Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
<< [<< "Welch: 'The Fire This Time'"] [Archive Index] [>>"Gen. J.C. Christian answers to a Higher Calling"] >>
07/01/2003 Archived Entry: "Procter: 'A Democratic Contract With America'"
Procter: 'A Democratic Contract With America'
The Democrats have to stop playing defense and go on the attack. If I read one more article declaring the Democrats are in 'disarray' as they 'struggle to find their voice' and 'decide on a winning message they can use against this popular President' I'll woof my cookies.
I'm going to take a page out of the Republican playbook and create a dynamite Democratic marketing tool. Newt Gingrich got a hundred million dollars worth of free publicity with his famous 'Contract With America.' People liked it because it was blunt, forthright and unequivocal. Of course Gingrich's Republicans never had the guts to pass most of it (especially the 'balanced budget amendment' see below), but they still got credit for being bold EXACTLY the image the Democrats need to cultivate.
I'd like to propose THE DEMOCRATIC CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. Every proposal is a common sense pitch that plays to a Democratic strength and a Republican weakness. The whole point of this document (like the Republican original) is to pick a fight with other guys to dare them to disagree with you. The Democrats need to take the fight to the Republicans, and beat them with a marketing club that even '50 million Republican ad dollars can't fend off.
Just to rub it in, the FIRST ACT is taken virtually WORD FOR WORD from the Gingrich document:
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: 'A balanced budget amendment to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.'
Thanks, Newtie. This is a proposal whose time has clearly come, with the wildly irresponsible Republican wastrels approving billions in new spending even as they destroy America's ability to raise money with insane 'breaks for billionaires' tax cuts.
2. THE AMERICANS RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE ACT: This act simply states that basic health care is a RIGHT. The Republicans want to pretend health care is just another consumer item subject to the whims of the free market, like video games and Diet Pepsi. Try telling that to an uninsured working class mother who can't pay for radiation treatments for her six year old daughter. Anyone with real compassion knows health care is a RIGHT, because you can't live (literally) without it.
3. THE EVERY CORPORATION PAYS ITS FAIR SHARE ACT: According to the BushCo rules, Halliburton gets billion dollar no-bid, open-ended government contracts even as it uses a post office box in Bermuda to avoid paying its fair share in taxes here in its alleged home base of America. Other corporations also enjoy the benefits of American life while dodging the price, leaving ordinary 'suckers' to pick up the tab. That's wrong. The Republicans approve of this outrage. That's evil. The Democrats demand an end to this NOW.
4. THE PROTECT OUR PRECIOUS ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN ACT: Bans anyone from working for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and the Department of Energy who has worked in any business or industry that has a vested interest in weakening or destroying environmental rules and regulations. No more polluters making the rules and writing the laws that make it easy for them to pillage our sacred natural resources.
5. THE GUARANTEED SAFETY NET ACT: Social Security and Medicare are beloved, effective public benefit programs. They are an unbreakable promise we've made to our elderly citizens. They are not to be 'privatized,' 'right-sized' or 're-invented' out of existence. HANDS OFF.
6. THE FREEDOM FROM ARAB OIL ACT: Mandates that American automobile (and truck, and SUV) standards must improve by three miles a gallon immediately. This is easily achievable with existing technology. Had we done this ten years ago, thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American soldiers would be alive today. It's time our troops stop dying for oil we wouldn't need if we acted in our own best interest.
7. THE GUARANTEED MEDIA DIVERSITY ACT: Returns media rules to pre-1994 levels, when media giants were banned from owning hundreds of outlets. Consumers want MORE choice, not less. Whether these media giants can achieve 'synergy' by 'streamlining their operations' is no concern of government in parceling out precious public property like airwaves.
8. THE INTEGRITY AND ACCOUTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT ACT: Forbids Senators and Congressmen (like Bill Frist and Tom DeLay) from voting on legislation (like special breaks for Eli Lilly and Westar) after they've taken money from them.
9. THE POWELL DOCTRINE FOREIGN INTERVENTION ACT: Demands that Congress satisfy all aspects of the 'Powell Doctrine' before voting to commit troops to a foreign war. A VITAL US INTEREST must be at stake. Our OBJECTIVES must be CLEARLY DEFINED. We must be willing to SUSTAIN A COMMITMENT that is CLEARLY LAID OUT IN ADVANCE OF THE ACTION. We must have a REASONABLE EXPECTATION THE PUBLIC WILL SUPPORT THE OPERATION. We must have a VIABLE EXIT STRATEGY. We must have EXHAUSTED OUR OTHER OPTIONS before taking action.
You don't have to be a Beltway Pundit to see that the United States invasion of Iraq fails just about every one of Mr. Powell's criteria.
Here's a blasting cap the Democrats can use to blow up the Republicans. To paraphrase Mr. Gingrich, 'How can even the most RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN come out against a balanced budget? The Powell Doctrine? Media Diversity? Integrity in government? And yet the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rummy/Norquist Administration is vulnerable on every one of these points.
It's time to think like Democrats, and market ourselves with the 'no guts, no glory' boldness of the Republicans.
Replies: 8 people speak up
Social programs are nice. Who's gonna pay for it? You? Or "anyone richer than I am is rich enough to pay for everyone's health care". My question is WHEN are we going to start asking for accountability among those that want free health care? I'm 56 -- I've taken care of myself-- the old "exercise, eat right, stay out of the sun, 4 oz of wine a day, no smoking, non couch potato" kind of existence. My mom smoked 2 packs a day for 50 years; now she has to take 8 different kinds of medicines a day because of her pulmonary and blood pressure problems -- all from smoking and never exercising. We pay for the medicine ourselves, with a small discount from a prescription plan she was smart enough to opt for before she was 65. Now, should the taxpayers be forced to pay for my mom's medicine because SHE chose to smoke? Why? People get type II diabetes from ignoring their health needs, then the taxpayers get to pay for this? Well, why bother to take care of yourself if you know that the taxpayers are going to pay for all of your medical needs. Why bother to save anything for your retirement because you know that the taxpayers are going to be "guilted" into supporting you?
One of these days, the taxpayers are going to revolt in a way not seen since the Boston Tea Party. They are going to tell "grandma" that if you smoke, forget having the taxpayers pay for your health care. If you are fat because you decided that eating at McDonald's was easier and tastier than cucumber slices and tomatoes on whole wheat bread, forget having the taxpayers pay for your arthritis and diabetes medicine.
Taking care of old people who refused to take of themselves is giong to break this country. What about people who never had kids? Why should my children have to pay for them? Whenever my childless friends start talking about Social Security, I ask them who they think is going to pay for their social security -- it's always someone else's kids. They want the benefits of the next generation supporting them without ever having put forth one little bit of effort to contribute to the next generation -- those are the same people that complain about "immigrants". Ha ha -- if it weren't for immigrants -- legal or otherwise -- this country would come to a grinding halt; and everyone could kiss the "promise" of Social Security, Medicare, Paid for Prescriptions, etc. good bye because Generation X is not going to pay 30% of their salary in Social Security taxes. And, corporations do not pay taxes per se. It all gets written into the bottom line as a "cost of doing business", and the cost is passed on to their customers. Corporations are set up to pit the bosses against rank and file employees -- more for me, less for thee. Not every corporation is World.com or Enron. Some actually try to provide good value for dollar given.
Posted by Mary Anne @ 07/01/2003 04:01 AM NY
Don:
You must be moving up in the food chain. To have a troll get to this so quickly! And throw up such a useless straw man too! The pack at Atrios would have a field day with this Ditto Monkey...
An excellent post, and an excellent idea! I hope you don't mind if I post it up over at my digs...
Posted by (: Tom :) @ 07/01/2003 12:03 PM NY
Guess Mary Anne (troll) has some "issues" to deal with. But any way, let's hope her company does provide decent health care and retirement for her, but let's also hope that if and when she is in need of it, that her company hasn't gone bankrupt, or been bought out by another company and that she doesn't get a letter in the mail saying Sorry...we no longer are providing those benefits anymore for you. Wonder what safety net she might have been lucky enough to inherit from her mother? Maybe her 401k is doing better than mine.
Seriousy why do some people insist that it is really so bad to actually care about people such as her mother, I mean really. Is that so evil? I am not even a very religious person, but I do care about people in this world. What is so bad about caring and compassion? I don't feel sorry for having a heart and caring for people such as her mother. However,I do feel sorry for people like Mary Ann, or whatever troll wrote this, who obviously lack heart or moral conscience.
Posted by Yikes! @ 07/01/2003 02:12 PM NY
Well, gee, Mary Anne. If your mom wasn't smart enough to opt into that prescription plan earlier in life - or if she didn't have the means to do so - would you be tossing her off the bus, too?
I hope nothing ever befalls you that you'll end up needing government help (can you say 'catastrophic event?') - because chances are good that there'll be a 'Mary Anne' out there yelling at you why you don't deserve the help.
Posted by editor @ 07/01/2003 02:44 PM NY
Um, and, er, you went from point 4 to point 6, dude. What is point five?
Might I suggest (only you could be so bold, Darth Vader!), ahem:
5. The FREEDOM OF EQUALITY FOR HUMANITY ACT:
There are to be no legalized restrictions on the rights of any individual's actions, provided they do no harm to others.
Also, the lagelized fiction of the corporation, which was written into legal history by a file clerk is abolished, and corporations can no longer attempt to be considered the same as 'persons' in the eyes of the law.
Posted by (: Tom :) @ 07/01/2003 06:31 PM NY
D'oh! legalized, not lagelized in that last post.
We apologize for the inconvenience...
Posted by (: Tom :) @ 07/01/2003 06:36 PM NY
Tom - just noticed that myself. Went back to Procter's email - he mis-numbered. Just re-number the articles, as I'm about to do.
-ed
Posted by editor @ 07/01/2003 06:48 PM NY
Bear with me, folks, this is a long response:
Mary Anne,
You raise many excellent points.
A word on tobacco. As far back as the late 17th century King James II of England tried to discourage the importation of tobacco from the American colonies claiming, among other things, that it "fouls the lungs." Unfortunately, the tobacco trade was far too lucrative for the growers, shippers, and traders to suppress (not unlike the slave trade).
My point is that in spite of that prescient warning, smoking tobacco was pretty much encouraged in this country until quite recent times (I believe TV ads were banned on 1/1/71). I'm a HUGE fan of black-and-white films from the early "Talkie" era through the mid-1950's. Look at any of those movies: the stars ALL smoked (whether or not they actually smoked in real life). Those stars were the role models of their generation (in addition, many tobacco companies gave financial inducements to Hollywood studios). US GI's in Europe during WWII were given "comfort packages" from Uncle Sam consisting of Spam, chocolate bars, candy, and cigarettes. So I think it's fair to say that people of our parents' generation (I'm 48) became addicted to tobacco during the 1930's and 1940's when very little research on its ill effects was done and, the little research that was produced was suppressed.
I don't believe many people of that era had a clue as to the addictive nature and the health effects of cigarettes. That said, I do not "BLAME" that generation for their tobacco-related health problems. My father (who smoked three packs of unfiltered Pall Malls a day) had his heart attack in June 1972, and thanks to an evil government-sponsored health plan, he survived and went back to work (after 6 months of disability). My dad is still working at age 81 (though it's only part-time). Think of all those yummy federal tax dollars he's paid in those 30 years.
How much does a Tomahawk cruise missile cost, $1 million? How many were dropped on Iraq? Think of the utter waste of resources that is involved in waging War. The idea that we should begrudge healthcare for the millions of Americans who stoically endured the Great Depression, fought and died for our liberty in WWII, and built up the American industrial juggernaut in the 1950’s is truly a very sad statement.
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 07/02/2003 04:11 PM NY
