Democrats are sounding more like, well,
Democrats these days, and they've been unveiling policy after liberal (and sound!) policy to strengthen the middle class. Here's a roundup of reaction to their new proposals. First up,
Ryan Cooper:
By putting purchasing power into the hands of people likely to spend it, demand, growth, and job creation will be strengthened, and marginal workers will be pulled into the labor market.
That’s why the new plan from House Democrats is so encouraging. It seems they are finally beginning to internalize the fact that American workers have been left behind for over a generation, and proposing the kind of brute-force transfer policies that could actually make a difference. This “action plan,” outlined by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), includes a $1,000 tax cut for workers making less than $100,000 a year, incentives for corporations to share with employees the benefits of productivity increases, a boost in the child tax credit, and a few other goodies for the lower- to middle-class, all paid for by an increase in taxes on capital income, particularly a financial transactions tax.
I’d prefer that these policies came through straightforward transfers rather than hiding them in the tax code, but this is a massive improvement over typical milquetoast Democratic policy.
Emma Dummain brings us an overview of Chris Van Hollen's new proposal:
As House and Senate Republicans were plotting their legislative agenda in Hershey, Pa., Democrat Chris Van Hollen touted his own populist economic plan Thursday morning at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Van Hollen’s proposal — new fees on Wall Street to pay for middle-class tax relief — isn’t likely to go anywhere on Capitol Hill, at least not in the GOP-controlled 114th Congress.
But the Maryland representative and ranking member of the Budget Committee hopes it will at least become a core component of the Democratic Party’s messaging ahead of the 2016 elections, especially when presented in contrast to the Republican approach.
“I think Democrats need to go to the country with a very clear agenda that answers the fundamental questions that are on the minds of the American people, which is, ‘What are you going to do to grow the economy?’ and, ‘What are you going to be doing to make sure we have the economy with shared prosperity?’” Van Hollen said at a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “I think the plan I proposed addresses some of those issues.”
Much more below the fold.
Jared Bernstein:
You will not be surprised that the Republican majority has yet to embrace Rep. Van Hollen's plan. Chris, if you're waiting by the phone for Leader Boehner's call, I'd say feel free to go get lunch.
But that's not the point. If the criterion for acceptance of a policy idea is that "House R's will support it," then we can all close up shop for now. To the contrary, this kind of expansive thinking is exactly what members should be engaged in. Whether you like CVH's approach here in attacking inequality through the tax code or favor ideas that target market outcomes, what's so very notable here is that a senior member of the Democrat's caucus is trying to do something about the relentless inequality that's beset the middle class and poor for decades.
Pat Garofalo:
The problem, of course, is that Democrats recently got shellacked in an election, leaving them without control of either chamber in Congress. The odds that a Republican-controlled House or Senate takes a keen interest in paid sick leave or a tax that primarily effects Wall Street are, presumably, nil.
Now, a charitable reading of the situation is that the Democrats have acknowledged their shortcomings when it comes to economic policy and messaging. The travesty of the 2014 election was that, while electing Republicans almost across the board, voters endorsed economic policies, such as increasing the minimum wage, that are much more closely associated with the Democrats. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is ably showing that there's a hunger for economic populism, and that it can translate into a message that's broadly appealing. [...]
A less charitable reading, though, is that the Democrats are seizing on the opportunity to be progressive at a moment when it's cheap and easy; being out of power (or in Obama's case, term-limited) they won't have to pay the price in campaign dollars or blowback that would come from pursuing these policies in an environment in which they could actually become law. After all, when Democrats controlled all of Congress and the presidency, it's not like they made a move on paid sick leave or a financial transactions tax or any of a host of other ideas that would have helped out the middle class. (Which isn't to diminish the very real accomplishments of that Congress.) Now they can stoke the fire and garner the goodwill of the left, without having to deal with the downside.
Monica Potts:
Most of the proposals even the Democrats are talking about, from Van Hollen’s redistributive Wall Street tax to Obama’s recent proposal for free community colleges, will help the middle class the most. That’s fine, the middle class need help. Helping them might also reward Democrats with more of their votes. But the least financially secure families, the ones who are getting food stamps and working multiple jobs, are probably going to need a little more than the promise of tax credits to lure them to the voting booth for any candidate.
If the Democrats could motivate even a fraction of them to get to the polls, that plus coming demographic changes would ensure a more progressive future for the country, at least in the near term. What’s more, these voters who actually vote may be able to hold the politicians they elect accountable, and force them to make the policy changes that really would finally rein in Wall Street and help the rest of us make ends meet.
George Zornick:
The true measure of Democrats’ sincerity will determine how hard they push for these policies in the near term, and also to what extent these ideas will become part of the Democratic agenda in 2016. Should the party retain the White House and maybe even win back Congress in two years, this might decide whether Washington can actually act to slow down dangerous Wall Street trading and exorbitant CEO pay while funneling the benefits back to the middle class. [...]
Regardless of whether the initial launch is crass exploitation or earnest desire, these policies can now easily become a baseline for the 2016 candidates. And if they produce success at the polls, Democrats will be motivated to keep pushing. But this effort could also go off the rails in a thousand different ways—maybe a million different ways, if Democrats aren’t truly invested in the outcome.