Quote :

"The New Covenant with America (Democrat Contract With America) by Robert B. Reich 1. Competence. We promise America a competent government headed by people with expertise and experience. We will never appoint or confirm cronies whose main qualification for office is personal connection or party loyalty. 2. Fiscal responsibility and a capital budget. We will get the federal budget back under control by barring special spending (pork to political loyalists back home) and corporate welfare (subsidies to particular industries like agribusiness, oil, and pharmaceuticals). We will create a national capital budget so that federal construction money never again goes to bridges to nowhere in Alaska and instead goes to stronger levees in New Orleans. 3. Fighting terrorism and getting out of Iraq. We will fight terrorism with a strong military and with economic investments and aid for poor nations that are often the breeding grounds for terrorism. But we will withdraw American troops from Iraq. As even our generals now tell us, our presence there is incubating new terrorists and fomenting anti-Americanism around the world. 4. Ending torture and respecting the rule of law. We will respect the Geneva Conventions. We will never condone torture or keep people imprisoned indefinitely without due process of law. 5. Reducing oil dependence and greenhouse gases. We will reduce American dependence on oil and reduce global warming. By 2020, 20 percent of our energy will come from solar, wind, biomass, and other alternative sources. Also by 2020, America will utilize 20-percent less fuel than today. 6. Restoring the middle class. We will restore the growth of the American middle class and of middle-class incomes. Supply-side economics, which rewards the rich with generous tax breaks and tells us that the resulting economic growth will trickle down to everyone else, has proven a cruel hoax. Little or nothing is trickling down. A quarter of all the benefits of economic growth now go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans. We are determined to reverse course. 7. A progressive tax code. The cost of making the nation's homeland secure against terrorism and natural disasters and of providing adequate health care and education -- without falling deeper into debt -- will require more federal revenue. Yet the middle class cannot afford more taxes. It's time for the rich to bear their fair share. We will impose a surtax of one-tenth of 1 percent per year on net worth in excess of $1 million and will roll back the administration's tax cuts for those earning more than $300,000 a year. 8. A minimum health-care wage. The cost of health insurance for the typical family is rising by double digits, while 46 million Americans are without insurance altogether. We will establish a simple minimum health-care wage offering basic health insurance -- one free checkup per year, five free medical visits, one free dental, choice of doctor or dentist limited to an approved list, free drugs up to $1,000 per year -- to any American wishing to join. The expected large scale of this program will give government bargaining leverage to get low prices from providers and drug companies. 9. Lifelong education through progressive vouchers and re-employment insurance. We will finance every K-14 student (that's right -- two years beyond high school) with a progressive voucher in an amount inversely related to family income. (This year, for example, it would range from $15,000 for students from families at or below the poverty line to $3,000 for students from families in the wealthiest 10 percent.) The vouchers could be used at any publicly certified school. In addition, we will turn the unemployment insurance system into a re-employment insurance system. Recipients will get job training, job-search assistance, and, if the new job pays less than the old, wage insurance paying half the difference for a year. 10. Maintain separation of church and state. We will never allow religion to dictate whether an individual must be kept on life support, young people can gain access to birth-control information or counseling, women will have the freedom to choose to terminate a pregnancy, research can be done on stem cells or any other potential scientific innovation, or public schools must teach nonscientific interpretations of sacred texts. Robert B. Reich is co-founder of The American Prospect. "

11/9/2005 10:12:01 AM

i could buy that.

nothing about gun control, so that's good.

11/9/2005 10:14:37 AM

Wow. You just impressed the hell out of me.

11/9/2005 10:19:11 AM

anything would look good at this point.

11/9/2005 10:21:02 AM

I disagree with 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. Too much government in some of those (health, taxes, etc).

The rest is almost common sense.

11/9/2005 10:36:33 AM

wait wait wait

you DISAGREE with ending oil dependence?

and yeah, I don't really agree with 7. I think that making the rich pay their fair share, as in, the same percentage as everyone else, and not allowing them to hide their money away somewhere else, would have the same effect without punishing them for being rich

11/9/2005 10:40:14 AM

Quote :

"one free checkup per year, five free medical visits, one free dental, choice of doctor or dentist limited to an approved list, free drugs up to $1,000 per year $15,000 for students"

Quote :

"2. Fiscal responsibility"

Dont know whether to laugh or cry

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 10:52 AM. Reason : m]

11/9/2005 10:44:47 AM

you forgot number 11

Quote :

"11. Free pizza every friday, more soda machines, and no homework on monday nights!!1"

11/9/2005 10:47:35 AM

Quote :

"you DISAGREE with ending oil dependence?"

Yes I do. All the schemes I have heard for doing it result in a larger federal beurocracy, higher taxes, deeper regulation to the point of strangulation, and an all around lower standard of living for everyone, particularly those in the poorer percentiles.

So, yea, since reducing oil dependence has questionable benefits because the price we pay for oil has nothing to do with whether or not we are a net importer or exporter AND the costs associate are huge, I'm against it.

11/9/2005 11:08:24 AM

I disagree with ending oil dependence from the democrats perspective because they'll try the same shit they're doing in Britain... tax the living hell out of it to change people's behavior.

I barely agree with taxes... so this is an automatic no.

11/9/2005 11:10:22 AM

words

11/9/2005 11:11:16 AM

kill.

11/9/2005 11:15:11 AM

number 1 is my favorite. i didn't like number 10 cause it sounds like they're trying to be the exact opposite of the republican party.

11/9/2005 11:15:44 AM

Well if they invest in alternate energy technology then I whole heartedly support reducing oil dependancy as those alternate technologies will eventually create new global markets.

Basically, we need to realign this nation with R&D so that we can continue to experience economic growth that could fund our other foolish endeavors.

11/9/2005 11:16:14 AM

100% agree. But leave it to private indusrty. They haven't let us down yet.

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2005 11:18:07 AM

Quote :

"I disagree with ending oil dependence from the democrats perspective because they'll try the same shit they're doing in Britain... tax the living hell out of it to change people's behavior."

Taxing the hell out of gas to change behavior I agree with, because it's not like taxing junk food and other ridiculous tax stunts. Taxing something that is detrimental to everyone and not just the individual, to me, is justified.

Besides, to make oil prices higher, we wouldn't so much have to tax the hell out of it as stop letting the government subsidize it. stop subsidizing oil and start subsidizing solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc instead.

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2005 11:21:09 AM

9 is stupid. If you can't get to college by yourself by the ime you graduate from high school, you're... well, fucked for life. Sorry to break it to you. Yes, I'm sure there're exceptions but this is a general rule. I very much believe in education and I would be willing to consider additional public investment in education at earlier stages, in particular elemantary and middle school. At some point, though, it becomes just a waste of money. Those responsible enough will find a way to get to college. Others... well, somebody needs to wash dishes.

11/9/2005 11:23:16 AM

DG, agree. Stop all government subsidies. Let the market take us where we need to be.

I would disagree that oil is detrimental to us all. Oil is perhaps the one natural resource that has propelled our society to unprecedented periods of prosperity and comfort. Eliminating that would turn this country and every other to civil war over night. That is detrimental.

11/9/2005 11:23:58 AM

sounds like a good platform to me

11/9/2005 11:24:21 AM

Quote :

"I would disagree that oil is detrimental to us all. Oil is perhaps the one natural resource that has propelled our society to unprecedented periods of prosperity and comfort. Eliminating that would turn this country and every other to civil war over night. That is detrimental."

oil has polluted the land, the water, and the air. It's created an oligarchical system in the united states, and don't even get me started on OPEC. It's created prosperity for the rich countries who were able to import it and use it, and it's DESTROYED societies in the places where it originates.

and mathfreak, I believe 9 involves paying for college, not getting into college even if you don't have the grades, etc

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2005 11:25:49 AM

So this is why teh L3ft won all those elections yesterday. This is good stuff, I think with this they can reclaim Congress in 2006...

11/9/2005 11:26:19 AM

Quote :

"it's DESTROYED societies in the places where it originates."

I didnt realize Norwegian society had been destroyed.

11/9/2005 11:27:12 AM

Taxing the gas is stupid. Why should we try to preserve oil? When we start running out of it, and you can't afford to drive your behemoth, then FUCK YOU. Don't run to government and make it negotiate with the remaining suppliers. That'll automatically stimulate alternative energy production. But in the mean time, let everybody do what they want.

11/9/2005 11:27:47 AM

Quote :

"If you can't get to college by yourself by the ime you graduate from high school, you're... well, fucked for life."

that's pretty ignorant, especially when most people go into college not knowing what they want to do. there's no reason to punish people because they don't go at a certain pace.

11/9/2005 11:28:52 AM

Quote :

"Taxing the gas is stupid. Why should we try to preserve oil? When we start running out of it, and you can't afford to drive your behemoth, then FUCK YOU. Don't run to government and make it negotiate with the remaining suppliers. That'll automatically stimulate alternative energy production. But in the mean time, let everybody do what they want."

Holy shit MathFreak... I couldn't have said it better myself. You must be a true believer in the market. As am I.

11/9/2005 11:30:40 AM

The gov't encourages behavior through the tax system all the time. What was the message the gov't sent when they gave huge tax deductions to people who bought SUVs in 2003?!??

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2005 11:41:55 AM

Tax deductions are ok in my book. As a matter of a fact, keep that up. Reduce taxes to the point where government is as small as it possibly can be and allows individuals to make decisions for their own lives.

Get people off of welfare and into jobs, stop giving government benefits to illegal immigrants, stop building the bridge to nowhere in alaska, don't spend $250,000 on a friggin bus stop, stop almost all social programs... fund the military... that's about it. let local governments take care of their poor and hungry. They can legislate much more efficiently than the federal government can.

11/9/2005 11:48:57 AM

Quote :

"I didnt realize Norwegian society had been destroyed."

here you go with your god damn knowingly dishonest statements. Please note that I said IT HAS DESTROYED SOCIETIES. Did I say "ALL SOCIETIES?" No, I didn't. Know why? because I'm not a fucking idiot.

Quote :

"Taxing the gas is stupid. Why should we try to preserve oil? When we start running out of it, and you can't afford to drive your behemoth, then FUCK YOU. Don't run to government and make it negotiate with the remaining suppliers. That'll automatically stimulate alternative energy production. But in the mean time, let everybody do what they want."

mathfreak, 2 things

a.) If you're responding to me, note that I didn't say necessarily that we should tax it more. I said we should stop subsidizing it.
b.) We shouldn't do so in order to keep people from driving, we shoudl do so in order to force the energy industry to hurry the fuck up and give us the alternatives we need to curb pollution and get us out of the middle east's business.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, oil is hardly just about cars. It's about our entire food system, which sits atop a sea of oil, our home heating, plastics, and just about anything else that industrial society survives on.

11/9/2005 11:51:54 AM

Quote :

" it's DESTROYED societies in the places where it originates."

no, corrupt governments have destroyed their nations.

Please look at norway or whatever that nation is, and also Dubai

11/9/2005 11:59:34 AM

Quote :

"Please note that I said IT HAS DESTROYED SOCIETIES. Did I say "ALL SOCIETIES?" No, I didn't. Know why? because I'm not a fucking idiot."

11/9/2005 12:11:26 PM

Oil has helped fund some shitty governments, but you might to want to notice there are a lot of shitty governments in the same neighborhood that dont have oil.

11/9/2005 12:17:35 PM

^ Damn good point.

11/9/2005 1:03:45 PM

Quote :

"Please note that I said IT HAS DESTROYED SOCIETIES. Did I say "ALL SOCIETIES?" No, I didn't. Know why? because I'm not a fucking idiot."

and my point is that OIL has NOT destroyed societies. CORRUPT GOVERNMENT has destroyed societies.

11/9/2005 1:11:53 PM

i mean, what, do you think I"m personifying oil? o r that I think it grew legs and personally destroyed those societies?

you know damn well that those governments wouldn't have had the power to do what they've done without the money they've gotten from oil... or those countries wouldn't have been destroyed by other countries if not for the oil they possessed

11/9/2005 1:15:25 PM

Alright, let's see...

2 (8, 9) of those points are things that I've never heard Democrats promise, namely because they haven't promised them because they could never actually follow through.

3 (7, 8, 9) of those are overtly socialist

4 (2, 5, 6, 10) of those are things that have been promised by a whole hell of a lot of people in the past. Just because you guys managed one balanced budget doesn't mean you can crap out an infinite supply of them. Everyone and his brother wants to reduce oil dependence and has wanted to for a while, and I'm not driving around in a water-powered car yet. And at the end of the day, you can scream "separation of church and state" all you want, but when religion is as big a deal in voting as it is now, anyone who wins will bow to it from time to time.

Quote :

"Why should we try to preserve oil? When we start running out of it, and you can't afford to drive your behemoth, then FUCK YOU."

The concern isn't that it will be too expensive for people with SUVs, the concern is that virtually all of our economy is dependent on the ability to transport things, primarily through gas-powered vehicles. Gas gets uber-expensive, so does everything else, then everything goes to shit.

11/9/2005 1:28:38 PM

Except the prices will go up slowly. I mean, first futures will become expensive which will be a hint to all. Plus, it's not like energy companies will wait till they go out of business. They have the biggest incentives to find alternative ways to sell electricity etc to consumers.

11/9/2005 1:31:15 PM

I wonder, though, how easy it is to predict how quickly things will change. Slowly in a vacuum, yes, but as things get more and more precarious all it takes is one good war or natural disaster to shoot them through the roof. Prices don't have to be sky-high for long in order for shit to hit the fan.

11/9/2005 1:34:05 PM

Quote :

"that's pretty ignorant, especially when most people go into college not knowing what they want to do. there's no reason to punish people because they don't go at a certain pace."

What do you mean by ignorant? I'm a college professor, I think I have a better empirical understanding of who's capable of what in college.

11/9/2005 1:34:36 PM

i'm gonna go through a short anecdote to display why you should not go about screaming doom and gloom on the coming supposed oil crisis.

1800s - primary source of lighting/heating in homes: whale oil (akin to modern oil companies)

Thus, whaling was a huge industry in the 1800s. As the whales (akin to modern oil) began dying out because of the hunting of them, they were not only scarce, but difficult to hunt (less amounts of them). the mystery of supply and demand magically kicked to life and the price of whale oil began to rise.

At the same time (and I can't remember who) Kerosene was discovered/created. Although expensive, as soon as the price of whale oil surpassed that of kerosene, people though, "hey, why am I paying all of this for whale oil if I can get a more efficient source of lighting for less money?"

Paradigm shift.

The market not only saved the whale, but provided folks with a cheaper alternative for heating and lighting their homes. For all of us who believe in the invisible hand and the power of a truly free market, we're not worried about an oil crisis. Because capitalism teaches us one thing: where there is money to be made, there is someone to make it. As soon as a viable alternative becomes as inexpensive as oil (this will happen WAY before oil is gone) there will be capitalilsts rushing to beat eachother to the new found gold mine.

Thus, the market will save the world once again and maybe this time, people will take heed and let markets operate how they should (by leaving them the hell alone).

11/9/2005 1:35:09 PM

Not really appropriate.

Whale oil was used exclusively for heating and lighting. First, those things are not nearly so crucial to the functioning economy as gas is to ours -- worst case scenario, you just work during the day when the light is natural. Two, whale oil had a lot of readily-available substitutes. If whale oil gets out of hand, odds are you have a wood stove and/or some candles, and wood was never exactly pricey. I can't shove a piece of oak (or anything else but gas) into my gas tank and expect it to work.

11/9/2005 1:39:09 PM

I dont believe in giving the education vochers for post secondary education. College is something you have to want to do and it is a personal investment in yourself. Giving everybody a free ride at least through commmunity college will destroy the concept of an AA degree. It becomes an extension of high school essentially.

Colleges will lower their standards to get more students and more funding, and the quality of instruction will decrease. Consequently colleges will be filled with the lower rung of society who desire not to learn, but to put off working for another two years. Master's degrees will become the new Bachelor's and Bachelor's will become the new Associate's. Its a noble concept, but in practice it would ruin the academic system and flood the market with marginal semi-skilled labor in a time when semi-skilled positions are rapidly being outsourced.

11/9/2005 1:44:16 PM

I'm not saying it will be an exact parallel situation. Of course we're more dependent on oil than they were of whale oil. Nonetheless, the principle is the same. We won't end with a catastrophic oil crisis as most (environmentalists, doomsdayers) will have you believe. The market will function as it is supposed to.

11/9/2005 1:49:53 PM

I've no doubt the market will function, I just want it to function in a way that helps me. You could easily describe the Great Depression as "the market functioning."

11/9/2005 1:54:28 PM

^ Doesn't really matter, either. Gasoline will always be available to you, you just might have to pay $4 a gallon for it.

It doesn't matter if you can figure out how to live without gasoline, it only matters that someone else is unwilling to pay for it, be they a trucking firm or airline that goes bust or some poor guy that must now take the bus or get a motorcycle for his daily commute.

11/9/2005 1:56:20 PM

The depression happened as a result of not letting the market function and government interference (along with mass hysteria). It is arguable that because of the New Deal, the depression lasted much longer than it had to. Because of the massive amounts of government spending, it is arguable and some have argued successfully, that the depression was actually extended. I'll have to find the actual argument.

What I'm saying is that the hysteria behind the depression will happen IN THE EXACT SAME WAY with oil if we let it.

edit: to grumpy: you want it to benefit you. The capitalists out there say the same thing. They want to hit the new wave of alt. energy before anyone else to benefit themselves. It will happen. Trust it.

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2005 1:56:25 PM

^^ you talk in a way as if to assume that one day: lots and lots of oil

then the DAY AFTER TOMORROW: bam. no oil.

It won't be like that.

11/9/2005 1:57:25 PM

This reminds me of arguments made in the late 1800s. Imagine, if everyone gets a 4 horse carriage, how much HORSE SHIT (literally!) will be piling up on the streets. We're doomed!!1

I generally love how peopl pretend they have the slightest clue as to what the technology will be 50 years from now. Because 50 years ago everybody knew what today would look like.

11/9/2005 2:04:55 PM

Not bad overall, but there are a few areas that I have contention with.

2 - Not that I disagree with this plank, but I would really like to see Democrats tackle pork barrel spending. Most politicians agree that pork is bad until you start messing with pork for their own state. Then it goes from being pork to a "critical infastructure project" or "economic development aid". I guess I'm really cynical about this one.

3 - Getting out of Iraq is important, but I want to hear details about what they're proposing. Are they calling for a sudden unilateral withdrawal? A phased withdrawal as we pass control to Iraqi police? Outside of the "Leave Iraq now!" call, I have yet to hear one real and rational alternative from the Democrats that offers anything substantially different from the Bush administration's general approach (though I agree tactics need to be overhauled).

7 - No real objection, but I don't know if it'll provide the funds to support things like 8 and 9. They're going to either have to drastically cut somewhere or jack up rates across the board. Even killing pork and pulling out of Iraq isn't going to be enough.

8 - Cute on paper, but I would love to see how they impliment it. The infastructure required to support this would be massive and unwieldy. While I do agree that good primary care is going to drastically reduce the number of catastrophic medical cases, if one of those poor people get hit by one, is the government going to take care of that too, or are those poor people just screwed? I think the big issue with medical costs is not the price of a checkup but the price of surgery and particularly expensive drug prescriptions that would easily blow the $1,000/year mark. Also, will they cover more expensive diagnostics like MRI's?

9 - Are they proposing a school voucher with this one? I'd love to see the teachers unions' reactions to this. I also wonder if this might not just further inflate tuition prices as the demand for private education goes through the roof. I don't have any problem with the re-employment assistance though I wonder if this is going to be taken completely by the federal government, shared with state governments, or some other balancing scheme.

[Edited on November 9, 2005 at 2:09 PM. Reason : Felt like taking comments out on number 10]

11/9/2005 2:06:48 PM

How official is this document? Am I right to think that this is just a column?

11/9/2005 2:08:26 PM

^ That's the impression I was under. The Democrats, now that they have momentum again, are trying to codify all the angst that has built up over the last four years into a neat package for the American people. Afterall, if they truly want to win an election, they're going to have to offer a real alternative instead of playing the "Better than Bush" card by itself. I think Reich is simply offering up one possible solution. EJ Dionne of the Washington Post wrote a column about this vision searching in general not too long ago.

11/9/2005 2:12:24 PM