Let me tell you, first, a little bit about how the Senate is structured.
There are 60 "Democrats"; about fifteen of us are on the liberal side, there are another fifteen in the conservadem category, and then the other half are in the squishy middle.
Of our fifteen, five or so are persuadable-- meaning, you can't always count on them. But most of the time, if they have enough political cover, they'll do the right thing.
It's a little different on the conservadem side. There are ten over there who will move in our direction when they think it's safe. There are five over there who will always be obstinate jackasses.
I need to get to 51 Democrats to be elected majority leader.
Why am I even contemplating this?
Harry Reid's not a bad guy. But he's also not one of us and so to expect him to push a progressive agenda is unrealistic. He has approached his position as a soothing Mr. Rogers majority leader-- build consensus, bring in as many Republicans as possible, compromise, compromise, compromise.
That's not how I plan to act once I'm majority leader.
Like you, I've been dismayed at the opportunity we've squandered over the past year. We had the ability to pass a true progressive agenda to rival the conservative agenda that Reagan passed a generation ago. In reality, not only has our agenda not been progressive, it has been centrist or even center-right.
When I'm majority leader, that will change.
I'll make sure the right legislation comes up for vote. I'll make sure that the stalling tactics and fillibuster threats of the other side are taken off the table. I'll use the full weight of the office to punish Senators who cross me. You want money for back home? You want your legislation to be considered? You want an office bigger than a broom closet? Let's just say I've been studying the LBJ play book and I plan to use it. Disrupt my agenda and I'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.
I plan on being elected majority leader in January of 2011. Here's the agenda that I'll set:
- The healthcare bill will consist of two things: Medicare buy-in option for all Americans and its cost will depend only on your age and zip code PLUS structures like scientific review of practices, negotiations for pharmaceuticals and devices, and appropriate reimbursements to make sure we bend the curve on costs.
- We're going to reimpose Glass-Steagall. We're going to institute a per-transaction tax to reduce speculation. We're going to put in place a financial institution tax so that Wall Street pays the government back for the full cost of TARP plus last year's stimulus bill.
- We're going to change our trade laws. Free trade for everyone. Everyone, that is, who has similar enough labor law (including minimum wage and worker protections), environmental laws, consumer safety protections, equivalent free trade laws, and a floating currency. For each of those items you miss, expect 100% tariff. That's right-- those doo-dads you're buying that were made in China and sell for $10 today will sell for $60 tomorrow. That seems drastic, but let's guess that the Chinese will hurry to fix their systems, the price will come back down to $20 or $30, and then American manufacturing will be able to compete with them on a level playing field.
- Our first step on general taxation is to go back to the Clinton levels. Then, we're going to raise estate taxes and capital gains taxes. Then, we'll remove the FICA cap. We're also going to get rid of all those corporate tax giveaways-- think, for starters, the sugar protections and the like.
- We're going to pass a balanced budget ammendment.
- We're going to repeal DOMA and DADT.
- We're going to implement tough national education standards.
- We're going to start reducing the size of the military, spend less on procurement and contractors, eliminate redundant weapons systems, and rethink how we do our national defense.
Aggressive agenda? You bet. How do we get there from here?
Ladies and gentleman, I'm going to tell you the obvious. It takes money, and lots of it. Luckily, you all proved last year during the Presidential (and also during Dean's campaign six years ago) that we can do it.
We need money for the following items:
- Primary races against conservadems in the Senate
- General elections for the Senate
- Some primaries and generals in the House
- Progressive PR advertising
Here's what I'm asking for:
- I'd like 1 million of you to donate $100 by end of January, 2010. I'll use that to fund 10 Senate primary races in conservadem and maybe Republican districts. That's our core.
- If you each bring a friend, so that we have 2 million donors putting in $25 per month for the next for months-- that's February, March, April, and May-- we'll have another $200 million to spend as seed money to help with about 20 Senate races and another 40 or so in the House.
- If those 2 million people keep on donating for another four months-- June, July, August, and September-- we'll have another $200 million to spend: half on races and half on advertisements to help Americans understand how the progressive agenda helps them. Folks, we've done a miserable job and allowed our brand to be tarnished by the Republicans. Nothing short of a full education campaign will help reverse that. The plus side is that it will make it easier for all progressives to win elections and any one who has their finger in the wind will be likely to side with us.
On election day, 2010, let's hope that we've flipped, say, five conservadems in the Senate, five Republicans in the Senate, and helped elect or re-elect 10 or more of those "squishy middle" Democrats. That gives us those twenty plus the fifteen progressive Democrats-- or almost half of the Democratic caucus. Most of the other twenty "squishy middle" Democrats will come along too, plus maybe five of the remaining conservadems. That gives me 55 Democrats plus maybe a few running-scared Republicans.
In the House, maybe we will have helped elect thirty or forty members PLUS primaried and replaced ten or so "blue dogs". That gives us leverage over there. When Speaker Pelosi sees that we'll give her political cover to follow the agenda she prefers AND the votes to do it-- I think both Houses will work well together.
How long will it take to enact this agenda? A decade? A four year Presidential term? A two year Congressional term? Nope. We'll do it in six months. I'll spend the rest of this year working with a team to write these bills so that they are ready to be voted on in January. Yes, that implies no more "business as usual" in the Senate.
Here's my pledge: make me majority leader and we'll have this legislation on the President's desk by July 1, 2011.
Whether he signs it or decides to triangulate against us is up to him and is crucial for what comes next.
If he signs, and if he has begun the troop drawdown he promised after his AfPak review process, then no one will work harder for his re-election than me.
I like President Obama. I fought for his election. I like him as a person. I liked him as a colleague. I'd like to see him re-elected.
But if he doesn't have the right agenda, then there's no point.
I picked July 1, 2011 as our do or die date for a reason: if he hasn't helped us enact this agenda or something damned close to it, and if we haven't reduced troop levels below what they were when he entered office, then I'll announce my candidacy for President.
We'll have the only other organization (other than his, that is) in the USA capable of raising the funds necessary to be successful in that race. And he'll know it. That's why I'm hopeful he'll help us and I'll be able to work like hell to get him re-elected. I'm happy to wait for 2016.
Hello.
My name is Senator X.
I'm running for majority leader and hope to fix America.
And I need your help.
Damned if I know. But there are 57 Democrats in the Senate who are not majority leader and-- as of today-- will probably never be President. I'd like them to take a good long look in the mirror and ask themselves: do I have the leadership, will, and courage to do something like this?
Who wants to step up to the plate? Who thinks they can do the necessary fundraising and set the agenda to make this happen?
Does it have to be a Senator? Maybe not. Maybe a sitting or former Governor or high-profile member of the House. But, in reality, the people in the best position to launch this kind of a revolution-- and let's be honest, that's what it is-- are probably in the Senate.
Maybe, by and large, the least temperamentally suited for revolution. But in the best position.
