!
2
Socially liberal but fiscally conservative amounts to nothing more than not putting your money where your mouth is. It is lip service to those who need the help, and costs nothing to those who benefit from immiserating others. As a response to class warfare from the top, it is abject surrender, and its practitioners should all be named Quisling.
15
"Is the era of big-program liberalism over?" You might as well ask: "Are we there yet?" We will never be there because the American Dream will never be achieved even by Americans as a whole, let alone by all humans all over the world.
1
We are not limited to either big programs or incremental improvements: if Congress plays its part we can have the universal big programs, if they block us, then we can go for the incremental, unilateral small gains. But we need to wrest control from the 1% and accept our responsibility to the 99% for meaningful change.
24
Big liberal programs outdated? The alternative is to turn the country over to the Koch brothers. In this country there is little middle ground because none is wanted.
Let's look at the USA at face value: we are an international Empire of unprecedented wealth and power whose main base of operations extends over the continent of North America "from sea to shining sea" - this is not a map for thinking and acting small when addressing the destiny of its 320 million citizens.
The reality on the ground is that if either Hillary or Bernie wins later this year the Republicans will spend every waking moment trying to destroy their presidency during the next four to eight years, so presidential power must be exerted more aggressively through non-legislative means. This is proved over the past eight years of the Obama administration, not to mention the Republican attempt to impeach the previous Democratic president. Obstructionism is the only thing the Republicans do well.
For some unfathomable reason this country is in love with the ongoing Civil War and just cannot let it go. This epic of sad-masochism appears to be the only constant in American history, and it would be interesting to read what historians will write about it a thousand years from now.
Let's look at the USA at face value: we are an international Empire of unprecedented wealth and power whose main base of operations extends over the continent of North America "from sea to shining sea" - this is not a map for thinking and acting small when addressing the destiny of its 320 million citizens.
The reality on the ground is that if either Hillary or Bernie wins later this year the Republicans will spend every waking moment trying to destroy their presidency during the next four to eight years, so presidential power must be exerted more aggressively through non-legislative means. This is proved over the past eight years of the Obama administration, not to mention the Republican attempt to impeach the previous Democratic president. Obstructionism is the only thing the Republicans do well.
For some unfathomable reason this country is in love with the ongoing Civil War and just cannot let it go. This epic of sad-masochism appears to be the only constant in American history, and it would be interesting to read what historians will write about it a thousand years from now.
22
It's been so long that we have forgotten what prosperity looks like.
We have two long-term drivers of our economic fate:
1. The information technology revolution which has seen the cost of computation fall by a factor of one trillion over the past 50 years and given us virtually free and instantaneous global communications. This has enabled the reduction of labor cost and employment through automation and outsourcing.
2. The re-formation of monopolies which blocks those labor cost savings from being reflected in lower cost of goods and the formation of new businesses. Most importantly, these monopolies have gained control of our political system. A recent college study showed little or no correlation between public interest and governmental decisions http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oliga...
Any solutions will be anything but incremental.
2. The re-formation of monopolies which blocks those labor cost savings from being reflected in lower cost of goods and the formation of new businesses. Most importantly, these monopolies have gained control of our political system. A recent college study showed little or no correlation between public interest and governmental decisions http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oliga...
Any solutions will be anything but incremental.
62
You left out the third part, government and deficit spending. There is only so much capital to go around, and business, especially startups cannot compete with the Federal Government.
Government spending does create wealth, and thereby new capital. Furthermore government suppresses new business via more and more regulations.
Government spending does create wealth, and thereby new capital. Furthermore government suppresses new business via more and more regulations.
This is the real robot revolution. People like Mark Schmitt have no clue.
I would add that if Hillary Clinton is elected as our first woman president, the cost of this dramatic change to taxpayers will be zero! And this sea change will not require a vote in the Republican congress.
I hope that Clinton will push the woman president idea to the max. I believe this will stimulate the economy with a sense of hope. Jesse Jackson said,"keep hope alive." Obama had his "audacity of hope." Now, we need the hope of: Yes, she can!
One step for (W)oman. One giant step for (H)umankind.
=========================================
I hope that Clinton will push the woman president idea to the max. I believe this will stimulate the economy with a sense of hope. Jesse Jackson said,"keep hope alive." Obama had his "audacity of hope." Now, we need the hope of: Yes, she can!
One step for (W)oman. One giant step for (H)umankind.
=========================================
1
"Liberalism" is not over...
The real question is where ("his view is being challenged by a new, more incremental liberalism") this is coming from. What has brought about this attitude that we can't create programs but can only tinker with what already exists? The strangle hold the GOP has put upon Americans FBO extremely wealthy individuals and corporations who refuse to pay fair taxes, and they buy congress to write laws to support that notion.
If we want to restore America to greatness, then return to a graduated tax rate (under Eisenhower the top rate was 91%) and hold the 1% responsible for improving the country they have taken so very much from.
America is on the cusp of awakening and Bernie is the lighting the darkness.
Every voter owes it to themselves, and the country, to read "Dark Money"
The real question is where ("his view is being challenged by a new, more incremental liberalism") this is coming from. What has brought about this attitude that we can't create programs but can only tinker with what already exists? The strangle hold the GOP has put upon Americans FBO extremely wealthy individuals and corporations who refuse to pay fair taxes, and they buy congress to write laws to support that notion.
If we want to restore America to greatness, then return to a graduated tax rate (under Eisenhower the top rate was 91%) and hold the 1% responsible for improving the country they have taken so very much from.
America is on the cusp of awakening and Bernie is the lighting the darkness.
Every voter owes it to themselves, and the country, to read "Dark Money"
13
We do have a graduated tax rate system, and do you realize that NOBODY EVER PAID 91% taxes under Eisenhower? It was a total fake. There were so many loopholes and deductions, that some people and companies back then paid nothing at all.
When we reformed taxes over the years, the promise was that we'd lower the top rate BUT get rid of loopholes & deductions, so that we collected more taxes fairly. But rich people have lots of smart CPAs, accounting firms and tax attorneys and they figured out NEW loopholes and NEW deductions -- rendering the whole thing meaningless.
It doesn't help that even average people cling desperately to things like the mortgage deduction, or deductions for child care, etc. They all skew the tax code away from direct simplicity to a complex calculation of how to give some people benefits and advantages over other people.
I am very much in favor of tax code simplification, but that means getting rid of virtually ALL deductions and credits and things like the EITC which exist to form a shadow welfare system that others cannot see and evaluate. They are all wrong, from top to bottom.
When we reformed taxes over the years, the promise was that we'd lower the top rate BUT get rid of loopholes & deductions, so that we collected more taxes fairly. But rich people have lots of smart CPAs, accounting firms and tax attorneys and they figured out NEW loopholes and NEW deductions -- rendering the whole thing meaningless.
It doesn't help that even average people cling desperately to things like the mortgage deduction, or deductions for child care, etc. They all skew the tax code away from direct simplicity to a complex calculation of how to give some people benefits and advantages over other people.
I am very much in favor of tax code simplification, but that means getting rid of virtually ALL deductions and credits and things like the EITC which exist to form a shadow welfare system that others cannot see and evaluate. They are all wrong, from top to bottom.
1
The problem with "invisible change" is that it's just that, invisible. If your goal is to incrementally transform capitalism into libertarian socialism by making more and more businesses worker-owned and operated, then the incremental approach works just fine. But when it comes to government policy? If a beneficial program is largely invisible in the eyes of the voter, s/he will not come to appreciate the good that smart government can do, and is more vulnerable to ideological attacks on the legitimacy of public intervention.
4
If you substitute "chicken-feed" for "incremental" you will know all you need to know about this polemic in favor of the neo-liberal, pro-bank, pro-military policies.
17
The author, Mr. Schmitt, works for New America, which is run by Hillary's Director of Policy Planning at the State Department. So, no surprise, an anti- Bernie, pro-Hillary article. Also, no surprise that a pro-Hillary piece like this would appear just as the country becomes aware of Hillary's defeat in the NH primary and tries to spin it
38
Zzzzzzzz. So tired of "incremental liberalism," especially when the increments go the wrong way.
If you can describe your platform in the active voice, present tense, no caveats, then by nature you're a more efficient and truthful politician. Go, obviously, Bernie.
If you can describe your platform in the active voice, present tense, no caveats, then by nature you're a more efficient and truthful politician. Go, obviously, Bernie.
25
Incrementalism has provided so many benefits to the American people over the past 15 years...right! The fact of the matter is that the only real benefit they have received during that period has been Obamacare...far from an incrementalist approach!
As other readers have noted below, the incrementalist approach is advocated only when it comes to social policies, when it comes to the military/security state, the sky is the limit. $1.3 trillion for a failed fighter jet...no problem! Modernizing the nuclear weapons arsenal...$18 billion a year for 15 years...no problem! $1billion a year for the national security state...pocket change! Give me a break, the money exists when it lines the pockets of the oligarchs, when it comes to "We the people" incrementalism is the order of the day.
As other readers have noted below, the incrementalist approach is advocated only when it comes to social policies, when it comes to the military/security state, the sky is the limit. $1.3 trillion for a failed fighter jet...no problem! Modernizing the nuclear weapons arsenal...$18 billion a year for 15 years...no problem! $1billion a year for the national security state...pocket change! Give me a break, the money exists when it lines the pockets of the oligarchs, when it comes to "We the people" incrementalism is the order of the day.
26
Clearly the NYT had its dizzying array of anti-Bernie propaganda at the ready, to publish immediately as he won New Hampshire. As Bernie said this evening, "here comes the kitchen sink".
122
Another rationalization of defeatism from a student of the status quo. We may be witnessing a wave of revulsion in the electorate that sweeps away the conventional wisdom of a gridlocked, dysfunctional system. Presumably Mr. Schmitt would have found FDR's sweeping agenda unreasonable. The American people thought differently.
56
Dems. Must get off there tush and end GOP control of Congress
1
Incrementalism is the vision (or lack thereof) being embraced by those who in the 1990s called themselves "New Democrats" and were called by others "NO Democrats." If this is the plodding course governance is to take in the face of climate change and other impending crises, government must ultimately be seen to have failed us.
The message that, despite extremely different policy proposals, is now resonating from both the camps of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is "Go big or go home."
In the words of Winston Churchill, "The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences...."
The message that, despite extremely different policy proposals, is now resonating from both the camps of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is "Go big or go home."
In the words of Winston Churchill, "The era of procrastination, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences...."
25
Thought this was a really interesting piece and unlike the other commenters, I actually agree. Big programs are very hard to get through, esp when Republicans controls both chambers. And, yes, of course, I would hold Bernie Sanders responsible for delivering on his promises if he were to get elected! If he's promising these grand programs, he needs to have a plan for coming through ... yes I know there's going to be a revolution and suddenly social democrats will get elected in droves and that how all this will get done. Forgive me for being a bit skeptical.
2
So Mr. Schmitt, it is okay for big business, big corporations and the billionaires to feed at the government trough, but the average taxpayer should not expect the government to deliver any real service to them?
I prefer a government bureaucrat managing my health care every time to a profit operated death panel.
the republicans give u a medal for military service, but they won't tax and spend so they hire enough health personnel to operate the VA. It is their strategy throughout the government, to starve the best, 27 USDA inspectors when they need 100.
Try attacking the real essence of the problem, instead of acting as a water carrier for the thieves in the financial markets.
I prefer a government bureaucrat managing my health care every time to a profit operated death panel.
the republicans give u a medal for military service, but they won't tax and spend so they hire enough health personnel to operate the VA. It is their strategy throughout the government, to starve the best, 27 USDA inspectors when they need 100.
Try attacking the real essence of the problem, instead of acting as a water carrier for the thieves in the financial markets.
32
Another chapter in "the audacity of nope."
58
No, it's not over. I don't understand why the American people should be derided for expecting government to work for them when we are the ones footing the bill. It's been too long of a time since government has worked for us. I don't feel like that should be the end of government like some libertarians believe. I feel like the Sanders revolution is something a lot of us have been thinking and feeling for a long time and thank god he is ballsy enough to say it and mean it. Revolution sounds like a scary thing, but the really scary thing is that government has become so corrupted that merely promising to govern for the people and not for corporate interests has become revolutionary.
72
The powers that be are very threatened by the likes of Bernie Sanders. The submerged state you write about is really the shadow government, that is so entrenched and run by corporations that the people's business and welfare are not being attended to. Americans are not blind to this.
95
Those who vote republican are, blind that is.
Oh how they would love it to be
Those who've garnered the most money,
Private jets, yachts and houses
Their hunger arouses,
But nary a trace of Pity.
Those who've garnered the most money,
Private jets, yachts and houses
Their hunger arouses,
But nary a trace of Pity.
40
We don't need their stinking pity, Larry. Even for the sake of a rhyme.
We need their respect. And we're going to have to demand it, because they're not just going to give it to us for the asking.
We need their respect. And we're going to have to demand it, because they're not just going to give it to us for the asking.
1
There is an online report from the Cato Institute about the source of the now unwieldy Federal debt. They chart the deficits from the mid-60s until the current time and the numbers would indicate that nearly all of the national debt is equivalent to all the monies poured into "The War on Poverty" which other reports conclude has been a defeat.
Time for some new thinking!
Time for some new thinking!
Mr. Schmitt, your last paragraph is very telling. What it really means is a continuation of austerity. The trouble with "do more with less" is that it usually translates to "do less with less". You assume that the current political configuration will stay as it is. The point of Bernie's campaign is to change the political configuration. Heaven knows, it needs changing.
135
The era of big-program liberalism is over because we can’t afford the entitlements we have, much less new ones.
Eighty years ago when FDR desperately experimented with means to pull us out of an economic cataclysm, government did little by way of social supports. He was able to insert government into a process that far from being saturated by government hardly was touched by it. This continued incrementally for forty years, by which time we were through LBJ’s transformative Great Society programs and had FULLY saturated our economy with government dependencies. Even with Bill Clinton’s conversion of Welfare to Workfare twenty years later, the economy STILL was saturated.
Then, as the Boomer generation aged and started retiring in great numbers, we found that the sheer costs of our immense entitlements, most obviously healthcare-related and even the Old Age portion of SS (it ran a deficit of $39 billion total in 2014 and is forecast to be insolvent by 2035 if nothing is done), were severely challenging our ability to fund them while still doing other important things. The new costs of the ACA will intensify those challenges. We cannot afford Bernie Sanders’s grand vision of big, new programs without huge new tax increases that simply won’t be enacted.
Inevitably, if we cannot find ways to grow our economy robustly, even incremental increases to government spending will need to be curtailed and eventually end; and we may be forced to scale back current entitlements.
Eighty years ago when FDR desperately experimented with means to pull us out of an economic cataclysm, government did little by way of social supports. He was able to insert government into a process that far from being saturated by government hardly was touched by it. This continued incrementally for forty years, by which time we were through LBJ’s transformative Great Society programs and had FULLY saturated our economy with government dependencies. Even with Bill Clinton’s conversion of Welfare to Workfare twenty years later, the economy STILL was saturated.
Then, as the Boomer generation aged and started retiring in great numbers, we found that the sheer costs of our immense entitlements, most obviously healthcare-related and even the Old Age portion of SS (it ran a deficit of $39 billion total in 2014 and is forecast to be insolvent by 2035 if nothing is done), were severely challenging our ability to fund them while still doing other important things. The new costs of the ACA will intensify those challenges. We cannot afford Bernie Sanders’s grand vision of big, new programs without huge new tax increases that simply won’t be enacted.
Inevitably, if we cannot find ways to grow our economy robustly, even incremental increases to government spending will need to be curtailed and eventually end; and we may be forced to scale back current entitlements.
5
How come the most prosperous and the most powerful nation on earth cannot afford to provide its citizens what lesser nations by far -- the UK, France, Germany, Canada, the Scandinavians -- seem to easily afford? Of course, as long as we willingly imbibe the cool-aid that lets the 1% act as economic black holes, we will lack the resources. Bring back the tax rates that prevailed during the Eisenhover years, and affordability will no longer be the issue. [Yes, I have heard the apologias, but remember, we survived that terrible socialistic years intact.]
18
R M Gopa1:
The Euros haven't had to defend themselves for eighty years -- WE paid to defend them. They're beginning to be forced to as America backs away from them, and those "lesser nations" (think twice before visiting Paris, guy) are beginning to see their socialisms unravel as they're forced to start thinking about diverting resources from butter to guns.
The Euros haven't had to defend themselves for eighty years -- WE paid to defend them. They're beginning to be forced to as America backs away from them, and those "lesser nations" (think twice before visiting Paris, guy) are beginning to see their socialisms unravel as they're forced to start thinking about diverting resources from butter to guns.
2
Sanders' singlepayer plan will shrink those "new costs of the ACA" by eliminating the useless middlemen of the health care system, insurance companies, who do nothing to improve care, often make it worse, and add up to 25% of the cost of running the whole system between their bureaucracy, overhead and profits, and the costs of the health care industry which has to hire thousands of people to deal with the insurers.
Really, what is so hard to understand about this? All the other advanced nations in the world who have this system have better health outcomes at considerably less cost.
And all those other main advanced societies -- who are our allies by the way -- have virtually all the other same social programs Sanders is proposing: free public universities, more generous pensions, vacations, sick time off, parental leave, etc., and they are doing just fine. They also have better infrastructure, another point of emphasis for Sanders.
Sanders' plans would provide a tremendous boost for the economy and raise most people's living standards and raise tax revenues as a result. That combined with raising taxes on the wealthy and making corporations pay their taxes, and judicious cuts in our out-of-control military spending and corporate welfare would pay for Sanders' programs. And best of all, our nation could once again become a democracy rather than an oligarchy.
Really, what is so hard to understand about this? All the other advanced nations in the world who have this system have better health outcomes at considerably less cost.
And all those other main advanced societies -- who are our allies by the way -- have virtually all the other same social programs Sanders is proposing: free public universities, more generous pensions, vacations, sick time off, parental leave, etc., and they are doing just fine. They also have better infrastructure, another point of emphasis for Sanders.
Sanders' plans would provide a tremendous boost for the economy and raise most people's living standards and raise tax revenues as a result. That combined with raising taxes on the wealthy and making corporations pay their taxes, and judicious cuts in our out-of-control military spending and corporate welfare would pay for Sanders' programs. And best of all, our nation could once again become a democracy rather than an oligarchy.
5
You say to the supporters of Bernie Sanders, "Give up before you get started."
Meanwhile, there are poor people, hungry people, unemployed people, people without access to affordable health care in states where the Republican governors refused to expand Medicaid. Incremental policies were what Obama had to settle for because the Republicans in Congress refused to go along with anything constructive, largescale or small.
It's possible to advocate incrementalism. Go ahead and do so. But don't claim that anything better is impossible; if the Founding Fathers had thought that, we'd be a province of England today.
Meanwhile, there are poor people, hungry people, unemployed people, people without access to affordable health care in states where the Republican governors refused to expand Medicaid. Incremental policies were what Obama had to settle for because the Republicans in Congress refused to go along with anything constructive, largescale or small.
It's possible to advocate incrementalism. Go ahead and do so. But don't claim that anything better is impossible; if the Founding Fathers had thought that, we'd be a province of England today.
189
O Canada!
1
Right now, the government's income is pretty much spoken for. About $700 billion for Social Security benefits, $500 billion for Medicare, and $500 billion for Medicaid. That's $1.7 trillion, and its rising. There's not going to be room for much else unless taxes are increased substantially on everyone. Good luck with that.
12
Or you cut out a war here or there, use the bargaining power of the government to end the outrageous profits given to the Shkrelis of the world, etc..
13
The problem is solved if passive income and large corporations were taxed like the rest of us.
Remember in 2012 and 2013 GE not only paid no taxes but received billions in payments from our government. Make no mistake who is getting the money.
Remember in 2012 and 2013 GE not only paid no taxes but received billions in payments from our government. Make no mistake who is getting the money.
15
Maybe we just cut a little from the wasteful pentagon "defense" budget.
9
The nation doesn't need political and economic defeatism. Incremental change has only been incremental, negatively incremental, for the middle class, the working class, and the poor. The wealthy have enjoyed massive increases in wealth and power and they want these heinous increases to continue. Only a political and economic revolution, let by the voters and not controlled by the wealthy and their political puppets will restore any kind of economic balance to the nation. Oligarchy is just around the corner; incremental, BandAid approaches will only ensure that democracy fails.
192
"Makers and takers;" gotta love it.
Makers are folks who use their bodies, especially their hands, to manufacture (make with hands) things that people actually need and use. Takers push money from this basket to that, amass huge piles of it and spend it to buy politicians so that they will be taxed on their transactions at rates lower than those for people who make things.
Makers make jobs, it is true. The problem is that those jobs exist beyond our borders, performed by workers who are unprotected by reasonable safety standards and who are paid what the job creators are pushing American labor toward.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Makers are folks who use their bodies, especially their hands, to manufacture (make with hands) things that people actually need and use. Takers push money from this basket to that, amass huge piles of it and spend it to buy politicians so that they will be taxed on their transactions at rates lower than those for people who make things.
Makers make jobs, it is true. The problem is that those jobs exist beyond our borders, performed by workers who are unprotected by reasonable safety standards and who are paid what the job creators are pushing American labor toward.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
96
Hillary+NAFTA+TPP+(still secret) TT+IP= the end of the middle class forever and the U.S. becoming a low wage, third world nation that will exist by the export of our abundant natural resources to other entities that will control all manufacturing where the wages are lowest. Once wages are driven down to third world, maybe manufacturing will return here in the form of sweatshops.
Think carefully, and Vote!
Think carefully, and Vote!
NOT sure what century you are in - the makers you describe are robotic tools - the makers now create software and systems - and they need to be smart - not just belong to a union for guaranteed lifetime employment.
Think Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google
And if you make it too uncomfortable for them - they can pack up their intellectual capital and leave and take their electrons somewhere else.
Think Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google
And if you make it too uncomfortable for them - they can pack up their intellectual capital and leave and take their electrons somewhere else.
I just listened to the entire Bernie spiel from start-to-finish and came away really inspired, except for
his failure to include the free haircuts, the free electric blankets and the free Chinese carryout
meals that would have made his political platform complete. Tomorrow I’m gonna spend a lot of time finalizing my first free carryout meal. I’m thinking steamed dumplings, spare ribs, moo shu chicken, beef with broccoli and some kind of noodle and vegetable dish.
Go Bernie!
his failure to include the free haircuts, the free electric blankets and the free Chinese carryout
meals that would have made his political platform complete. Tomorrow I’m gonna spend a lot of time finalizing my first free carryout meal. I’m thinking steamed dumplings, spare ribs, moo shu chicken, beef with broccoli and some kind of noodle and vegetable dish.
Go Bernie!
14
Since you are from Texas, I would have thought you might want barbecued beef and free rifles which you can 'open carry' (to prove your manhood) at your friendly neighborhood bar. If you want real Chinese food, come to San Francisco but leave the armaments at home.
7
Good point. Cancer treatments, heart medicines, and campaign finance reform are so similar to splurging on restaurant meals, I can't believe that Sanders hadn't thought of this sooner!
A,
We already have everything Bernie is promising and it is not free we work very hard for it and we are not going to give it up.
Paying taxes to get people educated, healthy and productive means more tax payers and a healthier wealthier and more productive society.
My wife and I spent the day at the hospital in preparation for another hip replacement we are overjoyed with the quality of the doctors, technicians, nurses and support staff our tax dollars educated and we are more than happy to still pay taxes to help pay their salaries. But we are still enraged that we still must pay for parking and I understand that even Bernie won't pay for that. Talk about injustice!
We already have everything Bernie is promising and it is not free we work very hard for it and we are not going to give it up.
Paying taxes to get people educated, healthy and productive means more tax payers and a healthier wealthier and more productive society.
My wife and I spent the day at the hospital in preparation for another hip replacement we are overjoyed with the quality of the doctors, technicians, nurses and support staff our tax dollars educated and we are more than happy to still pay taxes to help pay their salaries. But we are still enraged that we still must pay for parking and I understand that even Bernie won't pay for that. Talk about injustice!
2
More wishful thinking by those who value their portfolios over principle.
145
II have led a like of principle. However, when you're a retired person who is blessed to have a pension, your portfolio matters. Do you want us to move in with our underemployed, debt-ridden children?
Bernie Sanders is winning because he understands this moment in history. Mark Schmitt does not. The argument is not over big government vs small, or sweeping change vs incremental.
The argument is over whether the government will represent the 99% or the ,1%
Bernie is not likely to have huge coat tails that sweep in a Democratic congress, and I think he knows that, Even if he did, it would not be enough. What Bernie understands is that it is not enough to have a man on the inside, you have to have millions of people on the outside pushing the system.
The media dismissed Occupy, but while the Tea Party got a lot of people into office, they have done almost nothing for the average person.
Occupy on the other hand changed the conversation, and the conversation determines everything else. One example, before Occupy raising the minimum wage was crazy talk. Now it is going up in states and cities around the country. Real change.
Another example. Occupy made the Sanders Campaign possible, and he knows it.
The government is responsive to the people when they are afraid of us. For three decades we have let them do whatever they want and we have been going backwards. Now people, especially the youngest generations are getting involved and changing the world.
The biggest danger is that Bernie wins and everyone thinks it is up to him to fix everything. This election should be about growing the movement to create true democracy in the U.S. and after the election we must grow it more.
The argument is over whether the government will represent the 99% or the ,1%
Bernie is not likely to have huge coat tails that sweep in a Democratic congress, and I think he knows that, Even if he did, it would not be enough. What Bernie understands is that it is not enough to have a man on the inside, you have to have millions of people on the outside pushing the system.
The media dismissed Occupy, but while the Tea Party got a lot of people into office, they have done almost nothing for the average person.
Occupy on the other hand changed the conversation, and the conversation determines everything else. One example, before Occupy raising the minimum wage was crazy talk. Now it is going up in states and cities around the country. Real change.
Another example. Occupy made the Sanders Campaign possible, and he knows it.
The government is responsive to the people when they are afraid of us. For three decades we have let them do whatever they want and we have been going backwards. Now people, especially the youngest generations are getting involved and changing the world.
The biggest danger is that Bernie wins and everyone thinks it is up to him to fix everything. This election should be about growing the movement to create true democracy in the U.S. and after the election we must grow it more.
319
The biggest danger are:
1. Sanders wins and *nothing* get fixed. Not one thing and we are worse off than we were before.
2. Trump wins. Nuf said.
1. Sanders wins and *nothing* get fixed. Not one thing and we are worse off than we were before.
2. Trump wins. Nuf said.
3
If Bernie isn't going to take back Congress, how is he going to get any of his proposals passed into law?
2
You nailed it. The need to organize from the ground up is the one thing Sanders keeps repeating that the press/media never reports or discusses.
1
No. Big programs are all around us, i.e, the F-35. Just not ones that benefit the poor and the Middle Class. Expect more articles like this if Sanders continues to do well.
315
The era of "big government", other than the military industrial complex, has not been much in evidence since LBJ's civil rights legislation of 1964, in other words half a century ago.
"But if this is the only way to drive reform — and in the current political configuration, it is — then politicians in both parties will have no choice but to find ways to achieve big change without big new programs."
The whole point of Sen. Sanders' campaign is there is an alternative. You even cite it. It's success is an open question, but a large segment of the population is insisting it be given full consideration. Also, since the average age of proponents is younger than average, this could be just the start.
The whole point of Sen. Sanders' campaign is there is an alternative. You even cite it. It's success is an open question, but a large segment of the population is insisting it be given full consideration. Also, since the average age of proponents is younger than average, this could be just the start.
100
If people think Bernie's ideas are the best, they better show up to vote for more than the presidential election.
Perhaps this nation is finally learning, and the hard way, that it isn't only about president, but Congress and governors, and state legislature elections have impact on the life we lead. Because if the president has to fight, fight, fight with the lawmakers in his presence, he will not be given the opportunity to be signing the potential laws that his supporters thought they'd see and behold.
Voter beware - and show up at the polls - for all elections, all.
Perhaps this nation is finally learning, and the hard way, that it isn't only about president, but Congress and governors, and state legislature elections have impact on the life we lead. Because if the president has to fight, fight, fight with the lawmakers in his presence, he will not be given the opportunity to be signing the potential laws that his supporters thought they'd see and behold.
Voter beware - and show up at the polls - for all elections, all.
206
Very true, but even elections are not enough.
We are each a Sovereign Human Being. We lend some of our Sovereignty to representatives so they can get things done. But if you vote and then toss your sovereignty into the closet until the next election, it might not be there when you go back to find it.
We all have a responsibility to manage our representatives as you would manage an employee. You have to keep track of what they are doing and tell them when they are screwing up and recall or arrest them when they commit fraud. If you do not fulfill this responsibility your rights will cease to exist.
Fortunately after decades of apathy, during which we have moved backwards, large numbers of people, especially the younger generations, are waking up and realizing what is at stake. Bernie Sanders is the only mainstream political candidate who recognizes this moment in history and has jumped in front of this democracy movement to help it grow.
If you help it grow then we can create a true democracy that is actually responsive to what the People want, instead of the policy preferences of the corporations, pushed by corporate mass media, for the global billionaires.
No matter who is elected the People must continue to strike fear into the oligarchy and their politicians or the system will continue to bleed us dry.
We are each a Sovereign Human Being. We lend some of our Sovereignty to representatives so they can get things done. But if you vote and then toss your sovereignty into the closet until the next election, it might not be there when you go back to find it.
We all have a responsibility to manage our representatives as you would manage an employee. You have to keep track of what they are doing and tell them when they are screwing up and recall or arrest them when they commit fraud. If you do not fulfill this responsibility your rights will cease to exist.
Fortunately after decades of apathy, during which we have moved backwards, large numbers of people, especially the younger generations, are waking up and realizing what is at stake. Bernie Sanders is the only mainstream political candidate who recognizes this moment in history and has jumped in front of this democracy movement to help it grow.
If you help it grow then we can create a true democracy that is actually responsive to what the People want, instead of the policy preferences of the corporations, pushed by corporate mass media, for the global billionaires.
No matter who is elected the People must continue to strike fear into the oligarchy and their politicians or the system will continue to bleed us dry.
3
Recall? You don't have to tell me about keeping up and recalls. I was a petition signature box carrier in Wisconsin. We carried thousands of petition signatures to recall Scott Walker in Wisconsin into the office of the Government Accountability Board office. Then the recall - which of course we lost. Scott Walker and his corrupt lieutenants reign and have destroyed Wisconsin. When I ask people about that recall election, many did not vote, although they say today they would - and against Walker - and wish they would have then. By the way, Walker and henchmen have gotten rid of the Government Accountability Board. What does that tell you?
2
MIMA, well said. President Obama was able to get some real things done his first two years, and could have gotten much more done if he had had a solid 60 votes in the Senate. Then many of the voters who put him in office deserted the party in the 2010 election. After that his effectiveness was limited by a obstructionist Congress. Most of which has been done since 2010 he did on his own or by negotiating with a Republican Congress. Now some liberals blame him for being less effective than they wanted.
2
Schmitt is up the creek.
"Incremental liberalism, which centers on advancing liberal goals without big, universal programs — an approach being invented by President Obama and Mr. Sanders’s opponent, Hillary Clinton" is first of all, not liberalism. It is blunting the hard edge of conservatism.
As long as Schmitt and other Democrats low ball expectations while Republicans go for maximum libertarianism, we lose they win.
It is time for the Democrats to stop punting the ball to their own side of the field and to take the ball all the way downfield.
You got to love Obama for his decency and his stature, I never want to see a negotiator like him on the Democratic side ever again. I never want to hear a Democrat talking about the government has to tighten its belt during a major recession when deficit spending is mandated by verified economic theory.
Let's play to win. No more artful dodging.
"Incremental liberalism, which centers on advancing liberal goals without big, universal programs — an approach being invented by President Obama and Mr. Sanders’s opponent, Hillary Clinton" is first of all, not liberalism. It is blunting the hard edge of conservatism.
As long as Schmitt and other Democrats low ball expectations while Republicans go for maximum libertarianism, we lose they win.
It is time for the Democrats to stop punting the ball to their own side of the field and to take the ball all the way downfield.
You got to love Obama for his decency and his stature, I never want to see a negotiator like him on the Democratic side ever again. I never want to hear a Democrat talking about the government has to tighten its belt during a major recession when deficit spending is mandated by verified economic theory.
Let's play to win. No more artful dodging.
273
How he can call those two liberals is beyond me. Having lived under Eisenhower, those two positioned to Eisenhower's right. Hillary is owned by Wall Street, which is also how I perceive Obama after his big Hope talk.
3
Amen!
This is why Sanders is rising. Many of us feel Hillary would be just four more years of compromise, ending each time in a yet another slight shuffle to the right policy-wise. We're tired of Republican-light. And tired of even media outlets like NYT trying to sell it to us as inevitable.
This is why Sanders is rising. Many of us feel Hillary would be just four more years of compromise, ending each time in a yet another slight shuffle to the right policy-wise. We're tired of Republican-light. And tired of even media outlets like NYT trying to sell it to us as inevitable.
8
Your comment makes no sense. The US fared better in recovering from the Great Recession than its European counterparts because it didn't tighten its belt.
The programs of Democrats reflect the desires of their Citizens United donors - they ultra wealthy tend to be more socially liberal and economically conservative than the rest of the electorate, as discussed by Jonathan Chait Monday:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-is-getting-ser...
But the first step is appointing the right SCOTUS justices, then ridding ourselves of Citizens United and limiting campaign contributions again; it's a step-by-step process because we didn't get here overnight, and we can't get out of this hole overnight.
After we have a Dem POTUS making SCOTUS appointments, all things are possible, even ' big-programs ' if voters are inclined :)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-is-getting-ser...
But the first step is appointing the right SCOTUS justices, then ridding ourselves of Citizens United and limiting campaign contributions again; it's a step-by-step process because we didn't get here overnight, and we can't get out of this hole overnight.
After we have a Dem POTUS making SCOTUS appointments, all things are possible, even ' big-programs ' if voters are inclined :)
38
We need a constitutional amendment that makes clear to the Supreme Court that:
Corporations are not People and Money is not speech.
Corporations are not People and Money is not speech.
5
mcgloin - Yep; it starts with well heeled Dems funding lawsuits across the country before 2020 to force implementation of the SCOTUS decision on fair Congressional district lines:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-a...
so that such a Constitutional amendment will make it through Congress to be submitted to the states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-upholds-creation-of-a...
so that such a Constitutional amendment will make it through Congress to be submitted to the states.
1
Actually guys we don't need an amendment which would be nearly impossible to get through. The decisions you don't like were all 5 - 4, so just getting another reasonable Justice could reverse them. Perhaps we could impeach Thomas and/or Scalia.
3
We need a new New Deal. FDR's New Deal has been frittered away, bit by bit between conservatives, neoliberals and neoconservatives.
It's time for this nation to rethink Capitalism and put the people back in it as its driver and engine. America should not be an oligarchy. America should have a middle class that is thriving. Corporate America can't have it both personhood and be completely free of the duty to nation all citizens shoulder.
It's time to Rewrite The Rules, the people's way
---
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-joseph-stiglitz-rew...
It's time for this nation to rethink Capitalism and put the people back in it as its driver and engine. America should not be an oligarchy. America should have a middle class that is thriving. Corporate America can't have it both personhood and be completely free of the duty to nation all citizens shoulder.
It's time to Rewrite The Rules, the people's way
---
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-joseph-stiglitz-rew...
238
This Millennial is not interested in new entitlements against our generation. We, progressives, have spent trillions of dollars since the inception of LBJ's War on Poverty with only marginal improvements in living standards. Safety nets are critical, but the left has to rethink its prescriptions for the 21st century. Our workers and Middle Class will continue to lose if our answers to conservative policies and increasing globalization are more broad-stroke, bloated, and inflexible bureaucracies. The progressive movement has become intellectually lazy - applying old solutions to new problems.
10
Chris,
Only a conservative uses the word "entitlements..." This is about returning to a place where government does what the people need it to do and the shrunken middle class regains its power.
If you're not for that, then I feel sorry for you. Dream big! Be young!
Only a conservative uses the word "entitlements..." This is about returning to a place where government does what the people need it to do and the shrunken middle class regains its power.
If you're not for that, then I feel sorry for you. Dream big! Be young!
121
Yes, the death of unions will help the worker, as wages reach 50 cents an hour and 6 year old children are back in the mines, i see your point.
15
Well, we could invent Medicare, but we already have it. It works very well and is much much cheaper than the alternative. Imagine how much we would save by including the rest of us in it. We could invent free public education, but we already have it, and it supplies our industries with productive, willing workers. Imagine how much more productive we could be by extending it for 2 or 4 more years. We could invent public day care centers so that people can go to work after they start a family, but we already have them in some places. Imagine how many people could leave the welfare rolls if we provided it to everyone who needs it. No. None of these things are radical in the least, or a handout in the least. Least of all are they an expansion of government in any way.