A Newer Deal Part 6: Four MORE proposals - this time to fix CONGRESS... 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... in Part 7.  Or refer to the overall summary again in Part three

A widening chasm... Is there a "left" vs. "right"? And the Russian mob.

"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics." - Erma Bombeck, author (1927-1996). *

To be clear, we already have two holidays celebrating veterans and those who have fallen or sacrificed for nation and freedom. And remembering yet-again certainly has a place on America's Independence Day. Alas, Donald Trump’s shamelessly self-centered hijacking of the DC July 4 commemoration had a political purpose. Republicans are seeing arterial loss of support among members of the U.S. military officer corps - the 3rd best-educated clade in America and deeply concerned over the GOP's all-out war on all fact professions, including science but also the Intelligence Community and FBI and the rest of the slagged "deep state." 

This loony display - rained-upon by the heavens - did not shore up support from the officer corps, who saw it as a waste and distraction - like some spandex-wearing 'Space Force.' But the officer corps are not main audience for all this lobotomized bluster. That is Red America, and (I believe) the enlisted personnel and noncoms who come disproportionately from southern states.

If we see a widening gulf between commissioned and non-commissioned personnel, a dangerous situation may arise that we haven't seen since Vietnam. A factor that goes unmentioned even in recent "new US civil war" novels like Tears of Abraham and Our War.

== “Left” and “right” as obsolete concepts ==

Robert Reich brilliantly questions the continuing usefulness to the Left-versus-Right axis that is not longer meaningful in older ways:

“A half-century ago, when America had a large and growing middle class, those on the “left” sought stronger social safety nets and more public investment in schools, roads and research. Those on the “right” sought greater reliance on the free market.” Reich avows that both sides used to have some validity. 

Indeed, I’ve long held that infrastructure, R&D and especially the uplifting of poor children are all defensible as ways to enhance competitive market enterprise. History has proved this correct.

What has not proved correct is the interpretation of “free market” that took over the U.S. right since the 1980s, raging against any regulation erected to prevent cheating or to provide a flat-fair-open-competitive playing field. Especially, the cult called “Supply Side” has been utterly disproved, as oligarchy-demanded tax cuts fed asset bubbles and slowed money velocity, while sending wealth disparity skyrocketing and actually reducing investment in research or productive capital.

Reich is a better communicator than I am, with a bigger platform, so he goes to the heart of why oligarchy-owned media keep pushing a “left-vs-right” narrative.  

“I suspect it’s because the emerging oligarchy feels safer if Americans are split along the old political battle lines. That way, Americans won’t notice they’re being shafted. In reality, the biggest divide in America today runs between oligarchy and democracy…. So long as the oligarchy divides Americans – split off people of color from working-class whites, stoke racial resentments, describe human beings as illegal aliens, launch wars on crime and immigrants, stoke fears of communists and socialists – it doesn’t have to worry that a majority will stop them from looting the nation. Divide-and-conquer allows the oligarchy free rein. It makes the rest of us puppets, fighting each other on a made-up stage.”

Wow. A bit more “lefty” than I would put it. But totally correct and we’re agreed this calls for real militancy. In fact, it’s a pity no one will put this in historical context. Like how the American Revolution wasn’t against “government” but against a royal/feudal oligarchy that monopolized trade and rigged markets... the kind of oligarchy that’s always been the worst enemy of true enterprise. (Try actually reading the Declaration of Independence.)

Reich concludes that: “The only way to overcome the oligarchy and Trump’s divide-and-conquer strategy is for the rest of us to join together and win America back.” 

 And yes, that “join together” part means resisting the siren calls of sanctimonious splitting that are already pouring from Moscow provocateurs, urging our “left" to wage war against moderate or enterprise-oriented democrats and independents and even the “deep state” public servants we’ll desperately need.

About that! Note that while pundits pay top attention to the "leftward swing" of many deep blue districts, where AOC types are primarying old line democrats (and welcome to do so), little is paid to the ones who made the real difference in 2018, ex-military officers who ran in red and purple districts, taking ground and putting Rep. Nadler in a position to issue subpoenas. That is the trend terrifying Koch-Murdoch-Mercer-Putin and the oligarch crowd.

They are counting on our own fringe nutjobs to burn flags and spit on soldiers and veterans, partly egged-on by memes generated in a special basement of the Kremlin. We certainly can rip defeat from the jaws of victory; we've done it before. And that was what this July 4 stunt was all about.

== The future ==

An interesting Australian documentary about the year 2040, on how we can solve our climate problems and make a better world. And a film review.

Oleg Kalugin – now 84 - was Vladimir Putin's boss at the KGB and said Putin's background is essential to understanding today's Russia. Putin brought back some of the worst sides of the Soviet regime. As a former KGB guy, his psychology is based on the old traditions of the Soviet system."

== Russian Influence ==

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets,” Donald Trump Jr. boasted at a real estate conference in 2008. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” 

Here’s another gem from this amazing and important article: “The money, illicit and otherwise, began to rain in earnest after the Soviet Union fell in 1991. President Boris Yeltsin’s shift to a market economy was so abrupt that cash-rich gangsters and corrupt government officials were able to privatize and loot state-held assets in oil, coal, minerals, and banking. Yeltsin himself, in fact, would later describe Russia as “the biggest mafia state in the world.” from Craig Unger's article in The Atlantic: Trump's Russian Laundromat.

“After Vladimir Putin succeeded Yeltsin as president, Russian intelligence effectively joined forces with the country’s mobsters and oligarchs, allowing them to operate freely as long as they strengthen Putin’s power and serve his personal financial interests. According to James Henry, a former chief economist at McKinsey & Co. who consulted on the Panama Papers, some $1.3 trillion in illicit capital has poured out of Russia since the 1990s.”

Among the nuggets in this article exposing relentless Trump ties to the Russian mob (2 years old but devastating): “In 2015, the Trump Taj Mahal was fined $10 million—the highest penalty ever levied by the feds against a casino—and admitted to having “willfully violated” anti-money-laundering regulations for years.” Oh, but it gets far more spectacular.

Seriously, this is an important article. Then there’s Craig Unger’s whole book: “House Of Trump,House Of Putin: The Untold Story Of Donald Trump And The Russian Mafia.”

----
*Preserving the only continent without (much) in the way of borders and standing armies was the maybe #3 or 4 reason the Union had to win the 1860s phase of our ongoing Civil War. For most of US history, citizens never saw soldiers and moved vast distances without checkpoints. Ponder how that would have changed if the Confederacy won. Followed by another war between nations in the 1880s. And another in 1914. But now we're in the territory of science fiction....