Steve- a very thoughtful and thorough stratagy for Democractic success. Getting Congressional members to front important public task forces is a great way to gain important public exposure. We should also considering including State legislative figures as well as future democratic Congressional candidates to these task forces. This would give State and local Democrats national exposure and allow the party to better evaluate their political skills. I constantly read in your blogs where a Republican members may be vunlerable but there is no popular Democratic available to challenge them. Dean needs to build a Democratic minor league to develop and profile future candidates in every Congressional district of this Country. It's the only way he is going to send Bush back to Crawford.

Great post. Dems desperately need to rethink their strategy for 06 and 08, and I think economic policy needs to be at the heart of it.

I wrote earlier today on the issue of rethinking the way we speak about economics. In particular, I think Dems need to find a way to talk about economic policy as a moral issue.

http://cntodd.blogspot.com/2005/04/economic-policy-is-moral-issue.html

Maybe if we can, we might see a very different party and some very different results.

In particular, I think Dems need to find a way to talk about economic policy as a moral issue.

How 'bout "Holy shit! Look how much the rich have stolen from the rest of us!"

These are excellent ideas, no doubt, but I fear the problem is that it's not a matter that "there will still be plenty for Reid and Pelosi to do in attacking on Bolton, DeLay, filibusters, the American Taliban, and moral values," as if these are things that they can do when they get around to it; but that the Democrats are strictly on the defensive on these matters. It's not by choice, obviously, but it's the Republicans that are foisting Bolton on them, and once again presenting unpalatable judicial choices, despite the president's now laughable pledges to "reach out," which will inevitably lead to the fillibuster showdown. So, while ideally, it would be great to address and attack the issues you mention such as the economy and energy independence, unfortunately it's the Repubs that are setting the agenda and I fear that the time and energy and political capital needed to fend off these and other attacks may very well preclude the chance to accomplish much of anything else.

As Investor's Business Daily pointed out in yesterday's OP-ED, the Democrats big issue is that while they have been aggressive in attacking the GOP, the Democrats haven't offered any alternative plans.

Some folks here like to say that the Democrats are just doing what Newt and the GOP did to them in 1994. With one big exception: Newt had a plan called The Contract With America. This plan specifically outlined an agenda the GOP would attempt to implement.

Where is the Democrats' plan? They don't have one. Boxer, Pelosi and Reid are on the attack with lots of name calling, but no ideas of their own.

Except like Mattman implies, hike taxes on "the rich."

And Steve mentioned Tax Hikes, too. Don't want to ignore what the Blog Lord had to write about lifting the cap on Social Security taxes and means testing Social Security benefits.

I've got nothing against "hiking" taxes on the rich, it's true; but really, I'd settle for just putting them back to a level where the government didn't saddle the entire economy with larger deficits every year.

Muck, I'm missing your point. The public already supports raising the tax withholding ceiling and means-testing of benefits alternatives for Social Security.

Of course they do, Steve. Once the majority figures out all they have to do to get more entitlements is hike taxes on a small minority of folks, that's what they like to do. It's a no brainer.

The problem there is at what level do the folks who create jobs and make investments decide to quit doing that and just go do something else with their time instead?

The problem there is at what level do the folks who create jobs and make investments decide to quit doing that and just go do something else with their time instead?

Chicken Little Muckdog?

Muck, those folks who Bush told us would take those tax cuts and create jobs with them and make investments pocketed those tax cuts instead and the jobs never showed up.

So please cry me a river about poor rich people paying more in taxes and then taking their marbles and going home. I don't buy it, and frankly I no longer f*cking care. The "if you tax them, they will leave the playing field" bullshit is exactly that.

Bullshit.

Try again.

Economic decisions do have moral implications. Scince the time of Reagan we have been following so called supply side theory. How has the theory done? Has the period from 1980 to 2005 stacked up well against the period 1945 to 1970?

It's simple, if the workers can't afford to buy goods the economy will eventually decline. By definition the elete is a self limiting economic base. Global technology can expand the elete base and forestall the decline for a few years, but sooner or later every piper gets paid. The answer is in demand.

One problem, and it's manifested in the House poll numbers, is that the Dems are not tying the policiy failures to the goppers. It's not "Congress" that is failing us, it's the "Republican Dictated Congress" that's failing us. A reactive strategy I know, but necessary as part of the bigger strategy.

Muck, those folks who Bush told us would take those tax cuts and create jobs with them and make investments pocketed those tax cuts instead and the jobs never showed up.

In addition, those same folks decided that the way to create greater corporate profit was by lowering the cost of labor ... outsourcing. The jobs never showed up because they're gone.

"Once the majority figures out all they have to do to get more entitlements..."

Social Security is not an entitlement. It is insurance. If you collect on auto or homeowner's insurance, do you consider it an entitlement?

Well, that's not true. X gets the square.

Unemployment is in the low 5% range. Those Euro countries would love to have the employment situation we have there. But, their taxes are too high. The standard of living in the US is much higher than anywhere else on the planet.

And Jim, outsourcing has been a way of life for workers the past 100 years. Shoes. Steel. Autos. Technology. Something else comes along and replaces it. Nothing new.

Don't get me started on supply-side tax cuts. The evidence is in. They work. The economy grows, and tax revenues increase. Heck, from 1994 on, even Bill Clinton was a supply-sider!

v, social security IS NOT insurance. Is your 401k plan insurance? How about your pension plan at work? These are other investment vehicles where you save for the long term, and use the money during your retirement years. Just like social security.

If we means test social security, and exclude folks who pay into the system from receiving benefits, then social security becomes a welfare program. By definition.

How'd you like to be means tested out of your pension or 401k plan at work? That wouldn't be fair, either.

Click my name for an educational vignette. My new blog offers progressive commentary on current events and issues.

..."Unemployment is in the low 5% range."

This is the measured unemployment rate, a rate that excludes the 000's of folks (sometimes called "discouraged workers"} who have given up and quit looking for a job. Add, these to the ranks of the unemployed and the U. S. unemployment rate does not compare so favorably.

If we means test social security, and exclude folks who pay into the system from receiving benefits, then social security becomes a welfare program. By definition.

One wouldn't necessarily means test to exclude entirely. But we should give a couple living in a northwestern kitchenette, trying to avoid a forced move under rent pressures, more help than we do to a couple who benefitted from the capping of SS payments.

Ok, as an alternative to means testing, how about another idea I've read about here and in other places -- exempting the first few thousand in income from SS taxes? Combined with lifting the cap, it would make the whole system fairer. Think about the types of jobs that pay less than the current cap of $90K. It includes people like teachers, much of law enforcement, bus drivers and the people who collect your garbage and clean the public toilettes you soil. Why do they have to pay SS taxes on every f*ing dime they make while others get to skip out?

It's a rhetorical question.

social security IS NOT insurance. I call your bullshit muck.

It used to commonly be referred to as Federal OASDI (old age, suvivors, disability insurance program).
Here I will repeat it again so even you can understand.
Atraignt from the government social security web page Title 2 of the Social Security Act states, Federal Old Age INSURANCE, suvivors INSURANCE and disability INSURANCE programs and trust funds. One more time and with a different link to see for yourself federal old age and survivor's INSURANCE trust fund and Federal Disability INSURANCE trust fund. Funny how our public laws call it an INSURANCE huh muck. If

Then there is this gem, from 1994 on, even Bill Clinton was a supply-sider! Then you should be happy to return to the tax rates/levels we were at during those years? Remember the years we had all those budget surpluses and job/wage growth.

Settle down, emal. It's more like an annuity, or a 403b retirement account. And as you know, annuities are run by insurance companies. When you retire, you get some benefit and at your death, often times your spouse gets some benefit for her lifetime. That's the only link between social security and insurance.

I just don't think we should take people's accounts from them. 401k plans, pensions, 403b plans, or social security. These are all retirement accounts. It's their money.

Clinton cut taxes like there was no tomorrow in the 90's. No more source tax. Roth IRAs which are exempt from taxes altogether. Capital gains tax cuts. Real estate tax cuts.

He created quite a stock bubble. Then, in March 2000, POOF! It went into a 2 year nosedive. Greenspan really jacked up the rates to deal with all the supply-side stimulus from Clinton, which was putting inflationary pressure on the economy.

Sure, wages went up. But inflation was higher then.

Always Clinton to blame, huh Muck. That's getting a bit old four plus years into the Bush mess. Clinton created a stock bubble??? really? What about Bush buddy Kenny Boy Lay at Enron? You talk about taking peoples 401's from them.....what a hypocrite..Enron totally screwed uncounted citizens 401's and retirement accounts are still ruined because of the schemes orchestrated by Enron in Texas right under the nose of George W. Bush. Then Dirty Dick Cheney brought them in to orchestrate the "Energy Crisis" in California, which ruined many, many small businesses and cost consumers dearly. Greenspan, taking his orders from the GOP, locked up the economy with uncalled for rate hikes to put a brake on growth before the 2000 election.
Look no further than your own minority party, you are the problem.

with respect T2, I doubt Ken Lay will get much punishment for the Enron debacle. His wife's resale shop has already closed, they have protected the millions that he stole. And even though we know -- I remember hearing a report on NPR -- that the Enron "traders" were laughing about the energy crisis in CA, little has changed. In my mind, the CA brown/black outs were the first screw up on the w watch, followed by 9/11.

What happened to accountability . . .oh wait I know the answer to that. . .

Muck, if you want to run on this economy while I run on the Clinton economy of the 90's, that's fine with me. Clinton cut taxes on the right folks while balancing the budget with a GOP Congress. And what the f*ck exactly has Bush done?

Well, just remember that the 2000-2002 stock market collapse was a result of Greenspan's rate hikes from 1999-2000. So ask yourself, why was Greenspan hiking rates so aggressively? Bush wasn't in office then. Heck, many folks thought McCain was going to get the GOP nomination when the stock market fell apart in 2000.

When Bush was sworn in, in January 2001, the recession was already here. Heck, it was part of the welcoming committee. "congratulations on your new job, President Bush. By the way, we're in a recession."

Sure, wages went up. But inflation was higher then. Curious I decided to check our just how much higher is higher especially given the huge growth in jobs and wages during that same period compared to what Junior's watch has produced. I assumed it must have been much higher... but, this is what I found instead.

Here are the average yearly percentage rates for the past 13 years

Current rates this year Jan 2.07%, Feb 3.01%, March 3.15%

2004.......... 2.68%
2003.......... 2.27%
2002.......... 1.59%
2001.......... 2.83%
2000.......... 3.38%
1999.......... 2.19%
1998.......... 1.55%
1997.......... 2.34%
1996.......... 2.93%
1995.......... 2.81%
1994.......... 2.61%
1993.......... 2.96%
1992.......... 3.03%

Hmmmmm that's funny I don't see significantly higher inflation percentage numbers compared to what you implied with your comment here muck. Still all generally in the 3% and under range.

Muck I can go back further if you would like with more numbers. But just a quick summary noted that in fact the late 1980's, average yearly inflation was in the 4%-5% range.

Again Just sayin muck.

Bill Clinton had an economically successful presidency because of the tech boom.

And Junior has had an economically succ.... ooops never mind.

yah and if it was not for al gore and his invention of the internet it would have never happened.

that al gore may have been a smart cookie inventin' that internet, but he wasn't smart enough to get a relative 'lected gov'ner o' florida.