Krugman: DC Dems Ignore Middle Class for Corporate Money

Krugman has been reading my mind again.

He's concerned that Dem Party leadership may be blowing their chance to take advantage of the public's anger at the GOP. They've failed to "find their voice" on issues important to the middle class, probably because of the influence of big money from corporations. Some might say the influence of big money on Democrats has turned them into something akin to fat cat Republicans...

Yes, Martha, there is a chance the Dems could blow it again in 2008...

"Wobbled By Wealth"

"Nor is the demand for change solely about Iraq: there has been a strong revival of economic populism. Democracy Corps asked those who believe America is on the wrong track to choose phrases that best described their views of what’s gone wrong. The most commonly chosen were “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington” and “Leaders have forgotten the middle class.”

...

James Stimson, a political scientist who uses data from many polls to construct an index of the overall liberalism or conservatism of the electorate, finds that America is now more liberal than it has been since the early 1960s.

...

The most conspicuous example of this influence right now is the way Senate Democrats are dithering over whether to close the hedge fund tax loophole — which allows executives at private equity firms and hedge funds to pay a tax rate of only 15 percent on most of their income.

Only a handful of very wealthy people benefit from this loophole, while closing the loophole would yield billions of dollars each year in revenue. Retrieving this revenue is a key ingredient in legislation approved by the House Ways and Means Committee to reform the alternative minimum tax, something that must be done to avoid a de facto tax increase for millions of middle-class Americans.

A handful of superwealthy hedge fund managers versus millions of middle-class Americans — it sounds like a no-brainer. Is this the shape of things to come? My questioners fear that it is....."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

end snip


How does a senator who's passionate about single payer system of health care for the last 15 years suddenly do an about face, walking away from efforts to help uninsured cancer patients, talking now about "incremental change". $$$$$$$$$$

I have said this several times on DU -- most recently during the survey of DUers on the Political Compass -- only to be met with a Grand Silence (and a small group of courageous souls who saw the point I was trying to make).

There's no question that we've elected people who are far to the right of the mainstream ... further to the right than ever before in our history, imho.

All the marketing of labels and vitriolic rhetoric has served to mask the basic 'mainstream' attitudes of the vast majority. People are notoriously unwilling to call themselves 'liberal' despite some baseline values that make it inescapable. As long as one stays away from "trigger language" it becomes obvious in virtually any conversation regarding values. Despite this, we've been sold a bill of goods that inclines us to see an elected politician needing some "other" posture ... somehow a bit different from us ... as though our own values aren't somehow good enough to get elected or accomplish anything. It's sad.

on funding Iraq. There will be little negative fallout for Dems if they stand up to Bush on the endless drain of funds to wars in Iraq and Iran.

:kick:

So why do I think it will fail miserably?

He's been ebullient about chances for a major realignment of the country's direction next year. FDR-sized realignment. Looks like he might just have to continue being one of the few voices in the wilderness, in spite of changes in Washington.

that Dems could lose again. GOP probably has a plan to choose a "reform" candidate of their own, my guess is Mitt Romney. He can be sold to the public as the "outsider" who has a record on health care reform.