Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Individual Freedom For Everyone

Thursday, December 6, 2012

The Nation: L.R. Runner: "How to Save the Democratic Party": The Future of American Leftists

How to Save the Democratic Party | The Nation

I've been having this discussion with one of my friends on Google+, if you want to call someone you've never. Met in person and talked to on the phone a friend, about what the future could be for Progressives in America. This friend of mine is an admitted Democratic Socialist, thats how he describes his politics and if you read this blog on a regular basis. You know that I've been arguing that Progressive Democrats need their own party, that being spread out amongst. 4-5 parties in America is not doing them much good, because they end up competing against each other. As well as whatever Democrat or Republican they are running against but if these 4-5 Social Democratic parties. Including the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party, were to come together and to form one Progressive Party. Whatever that party were to be called, whether its the Progressive Party or some other party, that they may end up. Being large enough to compete with Democrats and Republicans and at least be able to get into the debates.

As I've said before the Democratic Party is a party made up of at least three different political factions, four if. You consider that there are Liberals such as myself. two different factions of Progressives, one faction that works. With the Democratic leadership, the Barney Frank's and Bernie Sanders of the World and another Progressive. That tends to look at compromising with Republicans as selling out and when Democrats compromise with Republicans. They are being fake Democrats, people like Dennis Kucinich and then there are people like Marry Landrieu whose. At best a Moderate-Liberal but basically a Centrist especially on economic issues, socially Liberal but doesn't really push those issues. And thats really why the Democratic Party has always been so big, the largest political party in the country. If not Democratic world, because we are represented by more then one political ideology and faction.

As a Liberal Democrat, I'm happy with where this party is ideologically, we are right where a majority is as a country. On social issues but also on economic issues, in areas like infrastructure investment and on things like taxes and regulations. Where you don't tend to see Democrats at least in the leadership, pushing for new tax hikes, except on the wealthy. And new big regulations, we believe in the safety net but also believe that people who are physically and mentally capable. Of working should be expected to do so, you don't see us trying to expand the safety net but trying to save it. And make it work better and the Liberal faction of the party is also the leadership, with Progressives looking in. Trying to push us left on economic issues.

Where the Democratic Party is politically right now, is not where Progressive Democrats in the party are not right now. At least in the leadership, Progressives are really a party without an official party and this movement that puts. So much faith in Democratic Socialism as their governing philosophy, doesn't have the leadership to accomplish what they want. Because they don't have the party to deliver that for them, which is something they need to think about going forward.

CBPP: Shannon Spillane: Reducing The Deficit Without New Revenue, Would Shift New Costs Onto States

Reducing Federal Deficits Without a Significant Revenue Increase Would Shift Substantial Costs to States — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

One of the problems with going over the fiscal cliff, would be that there would be automatic across the board. Spending cuts, spending cuts is not the problem, anyone whose serious and has been following this debate, knows there. Will be spending cuts in whatever final deal is reached, the problem would be across the board spending cuts. Even in areas that don't need to be cut to get the deficit under control, like Federal mandates on the states, that the Feds. Are suppose to help pay for, like in the area of Medicaid, finding savings in safety net programs would be a good thing. So would decentralizing these programs and giving the people on the ground so to speak, more authority and input. In how these programs are run but forcing these programs onto the states without the revenue to pay for it. Would just be more unfunded mandates, requirements on the states to do things they want them to do without paying for it.

We could save hundreds of billions of dollars as a country, not by gutting programs, except for duplicate programs. Meaning programs that already exist but by simply reforming programs that we have millions of Americans that still depend on. Reforming them so people are on them can get themselves off of them by becoming self sufficient and letting the states. Run them which would give them more responsibility with the revenue to pay for them, so they don't have to raise taxes. Or cut other state programs that they depend on or a combination of both and then we could also fully finance all of these programs. Meaning they would all have their own revenue sources to pay for them, so the Feds and states wouldn't look to. Cut those programs, because the money will already be there and they wouldn't have to worry about general revenue to pay for these programs.

There are smart ways to finance deficit reduction and there are completely dumb ways to do it and there are. Smart ways to reform government and there are completely dumb ways to do it as well, so the idea is reform programs. That make them more effective, which will bring down the costs of them by itself, because they would simply be working better.