Goal ideas

"giving everyone in America the tools to compete and thrive in the new economy"

A better future for all Americans. We want to make solid progress in each of the 10 key areas described below by setting specific, sensible, meaningful, and achievable goals, enlisting non partisan experts panels to develop credible business plans to achieve the goals, and then executing those business plans.

Alternatively, it could be "the highest standard of living of any place on the planet" or something like that.

The main point is that the vision is one of a future that people perceive as a better alternative than the present. 

This contrasts sharply with what Republicans offer which is "less government regulation, pro-business, pro-rich, pro-aggression, anti-abortion, focus only on job in the present and don't worry about tomorrow because deficits and environmental devastation won't really happen" In short, they don't care if the quality of life of the average person gets worse, so long as they make it easier for businesses and the rich. The environment is completely expendable. Guns for everyone. No goals for anything (except the tax cut) so no accountability, but prioritize the creation of large government bureaucracies (Dept of Homeland Security which is just a smokescreen that will just put the government in disarray) as America's top priority.

We are concerned about the quality of life over your lifetime. They care about the quality of life of businesses and the rich today and there is no long term thinking, no long term goals. They are party today and don't worry about tomorrow. That's the difference. 

We are "business friendly" but in a responsible way that protects the public. We don't support a USDA that allows businesses to sell contaminated meat to our public school cafeterias. They do. We support tighter corporate accountability. They didn't until recently and now only marginally as they continue to appoint business friendly people to the SEC.

For example, can you tell me what the goal for education is? This was the #1 most important problem in America Bush said during the campaign. He also said he believes in accountability. So shouldn't we hold him accountable for not even coming up with a single goal he wants to achieve? "Testing" isn't a goal; it's a strategy for measuring whether you've achieved a goal. And "No child left behind" isn't a goal. It's a slogan. In short, the emperor has no goals.

In all the 10 areas listed below, we have no goal. Without a goal, you can't develop a strategy. So you get nowhere. No improvement.  And these are the 10 most important things to Americans.

America deserves better. America deserves a leader who can set stretch goals for America and hold himself accountable for achieving measurable improvement in the quality of our lives.

We have no goal for education. We just have a "testing" mandate. But what are we trying to achieve? Better test scores? By how much and by when? And how do we expect schools to magically improve?

We had a Cheney energy task force. But there wasn't any goal that came out of the report. Not a single one. Just a set of recommendations. Shouldn't we have said "We're going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20% by 2020 and here's how...?" Bush says we should drill in Alaska, but if the problem is oil dependency, drilling in Alaska isn't a very good solution. So he just advocates solutions without thinking whether the solution achieves the goal.

Bush's vision for America is keeping taxes low even at the cost of economic disaster and unprecedented deficits, protecting the rights of your own stem cells over your right to life, securing America against terrorist attacks by aggressive use of force and increased defense spending, and allowing people to take risks with their retirement money. In his campaign, education was the most important thing in America, yet he cut the budget for his own education bill and due to his own tax cut, he cannot fund the education programs (such as special education) that the government mandates. He has no goals for education, energy, the environment, etc. His policies are consistent with protecting the wealthy and big business at the expense of the economy, your health (e.g., USDA rollbacks, environmental rollbacks), your security (e.g., privatizing social security).

Now the GOP has total control, they have total responsibility to fix the economy, win the Iraq war, defeat terrorism, fix education, figure out health care etc. They have two years to do it and if in two years America finds itself w/ a still faltering economy , a quagmire in Iraq, higher uninsured rates, higher unemployment....they'll have no one to blame but themselves and Bush will pay the price when he runs for re-election. Maybe this total GOP dominance will crystalize the issues for Americans, make the choices starker and force the Democrats to be more cohesive and present bolder alternatives. I think our job in the next two years is to educate Americans, to open their eyes to what Bush/GOP policies really mean to their lives every single day ---not esoteric, "whither America" issues, but solid ones like whether their children being sent to war, whether their food and water is safe to consume, whether they can afford to retire, whether older Americans have to choose between paying their electric bills or paying for critical heart medication.

No more change in taxes, America at constant war, economic and social disaster. In a nutshell, that's what Bush gave  you. Is that what you wanted?

Paul Wellstone said:

"I start with the premise that political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and fair elections. It is hard to argue plausibly that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, and special interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic process. Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite. Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to participate in the process of government. This means that the values and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles. Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come with their own price tag attached--greater access and special consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform. " (April 5, 2001)

Interesting comment from Nick about consistent liabilities between Hutchinson (who Reform Voter Project helped to defeat) and George W. You may want to follow-up since you're looking at an overall strategy to defeat Bush. Best bet is to start with Nick since RVP is part of Public Campaign.

Are you better off now, than you were 4 years ago?

It's so bad, the fed cut the interest rate to the lowest level in 41 years. <insert stats from our mainstreet ad> The Republicans have no goals for the economy and no credible plan to revive it. Can we afford that?

From the New Republic:

A second, related critique is that the Democrats failed to articulate an alternative economic program. But that simply isn't true. It was Democrats who originated the idea of a tax rebate in 2001. Democrats also favored a second rebate and a temporary tax credit to encourage business investment. Last winter, the Democrats tried to use their economic stimulus plan in a straight-up fight with Bush over reviving the economy. Instead, the debate ended up being solely about Bush's proposal, which consisted of long-term business tax cuts that offered virtually no immediate economic relief. Bush and congressional Republicans lambasted Democrats for failing to support their plan, and, after Democrats saw their public approval ratings drop precipitously, they submitted ignominiously.

Edwards Offers Economic Plan, Warns of Deficits, The Washington Post, November 13 
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45610-2002Nov12.html
Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) warned that "out-of-control deficits" in Washington threaten the country's long-term economic prospects and said restoring fiscal discipline will require scaling back both President Bush's tax cuts and Democrats' desire to spend more money.  (article online)

Incentive states to follow the policies adopted in Connecticut which proved it can be done. We should copy what works, not reinvent the wheel.

We seem to forget why people elect us. They don't elect us to pass legislation like the Ed bill and then not fund it so the net effect is zero progress. They don't elect us to come up with cute campaign slogans like "no child left behind" and then don't do anything to deliver on that.

President Bush said in his campaign that 1) education is #1 most important thing in America and 2) government must be held accountable.

We must support the President here and hold him accountable. He wants to cut your taxes but not fund education. He must be held accountable. 

If he's for education, why did he cut his own education bill? And why did the Republicans refuse to approve the expenditures authorized in the education bill?

Can you tell me what the goal for education is? This was the #1 most important problem in America Bush said during the campaign. He also said he believes in accountability. So shouldn't we hold him accountable for not even coming up with a single goal he wants to achieve? "Testing" isn't a goal; it's a strategy for measuring whether you've achieved a goal. And "No child left behind" isn't a goal. It's a slogan. In short, the emperor has no goals.

How do we expect to make progress on this important issue if we have no goals that the President is willing to be accountable for?

Until we fully fund the education bill Bush wanted, until we fix up our schools so that no child is left behind, like Bush promised, until we complete the war on terrorism as Bush promised and build up enough money in the treasury so we can afford to do so, until we do all of these things we must do, we cannot cut taxes.

Focus on accountability doesn't produce better results. In fact, TASP scores dropped dramatically under Bush because teachers focused on teaching to the test.

Tax simplification. Why not eliminate the income tax and replace with VAT? or with Armey's flat tax, but with several tiers?

We have no business reducing taxes until we fund the things we promised to fund (like special ed), we repair our schools that don't meet code, and we are run government surpluses. We should rollback tax cut on the rich only, and we should cut back spending so we don't spend more than we make. 

Estate tax should not be repealed, but raise the exemption.

• Reallocate funding so that we adequately fund key programs ensure we achieve goals
• Improve government efficiency
• Cut unnecessary government programs and programs we do not have enough money to afford to be successful 

From the New Republic:

One recrimination that began to circulate even before the election took place was, as former Al Gore spokesman Chris Lehane put it, "The way to nationalize an election and make it a referendum on the Bush economy was to talk about the billion-pound elephant in the room--the Bush tax boon for the wealthy." Now, no one would be more eager than I to believe that the Democrats' political salvation lies in attacking the Bush tax cut. Unfortunately, there's little evidence that this is true. After the economy soured last year, Democrats correctly understood that they had to come out for some kind of tax cut. The position most took, which seemed to make both economic and political sense, was in favor of a short-term, egalitarian tax cut to bolster consumer spending but against a long-term, upper-bracket tax cut such as that being pushed by Bush. But, no matter how hard the Democrats tried to communicate this difference to the public, the only messages that came through were either for the tax cut or against it. And so most took the sensible stance of voting against the tax cut but declining to trumpet their opposition. Those who proposed canceling the as-yet-unimplemented upper-bracket tax cuts found their position rendered as raising taxes on the middle class.

Kerry Blasts Bush "Wrong Choices" on the Economy

Kerry came out strongly for action to redress the harmful fiscal and economic effects of the 2001 Bush tax cuts.  In fact, he proposed freezing all new tax rate reductions entirely.  Kerry's treatment of the Bush tax cuts followed what he calls "three basic principles" that should guide every economic policy: "Does it make life better for people who get up and work hard everyday?  Is it fair -- helping most Americans, not just a fortunate few?  And does it work?  Does it actually create jobs and expand economic opportunity?"

another view

Clinton brought us a budget surplus, and left office with a nice surplus. When Bush took office, the economy was already headed downwards, but Bush did not have enough visioin and courage to see that his tax cut was a long-term mistake. It is still a mistake, and the country is going deeper and deeper into debt. We should restore the taxation level on the richest Americans to what it was during the Clinton years, the rich seemed to be doing OK at that time, and rather than spend that tax revenue, apply it to reduce the deficit.

Federal RPS modelled after Texas's program (see UCS document from Julia Levin)