The Democrats' Contract with America

Great Debates
281

I think that unless you can declare some point in principle at which the government no longer has claim to your possessions, then the government has the unlimited right to divest you of whatever you have and they want. I see no practical difference between that, and indentured servitude. In other words, if you only own what they decide to let you keep, and there is no way to define what they ought to let you keep, then you don’t really own anything.

Seems to be one of the differences between conservatives and libertarians (and socialists/liberals/not sure what label would be accurate and not offensive). Libertarians declare in principle that all taxation is theft. Socialists declare (sort of) that all resistance to taxation is selfishness. Conservatives declare that the role of government is and ought to be limited, so that taxes may be collected only for those limited purposes. I have no problem being taxed for the military, or the interstate highway system, or even things like education. I do have a problem being taxed for purposes that are theoretically unlimited.
The Borosage document is interesting. Maybe I can trim out all the “let’s stick it to the Bush administration” stuff, the recycled 2004 party platform stuff that Mr. Moto objected to, and the vague, non-CWA style stuff, and see what is left.

Regards,
Shodan

282

The society as a whole, as determined by regular elections in a representative democracy, limited by a constitution that protects the rights of the minority? I mean, it’s worked fairly well for the US so far.

283

:confused: Where’s gay marriage? Where’s any mention of abortion? Borosage’s CWA, like the Pubs’ original CWA, studiously avoids mention of anything even tangentially relevant to the “culture war,” focusing exclusively on nuts-and-bolts, guns-and-butter, dollars-and-cents issues. Nothing in here insults the “values” of the vast majority of Pub voters, who care about “family values” but don’t give a damn for Wall Street.

Well, Borosage is only a political commentator. The Pubs’ CWA was written by legislators, by Newt Gingrich and company, not by George Will or David Frum. Borosage’s article is merely suggesting a starting point for whatever CWA Pelosi comes up with.

As for taxes – Borosage proposes only rolling back the Bush tax cuts and taking any further cuts (as to the estate tax) off the table. I think you’ll find most Americans would get behind that enthusiastically if you asked them. Especially now that it’s becoming clear that those tax cuts – coupled with an interminable war and domestic disasters – have landed us in a desperate mess, crippled our government’s ability to respond effectively to real problems, and not done a damned thing to revive the economy.

284

Hey, not so fast! Responsibilities and interests are two different things! And they don’t always go hand-in-hand! More often than not, the one conflicts with the other.

Wait a minute . . . what “bale”? Since the Cold War ended, the U.S. has defended Europe from nothing. Except for Yugoslavia, all the European countries have been at peace with each other; and nobody outside Europe wants to attack any of them. Except for Islamic terrorists, and that’s not the kind of threat you can fight with an army. It’s like firing a machine gun at a cloud of mosquitoes, all you’ll really hit is innocent bystanders. As the American people are slowly learning but the Administration still hasn’t.

You really believe it doesn’t matter? That we have a moral duty to intervene in foreign countries for their own good regardless of what their people think? That’s old-fashioned imperialist thinking and I was in hopes it had gone out of fashion among all but the most psychotic of neocons.

285

Thank you, I would rather stay in my country, the only one in which I will ever feel truly at home, and the most important country on Earth today, and try to change things here, pushing as far to the left as circumstances allow.

286

This is a whoosh, right?

287

Given Europe’s long and very bloody history, I think it takes a large amount of faith to think that they’re somehow “over” war. Sure they’ve been at peace for fifty years; and the presence of a hundred thousand US troops had something to do with that. The Berlin wall only fell 16 years ago, and we’ve already had one war on European soil
Your question is a bit like asking why the cop car is sitting out in the median since nobody that drives by is speeding.

I’m not saying a case can’t be made for having a purely defensive military. But I am saying that if we did, the global-tension meter would go way up, and there would be arms build-ups and eventually open war in a number of places – China-Japan being the obvious one – and that lots of people would be saying that it was the US’s fault because we had wimped out of the responsibilities incumbent upon us as the superpower.

288

You misunderstand what I’m saying here. Defending Europe is only part of the equation…and the lesser part, certainly after the end of the cold war. The majority of the equation is giving the UN and the western powers teeth so that everyone out there in the wide world will at least pretend to play nice together…because they fear what could or would happen to them if they start getting frisky a la Saddam in the first gulf war. The ability to project your military force in a meaningful way beyond your borders. Without that any number of countries would become adventurous…what would stop them? Good will towards man and a desire for peace? snort The entire (imposed) semi-peace we have enjoyed since the end of the cold war rests ultimately on the quiet threat of the western powers to step in if some rogue nation out there gets froggy…and the bulk of that threat come from the US. And Europe hasnt held up their end of it…while enjoying all the benifits that come from the US toting that bale for them. WE pay the price so that they can have their great society BG.

Again you misunderstand what I’m saying. I didn’t say anything about ‘a moral duty to intervene’…I’m an isolationist for gods sake BG. I said that if the American people think we have global responsibilities (i.e. that we need a military with the capabilities that allow us to project force beyond our borders) and think we have global national interests…then we do. Reguardless of what folks in other countries think of this.

-XT

289

My comments embedded.

I am heroicly refraining from pointing out that for Democrats, a new and exciting idea is to imitate something the Republicans did a dozen years ago. Aren’t you proud of me?

Oops.

Regards,
Shodan

290

Then why all the complaints? Gay marriage, for instance. I reckon the tribe has spoken.

291

What complaints? The people who think that gay marriage should be allowed either think that gay marriage is one of those rights of the minority protected in the Constitution or think that gay marriage should be allowed by legislation, which means that the majority view should be changed.

292

So, the protection of minorities is imaginary. Que sera sera until the majority says otherwise, I guess.

293

The purpose of the appelate court system is to protect minority rights, and it’s the courts, as guided by the Constitution, its amendments, and legislation, who define what those rights are.

294

If only this hadn’t been pointed out in the OP, you might get a pat on the back or a scolding; as it is, a clever critique from a Republican equals repeating what a Democrat has already said. :wink:

Again, I think Gingrich did something brilliant in 1994. I fault him for many things, but not for lack of vision or for organizational knowhow. And I think that very few people would care about the Democrats’ copying his format. Sure, bitter Republicans would cavil about it, but they like to cavil; let them cavil, it’ll keep them occupied. Remember how pissed they got about “Clinton’s just copying us!” back in 1996? Nobody but them gave a shit.

Now, for your substantive comments:

Requiring documentation of contacts between lobbyists and legislators is a bureaucratic nightmare? Tough cookies: do it anyway. If it discourages lobbyists, well, I hardly think that’s going to be a hard sell for Democrats.

I agree that the “clean elections” business is vague; I don’t know what he means by it, either.

Totally untrue. The proposals there are:
Improve port security, bolster first responders and public health capacity, and require adequate defense planning by high-risk chemical plants. End the pork-barrel squandering of security funds.
If Republicans want to characterize this as “Stick it to the Bush Administration,” again, that’ll be to the Democrats’ benefit. These are all going to be extremely popular measures, if specifics are suggested. The last one will be hardest to give specifics for, but if it’s done, this is a real winner of an issue–especially if Republicans start getting defensive about it. I agree that the parts about Bush should be stripped from it: don’t mention the opponent.

It’s not specific, but there’s potential for specificity here. I definitely think that an energy policy that emphasizes clean fuels and energy independence would be a winner for the Democrats. People really like environmentalism. It’s sexy.

Not if there are specifics: if they say, for example (and I’m making numbers up for the sake of the example), “We will return the corporate income tax level to those levels approved by Congress in 1996,” they’ve got something specific, and they get to twist the knife a little. I’m not convinced that using the revenues to rebuild Katrina is the best approach: we’ll need to see how the Gulf Coast is doing in half a year.

Agreed.

And to the families of minimum wage workers, and to many people who are sympathetic to minimum wage workers. Folks who take an economic aversion to minimum wage are very rare:

Another big winner for Democrats, and should definitely be in there.

Reluctantly agreed. I think it’s a fine proposal, but this is one of the places I’m willing to compromise.

Agreed, although if there were specific proposals included, I might re-evaluate. As I said earlier, I’d support, and I believe it’d be very popular (especially in a red state like North Carolina), a proposal linking free-trade agreements to human-rights and environmental improvements in the partner country.

I have no idea whether the first part would be doable. I think a more reasonable goal would be universal health care for all minors by 2015; I suspect that most people would agree that it’s awful for children to go without necessary medical care, and that rectifying this situation would be a superb use of taxpayer money.

Skipping a few for which I don’t have much to say:

You’re dead wrong on this one. When a specific and inflexible timetable was floated in a June Gallup poll, people were dead-split on whether it was a good idea. When folks were asked whether most of the troops ought to be brought home “in the next year,” people broke almost two to one in favor of the idea.

And what’s contradictory about the rest?

Daniel

295

The original question was about spending your money. You said that “society as a whole, as determined by regular elections in a representative democracy, limited by a constitution that protects the rights of the minority” has more right to your money then you do. I find that concept to be slightly less abhorrent than one mandating abortions for minorities.

Might I point out that as a practical matter, universal health care for minors already exists? Specifics vary, but every state in the union has a children’s health plan in place for qualified families. What’s qualified, you might ask? Good question. Again, that varies, but I’ll give you the specifics of theMCHIP, which is fairly typical. A family of four qualifies for FREE medical care for their children and pregnant women if they make less than $37,700 per year. If they make between $37,700 and $47,125 their cost is $41/month for all the children and up to $56,550 their premium is only $52/month, again for all children. The qualifying thresholds scale up with family size, for a couple with 4 kids the numbers are $50,420/$63,025/$75,630. Those are damn generous numbers, there is no way you’re going to convince me that a family of 4 making almost $60K/year can’t afford their own health insurance. Some of them don’t have coverage, it’s true, but society should not be required to foot the bill that these people are shirking because they want a new SUV every 2 years and a big screen TV.

296

Is there any way I can convince you that families making half that much might have trouble?

Daniel

297

I don’t understand your question. Families making half that are eligible for free insurance, as I said, and as your link says, and those in between have low cost options. Are you saying that $50/month is unfordable for families making between 35-55K?

298

I may be a little confused here, I readily admit; I thought the page I linked to was saying that in most states, eligibility cut off for a family of four around the $35,000 mark. Is that not how you read it? Obviously it’s going to vary from state to state.

And yes, I think that supporting four people on $35K/year would be extremely difficult. Maybe the cost of living is sufficiently lower in other areas such that it would be easy, but I’d expect that additional $50/month to be very hard for some families to afford, and not because the family wants a new SUV or big-screen TV.

Daniel

299

I must admit that that’s a refreshingly new point of view hereabouts. Usually, I’m told that rights come from lawmakers. I don’t know whether to be comforted or alarmed now that I know they come from the rulings of ivory tower fops beshrouded in black robes.

300

I don’t want to continue this hijack of your thread much further, but I would like to point out that I make too much money to qualify for any of the tiers of the MCHIP, so I pay for my family’s health insurance in full, my annual premiums total about 8% of my gross income. (I do write it all off with an HRA tax plan, which means I get 30% of it back, making my net at the end of the year just over 6% of my gross income.) For a family of 4 making just $37,701, the $492/year that they would have to spend to cover their children on MCHIP constitutes only 1.3% of their gross annual income. Yes, I am covering the whole family, not just the kids, but I submit that calling 1.3% of one’s gross annual income to ensure total health coverage for your kids (and their out of pocket expenses are much lower than mine too) “very hard for some families to afford” is insane. It’s not a question of access or affordability, it’s a question of priorities and budgeting. Perhaps one of the planks of your contract could be getting everyone eligible signed up for these health plans for kids.