Four MORE Newer Deals... and why they'll work better than the Reich 'pledges'

Continuing my series about a proposed Democratic Newer Deal. 

Here I'll dive deeply into four more of the 30+ suggested reforms that were briefly listed here... organized in a way that both learns-from and satirizes the hypocritical but politically effective 1994 Republican Contract With America. 

But first some pertinent news. A couple of weeks after I started posting this series -- offering voters a clear agenda of positive steps -- economist and columnist Robert Reich issued a shorter list of “What Democrats Must Pledge to America.” And no, I am not asserting that my series triggered him to hurry his. 

Well, probably not. Though Reich's list overlaps mine in overall intent! We both aim to make progress toward better health care, aid to parents and children, and sound economics while limiting the power of oligarchies and cheaters and monopolies. Alas, Reich's 'pledges' also make up a wish list that might as well be directed at Santa Claus, for all of its political impracticality.

What distinguishes even very smart/moderate leftists like Reich from their centrist allies (like me) is not the desired direction, or even our degree of passion (you all know that I have plenty!), but awareness of one pure fact, that most of our progress across the last 250 years – even under FDR – was incremental. Each plateau building from the previous ones, like upward stairs of progress. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

Alas, not one of Reich’s proposals satisfies the “60%+ Rule” that was so politically-effective for Newt Gingrich in 1994, and that Pelosi-Schumer-Sanders applied with terrific effectiveness in 2021-22.  

Start with steps that can be steam-rollered quickly, with 60%+ strong public support, right away! Only after that do you try for the long pass.

Big Gulp endeavors, like those tried by Clinton and Obama, always get bogged down and savaged by "Who pays for it?" and "They want communism!" Then, the GOP wins the next Congress and that's that - opportunity window closed. What we discovered in the 2021-22 Pelosi miracle year was that you can make great strides in multiple directions, if you start from that 60% consensus in order to push solid increments. Steps that then create those new plateaus!

Contrasting with Reich's "pledges," my list emphasizes restoring a functioning republic - civil service, reliable institutions, elections and rule-of-law - in ways that can't be withdrawn by future demagogues... along with incremental steps toward our shared goals (e.g. get all CHILDREN coverable under Medicare, in a single stroke, easily afforded and canceling every objection to Medicare-for-all.)

Look, I like and respect Robert Reich. But here he should have added an equally realistic 11th wish to the other ten... that every American gets a unicorn or pegasus, or at least a pony

== Those "Newer Deal" proposals we appraised last time ==

Could the news this month have better supported my list? If we had the Inspectorate right now, under IGUS (a totally independent Inspector General of the United States), Trump could not have fired or transferred most of the IGs and JAGs in the federal government. Honest scrutiny would abound when we need it most! And officers would have somewhere to turn, when given illegal orders. (I have recommended IGUS for fifteen years.)

The Truth & Reconciliation Act - discussed last time - would have staunched Trump's tsunami of corrupt pardons and the Immunity Limitation Act would clarify that no President is above the law. And yes, there are ways to judo-bypass the Roberts Court in both of those realms.

Some other proposals from my last two postings may seem obscure, like the Cyber Hygiene Act that could eliminate 90%+ of the 'botnets' that now infest tens of millions of home and small business computers, empowering our enemies and criminals. Or one that I personally like most... a simple House-internal reform to give every member one subpoena per year, which would likely transform the entire mental ecology in Congress!

But onward to more proposals! Most of which (again) you'll see nowhere else.

== Appraising another four "Newer Deal" proposals ==

I've mentioned the 1994 Newt Gingrich Contract With America several times and in so doing I likely triggered visceral, gut wrenching loathing from many of you! 

Well tough. You must understand how the 'contract' seemingly offered voters clear and crisp reforms of a system that most citizens now distrust. 

Yes, Newt and especially his replacement - the deeply-evil Dennis Hastert - betrayed every promise when they took power. Still, some (a minority) of those promises merit another look. Moreover, Democrats can say "WATCH as we actually enact them, unlike our lying opponents!

Among the good ideas the GOP betrayed are these:

 

•   Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress; 

•   Arrange regular audits of Congress for waste or abuse;

•   Limit the terms of all committee chairs and party leadership posts;

•   Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee and law-writing by lobbyists;

•   Require that committee meetings be open to the public;

•   Guarantee honest accounting of our Federal Budget.

 

…and in the same spirit…

Members of Congress shall report openly all stock and other trades by members or their families, especially those trades which might be affected by the member’s inside knowledge.

Some members may resist some of those measures. But those are the sorts of House internal reforms that could truly persuade voters. Especially with the contrast. "Republicans betrayed these promises. We are keeping them."

Here's another one that'd be simple to implement. Even entertaining! While somewhat favoring the Party that has more younger members. Fewer creaky near-zombies. And so, swinging from the House to the Senate:

While continuing ongoing public debate over the Senate’s practice of filibuster, we shall use our next majority in the Senate to restore the original practice: that senators invoking a filibuster must speak on the chamber floor the entire time.

No explanation is needed on that one! Bring back the spirit of Jimmy Stewart.

Only now, here's one that I very much care about. Do any of you remember when Gingrich and then Hastert fired all the staff in Congress that advised members about matters of actual fact, especially science and technology? Why on Earth would they do such a thing? 

Simple. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) would often say to members: "I'm sorry (sir or madam), but that's not actually true."

Oh, no, we can't have that! Gingrich asserted that OTA said that dreaded phrase far more often to Republicans than to Democrats. And... well... yes, that is true enough. There's a reason for that. But true or not, it's time for this proposal to be enacted:

Independent congressional advisory offices for science, technology and other areas of skilled, fact-based analysis will be restored, in order to counsel Congress on matters of fact without bias or dogma-driven pressure. 

Rules shall ensure that technical reports may not be re-written by politicians, changing their meaning to bend to political desires. 

 

Every member of Congress shall be encouraged and funded to appoint from their home district a science-and-fact advisor who may interrogate the advisory panels and/or answer questions of fact on the member’s behalf.

Notice how this pre-empts all plausible objections in advance! By challenging (and funding) every representative to hire a science and fact adviser from their home district, you achieve several things:

1. Each member gets trusted factual guidance -- someone who can interrogate OTA and other experts, on the member's behalf. And this, in turn, addresses the earlier Gingrich calumny about "OTA bias."

2. Members would no longer get to wriggle and squirm out of answering fact or science questions -- e.g. re: Climate Change -- evading with the blithe shrug that's used by almost all current Republicans: "I'm not a scientist." 

So? Now you have someone you trust who can answer technical or factual or scientific questions for you. So step up to the microphone with your team.

3. Any member who refuses to name such an adviser risks ridicule; "What? Your home district hasn't got savvy experts you could pick from?" That potential blowback could ensure that every member participates.

4. Remember, this is about fact-determination and not policy! Policy and law remain the member's domain. Only now they will be less unconstrained in asserting false, counter-factual justifications for dumb policies.

And finally (for this time)... a problem that every Congress has promised to address, that of PORK spending. Look, you will never eliminate it! Members want to bring stuff home to their district. 

But by constraining pork to a very specific part of the budget, they'll have to wrangle with each other, divvying that single slice of pie among themselves. And it will lead to scrutiny of each other's picks, giving each pork belly a strong sniff for potential corruption.

New rules shall limit “pork” earmarking of tax dollars to benefit special interests or specific districts. Exceptions must come from a single pool, totaling no more than one half of a percent of the discretionary budget. These exceptions must be placed in clearly marked and severable portions of a bill, at least two weeks before the bill is voted upon. (More details here.)

Notice that all four of the proposals that we covered this time are internal procedure reforms for the houses of Congress! Which means they would not be subject to presidential veto. 

These... and several others... could be passed if Democrats take either house of Congress in January 2027, no matter who is still in the White House.

There are other procedural suggestions, some of them perhaps a bit crackpotty! Like occasional secret ballot polls to see if members are voting the way they do out of genuine conscience or else out of fear or coercion... but you can find those here.

Next time, we'll get back to vitally-needed laws.

-------------

And this project continues...

Four More Urgent Proposals for a 'Newer Deal' to Save our Great Experiment

Our series on a Newer Deal for America has offered 30+ proposed actions that Democrats and their allies should consider now -- and work out kinks -- so they can hit the ground forcefully when they retake Congress, in (or with defection of a dozen Republican patriots, before) January 2027.  

Some of the concepts have been around a while, like canceling the Citizens United travesty. Others are my own originals, like establishing the office of Inspector General of the United States (discussed here.) And some, e.g. giving every Congress member one peremptory subpoena per session, might seem obscure, even puzzling to you, til you slap your forehead and go of course!

And yes, we'd not be in our current mess if some of these -- like IGUS -- had been enacted sooner.

This is not to say that Democratic politicians aren't learning. When Clinton and Obama were president for 8 years each, they only had the first two in which to work with Democratic Congresses, and those two years were pretty-much squandered trying desperately to find Republicans willing to negotiate -- a hopeless wish, after Dennis Hastert banned all GOP politicians from even talking to Democratic colleagues.

That all changed when Biden got in. Immediately in 2021, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer -- aided vigorously by Bernie, Liz and AOC etc. -- leaped into action, giving us a year of miracle bills like the Infrastructure Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHiPs Act, and Medicare drug price negotiation... all of them spectacular successes that disprove every insipid far-left sneer about 'ineffective DNC sellouts.' 

Though now we know that those bills went nowhere near far enough!

Hence, while I despair that these proposals will ever receive even a scintilla of attention or action, it is still my duty as an American to offer whatever my talents allow. 

So, let's take a closer look at four more from that list of ideas!

 == Four more ideas ==

History shows that Americans are suspicious of grand prescriptions for sweeping change. They like progress and reform! But in increments. Steps forward that prove themselves and thusly can't be taken back, and thereupon serve as a new, higher plateau, from which new steps can be launched. Bernie, Liz, AOC, Pete and the rest of the pragmatic left know this.

And so, let's change the argument over healthcare!  Let's increment forward in a way that will surely pass. One that makes further progress inevitable. We'll do this by taking a big step that can easily be afforded under present budgets and thus cancel the "how will you pay for it?" argument.

A step that will prove so popular, only political morons would oppose it.

THE HEALTHY CHILDREN ACT will provide basic coverage for all of the nation's youths to receive preventive care and needed medical attention.  Should adults still get insurance using market methods? That can be argued separately... 

 

...but under this act: all U.S. citizens under the age of 25 shall immediately qualify as “seniors” under Medicare. 

Such a bill might fit on a single sheet of paper. Possibly just that one sentence, above! Ponder how elegantly simple it will be to add a quarter of the U.S. population to Medicare and ignore howls of "who pays for it?"  

While overall, young people are cheap to insure and generally healthy, when they do need care it is SO in society's interest to leap upon any problem! And hence a national priority, if only as an investment in the future. 

A great nation should see to it that the young reach adulthood without being handicapped by preventable sickness. It's an affordable step that will relieve the nation’s parents of stressful worry. 

 

Moreover, watch how quickly the insurance companies would then step up to negotiate! Especially if they face a 'ratchetting squeeze.' Like if every year the upper bound of Medicare goes down by a year -- from 65 to 64 and then 63... while the lower bound rises from 25 to 26 to 27...

Oh, they'll negotiate, all right.

And now another no-brainer that's absolutely needed. 

It was needed yesterday.

THE PROFESSIONALISM ACT will protect the apolitical independence of our intelligence agencies, the FBI, the scientific and technical staff in executive departments and in Congress, and the United States Military Officer Corps.  All shall be given safe ways to report attempts at political coercion or meddling in their ability to give unbiased advice. 

 Whistle-blower protections will be strengthened. The federal Inspectorate will gather and empower all agency Inspectors General and Judges Advocate General under the independent and empowered Inspector General of the United States (IGUS).

Yes, this correlates with the proposed law we discussed last time, to establish IGUS and the Inspectorate, independent of all other branches of government. (A concept once promoted by the mighty Sun Yatsen!) And boy do we need this, right now.

Again, this one doesn't require much explication. Not anymore. Donald Trump has seen to that.

The final pair (for today) do call for some explanation... before their value ought to become obvious!

THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION ACT:  Without interfering in the president's constitutional right to issue pardons for federal offenses, Congress will pass a law defining the pardon process, so that all persons who are excused for either convictions or possible crimes must at least explain those crimes, under oath, before an open congressional committee, before walking away from them with a presidential pass. 

 

If the crime is not described in detail, then a pardon cannot apply to any excluded portion. Further, we shall issue a challenge that no president shall ever issue more pardons than both of the previous administrations, combined.

If it is determined that a pardon was given on quid pro quo for some bribe, emolument, gift or favor, then this act clarifies that such pardons are - and always were, by definition - null and void. Moreover, this applies retroactively for any such pardons in the past.

 

We will further reverse the current principle of federal supremacy in criminal cases that forbids states from prosecuting for the same crime. Instead, one state with grievance in a federal case may separately try the culprit for a state offense, which - upon conviction by jury - cannot be excused by presidential pardon.

Congress shall act to limit the effect of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)that squelch public scrutiny of officials and the powerful. With arrangements to exchange truth for clemency, both current and future NDAs shall decay over a reasonable period of time. 

 

Incentives such as clemency will draw victims of blackmail to come forward and expose their blackmailers.

 

I'm not sure how to make that one any clearer than the wording itself. 

Again, when I first proposed these reforms, years ago, people shrugged with "Why would we need that?"

But now? Can anything make the case for these acts better than the news that we see every... single... day?

The next and final one (for today) makes a good partner to the Truth & Reconciliation Act.

THE IMMUNITY LIMITATION ACT: The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents should be free to do their jobs without undue distraction by legal procedures and jeopardies. Taking that into account, we shall nevertheless – by legislation – firmly reject the artificial and made-up notion of blanket Presidential Immunity or that presidents are inherently above the law. 

 

Instead, the Inspector General of the United States (IGUS) shall supervise legal cases that are brought against the president, so that they may be handled by the president’s chosen counsel in order of importance or severity, in such a way that the sum of all such external legal matters will take up no more than ten hours a week of a president’s time. While this may slow such processes, the wheels of law will not be fully stopped. 

 

Civil or criminal cases against a serving president may be brought to trial by a simple majority consent of both houses of Congress, though no criminal or civil punishment may be exacted until after the president leaves office, either by end-of-term or impeachment and Senate conviction.

Again, could anything be more clear? And so, why have we not seen these two enacted yet? Because of flawed assumptions!  Like assuming that nothing can be done about corrupt presidential pardons. Or that NDAs are forever. Or that nothing can be done about the Supreme Court's declaration of Presidential Immunity.

But the Court - suborned as its current majority may be - felt it necessary to issue that ruling based on a rationalization! That the elected chief executive must do the job without undue harassment by legal vexations. Indeed, this bill would solve that! Only without creating a wholly new and wholly loathesome notion of presidential immunity above all law!

Just like the Roberts Rationalization for excusing gerrymandering, this immunity justification can be logically bypassed. Please do ponder how.

Oh but I suddenly realized... we need to add one more paragraph to that bill! 

One that deals with something that came up recently. Might a president evade impeachment merely by shooting enough House members to prevent a majority from acting to impeach him? 

Trump's own attorney argued that he could! And that he would be immune from prosecution for doing so Until he was actually impeached and convicted, which he just prevented via murder!

 This added paragraph attempts to seal off that insane possibility.

In the event that Congress is thwarted from acting on impeachment or trial, e.g. by some crime that prevents certain members from voting, their proxies may be voted in such matters by their party caucus, until their states complete election of replacements.

That may not fly past today's Court. But the declaration of intent will resonate, still, if we ever need it to. 

      == Add judo to the game plan to save America! ==

Can you honestly assert that ANY of these four would fail the "60%+ Rule?"  

The initial tranche of reforms should be ones that get sixty percent approval from polls or focus groups, so that they can pass quickly, clearing away the most vital things, building further support from a growing American majority. Saving the harder political fights for just a little later. 

That was the persuasive trick of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." A clever ruse, since he and his party later betrayed every promise that they offered in their Contract! Still, sticking to that rule made the Contract an ingenious sales pitch.

Democrats run a gamut, but they truly are generally different! As Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, AOC, Sanders et. al. proved in 2021, Democrats can act hard and fast, when they put their minds to it. 

So now, let's fill their minds with innovative and bold ideas! So that when the nation rises up against the current mad administration, we'll be ready for a genuine Miracle Year.