A Proposed Statement of Purpose of the new Progressive Movement

This is a proposed statement of purpose for a new progressive movement to take over the Democratic Party and gain control of governments at all levels. It is based on the 1912 Progressive Party Platform, which contained a number of commitments that still are relevant:

- Limit political campaign contributions and expenditures.
- A “living wage” for all industrial workers.
- A social insurance program for everyone covering health, unemployment and old age.
- Government should create industrial research laboratories.
- One national health agency overseeing all aspects of health
- Federal regulation of all corporations operating in interstate commerce.
- Construction of a national highway system
- Impose a high tax on large inheritances. 

 The 2015 Commitment of a New Progressive Democratic Party

In a time of grave national problems, the people have called upon the Democratic Party to reconstitute itself into a party of the people, free of financial and corporate special interests and extremist ideologies, a progressive party, born of the nation's sense of justice, and dedicated to the restoration of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

We hold with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln that the people must insure that their Constitution fulfills its purposes and safeguard it from those who, by perversion of its intent, would convert it into an instrument of injustice. In accordance with the needs of each generation the people must use their sovereign powers to establish and maintain the equal opportunity and justice for all citizens, for which this Government was founded, and without which no democratic republic can endure.

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. The Republican Party has turned aside from these great tasks to favor the rich and powerful at the expense of the people. Some elements of the Democratic Party also are too closely aligned with these special interests.

As a new progressive movement takes control of the Democratic Party, that new, reinvigorated Progressive Democratic Party then will break the corrupt alliances between government and the powerful corporate and financial interests, returning the control of their government to the people.

We hold with Abraham Lincoln that the purpose of government is to do for the people what they need to have done but which they cannot do for themselves.

We oppose the use of public institutions for private profit. Instead, we pledge to reinvigorate the core institutions of government to better serve the people.

We promise to safeguard and protect the natural resources and environment of this nation. Its resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest of the people and their descendants.

We pledge to protect the natural rights of all our people asserted in our Declaration of Independence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well those rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution.

Despite All the Evidence that it Doesn't Work, Trickle Down has Survived for a Long Time

“There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.”

-  William Jennings Bryan, “Cross of Gold” speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago

Major Provisions of the Cromnibus Budget Act, Including Some Outrageous Stinkers

Here is an excellent summary of the provisions of the budget act, nicknamed "Cromnibus," passed by the Senate over the weekend and sent on to the President. However, it fails to mention the campaign finance provisions discussed below.

There is so much wrong with this budget that it is hard to find much of great significance that is good. I would not have voted for it even if it meant a government shutdown. This was the last chance to stop some of these outrages before the Republicans take control of the Senate.

But there are a few good things:

The Homeland Security budget held steady, which means nothing was done to block President Obama's immigration executive orders.

The President's budget for fighting Ebola in Africa was approved.

NASA gets a slight budget increase, including funding for the new Orion space-launch program.

Various food-aid programs, including food stamps, are funded, as is $40 billion in highway funds for the states.

No funds are provided for administration of the ban on the sale and manufacture of incandescent light bulbs, which I do not view as bad because of the extremely high cost of LED alternatives. There should have been a lower cost alternative in place before this act was passed.

Things that are wrong:

About half of the $1.1 trillion budget goes to the Defense Department, including $92 billion for procurement of new weapons systems, including another 38 F-35 fighters that we probably do not need. We maintain an active military of 1.3 million and 820,000 reserves. We really should be doing a complete re-examination of our military needs in light of the fact that we are unlikely to have a major war with a major enemy in the foreseeable future. We do have continuing conflicts of relatively small scale, and, of course, there is the situation in Syria. But we probably need to focus on a smaller, more versatile military, at considerably lower cost. We spend just about as much on our military as the total of the combined military budgets of all the other countries in the world.

Some bank regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act were lifted, including the one that prevented banks from getting FDIC protection, and thus tax-payer protection, for certain kinds of risky investments - the very kinds that went bad in 2008 and caused the Great Recession. The provision in the budget bill was written by lobbyists for City Group.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren tried to block this provision unsuccessfully because - under enormous White House pressure - a number of Democrats voted for the budget.

The EPA budget of $8.1 billion is cut by $60 million, which means that agency's budget has been cut by 21% since 2010. The assault by the Republicans continues on efforts to protect the environment and to protect American citizens from pollution and harmful chemicals. Another rider forbids the EPA to regulate lead content in ammunition or fishing tackle. Just what we need - more lead in the environment.

The IRS budget is cut by $346 million, despite the fact that it has additional responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act. It also is prevented from targeting tea party and other organizations seeking tax-exempt status for their political activities, which previously were prohibited. This combined with the increase from $65,000 to $1.5 million that individuals can contribute to political parties over a two-year period means we will see even more big money in politics.

Why would anyone want to permit truck drivers to work 82 hours and not have adequate sleep between work weeks?  Well, this budget blocks the Transportation Department from requiring two nights of sleep between work weeks and reducing the maximum work week to 70 hours.

Another stinker - and a real head-scratcher: The budget stalls rules that were to go into effect in 2017 that would have required more whole grains, and less salt, in school foods.

The budget continues to ban the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo and prohibits construction of facilities to house them in the U.S.

There are two provisions that seem to reflect completely opposed points of view. One rider prevents the District of Columbia from proceeding with the legalization of marijuana that was approved by voters in November. Another rider forbids the Justice Department from raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in states where they have been legalized.

It is time for progressives to take over the Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Warren has set the stage. It is time for progressives to take over the Democratic Party with her in the lead. All Democrats who vote for this budget bill with its CityGroup provision should be opposed in their next primaries by progressive candidates.

President Obama no longer is the leader of the Democratic Party. He has become a Republican

Thoughts on the 2014 Election.

 Why did the American people put the Republicans back in control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and in control of the Senate in 2014? Democrats did not turn out to vote in 2010, or 2014, like they did in 2008 and 2012, but did they really want the Republicans able to block Obama's programs? There is an absurdity in United States with a near majority of the people supporting a political party that operates almost entirely against their interests because it is completely devoted to helping the rich get richer, and has no interest in restoring the viability of the middle class to which most of its supporters belong, or want to belong.

In a short column in the New York Times in March on Thomas Piketty's book,Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Paul Krugman wrote, “one thing that strikes me is the remarkable extent to which American conservatism in 2014 seems to be about defending and promoting patrimonial capitalism even though we aren't there yet.” And he added, “In short, the GOP is more and more a party that consistently, indeed, reflexively, supports the interests of capital over those of labor.”¹

Not counting the racism that has shown itself in some of the virulent opposition to President Obama, why are there still millions of other middle class and lower middle class people who vote Republican even through they are hurt by the party's policies?

It may well be habit and tradition in some areas. But it also may be that the people really have not been given a true alternative and have not been shown how that alternative actually will work for them. Perhaps the Democrats and Republicans are not different enough from one another. Perhaps many people are disillusioned because they voted for a Presidential candidate who promised “change we can believe in” but who has not changed anything truly significant. Some polls have shown Americans growing more cynical of government and its ability to solve problems, and it is not hard to understand that.

The loss of the Senate in 2014 may eventually be good for the Democrats because nearly all of the “Blue Dog”Democratic senators are gone, and good riddance. As long as there were conservative Democrats in danger of losing their seats, neither the Senate, nor the President, would move ahead with progressive actions. President Obama purposely delayed his executive orders on immigration until after the election at the request of the conservative Democrats. Had he taken action before the election it might have helped to save one or two of the Senate seats in states, like Colorado, where there is a large Hispanic vote, but which did not turn out strongly for the Democrats.

How absurd it was for Kentucky Democratic Senatorial candidate Alison Grimes to refuse to say for whom she voted in the Presidential election. She might as well have said that Mitch McConnell was right all along to oppose everything the President wanted to do. And if that was the case, then why should anyone vote for her? Her loss in that election was guaranteed when she did that because Democrats had no reason to vote for her. She might have earned respect, and maybe even more votes, had she stood by the President and defended his record.

And then there is the ridiculous case of Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu trying to show her support of the oil industry by orchestrating a Senate vote on the Keystone Pipeline, a project posing horrendous dangers to the environment in a number of different ways, but providing no substantial economic benefit to the United States except that the Koch Brothers may make a billion dollars from it.

By keeping the Democratic Party and the President from becoming more progressive, these conservative Democrats help the Republicans maintain the gridlock. The Party is better off without them.

By the time Barack Obama finishes his second term, Democrats will have held the Presidency for 16 of the 28 years since Ronald Reagan left office, yet most of his conservative program that wrecked the middle class still is in place. Not all of that can be blamed on Democrats not always controlling Congress. The budget developed by the Progressive Caucus of the House of Representatives, praised by many economists, including Paul Krugman and Dean Baker, as better for the country than the budgets of either the White House, or the Republicans, did not received even a majority of the votes of House Democrats and no support from the Democrat in the White House. This has to change. The Democratic Party needs new leadership and new ideas.

The problems the nation face today cannot and will not be solved by private enterprise. It is going to take massive government action and large amounts of money. It is going to take new leadership dedicated to problem-solving.

It may be that there has not been either the right kind of dynamic leadership to bring about the changes the nation needs, or a large enough, and well organized enough movement for change that could be led. The ending of legal segregation and racial discrimination in the 1960s did not come about simply through one or two elections, or one set of protests, or through one or two leaders. It occurred because there was an enormously well organized movement over many years that had clear goals, determination to succeed, incredible courage, and developed both widespread support and outstanding leadership.

American history shows what has brought change in the past, and it can do it again. America needs a new progressive movement. That's how real change can occur.