The Great Risk Shift-A Substantive Fight That Obama COULD Make His Own

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:48

( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

In keeping with my point that I'm NOT involved in candidate advocacy, I want to point out a major substantive initiative that I think Obama could take on quite readily, even though it might at first seem a more natural fit for Edwards.  The issue is laid out in a recent book by Jacob S. Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and Retirement--And How You Can Fight Back.  In it, Hacker argues that the greatest economic challenge facing Americans today is not economic inequality-though he doesn't seek to downplay that-but rather the shifting burden of economic risk.  And that what's most needed in the 21st Century is a new orientation to bringing risk back under reasonable control.

It's not simply a matter of protecting folks at the bottom, Hacker argues-effective dealing with risk is vital for creating an environment in which people feel secure enough to take on the sort of voluntary risk that helps drive the economy forward-what's often called "entrepreneurial risk," but that includes a wide range of choices to invest resources of time, money and effort in future possibilities that by their very nature cannot be certain.  These include investments in eduction, training, changing careers, starting a new business, etc.  In short, Hacker argues, a security orientation is not the polar opposite to an opportunity orientation-it is a vital aspect of an opportunity orientation.  And it's this latter argument that gives Hacker's point about countering the Great Risk Shift a potential bipartisan cross-over appeal that fits perfectly with Obama's articulated intentions.

Paul Rosenberg :: The Great Risk Shift-A Substantive Fight That Obama COULD Make His Own
Here's a rundown of some of the basic facts Hacker cites to lay the foundations for his argument:

Income Insecurity

  • The size of swings of pre-tax family income from year to year has tripled since the early 1970s. This sort of income instability-how far people move up and down the income ladder from year to year - has grown faster than income inequality-the gap between people on different points on the income ladder.

  • The chance that a person with average demographic characteristics will experience a 50 percent or larger drop in income over a two-year period has risen from 7 percent in the early 1970s to 17 percent in 2002.
      [143% Increase]

  • Personal bankruptcy has gone from a rare occurrence to a routine one. In 2005, more than 2 million Americans filed for bankruptcy-up from fewer than 300,000 in 1980.
      [567% Increase]

  • Income instability has risen just as quickly among the well educated as among the less well educated. As a result, college-educated workers today experience instability as great as workers without a high-school degree experienced in the 1970s.

Family Insecurity

  • Parents with kids are much more likely than other adults to say they don't have enough financial resources to support themselves if they lose their jobs. All told, more than 70 percent of Americans say they could last no longer than 4 months without their current income before experiencing "significant financial hardship."

  • Married couples with kids are twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as are married couples without kids.

  • Families with children are more likely than other family types to lose their homes. Since the early 1970s, the mortgage foreclosure rate has increased fivefold. Each year in the last few years, roughly one in sixty households with a mortgage have fallen into foreclosure.

Job Insecurity

  • Workers are scared. In 1982, amid a severe recession that had pushed the unemployment rate up to nearly 10 percent, a poll by the private business research firm ISR found that 12 percent of workers were "frequently concerned about being laid off." In 2005, with the unemployment rate down to 5 percent, the number of Americans worried that they would lose their jobs was 35 percent.

  • Although the unemployment rate has remained low, the rate of involuntary job loss has actually been steeply rising.  In the 2001 recession, the rate of involuntary job loss was essentially the same as the levels reached during the deep downturn of the early 1980s. And the costs of job loss for workers are actually above the levels of the early 1980s, particularly for more educated workers.

  • A major reason for the divorce between the unemployment and job-loss figures is that many of those displaced from jobs are not counted as unemployed, because they have stopped their employment search out of discouragement. In 2005, the "shadow unemployed" consisted of as many as 5.1 million men and women, which would raise the official unemployment rate to 8.7 percent.

  • Long-term unemployment-that is, unemployment lasting longer than six months-is three times as high at the peak of the business cycle as it was in the 1960s. During economic downturns, the picture is even more worrisome. Long-term unemployment has been unusually high in each of the last two recessions, and educated and professional workers are most likely to experience it.

Health Insecurity

  • 46.6 million Americans lack health insurance, up from around 24 million in 1980. All of the decline is due to a drop in the scope and generosity of employer-provided health coverage. In 1980, the majority of employers at medium-to-large companies paid 100 percent of the premium for family health coverage. Today, fewer than a quarter do.

  • Over a two-year period, more than 80 million adults and kids-one out of three nonelderly Americans-spend some time without the protection against ruinous health care costs that health insurance offers, and more than 50 million are uninsured for more than six months.

  • One out of six working-age adults are carrying medical debt, and medical costs and crises were a factor in as many as 700,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001.

  • Medicaid is now officially available to every poor child in America; yet the share of children who are uninsured has barely dropped and is still well above its level in the late 1970s. Only about 60 percent of poor children had health insurance coverage in 2002, and most of those who were uninsured lived in working families.

  • With the exception of the recent prescription drug bill, Medicare coverage has remained largely unchanged since the 1960s, and still does not include a cap on catastrophic costs. As a result, seniors are actually paying a larger share of their income on medical care today than they did at the time of Medicare's passage.

Retirement Insecurity

  • In 1980, more than 80 percent of large and medium-sized corporations offered traditional "defined-benefit" pensions that provide a predetermined monthly benefit for the remainder of a worker's life. Today, less than a third do. Instead, companies that provide plans now offer "defined-contribution" plans, such as the 401(k), in which returns are neither predictable nor assured.

  • Between 1989 and 1998-a decade in which 401(k) coverage exploded and the stock market boomed-the share of families nearing retirement that found themselves likely to live on less than half of their prior income in retirement increased by a third, to more than 40 percent.

  • Roughly three-quarters of 401(k) account holders in 2002 had less than the widely cited average of $47,000 in their account. The median among account-holders-which is a better measure of what's typical-was around $13,000. And all these figures include only those who have 401(k)s. Only 53 percent of workers have access to a defined-contribution pension plan, and only 42 percent contribute to one

  • More than $100 billion dollars a year in lost income tax revenues is used to subsidize 401(k)s and other pension plans. Two-thirds of this total goes to the richest 20 percent of Americans, only 12 percent to the bottom 60 percent of Americans on the income ladder.

And here's what the book description says:

America's leaders say the economy is strong and getting stronger. But ordinary Americans aren't buying it. They see what the rosy statistics hide: We are all struggling under the weight of terrifying economic instability. No matter how well educated and hard working we are, we know that the bottom can fall out at any moment. Meanwhile, the safety net that once protected us is fast unraveling. With retirement plans in growing jeopardy while health coverage erodes, more and more economic risk is shifting from government and business onto the fragile shoulders of the American family. In The Great Risk Shift, Jacob S. Hacker lays bare this unsettling new economic climate, showing how it has come about, what it is doing to our families, and how we can fight back.

Behind this shift, he contends, is the Personal Responsibility Crusade, eagerly embraced by corporate leaders and Republican politicians who speak of a nirvana of economic empowerment, an "ownership society" in which Americans are free to choose. But as Hacker reveals, the result has been quite different: a harsh new world of economic insecurity, in which far too many Americans are free to lose. The book documents how two great pillars of economic security--the family and the workplace--guarantee far less financial stability than they once did. The final leg of economic support--the public and private benefits that workers and families get when economic disaster strikes--has dangerously eroded as political leaders and corporations increasingly cut back protections of our health care, our income security, and our retirement pensions.

Hacker concludes by advocating an "insurance and opportunity society" that would safeguard economic security and expand economic opportunity, ensuring that all Americans have the basic financial security they need to reach for and achieve the American Dream. Jacob Hacker brings into focus as never before the pressures that the Great Risk Shift exerts on our pocketbooks and on our lives. Blending powerful human stories, big-picture analysis, and compelling ideas for reform, this remarkable volume will hit a nerve, serving as a rallying point in the vital struggle for economic security in an increasingly uncertain world.

If Obama were to embrace Hacker's ideas, and make them his own, he would clearly add substantial substance to his brand as an agent of change, new ideas, and reaching across old boundaries to find new solutions. Simply reframing our view of the economic issues faced by average Americans would be an enormous, potentially game-changing contribution.  The fact that he has not already done so is the sort of thing that continues to give me pause.  But I remain open to persuasion.  The ball is in Obama's court.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Hacker has an update (0.00 / 0)
Note: Hacker has some updated commentary based on CBO data which clouded some of his conclusions. Hacker discusses the CBO data and some of the possible data noise and stands by his conclusions. If you are wonky and love data -- I thought you might want to take a look.


John McCain

Yes, I Think This Was Very Well Answered (4.00 / 1)
As Hacker notes, it's only one of many different trends he points to, it contradicts a number of other different studies, starts in the middle of the process he's describing, and leaves out a lot of data.

So, definitely worth attending to for the sake of settling academic disputes, but no reason at all to doubt the main thrust of Hacker's work.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
right (0.00 / 0)
I am always astonished -- though I shouldn't be -- by the bumper-stickers on pickup trucks when I drive in the rural west that say

"a taxpayer voting for a democrat - is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders"

Obviously the Republicans have won that framing battle.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

As you have I have discussed (4.00 / 3)
This is my core talking point when it comes to the American economy- the shifting of risk. They don't get us simply by income gaps, but also in terms of how you play the odds in terms of failure and success in a free market economy. Larger institutions have been eliminating their risks, and place those burdens on individuals. The bankruptcy bill for example means that banks didn't have to be as concerned with the risks they were taking.

I would add to the list, because I didn't see it there, other risk shifting such as the cost of obtaining an education (which is increasing by hyperinflationary rates per year) and ton of other things. because education is so expensive it hurts innovation. if you are spending 10s of thousand on your education, thats money you have lost that could have gone to starting the next google.

The problem you face with this issue is that a) Americans don't understand risk and b) It's not as immediate (which explains the first). I don't pretend to have enough grounding conceptually to define the issue fully. I just understand that part of the problem is how we view the american dream. that if you work hard, it's enough. that we all can be millionaires. market capitalism isn't about all of us being winners. it's about winners and losers.

The way I like to explain it- and this is how I intellectually explain it to others is as follows:

In the past, you would have say a 1 in 100 chance of say bankruptcy happening , and now that number of bankruptcy in our economy is up so maybe its 20  in 100. With more strigent bankruptcy laws that make it harder for the individual to address their debt, that means you shift the risk fot a higher number of people. this in term means that a higher number of people aren't moving a head in our society.  For banks, and other institutions that trade on this, they understand the game. its all about the numbers. thats what risk is. its like playing poker. yes, there is chance and yes there is skill with pscyhology, but its also playing the numbers and odds. if you understand as big companies do how to control risk, then you can shift the risks in your favor. the corporate (to use another card game anlogy- this time blackjack) becomes the house.

Most Americans don't understand it because we are taught to think of our choices as individuals rather than in the aggregate impact. You can thank 30 years of Reaganism and market fundamentalism for that. I took a course in derivatives once and I also studied tax planning, and its quite interesting to understand how much of our decisions making is about playing the odds. in capaitalism that means there will be, by the very nature of the game, a certain number  of failures. That's expected. Thats built into the bankers model. Into the model of businesses that thrive in general. not so much into the behavior of workers and a globalized economy.

Take the subprime mess for example. The banks signed the contracts understanding that a certain number of those individuals would fail to pay based on economic reality, and therefore, do we have a system in place that correctly regulates the shfiting of the risk away from the banks toward the individual alone?

I Think Talking About Risk Globally Is Part Of The Solution (0.00 / 0)
You are absolutely right that individuals have a hard time grasping this.  It is very much a product of hegemony, in the sense I discussed toward the end of the diary, "Will The Real Culture War Please Stand Up???".

As wikipedia explained:

In such a layered hegemony, individual common sense, which is fragmented, is effective in helping people deal with small, everyday activities. But common sense also inhibits their ability to grasp the larger systemic nature of exploitation and hegemony. People focus on immediate concerns and problems rather than focusing upon more fundamental sources of social oppression.[1]

Of course, the individualist common sense is not fully adequate in dealing with small, everyday activities, either, or Hacker's book would never have been written.  But there was a time when it was a relatively decent guide--thanks, of course, to generations of social agitation culminating in the New Deal, and the foundation of middle-class-protecting institutions and regulations that was put in place then.  What's happened since then is three-fold: the adequacy of the everyday has eroded, the gap between the everyday logic and the world at large has vastly expanded, and the narrowness of the hegemonic individualist explanations has intensified dramatically.

All of which means, we're got a lot of work to do.

But understanding the nature of the problem is far and away the biggest step toward solving it.  The rest may not be easy--not by a long shot.  But you'll never get to New York City if you don't even know it exists.

What Hacker is doing is giving us a way to talk to folks about New York City, a place they didn't even know existed--even though their lives are full of culture that comes from there.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yeah I have a saying (4.00 / 2)
It goes something like this. Grandpa and ma's advise about how to go down the country store to barter for a better deal with the associated risks made sense when it really was a country store owned locally. The problem is that people operate mentally as if we l ive in a local economy when we do not. The lack of appreciation for risk (I count myself as one who never appreciated until the last few years) is a lack of appreciation for things we can't see in front of us.

[ Parent ]
Grad school models (4.00 / 1)
Thirty years ago, I got several nuggets on risk that have stayed with me.  Ironically, this came from business school so it should have seeped into the business consciousness.

First, based on a study of Mexican villagers many years earlier, a sociologist was able to examine risk/reward behavior.  Those indidviduals who deemed themselves on the edge (which was a considerable portion of the village) took no risks whatsoever.  They used the same seed, the same fertilizer, the same techniques even if rural development types offered subsidies for using improved seed, etc.  Only those who felt safe (and had that safety net and the experience of regular higher earnings) took risks. 

Second, as noted in this discussion, large businesses are risk averse.  One professor lectured memorably that the largest American store (at the time, Sears) owned an insurance company (Allstate) while millions of mom and pop stores bought insurance.  In today's world, this has taken two forms.  Businesses have shifted risk by inventing devices like re-insurance, hedge funds, and (yes) Enron.  Some of these risk shifts have been extroadinarily risky but promised high short term rewards.  That is a big reason why we have sub-prime crises, Enron, and other fairly frequent meltdowns.  Second, business also has shifted risk unto government and the tax payers at the same time that the "personal responsibility" meme has shifted risk to individuals and taken away government 's safety net.

Third, personal observation has shown that (for example) the richest person I personally know (not too well) is far more risk averse than most middle class individuals.  In fact, risk aversion may play some role in the over-success of the hyper-wealthy.  They work extremely long hours trying to get "success" "security" and "stay on top" that just don't square with the facts of their personal situation.  And yes, this behavior goes beyond the millionaire class to the billionaire class.  I can recite stories from personal or at least second hand experience on this.  "Wall Street's" Gordon Gecko was able to sleep away from his cell phone.  Today's real lfe billionaire traders don't.

One of Ronald Reagan's great "accomplishments" was to recalculate the way the federal governmet figures the unemployment rate.  Up until his time the unemployment rate was simply the number of unemployment divided by the number of workers in the work force.  To reduce "unemployment" in his early 80s recession, Reagan only counted the number actively "searching for employment" at a time when that had a lower correlation with the "truth" than in the past (see previous comment about long time unemployment by white collar and professional employees).  We see that the unenployment rate under Bush has barely moved.  Create new jobs (when it happens)and the labor market simply expamds as literally millions of people can come into the market.  We are basing policy and perceptions of government needs on a lie, a very deliberate lie.

Horatio Alger books were very popular in the early 1900s.  Ever read them?  Well, the hero, is a hard working type who keeps at it and keeps at it and suddenly breaks through.  Oddly, in the few samples I did read, the break through took the form of a benefactor who recognized the value and worth of the indidvidual rather than any slow rise to glory.  Our own adjustment to this is for millions of people to dream at winning the lottery.

The great period of American advance vis-a-vis the rest of the world occurred during 1932-68 (an era of Democratic dominance) when income inequality was drastically lowered andd when government took on a whole raft of programs to limit risk: social security, bank insurance, medicare, the GI bill, student loans, FHA home loans, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, flood and disaster insurance, farm price supports.  This is all linked into a success narrative but the bowdlerized Horatio Alger myth is more popular than what works.  Estate tax, anyone?

[ Parent ]
I've had this thought about Health Care (4.00 / 5)
Here in Canada, looking at the US health system, I have really come to appreciate that I simply never worry about health care, particularly when making career and job decisions.

If I was the entrepreneurial type, it is nice to know I would not be jeapordizing my health (or family's health) by quitting a full time job to start a business.

I also don't have to fear developing some chronic condition during a period between jobs/health insurance. 

It's one of those soft arguments for government provided UHC which is so hard to quantify.  What price can we put on peace of mind?

Hacker has taken a worthwhile holistic approach to this phenomenon and it is a very welcome approach.

Quantifying That Soft Stuff Is Difficult--But Incredibly Important (4.00 / 1)
The whole subject of externalized costs has been largely ignored since Pigou introduced it almost 100 years ago, largely because they are difficult to measure.  But they have a tremendous impact on our lives, and what you are pointing to is one example.

Lack of security can have so many hidden costs that it's impossible to come close to counting them all, but we can at least make a start at it.  And once we've done so, we have more of a language to talk about the things that need to be done.  This is part of hegemonic struggle, too: creating counter-hegemonic narratives, and the frameworks that can generate them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I would rethink who should take on risk (0.00 / 0)
There are some risks individuals should take on as a price of operating with the advantages of a free market economy (there are advantage), and there are other risks that they should not be exposed to simply because we live in a winner and losers market. The reorientation isn't then about just figuring out costs, but understanding categories. Should an entreneur have to risk life and limb to prove his ideas are viable in the market place? Is this risk, the cost of healthcare, the right factor for determining which ideas are innovative in a vibrant market economy or does it hinder entreneurs, whom like I said could be the next Bill Gates but-for the fact that they are priced out of the market by categories of risks unassociated with the products they would be selling to the public. Should workers have to pay so much for education that it defines their future options?

[ Parent ]
We Have A Long History Of Thinking About Such Things (0.00 / 0)
It's just been largely ignored or obscured. (Michael Katz, for example, touches on related issues in discussing the very pragmatic, non-ideological origins of workers' compensation laws in The Price of Citizenship.) So I don't think we have to start from scratch.

As you note, some risk is not just unavoidable, but good.  If people can do anything without paying any price, taking on any risk that they themselves have to bear, then they will be far less judicious, and the result will be disasterous in a different way.  So it's all about developing sensible policies that respond to various needs that exist in tension with one another.

Thus, once again, the leftwing proposal is already based on balance, and there's really no need at all to "balance" it with rightwing fantasies, dogmatism, deceptive sloganeering and lies.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I consider myself a moderate (4.00 / 1)
So much of this  is a long the lines of my thinking already. I guess I am a 'progressive' now because the rest of the country to me feels like its so out of whack with even their own individual realities.

  its like everyone still wants to live the american dream such as buying a house, but ignoring in the ways in which such as through subprime lending that dream is made harder but pretending nevertheless that we are still living in a time when mortgages and lending were simple.

  The fact is what passes for moderate/centrist these days has very little to do with the moderate traditions of understanding the issue of balance as you are discussing it here. It has everything to do about being afraid of the far right. I've said of Obama for example- that if he truly were inpdendent I would expect his thoughts to pull from a lot of traditions that are not even on the radar screen , but somehow he always seems to choose the frames that narrated by the right, and that tells me he's not ready to be truly moderate or independent.

I agree absolutely with the balancing. I would, however, add that there is a further left (not necessarily reflected in your comments) that does exist out there, but that left has no power so i am more worried about the crazy right. The real battle to me- and this is how I frame it- is restoring the balance. This is a center left country, not far right.

The balance in this country is that we understand people should compete, but not compete to the death.

Where that balance is lost is when we allow the nutcases to control the debate and not speak truth to their craziness. And by truth- I mean call them crazy. No more "i see your point" or "trying to feel their pain" or "fairness to different" ideas.

  As my conservative professors (not to todays model) used to say- not all ideas are worth your time. That's why judgement is so important, and you've got to have the intellectual grounding to think critically of how to weigh information and opinons.  If we were an honest society we would  be able to call crazy- well crazy.

I like to tell people I am not against risks, but I am again undue risk. Risk that isn't related to the enterprise such as healthcare cost for example.

[ Parent ]
Well, I Consider Myself A Leftist (4.00 / 1)
But outside of the sectarian left organizations, which I've always avoided like the plague, the leftist tradition in America has always been largely about balance, too.  It's just that what leftists are balancing includes a wide array of the otherwise left out.

Thus, balancing issues of race [Obama], class [Edwards] and genger [Clinton] is something the left has been doing for decades, which renders even the deepest political analysis on such matters in this primary race rather trite to my ears.

Closer to the topic of this diary (remember that?) the history of institutionalized left-ish ideas is similarly tempered from combining a number of different intellectual approaches, as well as negotiating with a range of relatively non-ideological stakeholders. The resultant American welfare state is, actually, weaker and more disorganized for it, but one cannot honestly say that it's foundations rest on ideology.  They quite simply do not--they rest on practical considerations--some social, some economic, some political.  Ideology certainly influenced many of the actors involved, but it was not the overarching principle.  There is, for example, virtually nothing on the left side of the policy aisle that's analogous to say, "abstinence-only" sex-ed.

You may have had Lysenkoism in the USSR, but that was a very black mark for communism in the eyes of the vast majority of American leftists, and you just don't find such examples here in the US.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
he could, but Clinton has (0.00 / 0)
In her recent NY Times interview on economics Clinton pretty explicitly made the Hacker argument. She has adopted many of Edwards's points but with more pragmatic rhetoric. The Hacker case is continuous with the political case Bill Clinton made in the '90s, but more in tune with Hillary Clinton's political instincts.

Obama is very unlikely to adopt Hacker's argument, given his economic advisers. He appears to be much more open than Hillary Clinton is to the right's arguments about economic policy.

I Don't Think Anyone REALLY Gets Hacker, Though (0.00 / 0)
This is truly a game-changing perspective.  And if one of the candidates really got it--not just picking up bits and pieces, but got the power of the perspective as a whole--they would brand themselves so thoroughly with it that even low-info voters would know.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
interesting example (4.00 / 1)
Is in today's New York Times: What's $34 Billion on Wall Street?.  It makes clear that he white collar workers at the investment banks are bearing the risk (i.e., losing their jobs), while the executives do not.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

To Paraphrase Leona Helmsly (4.00 / 1)
"Risk is for little people."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
In 3 words (or sentences) or less (0.00 / 0)
Anyone have any suggestions for a 2-3 word label to encapsulate this argument (i.e., a slogan to counter the "Personal Responsibility" faux argument of the right)?  It seems related in fundamental ways to Paul's earlier theme of "security and dignity for all," though this doesn't necessary speak to the "shift" element of Hacker's argument (at least as I understand it).

And any proposals for a short paragraph (maybe 2-3 short sentences)that lays out the crux of the argument in a way most Americans can understand and identify with?

I'm coming up blank on these, but think its a useful exercise to try to boil it down to these short-forms.

i've got a few (0.00 / 0)
"true prosperity'

"real american dream'


all of which starts to ground the concepts that really guide people into the balance that will achieve their goals. you don't take away the idea of hope , but you do ground it in a language that says there is  a real version and one that's not, and then you simutaneously define the real version.

[ Parent ]
"Securing Our Future" (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes hokey is good.  This also lays the groundwork for matching it with a sound foreign policy.  It then becomes "Securing Our Future At Home and Abroad."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
These all sound good (0.00 / 0)
I like bruhrabbit's linking of "true" and "real" to "prosperity" and "american dream."  And your "Securing our Future" seems to have intriguing possibilities, as your comments suggests.

Thanks for replying.  I don't know about anyone else, but these suggestions help me think in a more strategically focused way about the potential of this issue and where it might fit into a new progressive narrative, platform and messaging strategy.

[ Parent ]

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox