Hillary Clinton announces that the economy is in trouble here: (
http://www.bloomberg.com/... -- sorry, I'm on a Mac, and I can't get at any formating for putting it in a hyperlink). But what she has to say is not new. It's not simply a problem with Republican policies and indicative of a need for political party change. It's time for a more fundamental change in the way politicians, and Democrats in particular approach economic policy.
Hillary says that the economy is working really well for many people. Clearly, she means to say that the economy works well for the wealthy. They already have wealth, the means to accumulate, insulations against losing it, and are rather comfortable. And they keep getting richer. So why say it works for many? Because people don't like to hear that the economy isn't doing well. That dampens consumer spending some will tell you. And that hurts the economy at-large.
But the real problem is that while there are troubling aspects of Bush economic policy, they are simply another shade of the policies kept in place by Hillary's husband, continuing a long tradition of presidential policy that dates back to Reagan in its worst forms, and has been part of the American economic policy fabric for too long.
Consider: since the 1970s, the richest 1% of Americans have controlled about 40% of the wealth of our country. The richest 10%, somewhere on the order of 66-75%. And those figures have risen consistently, and continue to do so today. If you think that the middle-class is disappearing, it has been doing so for a while. Wealth is concentrated, there are policies in place to keep it there, and it won't change until Hillary, or the rest of the Democrats start changing the way they work (and as a corollary, they'll keep losing until they take courageous and bold stands on economics).
You see, this is not a problem Republicans will address. I don't begrudge them of that anymore that I condemn them as a party of utter and complete disregard for human dignity and honest, truthful action in the public interest. Democrats must be the party not willing to serve the needs, whims, and desires of the top 1% or top 10% or even the top 25% of the populace (I'd really love to see party ID of those percentage breakdowns, as I bet the second 15% of the wealthiest are more Republican than the first 15%). They are the party that must represent not only the middle-class, but also what we know as the working-class, the lower-class, and the professional class. If you put that all together, that's a lot of classes. Which can win a lot of elections.
More importantly, it's time for Democrats to be a party that advocates for economic policies that are truly progressive; policies that work to advance the public interest by making government work efficiently and effectively for all people, enhancing us collectively through shared prosperity.
There are literally hundreds of factors that play into winning the battles for economic policy that serves these ends. A few of my favorites, but which won't get a mention here include energy efficiency and renewables, anti-privatization, and non-discrimination against the gays. But I'll focus on those that do two things. First, they are strong policy that will positively impact our economy not just in a short-term spurt to enhance it while Democrats are in power (foreseeably within 4-6 years), but also to fundamentally change how our economy works for people, not making people work for the economy. Second, they are the policies that resonate with people. Policy > politics here.
1) Investment in our best resources by funding and supporting education the way it deserves.
2) Health care for all.
3) Progressive taxation.
Obviously, our current education system does not work the way it ought to, or is supposed to. The idea is that everyone gets an education at a certain level of quality so that people can enter the workforce marketplace (I'm stealing conservative language here) with a somewhat equal chance to compete based upon their merits and choices. That is fundamentally a part of capitalism. Those who work hard and use their talents are afforded opportunity. Those who do not are not rewarded (bearing in mind that all are given said opportunities). The problem with education is not very complex on a meta-level. While there are intricacies and finer points (I'm sure a teacher among us could elaborate at length), the biggest issue is our financial commitment.
Simplistic figures among our populace will say you can't throw money at a problem and expect it to be fixed. I'll tell them that they are correct. But you can't de-fund a problem and expect it to go away. We must commit adequate resources to make up for past iniquities and failures and for the future as well. Busting budgets at the state and federal levels are WORTH it, because education is at its core an investment in productivity. Those most educated do the best in our society. Be that in our nation or Tom Friedman's globalized world. But those places with great education together do the best and are most equipped not only to confront new challenges but also to bring about the seismic shifts, innovations, and economic enhancements that make our economies grow. Just look at Madison, WI for an example. That is part of the reason I live here.
Instead of de-funding public education, we must guarantee that every school will have the money for proper facilities, for books, and for excellent teachers. Face it, the job is hard, requires extensive training, and is veritably thankless. Until we start treating and paying teachers like a professional class, we will keep losing them, losing some of the best, and losing many before they have a chance to be good, and losing many before they even start. We need a class of teachers who are just as dedicated and passionate as they are today but also a class that is as empowered for success as a corporate CEO who benefited from wonderful education as he grew up.
As for health care, it is literally ridiculous we do not have a national universal, single-payor health care system. I've heard many stories about it, from both Wilson and Eisenhower backing away from it in their days because of fears of having to integrate hospitals and the political backlash it would cause. I know it's outrageous that we do not have universal health care for all while the rest of the developed world laughs at us. And mocks us for our 31st place in overall health care while spending the most. Trust me, I work in the health care field for a CEO that is as strong an advocate for universal health care as you'll find.
But health care is NOT JUST a moral issue. It is an issue of economics. While keeping people tethered to jobs or focusing solely in job searches for places that have health care coverage, we lose the opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors to enhance the capabilities of our economy through their talents. By forcing many to forego health care with regularity we increase the costs of health care because they are only treated when it is at its most expensive point. And worse yet, the uninsured are the least likely to pay (because they often can't without being ruined financially), the costs are passed along to the rest of the payors. And by pooling the risk of all together, when an all is cared-for regularly and more healthy than today, we decrease the overall costs to a system. Literally, its spending money on health care to save money. Three steps forward for savings in health care dollars for one small tippy-toe step backward initially.
And finally, we have a poor tax system. When it was invented, it was supposed to tax progressively. Heck, it came out of the true Progressive era. Those who made the most paid the most into it, partly out of the theory that they had benefited the most from the investments of the public and the economic system in which they operated that enabled that wealth accumulation. We encourage savings among the richest while discouraging it (actually making it impossible among the many), we reward false wealth-creation in the stock market. We stop taxing income at $94,000 for our most successful safety net yet complain about a potential collapse in Social Security. And schools, public services, successful governmental programs, and government agencies that act in the public interest go unfunded. We need real progressive taxation. If you make exactly $1 million per year, will you miss 20% of your income as much as someone making $50,000. For the latter, that $10,000 is the mortgage and groceries for a family of four in a modest home. For the millionaire, it's a third home on the ski-slopes. It's time we start making our system of taxation part of public policy instead of being a burden on those that actually drive the economy. Consumption of goods and services that provide a multiplier effect comes from the lower and middle economic classes while consumption of goods and services that drives a narrow sliver of the economy comes from the upper classes. We need to have taxation that is not punitive to the wealthy, but fair to all. That money can be invested in America to make it a great nation that provides for all a prosperity that is shared from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, KS and from the north suburbs of Chicago to its South Side. And so on.
I know there is much more to the economic picture, but we need to get at changing things now. Hell, this is just something I fired off in 20 minutes waiting for a call to come in. There's more to it, but we need to start somewhere, and we need to get our Democrats to do the right thing on the most important issue we have: our day to day livelihoods and that of those around us in the most patriotic sense, our own countrymen here in America.
So if Hillary wants to start talking economics, let's get her to talk about it the real way. And if you want to run for and win the nomination to be the Democrat for President in 2008, you too need to start talking about econ like this. Populism works. Just ask the culture warriors on the right. But populism with something behind it works better and can win bigger and for a more sustained governance. And it's good policy, the right thing, taboot. We can't as a party be the one that kowtows to narrow interests like the right. But we can embrace the needs and hopes and dreams and thoughts of the 70% of Americans who are worried about sending their kids to college while retiring by age 65, or making the next home payment, or simply how they'll eat their next three meals.
This is what people care about. If you let them be distracted by two dudes getting married or a woman protecting herself from sexual slavery, they'll lose sight of that. it's sensational. But keep on talking about their bread and butter and they could care less about my or your personal life. This is what will win, and what will make our country great.