Draft Copy of Democratic Party Platform

I've been given a copy of the most recent draft of the Democratic Party's platform. I'm told that this is getting close to the end. There is good stuff and bad stuff. Here are my thoughts and please feel free to raise your issues and thoughts on whatever sections you find relevant.

I've posted the whole thing here (if I knew how to upload it on this site, I'd do so...).

Here are my initial, quick thoughts about some of the economic-related language.

The Good:

There is very strong language about the right to organize and other similar worker protection issues. And it is quite good that the language is inserted under the heading "Good Jobs With Good Pay":

That is why we support the right to organize. We know that when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. We will restore pro-worker voices to the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board and we support overturning the NLRB's and NMB's many harmful decisions that undermine the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers. We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day have the right to bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at the Federal Aviation Administration. We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods. We will continue to vigorously oppose "Right-to-Work" Laws and "paycheck protection" efforts whenever they are proposed.

The platform also attacks the Bush administration for suspending Davis-Bacon provision, and other unfriendly worker acts:

Suspending labor protections during national emergencies compounds the devastation from the emergency. We opposed suspension of Davis-Bacon following Hurricane Katrina, and we support broad application of Davis-Bacon worker protections to all federal projects. We will stop the abuse of privatization of government jobs. We will end the exploitative practice of employers wrongly misclassifying workers as independent contractors.

The Bush Administration Department of Labor has failed in its obligation to stand up and protect American workers. Our Department of Labor will restore and expand overtime rights for millions of Americans, and will actively enforce wage and hour laws. Our Occupational Safety and Health Administration will adopt and enforce comprehensive safety standards; he Bush Administration is the only administration that has never voluntarily issued a significant final standard for workplace safety. Right now, far too many workers-especially those in the construction and mining industries-risk their lives every day just by going to work.

One of the greatest sentences in the platform is this one (on page 22):

We recognize that Social Security is not in crisis and we should do everything we can to strengthen this vital program, including asking those making over $250,000 to pay a bit more.

Finally, the first step in defeating the idiotic repeated theme by the media, politicians and elites that Social Security is in crisis. IT ISN'T. I consider that sentence to be a huge victory--if we can now get people to repeat it.

A big gripe about the health care section. In the Fiscal Responsibility section, the platform clearly states that:

Instead, we must strengthen our public programs by bringing down the cost of health care and reducing waste while making strategic investments that emphasize quality, efficiency, and prevention.

And, yet, if you go back to the long section devoted to health care, the platform calls for an "affordable, comprehensive alternative"--yet does not make a call for single-payer, "Medicare For All". This is going to be a tough fight, in my opinion. The words "universal coverage" and "affordable" are all in the eye of the beholder. And the languauge is being shaped now to convince people that we can truly get real health care for people with the involvement of the private insurance industry. That is a lie. Very disappointing.

On trade, it's a mixed bag, better than half a loaf but a long way to go:

Smart, Strong, and Fair Trade Policies

We believe that trade should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs, while also laying a foundation for democratic, equitable, and sustainable growth around the world. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development but we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few rather than the many. We must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably.

Trade policy must be an integral part of an overall national economic strategy that delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad. We will enforce trade laws and safeguard our workers, businesses and farmers from unfair trade practices-including currency manipulation, lax consumer standards, illegal subsidies, and violations of workers' rights and environmental standards. We must also show leadership at the World Trade Organization to improve transparency and accountability, and to ensure it acts effectively to stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports.

We need tougher negotiators on our side of the table-to strike bargains that are good not just for Wall Street, but also for Main Street. We will negotiate free trade agreements that open markets to U.S. exports and include enforceable international labor and environmental standards; we pledge to enforce those standards consistently and fairly. We will not negotiate free trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety or the health of its citizens, give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors, require the privatization of our vital public services, or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications. We will stand firm against agreements that fail to live up to these important benchmarks. We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American countries. We will work together with other countries to achieve a successful completion of the Doha Round Agreement that would increase U.S. exports,support good jobs in America, protect worker rights and the environment, benefit our businesses and our farms, strengthen the rules-based multilateral system, and advance development of the world's poorest countries.

Just as important, we will invest in a world-class infrastructure, skilled workforce, and cutting-edge technology so that we can compete successfully on high- value-added products, not sweatshop wages and conditions. We will end tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas, and provide incentives for companies that keep and maintain good jobs here in the U.S. And, we will also provide access to affordable health insurance and enhance retirement security, and we will update and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance to help workers in industries vulnerable to international competition, as well as service sector and public sector workers impacted by trade, and we will improve TAA's health care benefits. The United States should renew its own commitment to respect for workers' fundamental human rights, and at the same time strengthen the ILO's ability to promote workers' rights abroad through technical assistance and capacity building.

So, is this good or bad?

First, the good stuff. I liked the making of the connection between trade and an overall national economic strategy that "delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad." This is important in making it clear that, when we go after bad trade deals, it's with the thought in mind that this isn't just bad for American workers but bad for workers elsewhere to.

The declaration that new trade agreements won't undercut strong standards on a whole host of things is a step forward. I think we should really underscore the "end tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas".

A lot of the tone of this, though, makes me a bit uneasy. If I had my wishes, and I know this would be unrealistic in the current environment, I would eliminate the words "free trade" from the entire thing. As regular readers know, I believe "free trade" is just a marketing phrase that covers up the real content of trade agreements. I fear that as long as we continue to let those words be used, it wires the political framing in such a way that we are always at war with something that sounds "free"...and if you've ever been in a line at a store offering something "free" (I avoid them but watch TV) people love "free". This is a messaging issue.

I also question the truth of this sentence: "We must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably." I certainly like the second part after the comma but it's an open question, in my mind, whether open markets--if we mean "liberalization"--has created more wealth. As I wrote a year ago, my colleagues Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot explored the notion that open markets has been a good thing. They wrote:

In other words, even ignoring the re-distribution of income in the last few decades, the U.S. economy during a period in which it was mostly a closed economy (1946-1973) vastly outperformed the increasingly open economy that we have had over the last 33 years, in terms of raising living standards.

Finally, do we really want to work to complete the Doha round? The Doha Round collapsed--and I want to kill it outright. It's very nature--the way rules are negotiated--are polar opposite, in my view, to the earlier idea that trade is supposed to bring prosperity here and abroad. But I imagine this was something that was unavoidable in the current Democratic Party culture.

And your thoughts?

UPDATE: I'm also told that the deadline for changes in the platform is 4 p.m. Friday at the Pittsburgh meeting. Here are emails for some key platform members if you want to email people:

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Comments

[Okieborn]

The Democratic Party will finally clean up this gut wrenching mess that Bush has laid on this great Nation.
There will be a "WIDE SWEEP of Republicans going down this fall !!!

[Donk]

Social Security is safe for a few more decades, but Medicare is coughing up blood!

[mamacat]

The old saw, that Republicans are the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, still has merit.
Any Democratic platform will inevitably be better for the country than any Republican platform.

There are always points to be discussed and refined. Hopefully no one will try to insert non-starter issues like give-aways to descendents of slaves. That will drive many non-blacks away from the Democratic party, again.

Doha never made any sense to me. It was an effort to make money for American mega-corporations at the expense of individual farmers both here and abroad. Its result was increased poverty and hunger in the world, and bigger bank accounts for giant agri-businesses. It died because India and China are strong enough to stand up to the U.S. and Europe, unlike the African nations and our own domestic farmers.

[TRYKER]

Thank you for your post.

[saltysea]

what about changing corporate law so that they don't "have to" get the biggest profit they can for their shareholders, above all else.

Nowadays, above all else appears to include profit above country and countrymen, not to mention the actual land & water & air.

it's a crying shame. let's hope Obama gets in & continues to consult with people who understand this (Gore, for one, and others).

[saltysea]

Thanks!

[111]

Thanks for the link -

It doesn't sound good to me. Their term, "a new American Century" was like nails on a chalkboard to me because that was the NeoCon plan to promote American global leadership or should I say dominance. It just didn't sit right.

I wish they said that they would repeal what they did recently to FISA, but they didn't.

it really looks like just a bunch of bull.

[KDelphi]

I'll have to read the entire thing, but, overall--whats new...?

[repearwo]

"In other words, even ignoring the re-distribution of income in the last few decades, the U.S. economy during a period in which it was mostly a closed economy (1946-1973) vastly outperformed the increasingly open economy that we have had over the last 33 years, in terms of raising living standards."

THe answer there is that of course those years were better, we used the power we had after WWII not erbuild the world but to rob, rape and pillage the rest of the world to bring our standard of living up.

After 1976 we were exposed as notbeing the Giant the world thought we were and our glutenous appetite for excess has slowly stranged us while the rest of the world isstaking clain to their share oif the wealth. There is no way we can keep the share of the world wealth in this century, and there is no reason we should. The 40's and early 50's are a good bench mark of a standard of living.

We have to reinvent the US. That means Labor is going to have to get real honest with itself, as is the rest of the US. We either make the changes for ourselves, or wait for someone else to impose them on us.

[Ramirez]

The Employee Free Choice Act will have a significant negative effect on American business. It will remove the workers' right to secret ballot in deciding union representation. It is wrong on an endless number of democratic (small 'd') principles.

[KDelphi]

If BIG business hadnt shoved union-busting groups down workers' throats,; if they actually respected labor in this country (we have some of the weakest worker protection, wages, sick leave, insurance--in the free world.); if we had a good, free educational system--then maybe people would TRUST business more and govt wouldnt have to step in to protect labor unions. Of course, the unions are at fault too. But, ultimately, the Am. people are to blame--other countries think we are such cowards, to let CEOs, Big Oil, etc. make "salaries" so beyond the pale, that EU and South/Central Ams. think you are kidding when you first tel them how much it is!! And now, big business is trying to import a new slave class--Hispanics and Latinos! All you would have to do to "solve the immigration problem", is force businesses to pay them the same, give them time off, allow unionization, etc. They just hire them to take advantage of them and us, and all some people can do is blame the worker...that's why we are approaching Third World status now. Dont the uber-upperclasses realize what happens to a "democracy", when you have such a radical distance between the "rich" and everyone else? Most decent rich people are calling for taxes and regulation--it is in their best interest, as, eventually, people just wont put up with it.
+

[saltysea]

some of the upper class realize this, like warren buffet & paul newman types. the ones that don't live in gated communities and don't mingle with us much. they seem not to care what country they are in--just buy an estate and guard it.

[mlaiuppa]

No. It won't. Secret ballot is guaranteed.

(Did you swallow that line at a Walmart employee meeting?)

[Ramirez]

The most widely-publicized change to the National Labor Relations Act are changes to the finality of organizing a union by majority card check signatures. Currently an employer can voluntarily recognize a union when a majority of employees sign authorization cards, or the employer can demand a secret ballot election. Under the EFCA, a secret ballot election would only be held if more than 30%, but less than a majority of employees sign union authorization cards. A secret ballot election might be required if illegal coercion invalidates the results of a majority card check election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act

[DrFitz]

Thanks. I'll have to check the whole thing. I sure hope they have a section stating opposition to the Bush/Cheny/Addington theory of the unitary executive. It's crucial that the Democrats push back strongly against those dangerous ideas.

[KDelphi]

Agree! I'm afraid that, once power is gained, it is seldom surrendered. People tend to think, "Well, I will just use it in a good way..." or something like that. To "reject ILLEGAL wiretapping" --well, it would be funny, except its not. Of course you reject breaking the law (well, in the past, you at least reject it OPENLY)--but Obama just voted for a new FISA Law that basically---breaks the law! It reminds me of a "signing statement", or "of course we dont torture and thats not torture". If you write the law...??The symptoms of a continuing unrealistic reliance on the president to "be the decider", does not bode well. Just because I like/trust Obama better than/more than Bush, doesnt make it OK. Also, the lack of health care. ALL the countries that have free/affordable health care for all have dumped the insurance industry and a perveyor of govt. intentions. They strill have "insurance plans" and alot of people buy them--well , not so much in Northern Europe--and, guess who has the best care ? The insurance industry has proven itself not to be an honest broker. Life or death (20,000 this year alone) should NOT be for profit, whether its health care or war. It is just plain unacceptable. If you say that "we cant do it" (yes we CANT??), I say you just dont want to. Maybe we've been "under W" so long that the Dem positions look progressive-

[repearwo]

There you go again, how does a law break a law?

Have to agree with you on health care, but there is nothing that is FREE.

[saltysea]

hope so too.

[CRT4Obama]

Jonathan, Thank you so much for that information. Granholm's address is bouncing back.