I find most of these proposals eminently sensible, but I question their political utility. What Schumer has given us is yet another laundry list of proposals - which every Democratic candidate for every office has done for the last 30 years. What is lacking is what has always lacking - a set of unifying themes that unite these proposals. Saying what policies you would implement is not the same thing as saying what you are and what you are for.

I think the entire blogsphere is at Firedoglake today. I imagine their servers are melting.

sPh

senator, i'm with ya 50%

These ideas may be sensible, but I don't believe any meaningful change for the middle class is possible as long as politicians continue to be funded by corporations and the wealthy.

Senator Schumer proposes

• REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES THAT FUND EDUCATION BY 50%
• Encourage localities to cut property taxes that fund education by 50% over ten years by freezing them now.
• If unforeseen circumstances arise, restore the highest income tax bracket to mid 1990s levels before taking away the property tax reduction.

What about the foreseen circumstances? What possibly does Schumer see replacing the 50% revenue loss?  Sales taxes (disproportionately affecting the poor?) Income taxes--at the state level they're no more progressive than at the federal level?  Maybe he expects a huge windfall in the tax on the porn sites?  Property tax reduction disproportionately advantages the upper middle class and the rich.  It does nothing for those who rent property, rather than own it...which means that the places with disproportionately large numbers of renters will find a greater burden placed on the non-property owning class.

I'm always dubious about any gimmick involving fixed percentages.  Senator Schumer seems to know this is gimicky...the shorter version he presents here is sprinkled with "at leasts" and "up tos" and the processes to achieve these gimmicky goals are also spread with qualifiers and vague generalities.  He has to to better than this.  We have to demand more than this.

aMike

Senator Schumer,

Just one initial comment about the political marketing of these proposals: Althought the proposals are actually very ambitious, calling them the "50% solution" sounds a bit off - sort of like calling them "half-measures", given that 50% is half. I understand the inside jokes about the 10% solution or 1% solution, and I understand that the 50% targets here do not refer to 50% of what we want, but 50% better than what we have. But still I think the label should grab people right from the beginning, and "50%" doesn't do it.

Since the list is presented as a set of numbmerical targets, why not use a label like "Targeting Progress", or something similar?

I would like to see a clearer and more definitive statement about climate change folded into the discussion of energy independence, or perhaps standing alone. Climate change has ceased to be a concern of "green" activists alone, and has become a broad-based middle class worry. For example, a recent radio broadcast here in New Hampshire dealt with the economic ramifications of the unusually warm winter, ramifications which are being felt all over the economy. People are convinced that these changes are related definitely get it.

Maybe this is one issue that divides urban and rural/suburban Democrats. My sense is that out in those parts of the country where people are more in touch with nature, the degradation and catastrophic changes in their environment and climate are perceived very viscerally and pessimistically as a loss of the American dream, a symptom of decline, and a diminishmnet of the world they are leaving to their children. Given how much of an emphasis there is in your list on middle class concerns about childran, I think this is an area you should look into. You represent a large and diverse state. Ask around more, and take the pulse of your constituents in, say, the Adirondacks to get a sense of how people feel about this issue.

I am uncomfortable with the "reducing abortions" item. It's not that it wouldn't be a good thing to have fewer abortions if this was brought about by fewer unwanted pregnancies. But our opponents would like to reduce abortions even if that reduction does not correspond to a decline in pregnancies. If we reduce abortions by 50%, but the reduction is a result of more odious restrictions, a contraction in the number of physicians able and willing to perform abortions, then that will be a failure, not a success. I know that this contrast is brought out in the details below the bullet point. But why not just lavel the point as: "reduce unwanted preganancies by 50%" or "reduce teen pregnancies by 50%" or some other similar goal?

We should be increasing the availability of abortion services, and fighting back against the increasing levels of stigma and intimidation surrounding these services.

As soon as a Democratic politician starts tooting the "cut taxes" horn I tune out. Nothing positive will be gained by using that horn. California has reduced property taxes a lot more than 50%, and it has been an economic disaster for the state. One rarely talked about effect was to shift the tax burden from businesses to homeowners. Another was to make property taxes extremely unfair, with adjacent identical parcels being taxed at extremely different rates. Senator Schumer makes me wonder if he is shilling for business with this particular 50% proposal.

In any case, the surest way to show just how non-serious your proposals are is to adopt a flat 50% reduction/increase policy as a fix-all policy for all that ails us. This "policy paper", for me, at least, identifies Senator Schumer as a non player.

Hoppy in Sacramento

"Numbmerical targets"?

Wit on that elevated level deserves highlighting.

Somebody should tell Schumer: NO HALFWAY MEASURES!!!

Fine job on the Daily Show, Senator.

But I really want to question your position on the war. The claim, that you made on Imus last week and in print somewhere that I can't remember, that the war is going to be over in 08 in any case, because Bush will be forced to withdraw is irresponsible and immoral.

First off, there's no reason to believe that they won't stretch this out for another two years. Cheney's continual claims of success and Petreaus' position that this is not a three month operation make it very possible that the plan is to saddle Bush's successor with this problem.

Second, if you believe that this war has failed (and I don't think there is anybody who does not, other than the President, Laura and Barney), then you have a profound moral obligation to get America soldiers--patriotic volunteers--out of harm's way. Hagel made this point, very strongly, last week. Soldiers are not beans. They go where civilian command tells them to. Civilian command has a reponsibility not to abuse that trust.

Third, it's terrible politics. The American people are way ahead of you. Stalling, rather than speaking out clearly and loudly, as Hagel and Feingold have, is the best political approach as well as the most moral and most responsible. Hagel may ride this position all the way to the White House unless Senate Democrats get out of their foxholes and make Republican senators, especially the 21 who are up in 08, and vote to continue the war.

They keep daring you to cut off the funds. That's silly. But you can specify where appropriations can be spent, in broad terms (obviously not, battalion by battalion, to cite the straw man you set on TDS). Moreover the AUMF justifying the war is now completely out of date, has nothing to do with the current situation. A new AUMF that directs the president to use force to protect American soldiers while engaging in an orderly withdrawal over the next year would be very difficult for republicans to vote against.

I have to praise the senator's hope to articulate a more forceful Democratic position, one that can connect to most voters and can connecta policy agenda to a simple message. I'm just not convinced this position really is inspiring, for three important reasons. First, it does not really articulate the ideals of liberal or even centrist Democratic voters. Second, it does not do what the GOP's eight little words do: sell a distinct agenda. Third, it doesn't connect to enough of the things most voters really care about. 

First, it does not articulate our ideals. Let's leave aside whether we should be moving left or toward the center, because I assume the senator has his convictions, his ideals, too, and not just a strategy. We can't overturn that here! But surely the party has stood for a foreign policy that makes this country an ally and a leader, ensuring our peace and safety among nations, not mad gunboat diplomacy that bankrupts us all. Surely it has stood for economic justice, civil rights, and more. We can argue what that implies for policy, centrist or liberal, but talking about the Baileys won't wish it away. 

Second, the eight little words accomplish something: they cloak an agenda effectively. No taxes disguise handouts to only a few, cuts in services and education that leave so many in the middle class stranded, and weakened environmental and other regulation that endangers all of us. Fighting terror disguises a bad war against the wrong enemy. Gay marriage pretends it's the Democratic platform, manipulates religious believers, and disguises an assault on many other freedoms. How does the senator's approach do anything like that for our goals? How does talk about cancer and tax enforcement help promote a liberal society? Not only won't it move our causes forward and market them well; it also won't convince average Americans we stand for anything. Can we really convince people that one and only one party is opposed to obesity, tax cheats, and disease?

Third, it's remote from the issues people are agonizing over, the ones that have made Bush so unpopular and gained Democrats seats in 2006. People really are afraid of what's happening in the Middle East; the war is an issue for them. People are afraid of their security, their health care, and so much more. People are dismayed by a corrupt government. Are they really talking about where you stand on obesity? We have to do better, because our lives are at stake and because we want to win as well. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

This is moribund.

This must be a joke.

How about: "Reduce by 50 percent the number of stupid policy gimmicks devised based on focus groups and overpriced consultants?"

Since this "thing" is not intended to be actually implemented, there is no need to comment upon it as it were to be implemented, because its authors knew it was a p.r. a shill from the start.

Swill ...

Reading Sen. Schumer, I'd just as soon vote Republican. They are at least honest when they tell me they don't give a rat's ass about the lower middle class.

Schumer is far worse than a Republican. His policy "things" listed above are a textbook Swiftian and Orwellian collection of meaningless-isms. They are candy wrappers with nothing inside them -- each carefully worded to sound like many things to many people, whatever they want to hear. And all crafted to give the Senator plausible deniability if questioned in detail.

Excuse me while I shower and try to scrape my skin off ...

And congratulations on the last election. The returns on election night were the best TV in a decade. Riveting. Must see. A thriller till the last vote was counted in Virginia. Thanks.

Since the red states have been trying to run things, I've found a new appreciation for states rights. My state already ranks near the top in education and I really don't want the Feds screwing it up. Plus, my city is run better than my state. Why should the level of government that is doing the worst job mess around in my local property taxes? It's bad enough when the state interferes.

Also, property taxes fund county services like public hospitals. Cut property taxes and where do you think all those people without health insurance are going to go for services? I notice he's not addressing my number one local priority: health CARE.

Yes, great, fund medical reseach. I'm all for that, but first make it possible for every man, woman and child, employed or not to have access to primary care.

Thank god somebody said it.

These proposals are an embarrassment and an insult.

It sounds like the speech a candidate for 6th grade class president would give.

Let me get this straight--you're going to fix CANCER???

Just give me a decent health care plan and we'll talk.

Senator Schumer:

First, I want to thank you for your tireless (and successful!) efforts on behalf of Democratic candidates in the last election, and for your time in discussing your ideas here at TPM cafe. Also, I watched you on Hardball this afternoon and you did great; it was a strong and convincing presentation of your ideas.

But like some of the other posters here, I have somewhat mixed feelings about your written list of goals and agree that they seem a bit wonky. And I think DanK, jhaber and Northern Observer (among others) above were correct in that we need something that really sounds exciting to the average voter - as Northern Observer said, the "Wow factor." I read through this thread earlier today and have spent the time since in trying to come up with 8 words that could summarize what the Democrats need to tell the country we stand for. All I could come up with was:

Universal healthcare, Iraq withdrawal, return to constitutional principles; OR,

Fairness for the middle class, honest government, strong and rational foreign policy

(Ok, the last one is more than 8 words...)

But I'm not certain either of my two lists is that inspiring, and the moment I wrote them I started thinking about all the things I left out. I think our problem (or at least mine) is that Democrats tend to see the nuance in everything, rather than reducing things to black-and-white as Bush does, making soundbite-type statements of principles difficult. It's sad that the simplistic dumb ideas of Bush, which also happen not to work, were ones that manage to resonate, while more sophisticated approaches (which is what we need) are too often difficult to synthesize into easy phrases.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

We want to shed those who talk to us like children and put
a waking sleep on the country with false tales and destructive myths.

The 50% solutions seem the same, simple proposals, for simple minds.

Fellow citizen, please reconsider, walk with us; reach with us for awareness, responsibilities and choices, it’s called democracy.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

JayAckroyd said:

The claim, that you made [...] that the war is going to be over in 08 in any case, because Bush will be forced to withdraw is irresponsible and immoral.

Thank you Senator Schumer for giving me and others the opportunity to give you some feedback.

We met briefly many years ago in front of Times Square Stores on Nostrand Avenue, just up the block from Seniors. You asked me what my concerns were. You didn't simply hand me a flyer and try to shake my hand. I didn't respond to you then but I'll respond now.

I'm concerned about you and others like you in position of power (at least some power) that have been in that position while what is best about America is being destroyed. I think the Schumer on Nostrand Avenue would have done more to defend America from the real dangers it faces from within than the Schumer I read about today. I know it's a hardball political game with sound bites used to destroy careers and lives so I understand the grays involved. But protecting America, truly protecting America, isn't all that gray.

It's been put much better elsewhere, but "50%" sounds like .. another sound bite. And one easily countered as a "half measure." I'm a liberal. Not a "progressive" or "economic populist" or whatever coward's phrase people come up with to counter the conservative megaphone and Matt Stollers of the world. Being a liberal I recognize that your "50%" proposals don't cut it now. The funds aren't available and won't be available for likely a decade or more. Changes have to be made that are much more fundamental than liberal or populist wish lists.

It's been mentioned (here) that in recent history there has been a pattern where Democrats must be "conservative" and try to bring some semblance of fiscal responsibility to America only to have "conservative" Republicans come into power and squander any savings the Democrats have made for America and turn them over to the wealthy. I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan whose original platform called for an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget. Fiscal responsibility. Of course when Reagan gained power he had the largest deficits in history through his "tinkle on" economic policy. Reagan even dared to again propose the amendment late in his second term but no one took him seriously.

My point is that you're proposing policies that aren't going to happen and my concern isn't simply with your sound bite or the near future. My concern is with America and the long term future. The pattern of destruction of government or the ability of government to function on behalf of the vast majority of Americans is obvious and growing massively. Every dollar spent in Iraq cannot be spent for anything else. Every dollar owed for Iraq is a dollar that must be paid back by future Americans and limits their and America's ability to do anything other than pay it back. Without changing that trend (more like falling off a cliff at this point) talking about "50%" isn't worth half a penny.

To the point. Something must be done to ensure that what this government has done can never happen again. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is almost a triviality compared to what has happened in the last few years. America needs people to defend it from what has happened. I wish I could say people like you.

Look at your career. You're recognized as a superb fund raiser. Great. Wouldn't it be better to be known as a superb defender of Americans? Sure, I know that without the funds you couldn't defend anyone. But that in itself is one of the problems in America today. Only the wealthy have a real voice. That's something that must change - to save America. "Tinkle on economics" didn't come about because Americans had a clear understanding of the issues or direct say in their future.

The lack of a "clear understanding of the issues" isn't simply because average Americans have more mundane concerns than keeping up with inside politics. It's another recent change in America. Equal time? Media and publishing consolidation. You live in fear of a verbal blunder because it will instantly be misrepresented and blasted throughout the existing major pathways to the people. But those blunders only seem to affect those concerned about average citizens. I can't think of any president that could or should have survived a statement inviting killers to kill Americans as Bush's "Bring 'em on!" did. Yet it barely generated a ripple.

The executive branch has been completely politicized, like a metastasized cancer, spreading throughout the civil service system and the nation. This should never have been allowed to happen. Reversing it will be an enormous task to be fought against the problems I've already described. But it's a task that must be done - to save America.

The judicial branch has been grossly politicized. That a Supreme Court justice could take a vacation with someone that he was to judge in the near future and deem that action irrelevant is .. America today. And I almost forgot to mention the 2000 decision that gave us a minority president through "liberal" reasoning that was never to be used as precedent. America.

This is what America needs from you Senator Schumer. Someone to defend it, and not half way.

To gauge Senator Schumer's sympathy for liberal causes, one need look no further than his draftee for the Senatorial race in Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum doomed himself to defeat in 2006 with his maniacal, unbalanced, and racist positions with regard to Muslims in the fringy right's Global War on Terrorism. What's more, his rabid style finally caught up with him, and voters finally recognized that this was not a well-adjusted individual, let alone a man they wanted to represent them in the US Senate. Santorum's negatives were sufficiently high that the Democrats might have had a fair chance of defeating him if they had nominated Captain Nemo or the Tooth Fairy.

With a genuine opportunity to move the Pennsylvaina delegation in the US Senate sharply to the left, Senator Schumer drafted Bob Casey. Casey downplayed his right-wing agenda. He is:

• Vehemently anti-abortion and believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned;


• Supportive of the nominations of Alito and Roberts;


• Of the opinion that the USAPATRIOT Act is a "vital tool in the war on terror";


• Supportive of the Military Commissions Act with its denial of habeas corpus and prohibition of judicial review;


• Opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, even for cells that are scheduled for destruction in any case;


• A staunch supporter of the death penalty.

Apparently the 50% requirement is lowered significantly in Senator Schumer's mind when it comes to finding candidates who support of Democratic ideals.

The anti-porn stuff, which amounts to censorship because his proposed "tax" will put many of them out of business and thus limit speech, and the anti-abortion stuff sounds like an attempt to reach out to religious social conservatives.  It is more about staying in power than proposing progressive policies.  I am very disappointed to hear this coming from a Senator whose positions, up to now, I generally respected... :(

Yeah he is decending the slippery slope into the "Joe Lieberman pandering for votes" realm...I hope he reconsiders because people having sex (and pictures thereof) is not a threat to the existence of our country.  He mentions porn and abortion but doesn't mention universal health care and global climate change...whazzup wit dat?

OK Mr. Gitlin, I won't complain about your rating this time. (:^)}