EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Capitol Hill Faces People Party Revolt On Trade & Health Care
Just after the 2006 elections, I wrote a series of widely-circulated posts on how the real divide that will be (and has been) defining politics is not the one between Republicans and Democrats, but between the Money Party and the People Party. On many issues, the Money Party is synonymous with the GOP, but it also includes a faction of corporate-backed Democrats. That's why though the Democrats do have a majority in Congress, the Money Party also is in the majority as well. The question, as I said after the election, would be whether the People Party minority in Congress (who still make up a majority of Democrats in Congress and, of course, a majority of people in the country) had the guts to use its power against the Money Party to really force changes. This week, we have two specific reasons to be hopeful that yes, the People Party is asserting itself and yes, the Washington Establishment has a serious revolt on its hands.
The first story piece of encouraging news comes on the issue of trade. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is right now being pressured by K Street to support President Bush's "free" trade agenda. As I reported from the International Economic Summit in Butte, Montana earlier this week, Corporate America is putting the full court press on both Rangel and his counterpart, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). Big Money wants these two to pass a spate of new trade deals that are anything but free - they include thousands of pages of strict protections for corporate profits (patents, copyrights and intellectual property protections) but no protections for humans (labor, human rights or environmental protections).
The progressive movement is working hard to pressure these two chairmen to hold the line for ordinary people. Yesterday in Washington, for instance, protests broke out against Bush's proposed trade pact with Colombia - a pact that would deliver economic rewards to a Colombian government that the Washington Post reports is colluding with paramilitary gangs to assassinate labor organizers. Meanwhile, in Montana, the Progressive States Network helped pass a bipartisan resolution through the State Senate demanding Baucus reject President Bush's request for "fast track" trade negotiating authority - the authority that lets him strip labor, human rights and environmental provision out of trade deals with no input from Congress.
That brings us to yesterday's story in National Journal, which reports that "Rangel is struggling to salvage negotiations with the White House and Republicans that would lead to a bipartisan deal on trade agreements, after being unable so far to find traction among his fellow Democrats on an approach that would strengthen labor provisions." Rangel, we learn, is facing a revolt of the People Party Democrats within his midst. Specifically, "sources said Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich., felt the proposed labor language went too far in attempting to assuage GOP fears." This followed a move last week where "70 House Democrats urged Rangel in a letter not to back down from positions on labor" Put another way, the People Party is telling its Money Party counterparts - in this case, Rangel - that these corrupt shenanigans are unacceptable. And here's the best part of all - the People Party is finally finding a clear voice on delineating exactly what the real divide is in Congress. Here's the quote of one congressional Democratic source:
"[Rangel is] out of step with the rest of the Caucus...[His negotiating] shows a hypersensitivity to business concerns at the expense of traditional progressive groups that make up the Democratic Party and base."(emphasis added)
That kind of outlook - one that values the progressive movement over the wallet of Big Money interests - is exactly what divides the Money Party and the People Party within the Democratic Establishment, and to see more and more congressional Democrats respect their campaign pledges to fight for fair trade and side with the progressive movement against the Money Party icons within their own caucus is major progress. These People Party champions aren't fooled by Big Money's rhetoric. They understand that our current trade policies are specifically designed to create a never-ending race to the bottom. Just look at the Financial Times report today that shows how Corporate America is using our current trade policies to try to pressure China to back off the most meager improvements to its awful labor laws. The threat - used regularly against American workers - is that if China moves forward, companies will just go exploit an even more impoverished country's oppressed workers. That more and more of our congressional representatives are taking a stand against this kind of thing is huge news.
Also huge news is this story in the Hill Newspaper today about U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reintroducing his legislation that would reinstate a law forcing the government to negotiate lower prices for drugs developed at taxpayer expense. As I detail in my book Hostile Takeover, this is the ultimate People Party legislation thrown in the face of the Money Party, in that it says what's good for Corporate America should be good for the American taxpayer. The drug companies always argue that because they supposedly spend lots of money on R&D (which, of course, they don't really - most of their cash goes to administration and advertising) they should be able to charge high prices to get a return on their investment. Yet, because President Clinton repealed the law Sanders is trying to reinstate, taxpayers are not afforded the same right to a return on our investment. The federal government today finances about a third of all basic medical R&D, and yet hands that R&D over to the drug companies without any ability to make sure taxpayers get a benefit from that investment in the form of affordable medicine prices.
The Hill notes that this is going to be a Money Party vs. People Party brawl - but that the People Party has the advantage because Sanders has been effectively packaging this bill in a populist message for years and thus embarrassing the GOP into more and more support:
"With the provision's history of acquiring significant cross-party support and the populist character of the legislation, the Sanders measure provides Democrats' their best chance of sending a prescription drug price-control measure to the White House, paving the way for what could be President Bush's third veto...Sanders initiated several attempts for the provision's return as a member of the House, including an effort in 2000 when he introduced renewal legislation as an amendment to the health appropriations bill. In spite of the Republican controlled Congress, the measure passed the House -- garnering 118 Republican votes, over half of the House GOP delegation --yet was stripped from the final bill during conference committee, according to the senator...The Sanders bill - unlike the Part D legislation - has a reasonable chance to attract 60 votes. In addition to the five Republican senators who broke rank with the party to vote for cloture on the Part D bill, two GOP senators, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) voted in favor of the Sanders measure in 2000 as members of the House."
This is the beginning, folks. These are the first bubbles in what is a boiling pot of populist frustration that has been brewing since the 2006 election. The public is hungry for real change - not just the change of parking spots and embossed name plates on Capitol Hill that the David Broders think is what politics should really be all about. And thankfully, the People Party in Congress is responding with serious pressure on its Money Party obstacles. If - and only if - the progressive movement has the discipline to focus on these kitchen table economic issues like trade and health care, we could very soon start to see some concrete accomplishments.
David Sirota is the author of the book Hostile Takeover. To subscribe to Sirota's regular newsletter, go to www.davidsirota.com and sign up on the left hand side.
© 2007 David Sirota
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show AllLike Senator Byrd said yesterday, God Bless Bernie Sanders.
Thank you David, and I love the designations, Money Party and People Party. Keeps the air clear. I believe the next Congressional election is as important as the upcoming Pesidential election. We need to put energy into supporting People Party Democrats and turn things around. And if that doesn't work, go Green.
There are some progressives in the Democratic Party. Of course, Bernie Sanders being from Vermont is an Independent.
I agree that bringing health care costs down are very important. If they aren't, it will be very hard to consider single-payer plans since they will be crushed by the current out-of-control costs. Give Mr. Sanders' bill all the support you can.
If the Sanders measure passes that's great, but it's only one skirmish in a long, protracted war. The only thing that will restore democracy, besides honest and fair elections, will be public financing of political campaigns and strict limitations on private and corporate "donations" to political parties.
The people have been hungry for real change for at least a decade. The root cause of the progressive rebellion from the Democrats in 2000 that led to the Nader campaign was 8 years of disgust at having a president who, while having a (D) after his name, was only truly interested in the interests of the Money Party.
Nice to see a few Democrats getting a clue, though.
BTW, single payer is the best way to get health care costs down. The US currently spends more per person on medical care than any other country. But, way too much of that money goes to administrative costs and paperwork in the current systtem. Way too much money is spent because each private insurance company works hard not to incure costs. And because the system refuses to cover people who don't lead to profits, they go to Emergency rooms to get very expensive basic care that could have been delivered at a much cheaper clinic or GP doctor's office.
And jp's post is dead on. I always thought one of the huge mistakes in 1993 was that they went after Health Care reform without doing Election reform first. That left the door wide open for the big bucks of the Money party to flood the next elections with big bribes and those nasty Harry and Louise commercials. WE MUST get big money out of our elections if we are going to make real progress on this ... or on many other fronts.
And thus the puzzlement over the great silence from our lovely little Democratic leaders on the concepts of election reform, campaign finance reform, clean elections and such. One gets the impression the current Democrat leaders are far more interested in becoming the new recipients of $$ from the Money Party than in representing the rest of us.
Of course, I'm really sceptical that the Democrat Party can ever go back to being a People's Party. I think they've long since sold their soul to the devil that is the Money Party. If we want a People's Party, its better to just built it from scratch than to try to fight to create it inside a Democratic Party that's really controlled by the Money Party and that continually sets the rules for internal fights in their own favor.
As an example of the latter, look the 2008 Presidential Primary schedule that stacks so many primaries up so fast that it seems designed to keep a People's party grassroots campaign from developing, and which instead heavily favors a Money Party candidate who can sling ads at multiple markets at once. And also ask the question of why doesn't the Democratic Party use "Clean Election" type rules for any internal party primary contests. One of my first lessons in politics was contacting the local Sec of States office to find out what the rules were for a candidate that might be drafted for a Presidential primary run, and being told that this was entirely up to the Democratic Party as it was their affair. So why don't the Democrats use "Clean Elections" rules? The answer is rather obvious, because they want to tilt the game in favor of Money Party candidates.
So, why waste the time and effort fighting in a game that's rigged heavily in favor of the Money Party?
That said, I do favor what I call a Winston Churchill strategy. That is fight them on the beaches, fight them in the fields, fight them in the Democratic Primaries, fight them in Republican primaries, fight them in the General elections. Basically fight them any time and any place you think you can land a blow. So I'm not opposed to the idea of fighting inside of the Democratic Party. But since any People's Party has fewer resources than a Money Party, I'm starting to wonder if its worth the effort.
COMarc wonders--
So I'm not opposed to the idea of fighting inside of the Democratic Party. But since any People's Party has fewer resources than a Money Party, I'm starting to wonder if its worth the effort.
****************
No matter how much money they have to spend on disinformation they only have one vote and one registration per person.
Soooo register democratic and vote for the people's party in the primaries, then reregister non-aligned or some other more people friendly party (hint: Green)and write in (if you have to) a people's party cnadidate (Nader or Kucinich for instance).
As their registrations diminish the money party will have less base to mobilize.
ezeflyer May 3rd, 2007 1:11 pm
"Like Senator Byrd said yesterday, God Bless Bernie Sanders."
Yes, indeed......Bernie Sanders is THE MAN!
I've pretty much lost all respect for Charlie Rangel after hearing him suggest to Ms. Schwab from the Trade Commission that they need to find the "right terminology" to convince the people that trade is a good thing. Trade is a good thing when it's properly implemented to benefit everyone involved. Right terminology isn't going to work, but right action will!
And Max Baucus has always voted with the Money Party. I've always wondered why he runs for office as a Democrat?????
You know guys, that Bernie is regularly on Thom Hartmann's show
"Let's begin by divesting all pension plans from stocks, bonds, etc. All plans to invest in U S Government treasury bills and short-term State GO Bonds or local GO Bonds." - Walter Burns
This article is worth reading just for the way that they clearly identify our actual two chief political groupings:
-- The Money Party
-- The People's Party
While most of us have been diverted by our daily concerns, we have been coming ever closer to trading in our Republic for a Plutocracy, which means the rule of the best -- actually the richest.
And our richest, or plutocrats, do not seem to have learned, either in academia or life, the importance of moderation and balance in wielding their inordinate influence. They even habitually gouge the people on prescription drug prices.
It is left to The People to elect candidates to public office who will balance fairly the need of the drug manufacturers to make a profit, on their investments. But who will also remember that the drug manufacturers do not need to also make an extra profit on the publics investment in medical research.
And if you life in my part of Virginia, I have found us just such a Congressional candidate for 2008: http://www.samrasoul.us/
With every good wish,
John
Trade agreements under Bush also are intended to further Empire. Sorry, world peace. Countries that wish us to open our markets to their goods must accept our military presence in the form of bases and/or weapons systems or forego any trade or aid. Those countries that refuse the bases/weapons are called "uncooperative in the war on terror."
I would imagine such agreements are the reason Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic agreed to let the US plant anti-missile missiles (that do not work) in their back yards to protect Europe against Iranian bombs. Good grief. Paranoia write large and paid for by us. And the reason Bush is so anxious to have his fast-track powers extended. Congress must say No.
See a good December 2006 article on the militarization of US trade policy at www.fpif.org (Foreign Policy in Focus).
I had a typo in my entry of May 4th, 2007, just 2 articles above here. I have corrected the typo, below, in this post. Please remove the May 4th entry, above, and keep what dollows, below.
Many thanks.
###
This article is worth reading just for the way that they clearly identify our actual two chief political groupings:
— The Money Party
— The People's Party
While most of us have been diverted by our daily concerns, we have been coming ever closer to trading in our Republic for a Plutocracy, which means the rule of the best — actually the richest.
And our richest, or plutocrats, do not seem to have learned, either in academia or life, the importance of moderation and balance in wielding their inordinate influence. They even habitually gouge the people on prescription drug prices.
It is left to The People to elect candidates to public office who will balance fairly the need of the drug manufacturers to make a profit, on their investments. But who will also remember that the drug manufacturers do not need to also make an extra profit on the publics investment in medical research.
And if you live in my part of Virginia, I have found us just such a Congressional candidate for 2008: http://www.samrasoul.us/
With every good wish,
John
Perhaps if change is really coming the people party can revisit the definition of corporation ...... revised.
Thanks for the update on People vs. Money. I see spring is coming to MT.