medicineman
New Member
Are you a progressive, do you believe in change in the government? FEDERALISM'S SILVER LINING
Progressives Must Turn Their Attention to the States
By Joel Barkin and Matt Singer | December 1, 2006 (page 1/3)
fter three dreadful election cycles—each, it seems, worse than the one before—progressives have made serious gains. The statistics are great: Six U.S. Senate seats. Twenty-nine U.S. Representatives. Six governors. Nine legislative chambers. More than three hundred state legislators. Final tallies are still being crunched, but it looks as though Democrats picked up everywhere from federal office to dog catcher.
But progressives should not be fooled. Despite significant gains, our hold on power in Washington, D.C., is tenuous. The two-seat majority in the Senate requires only a single defection to derail any legislation. And policy that is too forward-thinking or threatening to right-wing financial interests is likely to be met by a filibuster (Republicans have already pledged to block the Employee Free Choice Act). In the House, the situation for progressives is better, but corporate-conservative Democrats, who often vote with Republicans on economic issues, threaten to curtail progressive policy.
Of course, even if filibusters, Democratic defections, and powerful special-interest lobbying can be overcome, George W. Bush still has veto power. While he has rarely used it in the past, no one should be surprised to see the Lame Duck wield it as often as he likes.
Given this reality, it would be wise for progressives looking for real steps forward to focus beyond Washington, D.C., to the fifty battlegrounds, the "laboratories of democracy"—to the states—where new policy solutions will be bubbling up.
WHY THE STATES MATTER—States have earned their reputations as laboratories for a reason. With greater discretion over their budgets, wide latitude in acting on health care and education, and a proximity to constituents that makes reform easier than it is in the insulated Beltway, state legislators are well positioned to institute policies to make a difference in people's lives.
Consider this: State and local revenue is equal to 16.2 percent of GDP. State courts handle 17 million civil cases a year. State employment law lays the baseline of worker rights for millions of Americans. States house 1.9 million prisoners, more than ten times the prison population at the federal level. And state public-employee pensions manage trillions in assets.
While the federal government dedicates billions to health care and education programs, the way the money is spent is often determined not in Congress, but in state legislatures. In other words, whether the issue is criminal law, tort law, workplace issues, classrooms or health care, states are the critical battlegrounds. And with a handful of Northeastern states and California embracing real global-warming reforms, these local moves are pushing the issue along at the national level.
A hike in the minimum wage—now one of the highest-priority issues for the new Congress—gained steam after being pushed through legislature after legislature last session, and voters in six states approved ballot proposals adding cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage.
While Congress is talking about fixing Medicare Part D, a number of states have already made bold moves with prescription drugs, including innovative cost-saving measures in Oregon, Maine and elsewhere. These forward-looking developments remind voters and the press that Americans don't have to settle for legislation written by pharmaceutical lobbyists during a time of record industry profits.
States don't just produce leading issues; they also produce leaders. In 2006, a number of the most inspiring and successful candidates for U.S. Senate—Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Amy Klobuchar, and Claire McCaskill—rose to their role from state or local government.
In the next two years, states will have an opportunity to continue their leadership, and in more states than ever, progressives will be poised at the fore. Make no mistake, corporate America understands the power of statehouses. While Washington lobbyists have reigned supreme for the last twelve years, Business Week has reported that lobbyists are setting their sights on the statehouses as a result of the newly hostile landscape in Washington. If progressives are going to prevent November's gains from being anything but Pyrrhic victories, it is incumbent upon us to be ready to take key policy fights to the states. PROGRESSIVE STRENGTH IN THE STATES—Prior to the 2006 election, Democrats controlled the "trifecta" (both chambers of the legislature and the governor's office) in eight states. That number has since risen to fifteen. But the numbers are slightly misleading: Some of these states are very narrowly held or are effectively in the control of conservative Democrats. But these numbers also understate progressive performance in key ways. In Washington and Colorado, Democratic majorities previously held hostage by one or two conservative members swelled in size, with the November vote, improving their ability to move legislation. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, although less than perfect, has shown a willingness to cooperate on some key progressive issues. In Minnesota, the Democratic gains in the legislature were very significant, increasing the likelihood that progressives will be able to override vetoes from the conservative governor. In New York, the Working Families Party, through its cross-endorsement strategy, has fostered key relationships with Republicans in the GOP-held Senate. http://http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20061015playbook_2.cfm
Progressives Must Turn Their Attention to the States
By Joel Barkin and Matt Singer | December 1, 2006 (page 1/3)
But progressives should not be fooled. Despite significant gains, our hold on power in Washington, D.C., is tenuous. The two-seat majority in the Senate requires only a single defection to derail any legislation. And policy that is too forward-thinking or threatening to right-wing financial interests is likely to be met by a filibuster (Republicans have already pledged to block the Employee Free Choice Act). In the House, the situation for progressives is better, but corporate-conservative Democrats, who often vote with Republicans on economic issues, threaten to curtail progressive policy.
Of course, even if filibusters, Democratic defections, and powerful special-interest lobbying can be overcome, George W. Bush still has veto power. While he has rarely used it in the past, no one should be surprised to see the Lame Duck wield it as often as he likes.
Given this reality, it would be wise for progressives looking for real steps forward to focus beyond Washington, D.C., to the fifty battlegrounds, the "laboratories of democracy"—to the states—where new policy solutions will be bubbling up.
WHY THE STATES MATTER—States have earned their reputations as laboratories for a reason. With greater discretion over their budgets, wide latitude in acting on health care and education, and a proximity to constituents that makes reform easier than it is in the insulated Beltway, state legislators are well positioned to institute policies to make a difference in people's lives.
Consider this: State and local revenue is equal to 16.2 percent of GDP. State courts handle 17 million civil cases a year. State employment law lays the baseline of worker rights for millions of Americans. States house 1.9 million prisoners, more than ten times the prison population at the federal level. And state public-employee pensions manage trillions in assets.
While the federal government dedicates billions to health care and education programs, the way the money is spent is often determined not in Congress, but in state legislatures. In other words, whether the issue is criminal law, tort law, workplace issues, classrooms or health care, states are the critical battlegrounds. And with a handful of Northeastern states and California embracing real global-warming reforms, these local moves are pushing the issue along at the national level.
A hike in the minimum wage—now one of the highest-priority issues for the new Congress—gained steam after being pushed through legislature after legislature last session, and voters in six states approved ballot proposals adding cost-of-living adjustments to the minimum wage.
While Congress is talking about fixing Medicare Part D, a number of states have already made bold moves with prescription drugs, including innovative cost-saving measures in Oregon, Maine and elsewhere. These forward-looking developments remind voters and the press that Americans don't have to settle for legislation written by pharmaceutical lobbyists during a time of record industry profits.
States don't just produce leading issues; they also produce leaders. In 2006, a number of the most inspiring and successful candidates for U.S. Senate—Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Amy Klobuchar, and Claire McCaskill—rose to their role from state or local government.
In the next two years, states will have an opportunity to continue their leadership, and in more states than ever, progressives will be poised at the fore. Make no mistake, corporate America understands the power of statehouses. While Washington lobbyists have reigned supreme for the last twelve years, Business Week has reported that lobbyists are setting their sights on the statehouses as a result of the newly hostile landscape in Washington. If progressives are going to prevent November's gains from being anything but Pyrrhic victories, it is incumbent upon us to be ready to take key policy fights to the states. PROGRESSIVE STRENGTH IN THE STATES—Prior to the 2006 election, Democrats controlled the "trifecta" (both chambers of the legislature and the governor's office) in eight states. That number has since risen to fifteen. But the numbers are slightly misleading: Some of these states are very narrowly held or are effectively in the control of conservative Democrats. But these numbers also understate progressive performance in key ways. In Washington and Colorado, Democratic majorities previously held hostage by one or two conservative members swelled in size, with the November vote, improving their ability to move legislation. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, although less than perfect, has shown a willingness to cooperate on some key progressive issues. In Minnesota, the Democratic gains in the legislature were very significant, increasing the likelihood that progressives will be able to override vetoes from the conservative governor. In New York, the Working Families Party, through its cross-endorsement strategy, has fostered key relationships with Republicans in the GOP-held Senate. http://http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20061015playbook_2.cfm
