DLC: do they ever advocate anything "working class" friendly ?

[steve2470]

I was reading the other DLC thread, and DLC comes off sounding as the political arm of the Fortune 500. Are they really that unfriendly to the working people ? I am ALL for protecting and helping working people.

[Warpy]

1. DLC Dems occasionally advocate a small increase in the

minimum wage, but never to the levels of the 1960s, indexed to inflation. Other than that, they're generally procorporate, antiunion, proglobalist, and antilabor.

[steve2470]

2. ouch. No wonder so many here don't like the DLC nt

[InvisibleBallots]

3. some of them are more Republican than Democrat

and I'm not talking about social issues in swing states either.

[FightinNewDem]

5. That's a load of crap, and you know it!

If you don't know it, then learn about your subject before spouting off this kind of nonsense.

[InvisibleBallots]

11. the DLC and their defenders are full of crap, yes

I've been paying very close attention since 1988. I suspect the load of crap being pushed here is obvious to most.

[FightinNewDem]

6. Half the story, as usual

The DLC supports a modest increase in the minimum wage. However, they support a greatly expanded Earned Income tax Credit, which is also an effective way of putting money into the pocket of working families. In addition, the DLC is the only major policy player that has addressed the importance of helping the working class build assets. Tht's why they have been the driving force behind the passage of legislation to establish, fund and expand Individual Development Accounts.

[Warpy]

10. If you don't earn it, you can't save it.

Those are just another feel good idea for rich men and another way to point fingers at people who really aren't making enough to live on and blame them for not saving.

The DLC is WRONG in just about everything they think and do, and it's about time they figured it out.

Doing something over and over again in the hope of achieving a different outcome is one definition of insanity.

[madfloridian]

16. Individual Development Accounts (IDA).....I really need to read about this

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3608&kaid=139&subid=277

I am not sure I understand it at all. They are in lieu of what? What do we give up for them?

SNIP..."When the gap between the rich and the poor is discussed, most tend to think of income and ignore the issue of personal assets. While a substantial income is vital for daily survival, true advancement and financial security comes from accumulating savings and building wealth. Savings can provide people with a personal stake in the economic mainstream and give them the financial cushion necessary for upward mobility. For many low-income Americans, however, building savings can be very difficult, and accumulating enough savings to buy a home, finance a business, or pay for schooling may be well out of reach. (Hell, yes, it can be hard. )

Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) are one innovative way to help low-income families accumulate sufficient savings to meet these goals. IDAs were first proposed by Washington University Professor Michael Sherraden in a report published by the Progressive Policy Institute in 1990. Under a typical program, IDA participants open up savings accounts in which their deposits are matched at a rate determined by the sponsoring organization. The matching dollars, which are provided by government or private sources, can vary from as little as 50 cents for every dollar saved to as much as five dollars. IDA programs are often coupled with classes in financial literacy. In 1993, Iowa became the first state to pass legislation in support of IDAs. Since then, 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed similar laws, and others have legislation pending....."

This sounds really really good, but I taught at a school where people wre so poor this would not even be feasible. What would these folks give up for these IDAs. Are these an alternative to Medicaid? An alternative to what?

[no name no slogan]

17. Hmmm.....these smell suspicially like the GOP's "medical savings accounts"

It's pretty damned hard to save ANYTHING when you don't make enough to pay your day-to-day expenses. Many people have jobs that don't support them, and have to rely on credit to just maintain the bare minimum.

Instead of constructing yet another "incentive" or "program", why not just make employers pay a livable wage? No need for additonal 'programs' if all workers who work 35+ hours a week make enough $$ to afford the necessities of life.

Typical corporatist thinking-- "well, I can save money, why can't the people who scrub my toilets save money?".

The DLC's sole purpose is to carry water for big corporations who sponsor them. You'll never see anything "progressive" from them or their "Progressive Policy Institute".

[Wiley50]

22. or SS Individual Retirement accounts

like * is pushing for
Nope all of these sound republican by any other name.

[FightinNewDem]

25. Get your facts straight

If you knew what the hell you were talking about, you would know that nearly every anti-poverty agency in the country is supportive of IDAs. In fact, they are upset that there is currently insufficient governmental resources dedicated to the programs.

But that reality gets in the way of your silly reflexive DLC-bashing, right?

[FightinNewDem]

24. IDA factoids

They aren't an alternative to any other program. In fact, the funds in many IDA programs are exempt from asset caps that are part of the eligibility requirements for many federal social service programs. The idea is that people shouldn't be penalized for trying to save money to build a future.

The amount that participants contribute is not expected to be large. That's why IDAs have a funds match. For every dollar a participant contributes into an account, there is a whole or partial match by either the government or a philanthropic foundation (in NH, it is the NH Community Loan Fund).

[Eloriel]

7. anti-minority, anti-feminist

anti-just about every part of the Democratic Party's traditional base. They ARE good, however, at snowing people, using phrases and terms that tend to obfuscate their hostility to these "special interest groups" and rhetoric that makes some of their positions and initiatives sound like good ideas until you dig a little further and analyze more carefully.

[FightinNewDem]

9. Unadulterated baloney, Eloriel.

Let's see your proof.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the next chair of the DLC is very likely going to be a woman...

[FightinNewDem]

4. Working class friendly? Hell, yes!

Support and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251890&kaid=137&subid=258

Support state-level EITCs:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3607&kaid=139&subid=277

Tax credits to help working families pay for college:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252705&kaid=85&subid=65

Create better-paying jobs:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252833&kaid=126&subid=189

Protect Public Pensions:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251900&kaid=139&subid=276

Portable benefits for self-employed and part-time workers:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250732&kaid=139&subid=275

An alternative agenda for economic growth:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=123&contentID=252104


Reduce prescription drug costs:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=138&contentID=2144

Health Care for the uninsured:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=137&contentID=252417

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecID=137&contentID=252066

[madfloridian]

8. Can you explain this stance about "best price rule"?

I know this paragraph refers to Medicaid, but I think the same rule applies to Medicare. I don't understand it.

I know the new Medicare plan does not allow competitive bidding on drugs. Is this the same reason as they give here for Medicaid? My hubby is losing his drug coverage which he got when he retired....why????Because of the damned Medicare drug plan that passed.

I think a lot of your links look really good on the surface. But there is more there that is not so user friendly.


Repeal the "best price" rule in the Medicaid drug rebate law. The best price rule says that whenever a drug company gives a deeper discount to a private insurance plan or PBM than the discount granted to state Medicaid programs by statute, it must also give that best price to Medicaid. That sounds good on the surface, but the rule probably doesn't save the government much money, and it severely limits the discounts private insurers, PBMs, and other private purchasers of drugs (including hospitals, clinics, and chain pharmacies in some cases) can negotiate with drug companies. Here's why: If health plans or PBMs try to bargain for a better price than the percentage discount Medicaid gets by law, the drug companies would be forced to give that price to the 50 states' Medicaid programs as well. Naturally, the drug companies refuse that bargain. Therefore, the best price clause, originally intended to reduce costs, has actually created a price floor for many drugs. It is a good example of price controls failing at their original purpose while also causing unintended side effects that hurt all consumers.

[Q]

12. The DLC better phrases their BS to appeal to Democrats...

....but they're offering essentially the same as the Bushies. They rant and rave against 'big government' as they use the RWing tactic of trying to frighten Americans away from a universal healthcare system regulated by the government.

All of their 'solutions' to healthcare and other issues are MARKET DRIVEN. That is...they will give more tax bucks and corporate welfare in the hope of creating jobs and lowering prices. But it's Reagan's supply-side, trickle-down economics in a new democratic package. Here are some of their solutions without details for healthcare:

"expanding choice, preserving existing coverage, sharing responsibility for insurance premiums, raising the quality of health care, and restraining costs through technology and competition, not price controls."

Of course they don't tell you how they'll 'expand choice' or preserve existing coverage. And when they say that you'll 'share responsibility for insurance premium' they mean that you'll continue to pay more than you can afford. Restraining costs through 'technology and competition' instead of price controls means that corporations can set the price and increase their profit margin even if it doesn't reflect the true market.

Another DLC quote on healthcare:

"For example, too many Democrats still favor a government role in setting prescription drug prices instead of using technology and performance standards to make prescription drug use more cost-effective."

See the trend here? The DLC is against any kind of regulation when it comes to their corporate masters. They want the corporations to be able to set prices without restraint.

More:

"...Not only are they willing to spend what it takes to cover the uninsured, but by embracing private, innovation-driven health care..."

I suggest that everyone pay a visit to the links provided in the previous post. If you pay attention...you'll notice that the DLC is offering the same thing as the Bushies. They want market forces to determine the cost of healthcare. They'll give tax cuts and other 'incentives' to corporations instead of real universal healthcare.

Do you even understand what's proposed in the links you provided? If so...how can you act so sincere about it when you know the DLC's postions on these issues are so similar to that of the Republicans?

[madfloridian]

13. This really endears me to them...about "entitlements."

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252799&knlgAreaID=125&subsecid=165

"But even if we rolled back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and even if we reimposed budget caps and other constraints on discretionary spending, we'd still be left with the core dilemma: Social Security and Medicare are growing at unsustainable rates and gobbling up a greater share of public spending.

Spending on these massive entitlements, measured as a share of the nation's output, is projected to more than double from 7 percent today to 15 percent by 2040, when the last of the boomers retire, then rise to 20 percent in 2078, because of increases in longevity. That is more than the federal government collects in taxes each year (down to 17 percent of output now, but historically averaging about 19 percent).

In other words, unless we slow the growth in entitlement spending, Washington eventually will have to double federal taxes or devote every penny it collects to the needs of older Americans.

"Of course, policymakers aren't likely to zero out all spending on working families and children," allows Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, one of Washington's most astute budget analysts. "They could instead revamp elderly programs, reform taxes, or do both. But here's the rub: Programs for the politically disadvantaged wear stone slippers in the dance of budget legislation." (Oh,my.)

Now this sounds like the Heritage dogma they have been spewing for a decade.

[InvisibleBallots]

14. they are saying the exact same thing as Republicans

What is the difference?

[Warpy]

15. OK, here goes.

The EITC is a government subsidy to companies that pay substandard wages. It is not open to single people or childless couples in poverty due to substandard wages. It allows employers to keep wages artificially low, and is friendly to them, not working people. Why not abolish it and raise wages?

Tax credits for college are fine for the middle and upper class. Most people aren't making enough to LIVE ON. College is financed by their children going into deep debt. This is NOT worker friendly.

Creating better paying jobs starts from the bottom up. As people have more money to spend, they create more demand for goods and services. Targeted tariffs against companies that export jobs and expect the US to be the primary (sometimes ONLY) market would do more good to preserve the jobs we have.

Funny, their schemes to protect public pensions don't seem to extend to the private sector, where most of us work.

Portable benefits are peachy if you get them to begin with. Too many of us at the lower end of the earnings spectrum don't. Once again, it's a middle or upper class bennie, not a working class one.

Throwing money at innovators is a neat idea, but only if you figure out how to keep the jobs here, should they create any. Once again, it's not much of a benefit for anybody who works for substandard wages.

Somehow, I don't think pushing a few prescription drugs to over the counter status will do much to drive prices down, nor will raising the cost of prescriptions to Medicaid. This is going to need aggressive government interference, much like utility regulation has been done in the past to prevent the kind of price gouging we've been dealing with.

Keeping the profit motive in health insurance is the problem, not the solution. No matter how they try to get unversal coverage through for profit insurance companies, those companies will continue to degrade service to turn a profit. If they are forced to insure the chronically ill, they will cut services to the point that no insurance might almost be better, if only for avoiding the aggravation of coping with Byzantine paperwork. Again, the onus is on the individual making a below subsistence income to figure out how to afford for-profit insurance premiums, and is not working class friendly.

What you have listed is a series of elitist programs that assume everyone in the US is making a good enough wage to save, invest, send the kids to college, and contribute to a healthy pension. The DLC and the Blue Dogs need to wake up, get out of their walled suburbs, and discover how the country actually lives.

Or you and they can keep doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome.

[dolstein]

18. Learning about the DLC by reading posts on DU is like . . .

learning about the Democratic Party by reading posts on Free Republic.

Why are so many DU'ers afraid to learn about the DLC first hand by actually visiting the DLC web site (ndol.org)?

[madfloridian]

19. I do. I asked two questions about articles there in this thread.

My questions and criticisms of them are based on things I read at their site, or things I read that use their own words.

The most damning criticism of them came from the mouth of one of their own. It was posted here earlier, so I won't look it up right now. It was Rosenberg speaking of the formation of the group to get funding from corporations so as not to be dependent on their base. Hey, I did not make that up.

I never post stupid stuff about them or any group. I have my facts and research straight, but an open mind if they want to make nice with us instead of the corporations and the GOP. They have got to quit worrying so much about offending.

[InvisibleBallots]

21. I've read their site, and get their magazine

Many of the anti-DLC people know more about them then their cheerleaders do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. So where is Warpy's assessment wrong?

Everything I've read about the DLC (and yes, I have gone to their own materials) tells me that they're the yuppie branch of the Democratic Party: laissez-faire on behavioral issues and carefully corporate on economic issues, with a few bones chucked to the middle class.

[InvisibleBallots]

26. I get their magazine, I'm on their mailing list, I read their website

I would have to agree 100% with your assessment of them.

[leftofthedial]

20. they are roughly as friendly to workers

as the typical corporate HR department