Excellent point, Chris. (4.00 / 1)

While the agenda is centrist, "[t]hese are laws that will make the country itself more progressive, thus building a progressive majority down the road."

Growing unions with the employee free choice act is one of the most important ones for growing a futurre progressive movement.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 16:29:10 PM CDT

ixnay on #13 (4.00 / 2)

Lieberman Warner was always going to be a one-time chance to "do something" now, and in fact its shaping for that probably contributed to its downfall. Warner will be retired, Lieberman may have less influence (well we'd hope!), and the new gold standard is going to be either Ed Markey's new House bill (though on that side of the Hill there's still John Dingell to contend with...) or something else entirely.

Though on the flip side, gaining 8 Senate votes (and it'd be less since this bill was supported by some retiring or hopefully-replaced GOPers) might not even pass it next term. After all, 9 of the Democrats who voted for cloture later signed onto a letter (along with Sherrod Brown) saying they'd have opposed the bill itself at this stage. The list there: Brown, Bayh, Levin, Stabenow, Ben Nelson, McCaskill, Pryor, Lincoln, and Rockefeller.  

---

by: sip1983 @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 16:30:01 PM CDT

Rick Boucher to propane industry today (0.00 / 0)

Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire senior reporter

This story was updated at 12:40 p.m. EDT.

A top House Democrat warned industry today that time is running out on its chances to get a friendly piece of global warming legislation enacted into law while the odds greatly increase for action on a more aggressive measure within two years after President Bush leaves office.

Speaking at an annual conference in Washington for the propane industry, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) urged industry and Republicans to begin negotiations in earnest on a climate cap-and-trade bill -- otherwise, the next president and a Congress under a larger Democratic majority will take the issue and run with it.

...

Sizing up the political outlook for 2009, Boucher offered up a unique perspective on global warming legislation that likely does not jibe with some of his party's top leadership.

"There will be more Democrats in both the House and Senate as a result of this fall's election," Boucher said. "That result is inevitable. That's a result that normally, as a Democrat, I'd celebrate. On the subject of cap-and-trade, I'd rather have more Republicans. But we're going to have more Democrats. And that means that Congress is going to be very receptive to this aggressive bill. And so the chances of passing a cap-and-trade bill in the next Congress, if we don't do it in this Congress, 80 percent or better."

---

by: WI Dem @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 21:51:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We will get new and better legislation than some of these (4.00 / 3)

Unfortunately, however, farm policy was set for 5 years with the reauthorization of the farm Bill.  So unless some of the subsidies can be trimmed through the budget, we are stuck with what passed this year.

We can do much, much better on climate change than Warner-Lieberman.  We will see increased CAFE standards, maybe even a reduced speed limit (remember the '70s!) and much more for alternative fuels and conservation.

We will hopefully be seeing troop levels decrease, and have some sense of how we can withdraw.  But better vets' care, GI Bill, Webb restrictions on deployments, yes.

More money for college grants and loans; more funds for teachers and schools.

And please, tax reform!  This is one of the most important, as it, along with reducing our commitment in Iraq, will determine if there is money for anything else.  For starters, let the upper bracket Bush tax cuts expire; freeze the estate tax at today's levels; raise capital gains tax back to 20%; tax dividends at ordinary income rates except exempt the first $3,000 or so in dividends from US companies (that is how it was in the '60s, when I started paying taxes--the exclusion then was $600) and end the preferential treatment of hedge fund managers' income.  Tax earned (wage) income at the same rates as passive (investment) income.  Raise the earned income tax credit.  Enact a very small stock transfer tax (say, .01%, or 1 cent per share) in part to pay for increased regulation of stock, options and futures markets and to raise revenue from those who have it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 17:32:29 PM CDT

Enabling unionization (4.00 / 2)

might be the most important. During the late 60s and 70s, progressive Dems were able to pass a lot of excellent legislation -- SSI, OSHA, etc. -- but when conservatives kicked back in the Reagan era, didn't have the aroused, organized constituencies to defend the programs. Labor can play that role, as, for now, can the netroots.

I've just been writing some history about this set of problems based on San Francisco experience if anyone is interested.  

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 17:45:28 PM CDT

Harkin Amendment (0.00 / 0)

That particular Harkin Amendment was just the Senate substitute of the Farm Bill, which the Republicans blocked last November over procedural complaints. Cloture was invoked on the amendment 78-12 a few weeks later.

Farm Bill subsidy reform isn't a partisan issue, its a regional one, so its a far more difficult problem to tackle.  

---

by: Mjm @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 17:50:04 PM CDT

LGBT rights/what's prevented (4.00 / 1)

I love lists like this because they remind my cynical friends of how cool the Democratic Party could indeed be.

I'd like to point out that LGBT hate crimes protections, a potentially transgender-inclusive ENDA but definite ENDA without, a huge shot at repeal of DADT, a repeal of the ban on HIV-positive foreign nationals, an extension of immigration rights to extend benefits to LGBT foreign national partners of Americans- are all going to happen under a trifecta, even with the inevitable couple conservative Democrats coming into office. That is a HUGE step forward. We won't get there on issues like marriage, but there is also the potential for more out-of-the-box stuff, like allowing partners of LGBT veterans to receive pensions upon death of the veteran, or allowing same-sex couples to file federal taxes jointly.

I'd also like to point out the kind of stuff that can be prevented, such as nasty Senate minority amendments that barely attract enough majority support with Baucus and Lieberman going for it is also less likely to go forward.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 18:22:10 PM CDT

Well (4.00 / 3)

that is a pretty pessimistic view.

That is a list of legislation brought up in a Congress that is largely waiting to push real reform until a new president is in office.

As Adam said it is very likely that there will be major progress in GLBT rights with Obama. GLBT hate crimes protections, a potentially transgender-inclusive ENDA but definite ENDA without and a huge shot at repeal of DADT at the very least. Obama has even said he will push for the full repeal of DOMA which would be a huge step forward.

You might like to dismiss 120,000 troops home but that is literally a matter of life and death. Same thing with climate change. A increased majority will be able to finally have a realistic shot of tackling probably the biggest issue we face and Obama has made it clear that he will make it a priority. He has also said he will make his Attorney General review the constitutionality of every executive order Bush made.

I don't mean to attack you Chris beacuse you are one of my favorite bloggers but I'm not quite sure you get how much controlling the federal government means. In this day and age winning the trifecta would be a absolutely giant shift with huge implications for the issues we care about. Getting to a trifecta is literally a matter of life and death for billions of people on this planet.

But after the election I think we should focus on those progressive feedback loops. In particular I think we should focus most of our transition time energy in a major push for Obama to select Michael Copps as FCC chair and to select media reformers like Copps as the other two members that he can appoint.

If we succeed in doing that I think that our media and thus our politics will be absolutely transformed in a very good way. There is already huge pressure and organizing going on for many of the other progressive feedback loops but not so much for aggressive media reform.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 19:20:54 PM CDT

More Progressive Feedback Loops (0.00 / 0)

If more federal money goes to teachers, social workers, and other government workers, then we'll be supporting a lot more progressives. And if less money goes to mercenaries and military contractors, then that will be less to Right-wingers. And if we tax the rich and support the poor, then progressives will have a lot more resources to support progressive politicians and conservatives will have a lot less money to support Right-wing nut cases. A trifecta could really help correct the imbalance in political power that we've been suffering under for the past 30 years.

And challenging the corporate media should be high priority. It is inexcusable that 28% of the population still thinks that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 14% are unsure. How can we engage in decent political debate when 42% of the electorate is completely ignorant about basic facts on critical issues?

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 19:43:22 PM CDT

That's not too bad (0.00 / 0)

... given that a little more than 20% of people think the sun revolves around the earth. I remind myself of that whenever I hear that 10% of people think Obama is a muslim.

Education reform anyone?

Maybe we just need to outlaw stupidity (or, as a compromise, tax it heavily). Market forces don't seem to have worked.  

---

by: smartypants @ Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:42:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DOJ (0.00 / 0)

I'd like to see the Department of Justice become an independent agency. The idea was floated since the Plame and U.S. Attorneys scandals. Can anyone please point me to some links on this issue?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 21:12:38 PM CDT

Rush Holt's verified voting bill will need a lot of support... (0.00 / 0)

if there is Democratic trifecta or not. Here is a rather long backgrounder.

First, there are voting advocates who don't want any federal election legislation that has teeth.  Most of these folks want a system of hand-counted paper ballots controlled by local governments. Because the election integrity movement is small in number (though millions of voters are now quite engaged), they have wielded outsized influence in the process so far. Hand-counted paper ballots is a good system - with the requisite number of poll workers, and the right level of multipartisan oversight - but as difficult as it is to pass voting equipment legislation at all, this fight is a long, long haul, and a lot of elections would go by without any protection if we held out for hand-counted paper ballots. And as technological a society as we are, I am not sure that this fight can ever be won.

Then there is the fact that "paper trails" are an inadequate solution for a host of reliability reasons (printer jams, poor quality paper, continuous rolls that are hard to recount and which the SoS of Pennsylvania has judged unacceptable because the continuous roll may compromise voter privacy), and more importantly because too many voters don't check the printer rolls. Voter-marked paper ballots read by scanning devices are the better way to go.

So federal legislation has to take take one of two directions: require "paper trail" printer retrofits for equipment now in the field for the time being (next election cycle), then a conversion to paper ballot voting systems by some date certain, or skip paper trails and require paper ballot voting systems outright by some date certain.

Either course will rile the bipartisan lobby of election officials who were instrumental in killing Holt's HR 811 in this Congress. They had reform shoved down their throats once this decade, and they are not likely to go along with a 2012 deadline for any legislation. Election officials have been getting much of their their security and reliability information from a partially vendor-funded body called the Election Center for a number of years (see here and here), and many officials think the security issues are overblown or nonexistent.

Then accessibility. Almost 20 states, including Michigan, Alabama, Massachusetts, almost all of New York, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and as of 2010, Maryland and Tennessee, have chosen to meet the Help America Vote Act's requirement for one accessible voting system in each polling place by using a ballot-marking device, which has a touch screen, dual-input features, non-English capabilities. The ballot marker does not tabulate; it just marks the same paper ballot all voters use. Out in the states, the current ballot-marking devices are generally regarded as a step forward. But some accessibility advocates in D.C. don't like the fact that current ballot markers require the voter to handle the ballot after using the marking device. A voter with severe dexterity disabilities may require assistance depositing the ballot into the scanner after it is marked by the BMD.

The makers of the two current ballot markers, the AutoMARK and the Sequoia Image Cast, have addressed this issue in their latest models. Hopefully, D.C. accessibility  advocates will take another look at ballot markers in the next Congress. Noel Runyan, an electrical engineer who is blind and who works on accessibility technology, has called strongly for ballot markers, as have a number of state-based advocates for voters with disabilities.

Some advocates for language minorities argue that direct-recording electronic machines are better for their constituents. One of the most multilingual jurisdictions in the nation (or is it the most multilingual?), San Francisco, uses only paper ballots, and Florida is converting back to paper ballots this year. Interesting factoid for advocacy on this issue: a couple of years back, when a Sequoia touch screen had its Spanish language option activated, the paper trail and the electronic logs showed different test votes.

Senator Feinstein plans to introduce a new bill with some very worrisome features. The Thursday before Memorial Day she issued a press release announcing that she and Sen. Bennett have reached an agreement to jointly sponsor legislation that will require by 2012 (really 2014 with the waiver that every affected state will ask for), and independent voter-verifiable record that can be paper, audio, pictorial, or electronic. Audio and pictorial records would be very hard to audit or recount (and there is nothing that guarantees that an audio playback will be stored as the voter heard it), and electronic verification is...well, the Association for Computing Machinery has called for a voter-verifiable record that is not stored only in computer memory.  As of now, this bill, rather than Holt's, may be the vehicle in the 111th. If the bill does not change substantially from what is promised in the press release, this is very, very troubling.

In the 110th, Obama has copsonsored legislation with very good voting equipment language - namely, the Count Every Vote Act of 2007. This bill requires paper, bans crappy reel-to-reel printers for paper trails, and deals well with other more technical issues. If he is President, he will still need a lot of lobbying, because there will be some who are traditionally aligned with Democratic concerns that will argue against paper ballots.

Perhaps most importantly, Majority Leader Hoyer will need persuasive lobbying on this issue.  

I think Rush Holt will be at it again next year, no matter who wins the White House, but he will need a LOT of support to pass his bill.  And if the 111th Congress does not reclaim the verifiability of federal elections, a lot of states could have unverifiable voting for another generation.

For whatever reason - maybe the because the universe has decided that America does not deserve trustworthy elections unless its voters are prepared to pay a lot of attention to the mechanics of its election system (half-joke) - verified voting is possibly the weirdest and most byzantine of the top-tier issues you mention.  

---

by: Midwest Millian @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 23:43:57 PM CDT

the politics of issues (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for this post.

I urge you to consider treatment of this topic in the manner that you treated the topic of choosing a vice-president.

For issues and actions, what proposals and in what order.

In my memory, the first action of the Clinton administration was dont ask/dont tell; it appeared that the reason it was first was that it was accomplished by Presidential fial, not congressional action.  At the same, no matter how much I might support such a policy, even if a half baked idea, it allowed Newt Gingrinch considerable leverage to marginalize the Clinton administration as primarily interested in social issues for its limited constituencies.

My thoughts are that the Obama administration must give appearance to the issues of greatest concern: Iraq and the economy, but neither of these issues is suited to quick disposition.  

Then the policies adopted should be ordered to address the issues of broadest appeal first. Addressing the issues of broadest appeal should strengthen any coalition needed to continue to pass things of diminishing uniform approval and maximize ability to jaw bone anyone when they are the first to try to walk away from the coalition.

There is so much to be done; it looks to have the potential of every issue rushing to get through the door all at once.

---

by: wind off the lake @ Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM CDT

EPICC (0.00 / 0)

There are two important pieces of legislation that are missing from your list:  
The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC)
(S.3068)
The Access to Birth Control Act
(S.1555)

---

by: Nora Carrington @ Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM CDT

we should have a list of judicial nominees as well (0.00 / 0)

somewhat OT, but obviously we need to be ready for all three branches of gov't, and the judiciary needs a LOT of work given the stonewalling on WJC's appointments and the awful appointments put forth by GWB.  

we need to put our own nominees out there and whip the Democratic caucus into supporting them as steadfastly as the GOP deadenders have stood for their (awful) nominees.

does the ACS have a list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...  

---

by: chiefscribe @ Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 13:22:23 PM CDT