Some Planks for a Progressive Platform

[Ozymanithrax]

My biggest question about progressivism is that in these days it is ill defined. With progressives laying the blame for the election debacle on too little progressivism in our elected leaders, I think it is time to develop a progressive platform that most progressives can champion and demand that our elected leaders follow. I suggest two planks here, and hope people will consider them, make suggestions to make them better, or nominate more planks.

Because the electorate listens best to sound bites, I have attempted to edit the concepts into sounds bites with simple explanations.

Too Big to Fail. Too Great a Danger

Big Corporations pose a clear and present danger to our economy when they fail. Economies of scale have a distinct advantage to the owners and investors who use their economic obesity to get better deals on materials and can make a greater profit. However, in the free for all of a Modern Capitalist Economy they pose a distinct danger to the nations where they exist. A Big Bank, Retail Mega-store, Super-sized Energy Company, Over sized Health Insurance Company, or bloated Automobile Manufacturer endangers the entire economy when they sicken and are forced to ask for bailouts because the danger of their failure is catastrophic to our economy. These Companies of Scale are anti-competitive, muscling out smaller more innovative businesses to hog the profit trough.

Breaking up Too Big to Fail business is one corner piece of a progressive competitive economy. This requires rewriting regulations and anti-trust legislation, and economic oversight to ensure that anti-competitive polices and shear size do not hurt the broader economy.

Private vote, Public disclosure

Our votes should be private, but the voices of people influencing our elections must be public. The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed a Tsunami of undisclosed money into our election system, opening the floodgates for large contributors and even foreign governments and groups to influence our politics to the tune of 4.8 billion dollars.

Though the ideal would be publicly funded elections, such a course would require a Constitutional Amendment to deal with issues raised with money being the same as free speech. Requiring all individuals and groups to declare the money they use to influence elections lies within the legislative process. We strongly advocate requiring open declaration of all individuals, companies, and investors in companies who contribute money to campaigns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Kick

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Com'on people time to discuss this

I will start...

To big to fail is dangerous and we have a need to break monopolies, Indeed we need to return the country to small businesses, and no, not the Chicago Tribune but Jacks Groceries...

We need to work for the rights of working people and advance the rights of labor.

We need to return to REGULATED capitalism

Oh and we need to create a national INDUSTRIAL policy and get out of a few free trade pacts.

Top of my mind of course.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. thanks

I will work those into my platform and post it again in a week for everyone to ignore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Not me

[deutsey]

4. I agree everything you say here, but DU apparently isn't the place for such discussion.

[lonestarnot]

5. What is your definition of "small business?"

I assume not an S corp.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Exactly NOT an S corp

Why I said the local bakery, like the guys I get my bread from at the Farmer's Market.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Didn't bring up small bussiness...

Though I define small bussiness as something like Mexi Cocina, a family own Mexican Restaurant and bar in Poway. Best family restauarant in town, but not an S-Corp.

I disucssed breaking up big corporations. If it coems down to having the tax payers rescue a bank because it's collapse would devistate the economy, it is too damn big. No single company should be that big.

The same is true for the media conglomerates. When nine or ten corporations own most of the media in the U.S., and perhaps the world, they are a problem.

I'm still working out my ideas of what is progrssive and what I think would work as a platform.

[gkhouston]

6. Too big to fail = too expensive to bail out. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

13. The reason we bail them is is because their failure would devisate the economy.

For instance, banks are a required part of a modern economy but concentrating that much money in too few hands creates a danger to the economy we all share and is anti-competitive.

The same is true with Automobile companies. We used to have 20 or more here in the U.S. Now we have three. The real benefit of economies of scale serves investors and owners not the middle class and working class Americans who buy the products and work in the companies.

[gkhouston]

16. I know why we bailed them out. I also know they behaved irresponsibly because

they believed we would "have" to bail them out. If we cut 'em down to, "no, we don't have to bail your sorry ass out" size, it might give them pause.

[leftstreet]

9. Tax the Rich, Feed the Poor, til There are No Rich No More

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU

[lonestarnot]

10. What he said!

[Ozymanithrax]

14. that is neither liberal nor progressive.

...though it is great music.

Individual rights will lead to unequal distribution of wealth. There is a danger when that inequality becomes too great, as there is a danger in removing individual rights.

[Angry Dragon]

11. K&R

Citizens United I believe says that giving money is a form of free speech.
This decision is unconstitutional. Having free speech does not mean it can stay private.
Perhaps I am not saying this correctly.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Free speech and a right to privacy are too different things.

I don't agree that money should equal free speech. I don't agree with the other main point that Corporations are individuals that have free speech separate from investors and owners. At this time, however, it is part of our legal system.

Because I think it would take a constitutional amendment to change those two items, I think we should require that all donations be disclosed. The loophole used by the Chamber of Commerce and Turd blossoms organizations does not require disclosure. Because our system requires a certain confidence in our elections, requiring full disclosure of all donors would not be an onerous invasion of free speech. If you donate directly to a party or individual, your name must be disclosed. The same should be true for others.

For corporations, I would insist that all members of its Bord of Directors and all investors be listed. If they do not want their names associated publicly with a political ad, then the money should not be used.