how we could win [was Re: [lbo-talk] how Hillary could win]

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Wed Jul 19 10:53:32 PDT 2006


On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:37 PM, George Scialabba wrote:


> Well, not just *any* laundry list. Suppose they campaigned really
> hard for universal single-payer health care,

That has lots of potential.


> retention and extension of the estate tax,

Apparent loser politically.


> increased capital gains tax,

Neutral to loser.


> 50 percent reduction of the defense budget,

Probably a big loser.


> stiff gasoline tax,

Political suicide.


> large research budget for alternative fuels,

Nice, as long as no one has to pay for it.


> universal free preschool,

Potentially popular, if you can get someone to pay for it. Didn't this lose in Calif, even though it was going to be funded by lightly moistening the fat boys?


> 3 percent of national income for overseas development assistance,

Most Americans probably think we're spending more than that already. In any case, almost no constituency for this.


> no tests of nuclear weapons and gradual reduction of the stockpile
> plus no-first-use pledge,

Sadly, phrases like "cut and run" do have some sticking power."


> 30 percent increase in the minimum wage to be funded by a 1 percent
> surtax on incomes over $1m/yr,

Quite popular.


> renunciation of our Security Council veto,

What's and let furriners push us around?


> increased and timely payment of UN dues,

That might fly, as long as it didn't look like furriners were going to push us around.


> constitutional amendment stripping corporations of status as legal
> persons, extension and enforcement of the Freedom of Information
> Act, greatly increased citizen oversight of EPA and FDA, etc, etc,
> etc. [Add your own laundry items.] Wouldn't that be progress?

It would be, but I'm not sure the masses are ready for this. I doubt you could get more than 15% approval for this agenda, though maybe I'm too pessimistic.

Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list