Progressive Policies you’d like to see

Someone in a different thread brought up the idea that progressive policies over the last few decades have failed the majority of Americans. I scratch my head and wonder what they’re talking about, because I think there are some progressive ideas that, should they actually be implemented, could actually benefit most Americans. 

The point here is not to actually argue about the merit of these policies. It’s to lay out what people actually see as progressive. Any one of these could be its own thread. 

Actual progressive ideas I’d like to tee up:

1. National minimum wage
2. Guaranteed basic income
3. Expanded child tax credit
4. Double the Federal support for K-12 education (roughly $112 billion … take from Defense)
5. Free 2-year community college (possibly unnecessary if you improve K12 education enough)
6. Reparations for descendants of slaves and people affected by state-sanctioned discrimination (maybe a 20-year $5000 annual tax credit to ease the sticker shock)
   
7. Medicare for All
8. Overhaul of incarceration practices, changing the emphasis to education and addiction treatment for non-violent offenders. 
9. Expand the House of Representatives using the “Wyoming rule” to restore representation that doesn’t give small states disproportionate power. This would also change the balance of the Electoral college to more closely align with the Popular vote.
   
10. National marriage equality legislation.
    
11. A 50% tax bracket for annual income >$1M. Currently the highest bracket is 37% on income over about $560K. Maybe 60% over $5M. Raise the limit for the 0% tax bracket to something like $25K. 
    

Some of this may sound wild socialist insanity. Some people may think this isn’t nearly progressive enough. But if we want to talk about whether progressive policies have failed we should probably discuss what the definition of progressive policy is. 

If you want to call me out on whether any of these aren’t progressive, or not progressive enough, I’m fine with that. But I’m curious what else should be on the list. 

mrincredible said:

 Expand the House of Representatives using the “Wyoming rule” to restore representation that doesn’t give small states disproportionate power. This would also change the balance of the Electoral college to more closely align with the Popular vote.

I hadn't come across this idea before.  It certainly makes abundant sense.

I wonder what the original rational was for limiting the number of representatives.  Were they simply trying to make sure everyone fit in the existing physical chamber?

Is the following link to the Wyoming Rule the same Wyoming Rule which is referenced above?

Link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#:~:text=The%20Wyoming%20Rule%20is%20a,state%2C%20which%20is%20currently%20Wyoming.

Good explanation here: 

Explainer: Why Does The U.S. House Have 435 Members?

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/988865415/stuck-at-435-representatives-why-the-u-s-house-hasnt-grown-with-census-counts

The Wyoming Rule basically states that with every census determination is made what state has the lowest population. That number determines what all the other states will get in terms of number of representatives. So if the smallest state had 500,000 people, then a state with 2 million people would get four representatives. A state with 30 million would get 60.

If you view proportionate representation as a progressive goal, it belongs on this list.

RealityForAll said:

Is the following link to the Wyoming Rule the same Wyoming Rule which is referenced above?

Link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule#:~:text=The%20Wyoming%20Rule%20is%20a,state%2C%20which%20is%20currently%20Wyoming.

Yeah that’s the one. 

GoSlugs said:

I hadn't come across this idea before.  It certainly makes abundant sense.

I wonder what the original rational was for limiting the number of representatives.  Were they simply trying to make sure everyone fit in the existing physical chamber?

“We shall have a truly representative government of the people.”

“How many representatives will we have?”

“1 representative per 30k and as the population grows we shall apportion more.”

“How often will we do that?”

“Every 10 years for 140 years and then we will arbitrarily cap representation at 435”

“Why 435?”

“Nobody knows”

Anti-war

protect workers and their wages by securing the border rather than paying lip service 

I agree on anti-war being a progressive policy. 

“Secure the border” is, in my view, lip service. A lot of conservatives seem to think a very restrictive immigration policy is an economically sound idea. I think a more progressive approach is looking for ways to a) allow more people who want to work into the country legally and b) figure out how to get the undocumented folks out of the shadows and paying taxes.  When unemployment is low, we need a larger workforce. And protecting wages means getting everyone visible and in the legal system so things like OSHA and minimum wage laws apply. 

I think that’s the progressive approach. “Secure the border”, to me, is the opposite of progressive. 

I think that policies broadly labeled "progressive" would benefit most people, improving their quality of life and leaving more of our country healthier and more secure. But you know, I could be wrong! And on the flip side, voters who think progressive policies would ruin their country and their favorite polices will save it might be right, or they might be wrong!

What I really would want to see, in my ideal utopian view, is not so much "more progressive policies" as "more democratic structures" -- meaning that our government is more fully representative of the full diversity of Americans, that there's a much clearer connection between what our government does and its effects, and that there is more accountability between voters and our representatives. If progressive policies really would be popular and beneficial, they would lead to electoral success (and if they really weren't, then to defeat).

Currently, the link between voting and results is just too attenuated. A party will sweep to power, promising all kinds of things. Most of the highly-visible goals will be blocked. Those that make it through will be in very watered-down version. Real changes happen, they matter, but on timetables beyond voter attention spans and in the weeds of process. This plays into the hands of reactionaries and would-be autocrats, who are happy to promote apathy and disillusionment, and promise people that if their resulting anger can't actually accomplish something, it can be used to punish.

Voters should be able to actually vote for who they want, see the consequences, and have that inform their next vote. So specifically, some changes I think would get us there:

- the right to vote formally encoded into the constitution

- abolish the electoral college

- abolish the filibuster

- term limits on supreme court judges

- greatly expand the US House, and have regularly increase with increased population

- legislative districts auto-created by a non-partisan algorithm

- replacing first-past-the-post with ranked-choice voting

- public funding for campaigns, and strict limits on political contributions and political advertising

I think one thing missing from the above list is more on court reform -- making our elected branches more representative and decisive would go a long way, but still leaves it very open for court action to unduly interfere. Some judicial review is necessary, but courts shouldn't become essentially an alternative legislature. Not sure what, of the various court reform ideas I've seen discussed, would best strike the necessary balance though.

You can find quotes from most of the major progressive politicians that we should have a secure border and legal immigration.  This is a sensible policy that seems to have been abandoned in recent years.  This is another area where I find Trump lined up with standard Dem policy from the 1990s.

terp said:

Anti-war

protect workers and their wages by securing the border rather than paying lip service 

I distinctly remember all of the US citizens and documented non-citizens lining up to finally get those jobs picking strawberries that undocumented immigrants had been stealing from them for years.

I also assume that you believe government should be more aggressively policing employers who readily employ undocumented workers at depressed wages in order to increase their profits.

terp said:

You can find quotes from most of the major progressive politicians that we should have a secure border and legal immigration.  This is a sensible policy that seems to have been abandoned in recent years.  This is another area where I find Trump lined up with standard Dem policy from the 1990s.

You mean like how he directed his Congressional minions to block the bipartisan immigration bill because it would have "given Biden a win?"

terp said:

Anti-war

protect workers and their wages by securing the border rather than paying lip service 

the border neither endangers workers nor affects their wages.

try again.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Anti-war

protect workers and their wages by securing the border rather than paying lip service 

the border neither endangers workers nor affects their wages.

try again.

if we actually had strong unions in this country, the border would be totally irrelevant to wages and worker protections.

Steve said:

You mean like how he directed his Congressional minions to block the bipartisan immigration bill because it would have "given Biden a win?"

So was that legislation more in the progressive or conservative side? I remember that it was largely about border security and giving the president more control over the border being open or closed. 

I think a progressive approach would be about disincentivizing unauthorized border crossings. Right now the risks to coming into the country illegally are clearly outweighed by the benefits. Whether it’s escaping a dangerous situation in their home country, or seeking work that can allow them to support a family. The risk of being arrested, detained and deported is not enough to keep people from coming into the country. A border wall is just one more barrier for them to surmount, after what they’ve already endured traveling to the border in the first place. 

I think as a Progressive I would be looking more for legislation to increase the number of legal immigrants, combined with better enforcement of labor laws to disincentivize employers from tapping into the undocumented labor pool. Also diplomatic efforts to lessen the pressures on migrants who feel the need to flee their own country looking for safety and a livelihood. 

In the case of the southern border, I think a combined approach is best. I’m not sure what that does to my progressive credentials. But I think the progressive approach is a harder sell to the American people. Especially after conservative media have fed them a steady diet of hate and fear of brown and black folks for decades now. 

mrincredible said:

Steve said:

You mean like how he directed his Congressional minions to block the bipartisan immigration bill because it would have "given Biden a win?"

So was that legislation more in the progressive or conservative side? I remember that it was largely about border security and giving the president more control over the border being open or closed. 

I think a progressive approach would be about disincentivizing unauthorized border crossings. Right now the risks to coming into the country illegally are clearly outweighed by the benefits. Whether it’s escaping a dangerous situation in their home country, or seeking work that can allow them to support a family. The risk of being arrested, detained and deported is not enough to keep people from coming into the country. A border wall is just one more barrier for them to surmount, after what they’ve already endured traveling to the border in the first place. 

I think as a Progressive I would be looking more for legislation to increase the number of legal immigrants, combined with better enforcement of labor laws to disincentivize employers from tapping into the undocumented labor pool. Also diplomatic efforts to lessen the pressures on migrants who feel the need to flee their own country looking for safety and a livelihood. 

In the case of the southern border, I think a combined approach is best. I’m not sure what that does to my progressive credentials. But I think the progressive approach is a harder sell to the American people. Especially after conservative media have fed them a steady diet of hate and fear of brown and black folks for decades now. 

I think it bears repeating constantly that the majority of undocumented immigrants don't sneak over an unprotected border.

they come here legally on a visa and they don't go home. 

it's mind-boggling this very simple and basic fact is ignored in the discussion, despite of how important it is to the issue.

My comment was in response to Terp who claimed that TFG had a border policy that was consistent with past progressive views that included a path to legal immigration, not whether or not it were truly progressive.  It was a step forward.

But, as ml1 correctly points out, those on the right are not really concerned about "illegal immigration" writ large; rather, they are concerned about immigration by people of color who come across the Mexican (and, now, Canadian) border.  They don't really care about the majority of white Europeans who simply overstay their visa.

Smart Republican politicians don't actually want to stop illegal immigration; they just want to run on it as a bogeymen.

"Illegal" immigrants are cheap labor, they pay taxes while consuming almost no services (don't call the police or go to the hospital for for of being caught, can't collect welfare or social security), and commit crimes at lower rates than the general population.

If we actually deported them, the country would go into a deep recession and many prices would skyrocket.

Yet their party's racism prevents them from creating legal pathways to immigration.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Anti-war

protect workers and their wages by securing the border rather than paying lip service 

the border neither endangers workers nor affects their wages.

try again.

if we actually had strong unions in this country, the border would be totally irrelevant to wages and worker protections.

NPR did a piece quite a while back talking about the influx of Hispanic workers into an Alabama town where there were jobs in a poultry processing plant.  They talked about the influx of workers driving down wages and that sort of thing.  My one thought was that, as you said, strong unions would have prevented this from happening.

I really can't understand why there isn't more support for private sector unions among working class Americans.

Between the tariffs he's proposing and the mass deportation of farm and meat packing workers he's proposed doesn't seem like a stretch to say we could be facing double digit inflation fairly quickly if Trump manages to seize power.  

GoSlugs said:

Between the tariffs he's proposing and the mass deportation of farm and meat packing workers he's proposed doesn't seem like a stretch to say we could be facing double digit inflation fairly quickly if Trump manages to seize power.  

yup

Ok, I’m adding to the list: Federal legislation strengthening the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain. 

Maybe the lesson being learned here is understanding the consequences of particular policies. On both sides. Before deciding what’s right. Unionization leads to higher wages and benefits, which does translate to higher prices for union-made and union-transported goods. 

jimmurphy said:

GoSlugs said:

Between the tariffs he's proposing and the mass deportation of farm and meat packing workers he's proposed doesn't seem like a stretch to say we could be facing double digit inflation fairly quickly if Trump manages to seize power.  

yup

well, that actually seems to be the plan. massive disruption followed by a glorious re-birth.

tjohn said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Anti-war

protect workers and their wages by securing the border rather than paying lip service 

the border neither endangers workers nor affects their wages.

try again.

if we actually had strong unions in this country, the border would be totally irrelevant to wages and worker protections.

NPR did a piece quite a while back talking about the influx of Hispanic workers into an Alabama town where there were jobs in a poultry processing plant.  They talked about the influx of workers driving down wages and that sort of thing.  My one thought was that, as you said, strong unions would have prevented this from happening.

I really can't understand why there isn't more support for private sector unions among working class Americans.

the people who run corporations have spent considerable effort and money to convince workers unions are their enem. 

And it's generally been effective 

jimmurphy said:

Smart Republican politicians don't actually want to stop illegal immigration; they just want to run on it as a bogeymen.

"Illegal" immigrants are cheap labor, they pay taxes while consuming almost no services (don't call the police or go to the hospital for for of being caught, can't collect welfare or social security), and commit crimes at lower rates than the general population.

If we actually deported them, the country would go into a deep recession and many prices would skyrocket.

Yet their party's racism prevents them from creating legal pathways to immigration.

Sure, crash agriculture (including meat, dairy, fruit and veg), crash construction, seriously dent hospitality, see what happens.  This is pretty scary, speaking as a person exposed to the market and real estate, and theoretically beyond earning years.

Seriously disagree with people who say "we've seen this movie before" and think a second T term would be no worse than the first (bad as it was).  He's much more prepared this time, and worse yet so are his backers.

ml1 said:

the people who run corporations have spent considerable effort and money to convince workers unions are their enem. 

And it's generally been effective 

Is "enem" an alternative spelling of  "enema"?

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

the people who run corporations have spent considerable effort and money to convince workers unions are their enem. 

And it's generally been effective 

Is "enem" an alternative spelling of  "enema"?

what do you think?

When you're pointing out typos you're basically conceding you have nothing important to add to the discussion. 

Efforts to demonize socialism have deep roots going back to the late 1800's.  Nothing focuses rich people so much as perceived threats to their wealth and power.

How socialism became anti-American

By the turn of the century, socialist ideas were reaching the mainstream. In 1900, Frank Baum, the editor of a populist magazine in Kansas, wrote The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, a book destined to become a cornerstone of American culture. It was essentially an allegory of the political climate of the time: The Tin Man represented factory workers, the Scarecrow farmers, Dorothy the good people of the Midwest. The Wicked Witch of the West was a metaphor for capitalists.

Socialism was becoming a powerful force. But the country’s largest corporations, and the political establishment they supported, had devised an antidote: A relentless campaign to define socialism as anti-American, and to purge mainstream debate of any reference to the unfairness of capitalism.

As president Grover Cleveland said during his second inauguration speech, “while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their government, its functions do not include the support of the people.”

mrincredible said:

Someone in a different thread brought up the idea that progressive policies over the last few decades have failed the majority of Americans. I scratch my head and wonder what they’re talking about, because I think there are some progressive ideas that, should they actually be implemented, could actually benefit most Americans. 

The point here is not to actually argue about the merit of these policies. It’s to lay out what people actually see as progressive. Any one of these could be its own thread. 

Actual progressive ideas I’d like to tee up:

1. National minimum wage
2. Guaranteed basic income
3. Expanded child tax credit
4. Double the Federal support for K-12 education (roughly $112 billion … take from Defense)
5. Free 2-year community college (possibly unnecessary if you improve K12 education enough)
6. Reparations for descendants of slaves and people affected by state-sanctioned discrimination (maybe a 20-year $5000 annual tax credit to ease the sticker shock)
   
7. Medicare for All
8. Overhaul of incarceration practices, changing the emphasis to education and addiction treatment for non-violent offenders. 
9. Expand the House of Representatives using the “Wyoming rule” to restore representation that doesn’t give small states disproportionate power. This would also change the balance of the Electoral college to more closely align with the Popular vote.
   
10. National marriage equality legislation.
    
11. A 50% tax bracket for annual income >$1M. Currently the highest bracket is 37% on income over about $560K. Maybe 60% over $5M. Raise the limit for the 0% tax bracket to something like $25K. 
    

Some of this may sound wild socialist insanity. Some people may think this isn’t nearly progressive enough. But if we want to talk about whether progressive policies have failed we should probably discuss what the definition of progressive policy is. 

I don't consider myself a Progressive, but here's my 2 cents as a moderate:

1. We already have a national minimum wage. it is just too low.  It should be subject to indexing via the same COLA mechanism that Social Security is.

2. Not in favor of this.

3. Agreed

4. Needs more analysis.

5. Agreed, with a service requirement.

6. Not in favor

7. Yes

8. Sure, if this isn't already being done.

9. Yes, but the size of the room, however trivial, is an issue.  Need to reform how votes are cast.

10. Yes

11. Yes, in concept, but we've already seen that merely raising the rates can be gamed.  Taxing unrealized income is not the answer.  Some version of a more consequential Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be more effective. Eliminate carried interest treatment. Tax the granting of options.  Tax loans against assets.

2. Guaranteed basic income - At least take a close look at effects in places where this has been tried.  The current system of benefits (SSDI, SSI, Section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid and more), seen from up close,* is a tangled mess of multiple programs, with repetitive, burdensome reporting for recipients creating giant expenditures on administration.  Surely at least some simplification is in order, if only the legislature(s) had time for anything but quarreling and one-upping.

8. Overhaul of incarceration practices.  Would hope this is underway.  imo, an important part would be eliminating privately-run prisons.  What incentive do the operators have but to extend sentences and expand the number of incarcerated?  Recidivists welcome.

* I have some friends who are enmeshed in this system.  These are people with seriously limited resources and stamina, way too much of it spent gathering documents, communicating with multiple offices, and worrying about losing bits of benefits here and there.