News Release

NEW REPORT: PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION NEEDED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH COVERAGE

Toby Chaudhuri — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:11:13 -0500

A new public health insurance plan that competes directly with private insurers is essential to controlling health care costs and improving the quality of care, according to a new report released today by the Institute for America’s Future and the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center on Health, Economic & Family Security. The report, by health care expert and UC Berkeley professor Jacob Hacker, says a public health insurance plan like Medicare offered together with private health plans could result in $1 trillion in national savings over ten years by driving down costs, improving efficiencies and fostering innovation.

President-elect Obama, his health care point person Tom Daschle, Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus and House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee chairman Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., have all embraced the idea of adding a public plan to help fix the ailing health care system, but the insurance industry opposes a public option. New data in today’s report provides fresh ammunition to this debate by showing how a public plan can maintain lower costs over time while providing broad, guaranteed and quality coverage.

Dr. Hacker released the report on a conference call with reporters today noting that the clearest evidence of the savings produced by a public plan is its premiums.

“Premiums with a public plan cost about three-quarters the amount private insurers charge for the same set of benefits,” said Hacker. “It’s an essential element to any national health care reform proposal.”

Hacker said that private plans operating without public insurance competition have been unable to contain spiraling health care costs and unwilling to cover at-risk patients. However, a public-private hybrid can provide an important check on both public and private sectors, ensuring flexibility, accountability and inclusiveness.

Rep. Stark agreed with Hacker on today’s call, declaring that it’s time we had an alternative plan that’s driven by cost-controls and quality care, not private profit.

“A public plan is an important component of any health care reform,” said Rep. Stark. “A public plan like Medicare would be more efficient and would provide greater choice. Without a public plan, insurance companies will have little incentive to control costs, reaping profits at the expense of beneficiaries.”

Institute for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey joined Rep. Stark and Hacker on the call, noting that the national health care debate will center on the public insurance option.

“Public insurance as part of a comprehensive solution was fully debated in the 2008 elections,” said Hickey. “People across the country believe public insurance is a common-sense choice that will help control health inflation and assure quality.”

Hacker’s report, “The Case for Public Plan Choice,” clearly shows that public insurance has a better track record than private insurance at reining in costs while preserving access to quality services. A public plan is essential to set a standard against which private plans must compete. The report outlines how public insurance has pioneered new payment and quality-improvement methods that have often set the standard for private plans and how it has the potential to carry out these vital tasks even more effectively in the future, using information technology, large databases of practices and outcomes, and new payment approaches and care-coordination strategies.

# # #

**A summary and copy of the full report, “The Case for Public Plan Choice,” is available at http://institute.ourfuture.org/hacker, or http://www.law.berkeley.edu/chefs.htm. A recording of the call is available at http://assets.ourfuture.org/audio/20081217-Hacker-Plan-Press-Conf.mp3.**

ECONOMISTS, LABOR LEADERS: ECONOMY NEEDS SUBSTANTIAL, STRATEGIC, SUSTAINED $900B OR MORE BOOST OVER TWO YEARS

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:23:37 -0500

WASHINGTON – The economy needs at least a $900 billion boost over the next two years, according to a detailed economic recovery plan released today by more than a hundred economists and dozens of labor and public interest leaders who represent more than 20 million Americans.

With payrolls plunging, retail sales dropping and manufacturing contracting, the Campaign for America’s Future today released a statement signed by 127 economists, 27 major labor leaders and 59 public interest organizations, outlining a “substantial, strategic, and sustained” program for economic recovery. The statement, released on a conference call with reporters today, calls for a floor of $450 billion a year for the next two years. Given the severity of the recent financial crisis, they argue that $450 billion a year over two years should be considered the “floor” of any plan.

The plan stresses that investments be made in areas vital to the economy – in energy efficiency and renewable energy, in modernizing our collapsing infrastructure and in expanding pre-kindergarten and college affordability. It urges aid to states and localities to avoid devastating layoffs, and assistance to the low wage workers most impacted by the downturn.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said these investments should be made as soon as possible and not only continue for two years, but be sustained with needed investments afterwards.

“Congress must know by now that the time for delay, for half-measures, for one-off rebates is over. We need a substantial, strategic and sustained plan to get this economy going,” said Borosage. “President Obama has the moment, the mandate, and the majority to drive fundamental reform over this next period. It is vital that citizen leaders not sit by passively, but help define the course and clear the way.”

University of Texas professor and economist James Galbraith joined Borosage on today’s call. Galbraith said these investments will have a greater return on investment in generating jobs and growth than tax cuts, and should be the centerpiece of a strategic recovery plan.

“Economic recovery in an existential crisis like this means actually building a new economy,” said Galbraith. “For that, we need investment—to restore our roads, rails, transit, broadband, and water systems, to build parks and museums and libraries, to protect the environment.”

United Steelworkers president and AFL-CIO executive council chair Leo Gerard also joined Borosage on today’s call. Gerard said signers of today’s statement will mobilize a major educational effort to encourage Congress to act rapidly to create a plan ready for President-elect Barack Obama to sign on day one, noting that “substantial action to get the real economy going is long overdue.”

# # #

**For a copy and summary of today’s economic statement and a complete list of signers, please visit http://ourfuture.org/mainstreetrecovery .**

MAIN STREET ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN
http://ourfuture.org/mainstreetrecovery

Breakdown of the investments outlined in the economic plan (investment area -- first year, second year. Figures in billions):

--Green investments -- 50, 50
--Infrastructure -- 75, 150
--Aid to states -- 50, 75
--Education -- 40, 40
--Research and development -- 5, 10
--Health care -- 15, 55
--Unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidy -- 15, 15
--Food stamps -- 15, 15
--Poverty reduction -- 40, 40
--Middle-class tax cut -- 145, -
--Total over two years -- 900

More than 127 economists, 27 major labor leaders and 59 public interest organizations signed the Campaign for America’s Future’s economic plan. Signers include:

--John Sweeney, president, AFL-CIO
--Andrew Stern, president, SEIU
--Gerald McEntee, international president, AFSCME
--Anna Burger, chair, Change to Win
--Ron Gettelfinger, president, UAW
--Dennis van Roekel, president, NEA
--Leo Gerard, international president, USW
--Mike Wessell, senior advisor, Alliance for American Manufacturing
--Robert Borosage, co-director, Campaign for America's Future
--David Bonior, chair, American Rights at Work
--James Galbraith, economist
--Robert Johnson, economist
--Heidi Hartmann, President, Institute for Women’s Policy Research
--Jane D'Arista, Financial Markets Center
--Robert Kuttner, co-editor, The American Prospect and Demos senior fellow
--Julie Matthaei, Professor of Economics, Wellesley College
--Jeff Faux, economist, Economic Policy Institute
--Dean Baker, economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research
--Carl Pope, director, Sierra Club

ALLOWING AUTO INDUSTRY TO GO UNDER WOULD CREATE “BODY BLOW” TO SLUMPING ECONOMY

Toby Chaudhuri — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON – With U.S. automakers facing opposition for an expanded $34 billion rescue package on Capitol Hill today, Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said allowing the auto industry to go under would create a “body blow to the already battered economy.” Borosage noted that there’s a big difference between how lawmakers are responding to the good faith effort from the auto companies and its unions and how they dealt with the banks that caused this crisis in the first place.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOROSAGE

The U.S. would be foolish to allow its auto industry to go under, which would be a body blow to an already battered economy. Congress should not make the auto companies the victims of their failure to impose sensible conditions on Wall Street.

Any bridge loan should be conditioned on commitments to moving towards high efficiency cars, limits on executive compensation, and oversight of global operations. U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing the transfer of more and more production abroad. An independent board must be set up with authority to enforce those conditions.

Much of the congressional posturing on the auto companies is displaced passion. The auto companies and its unions have come to the Congress with far more detailed plans, including concessions on CEO compensation and wrenching concessions by the unions.

The contrast between that good faith effort for a bridge loan and the ease with which the banks that have caused this crisis have garnered literally trillions of guarantees, loans and investments without any commitments on changing their business plans or on executive compensation is stark.

# # #

**NOTE: To schedule an interview with Borosage, please contact Jennifer Ettinger at jettinger@ourfuture.org or 202-587-1614.**

ECONOMIC CRISIS MAKES “RUBINOMICS” IRRELEVANT

Jennifer Ettinger — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON – Responding to concerns that President-elect Obama’s new economic leadership team is dominated by people who played a role in creating the current crisis, Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said that deepening economic emergency makes “Rubinomics” irrelevant. Borosage said that today’s announcement is a key step toward enacting a bold economic recovery plan.

Many progressives are concerned that the president-elect’s economic team is dominated by allies of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who opposed the regulation of derivatives and other measures blamed for the economic crisis. Rubin is senior counselor and director of Citigroup Inc., which has just received a $20 billion cash infusion and hundreds of billions of dollars in loan guarantees from taxpayers.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOROSAGE
It's not the personnel, it's the policy. And on this, Obama has been clear. He's announced a massive recovery plan based on putting people to work with public investment in areas vital to our future.

The crisis we face makes Rubinomics irrelevant. Deficit spending must go up, finance must be re-regulated, trade imbalances must be reduced and manufacturing can no longer be scorned.

Obama is choosing experienced hands for the crisis, trusting that their experience does not impede the new thinking needed to get us out of this hole. He'll set the direction. And so far, he’s on course.

# # #

**NOTE: To schedule an interview with Borosage, please contact Jennifer Ettinger at jettinger@ourfuture.org or 202-587-1614.**

PROGRESSIVE LEADERS BEGIN PUSH FOR MAJOR PUBLIC INVESTMENTS TO FUEL ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND GROWTH

Jennifer Ettinger — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:46:05 -0500

WASHINGTON – Congressional and progressive leaders kicked off a major effort on Capitol Hill today to push a long-term investment program that could fill a staggering public infrastructure deficit cited in a new report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future.

The need for a bold public investment initiative was detailed at today’s conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future at the Library of Congress. Members of Congress, economists and labor and business leaders agreed that the times demand an aggressive program to fuel our economic recovery and growth, both in the short- and long-term.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage opened the conference by noting that the need for substantial, strategic and sustained public investments is rapidly increasing as economic conditions worsen.

“Our challenge is not finding the money,” said Borosage. “Our challenge is finding the political will to respond boldly to the economic crises before us. We will not have a moment like this again in our lifetimes. In the deepening recession, the first task is to put people back to work by rebuilding America. In the long term, we need a sustained expansion of public investment in our future.”

Conference participants included Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Progressive Caucus co-chairs Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. They discussed new strategies for public investments from modern infrastructure and new energy to lifelong education, laying out ways to finance sustained economic growth.

Rep. DeLauro said we need to get our economy back on track with a new approach of investing in large infrastructure projects.

“We need a solution that moves beyond left or right,” said Rep. DeLauro. “We need a solution that creates jobs and strengthens our economy with significant and substantial resources in our infrastructure. We have the moment and the will now for a national program."

Rep. Woolsey agreed with Rep. DeLauro, noting that our collapsing infrastructure needs immediate attention.

“The most important need is our crumbing infrastructure,” said Rep. Woolsey. “We must invest in our public infrastructure. We must do it once and for all. It will take the leadership of the federal government and the partnership of our businesses.”

Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also called for a strong and competitive public infrastructure.

“Business and labor will fight about many issues in the years ahead, but one place where we’re on the same page in investing in infrastructure,” said Kavinoky. “We’re falling behind to maintain what we need to do on public investment. We’re driving investment to the top of our agenda.”

In his keynote address at the conference, University of Texas professor and economist James Galbraith called for a national infrastructure investment fund for capital projects.

“Building capital assets and infrastructure shouldn’t be subject to pay-go,” said Galbraith. “A revolving fund could be on the president’s desk on day one to move large scale public investment projects and rebuild America. With a new fund, states wouldn’t have to cut services, eliminate police officers or fire fighters or close parks.”

The Campaign for America’s Future report, “The Investment Deficit in America,” outlines deficiencies in transportation, energy, Internet and education projects where public investments are needed the most. The total long-term investments discussed in the report would cost about $2.5 trillion over the next several years. If instituted, these investments would pay dividends over time. They’d create good jobs that stay in America and construct infrastructure that would never leave. The investment would help hire teachers, train engineers and strengthen our workforce.

# # #

**NOTE: To view a video of today’s conference and PowerPoint presentations or to obtain an electronic copy of the Campaign for America’s Future report, please visit http://institute.ourfuture.org/investinamerica.**

POST-ELECTION POLL: PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY PROVIDES MANDATE FOR BOLD CHANGE

Jennifer Ettinger — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:02:45 -0500

WASHINGTON – The 2008 elections saw the consolidation of a progressive majority providing a clear mandate for bold change, according to an extensive post-election poll released today by the Campaign for America’s Future and Democracy Corps. The poll shows that President-elect Obama and the new Democratic majorities in Congress have broad support for bringing the Iraq war to an end, revitalizing the economy and moving on health care and energy.

The poll, conducted on Election Day and Wednesday, surveyed 2,000 voters and drew on a decade of previous surveys. Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage joined Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg at the National Press Club today to discuss the results.

Borosage said President-elect Obama’s victory spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea change election, marking the end of a conservative era.

“The consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform makes this a sea change election,” said Borosage. “Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, isolated, regional party, increasingly in the grip of its dwindling base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.”

Greenberg said voters want to give the new president some space to carry out needed reforms.

“They want to give their new president a honeymoon to make big changes, with a new politics, and without overreaching,” said Greenberg. “In a second wave election in a row, progressive winds are shaping the country.”

# # #

**NOTE: Post-election poll materials and a statement by Robert Borosage is available at http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2008114507/change-election-2008.**

PROGRESSIVE MANDATE IN A SEA-CHANGE ELECTION
Prepared remarks of Robert Borosage, Co-Director, Campaign for America’s Future

Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea-change election. It marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics since 1980, and the beginning of a new era of progressive reform, driven by an emerging progressive majority.

The scope of the victory itself reflects the desire for change. Obama’s historic and unlikely candidacy won a majority of the vote, the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to accomplish that. Democrats in the House and the Senate gained seats in back-to-back elections for the first time since the Great Depression.

The repudiation of George Bush and the Republican Congress and the conservatism they championed is clear.
But what marks this as a sea change election is the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform for Obama and Democrats. Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, monochromatic, largely regional party, increasingly in the grip of its evangelical base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

The Emerging Progressive Majority

With voters overwhelmingly looking for change, Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 virtually across the electorate, with the exception of the older white voters. He narrowed the margin in rural areas significantly; he did better among white men; he made gains among professionals; he consolidated support in the suburbs and exurbs. But what is striking about this election is his ability to consolidate an emerging strong majority coalition.

Young voters – 18 to 29 – represented about 18 percent of the electorate and supported Obama better than two to one. This is the third straight election in which this new generation has voted for Democrats in large numbers. And in this election, they can rightfully lay claim to having propelled the Obama candidacy from the start, playing an instrumental role in his victory in the primaries.

African-American voters came out in great numbers – representing 13 percent of an expanded electorate – and voted, needless to say, overwhelmingly for Obama. Latinos, the votes that some said he might not be able to win, constituted 10 percent of the electorate and voted two to one for Obama. Single women voted 70 to 30 Obama. Union households constituted almost one in five voters, and voted 65 to35 percent for Obama. And Obama, as his predecessors, consolidated support among professional Americans with advanced degrees, by 60 to 39.

The Emerging Progressive Movement

This majority is propelled by a progressive movement of increasing capacity and sophistication. This election represented the largest mobilization of that capacity. Obama, of course, ran a truly remarkable campaign, rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He set new ground in using the Web to build a community of volunteers and activists, to raise money, to communicate to voters. He devoted more resources to a ground operation. That built upon work done by Moveon.org, by the vibrant progressive blogosphere, by the Dean campaign four years previously.

He also benefited from growing capacity of progressives on the ground. Labor and Working America were on the front line of the debate with working people, and delivered, particularly in key battleground states. Women’s Voices Women Vote expanded its capacity to register and mobilize single women. America Votes helped coordinate an expanded effort by citizen groups on the ground. The Obama campaign, aided by groups like Acorn, expanded voter registration efforts, particularly among the young and in African American communities.

Our poll shows the result. Voters -- particularly independent voters -- report greater contacts from the Obama campaign in every area of campaigning -- more ads on TV, more contacts by volunteers, more ads on lie, more people at the door, more emails, more cell calls. Only in the area of mail was McCain competitive. Even in the contacts of the last days—the vaunted area of the Republican 72 hour plan—the Obama campaign and its allies were far more effective.

The Mandate for Progressive Reform

Not surprisingly, the economy was the overwhelming priority of voters. Nothing else really came close. The argument about the economy – about what Obama described as the “failed philosophy” of trickle-down economics, or what McCain described as a choice between economic growth and socialist redistribution – was the center of the debate between these candidates.

Obama’s agenda was grounded on issues that were championed by progressives: Investment in new energy and conservation as a jobs and growth agenda. Affordable health care for all paid for by raising taxes on the affluent. Investment in education and infrastructure. Empowering workers to organize through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Holding corporations and banks more accountable. Ending the war in Iraq. Promising no more NAFTA-type trade agreements, and to repeal tax breaks for companies moving jobs abroad.

McCain largely defended the verities of Reagan era conservatism, founding his campaign on more tax cuts, on freezing spending and stopping earmarks, and continuing corporate trade policies. His health care plan featured a tax credit for those negotiating their own plan. He favored Bush’s privatization of Social Security. He began the election committed to less regulation, but adjusted as the unregulated shadow banking system collapsed. The maverick stayed true to the core of the conservative agenda.

Obama won by large margins over McCain on every economic issue. On the economy generally, 51-38. On education, health care, the financial crisis, the energy crisis, Medicare and Social Security. He even won the debate about taxes 51-42.

When asked why they voted for Obama, the leading reasons were his proposals for withdrawing troops from Iraq, cutting middle class taxes first, providing affordable health care, and his commitment to invest in education and make college more affordable. When those who voted for Obama were asked about their doubts about McCain, picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin led the list, but fear that he would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations came in second, followed by the notion that he would continue Bush’s policies.

For voters, Obama should give greatest attention to reducing unemployment and getting the economy moving. That is followed by investing in alternative energy and getting us off foreign oil and changing the health care system. Given a choice on priorities, ending the war in Iraq, ending dependence on foreign oil, fixing health insurance, regulating the banking system all ranked high.

In this the divide between independents and Republicans was clear. Independents gave Obama double-digit margins over McCain on the economy, education, health care. They have him a margin of 9 percent on taxes Only on government spending, Iraq and national security, did they favor McCain over Obama. Self-described moderates also favored Obama by double digits in economic issues. They sided with McCain only on national security.

This mandate was true down the ballot as well as on the top. Bernie Horn and Alex Carter of the Campaign for America’s Future completed a report – Congressional Elections Deliver a Progressive Mandate – looking at Democrats who won House or Senate seats previously held by Republicans. This report is available on our web site at www.ourfuture.org

We measured their position on six core progressive economic issues:

• Social contract: support for quality health care for all, as opposed to the McCain type plan
• Progressive taxation: support for raising taxes on the rich and tax breaks for the middle class
• Fair trade: Opposition to NAFTA-style agreements
• Investment: Focus on investing in clean energy sources over “drill baby drill”
• Worker Empowerment: support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which business spent $20 million attacking in this election
• Social Security: Opposition to the privatization of Social Security.

Of the 25 Democrats that won U.S. House seats previously held by Republicans, 15 campaigns on all six of these issues; another 8 supported the progressive posture on five of six. Of the six Democrats who have thusfar won US Senate seats held by Republicans, 5 supported the progressive position on all six issues; the other supported five of six.

Candidates up and down the ticket campaigned and won on a progressive agenda.

A Center-Left Nation

After the election, we’ve heard a repeated mantra about how this is basically a center-right nation. Obama is warned to curb his agenda. He’s warned not to succumb to pressure from the liberal wing of the party. Conservatives and Republicans take solace in the notion that by a return to conservative principles will help win back a majority.
After this election, there is no greater testament to the triumph of conventional myths over reality.

It is true that by addition, one can argue this is a center-right nation. There are more self-described conservatives than liberals. Add them to moderates and you get a center-right majority by simply addition.

But that addition disappears with any analysis about attitudes. The reality is that on basic values, on core ideological choices, on core issue debates, this is increasingly a center-left nation. And Republicans are increasingly isolated from the majority of Americans.

Worried about trade accords not protecting workers or the environment enough or about putting too much of a burden on trade? Democrats say protect by 37, Independents by 31 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20. Liberals worry about worker protections by 56; moderates by 8. Conservatives go the other way by 4.

Should gays be accepted or should their relationships be discouraged? Democrats say accepted by a 50 percent margin; Independents by 23 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20 percent. Liberals accept by 65 percent; moderates by 32 percent; conservatives discourage by 32 percent.

Does government regulation do more good than harm? Democrats say more good by 53 percent; independents by 12 percent. Republicans say more harm than good by 23 percent. Again conservatives are isolated from liberals and moderates on the issue.

Are you more worried that Obama will put minorities first or that McCain will put the rich and big corporations first? Democrats, not surprising worry about McCain and the rich by 51 percent. But so do independents by 28. Republicans worry about Obama and minorities by 35 percent. Liberals worry about McCain by 61 percent; moderates by 23 percent; conservatives the other way by 16 percent.

There is only one area—and it is a critical one—where independents and moderates still side with conservatives. That is on government spending. Clearly, years of conservative misrule have made people skeptical of the ability of government to act effectively. That will surely be where Republicans try to reassert themselves in the coming days. But the test on that will not really be about spending – it will be about effectiveness. The challenge – and it is a monumental one – is reviving the government to work effectively once more. That isn't a contradiction to the progressive project; it is at the center of it.

This has clear implications for the debate going forward. Republicans will find that their conservative base is increasingly out of step with a growing majority of Americans.

So for example, we asked voters if Republicans should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his policies, or, since his policies will lead us “down the wrong path,” Republicans should oppose them. By nearly three to one – 71 to 24 – voters thought they should support Obama’s policies. They’ve elected him to change things and they want that mandate respected. Independents agreed by a nearly 40 percent margin. Republicans by 40-33 said Republicans should oppose.

We asked people should Obama try to reach across the aisle to gain Republican support for his agenda, or should he compromise his agenda to gain Republican support. Voters chose 54 to 39 that he should try to bring Republicans to his agenda, not compromise it. Independents agreed 48-43. Republicans thought he should change his plans by 63-31.

Our poll asked: did Republicans lose because they were too conservative or not conservative enough? By a twenty point margin, voters chose too conservative. Independents agreed by a 21 point margin. Republicans disagreed by an 11 point margin Moderates when with liberals as too conservative by 41 percent.

The Progressive Mandate

Obama and the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate inherit the desert – an economy plummeting into recession, two wars, and an increasingly dysfunctional government. They have a clear mandate for bold change – for bringing the Iraq war to an end, for getting the economy moving, for reforming health care, on energy, on holding corporations and banks accountable, on progressive tax reform.

They face a public clearly skeptical, after years of conservative misrule, about the capacity of Washington to get anything done. That will be our test. If progressives succeed in providing Americans with at least some of the change that they so desperately need, a new and potentially enduring majority for progressive reform is there to consolidate.

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS DELIVER A PROGRESSIVE MANDATE

Toby Chaudhuri — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON – Twenty-six out of the 29 Democratic candidates who won seats previously held by Republicans in the House and Senate championed bold progressive economic positions, according to a new report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future. The report shows that these progressive candidates’ victories represent a swing to the left of 34 votes in the House and 10 in the Senate, reflecting a clear mandate for progressive change.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., newly elected Rep.-Elect Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, and AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman joined Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage on a conference call with reporters today to discuss the report’s findings.

“This was not simply a change election. It was a sea-change election that marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics over the past three decades.” said Borosage. “Democrats won because they campaigned as progressives, not as moderates or conservatives. On core economic issues, voters gave these legislators a mandate for reform.”

Sen. Brown said candidates that won last night were unified around a common set of bold progressive themes.

“This election ushered in the next progressive era for our nation,” said Sen. Brown. “From health care to trade to education, progressive values will now be the priority in Washington. It’s time to get to work.”

Rep. Edwards, who easily won re-election last night, campaigned with several candidates in close races across the country. Rep. Edwards said the candidates she campaigned with embraced bold progressive positions on every major economic issue.

“Candidates across the country ran and won on a bold progressive agenda,” said Edwards. “Now our challenge is to govern on the progressive agenda – including smart investment in jobs, in infrastructure, in health care and energy, and bringing a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq. It’s an exciting time and I am confident that we will be able to set priorities to deliver the bold solutions Americans expect.”

Rep.-Elect Pingree, who became the first woman to represent Maine’s first Congressional District after leading Republican Charlie Summers in late results, said voters in her district were yearning for bold progressive change.

“This is day one of the change that we so desperately need in this country,” said Rep.-Elect Pingree.

To distinguish progressive candidates from conservatives and moderates, the CAF report compared the positions of the candidates on six major economic issues, including health care, workers’ rights, tax policy, trade, Social Security and clean energy. Out of the 29 Democrats who won House and Senate seats previously held by Republicans, 21 House candidates and 5 Senate candidates supported the progressive position on at least five out of the six issues. Only three of the winning candidates chose to run on a more conservative platform.

# # #

**NOTE: An electronic copy of the post-election report is available at www.ourfuture.org/progressive-mandate-2008.**

PROGRESSIVE ISSUE POSITIONS OF DEMOCRATS WHO WON
SEATS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY REPUBLICANS

--Sen.-Elect Mark Udall, D-Colo.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Tom Udall, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Kay Hagan, D-N.C.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Mark Warner, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Bobby Bright, D-Ala.: trade, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Betsy Markey, D-Colo.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Jim Hines, D-Conn.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Alan Grayson, D-Fla.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes,
--Rep.-Elect Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Walt Minnick, D-Idaho: health care, trade, energy, worker rights,
--Rep.-Elect Debbie Halvorson, D-Ill.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Frank Kratovil, D-Md.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Mark Schauer, D-Mich.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Gary Peters, D-Mich.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Dina Titus, D-Nev.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect John Adler, D-N.J.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Harry Teague, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Michael McMahon, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Eric Massa, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Larry Kissell, D-N.C.: trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect John Boccieri, D-Ohio: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Glenn Nye, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Gerry Connolly, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Senate candidate Al Franken, D-Minn.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.

NEW AD ASKS AMERICANS TO REMEMBER WHO WE ARE, DEFINE OUR OWN LEGACY

Jennifer Ettinger — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:57:12 -0400

WASHINGTON – With the American economy sinking and the global downturn deepening, a new ad today’s New York Times proclaims an emerging era of progressive reform. It calls on Americans to remember the legacy of previous generations who rose above the Great Depression. The ad, sponsored by the Institute for America’s Future features an image that merges that generation with the new and says, “Remember Who We Are.”

The ad is the sixth and final in a series sponsored by the Institute for America’s Future that encourages Americans to demand a real debate focused on major crises facing the nation.

Institute for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said our job as Americans is clear, if we’re to define our own legacy.

“We need bold reforms, big enough to address the problems we face. We have to choose new leaders and then hold them accountable to the promises that have been made, and the agenda that the country needs.”

Those who say that, despite the catastrophes, despite the election, this is still a conservative country, simply don’t get it. “It is not enough,” Borosage said, “to kick start the economy, bail out Wall Street and return to business as usual. We need a dramatic change of course. New public investment in energy and conservation and infrastructureto generate jobs here and now. Affordable health care for all. An end to the war in Iraq. Revival of our global reputation and alliances. A new national strategy in a global economy that works for working people. Empower workers and hold banks and corporations accountable. Investment in education from pre-K to affordable college. Call Americans to public service, asserting the common good over the private interest.

We have this in us, because the new majority today are the children and grandchildren of the generation that faced the Great Depression, and responded with bold and persistent experimentation. They empowered workers and held banks accountable. They built America to provide jobs. They empowered workers to organize. They established Social Security. Now, once more, we face an economic crisis at the end of a failed conservative era. Once more we need an era of bold and persistent reform. And now is the time to act.

The Institute for America’s Future is urging people to bring the ads with them to public meetings, church groups and civic associations – and to discuss them on the internet – building the growing citizen demand a debate on real issues, not personal attacks or irrelevant smears.

Other ads in the series outlined how the American dream is slipping out of reach for more and more families; targeted corrupt robber barons behind the Wall Street meltdown; looked at our spending priorities with the nation mired in massive military expenditures; addressed the imbalance in our trade relationships with countries across the globe; and examined the fragile state of the health care system.

The full text of this week’s ad follows:

Remember Who We Are
#6 in a series
A Debate Worthy of a Great Nation in Trouble

We are the children and grandchildren of the people who confronted the Great Depression, and beat it.

When we look back at what our parents and grandparents did in a dozen short years, it takes our breath away.

They brought big business to public account. They empowered government to address the needs of working people. They organized labor unions. They created Social Security. They rebuilt the nation’s public infrastructure. They vastly expanded the numbers of the “we” in “We the People.” Then they fought and defeated fascism, making much of the world more democratic and free.

And they came to understand, as their president said, “There is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.” It is founded on jobs for all who can work, security for all who need it, freedom and opportunity for all to enjoy the fruits of scientific progress.

But now after three decades of conservative misrule it’s as if those principles were mysteries after all. We’ve got in the habit of letting public good be subordinated to corporate greed. We’ve let our economy be run into the ground. We’ve let bankers practice larceny on a catastrophic scale. We’ve let labor unions be attacked and our entire middle class be trampled. We’ve let religion and patriotism be harnessed to the pursuit of power.

And we have barely survived an ignorant presidency marked by an illegal war in Iraq, an icy indifference after Katrina, a brazen attack on our liberties and a bald complicity in torture.

Still the democratic impulse that our parents and grandparents handed down to us is alive. It tells us what we must do: We can choose new leaders and hold them accountable. We can take on the big lobbies and the small minds that stand in the way of progress. We can restore our civil liberties and respect for human rights; enact universal health care; protect a worker’s right to organize; invest in renewable energy; end the endless wars; regain America’s standing in the world as a model of freedom.

And we can build a new prosperity, from the bottom up.

That is the “true patriotism” President Roosevelt urged upon our parents and grandparents.

We know what must be done. The time to do it is now.

INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
For more go to www.ourfuture.org

# # #

MAJOR PROGRESSIVE AND LABOR LEADERS DEMAND CONDITIONS FOR DRASTIC FINANCIAL BAILOUT

Toby Chaudhuri — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON – Major progressive, labor and consumer rights leaders joined forces today to demand important corrections to the Bush administration’s financial rescue proposal despite warnings from the administration’s top economists who got us into this mess.

The groups, representing more than 20 million Americans, sent a letter to members of Congress today urging them to require basic conditions before agreeing to any financial bailout request. The groups also announced that hundreds of events will be held across the country on Thursday to demand conditions on the bailout.

With a groundswell of opposition forming around the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout request, Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said Congress must not write President Bush a blank check for $700 billion without conditions.

“The financial crisis won’t go away on its own and doing nothing is not an option. Neither is writing a blank check for $700 billion to the same folks who got us into this mess, especially without a clear system of oversight and accountability.” said Borosage. “This is common sense. If American taxpayers are asked to bail out the financial industry, at the very least, we deserve to know how our hard-earned money will be spent.”

Representatives from top progressive and labor groups-- including the Campaign for America’s Future, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, AFT, NEA, ACORN, Alliance for Justice, Center for American Progress and Center for Community Change -- met at an emergency closed-door meeting yesterday to develop a statement of principles for bailing the American economy out of its financial woes.

The statement urges Congress to insist on public oversight and transparency, taxpayer protections and equity, regulations to ensure this doesn’t happen again, major public investments to support the economy, increased accountability for executives and directors and aid for homeowners who were misled by predatory lenders.

More than 35 leaders signed the statement, including Borosage, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, SEIU president Andy Stern, AFSCME president Gerald McEntee, United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard, ACORN president Maude Hurd, Center for American Progress president John Podesta, Center for Community Change president Deepak Bhargava and USAction president William McNary.

# # #<

TEXT OF LETTER
DEMANDING BAILOUT CONDITIONS

A Call for Common Sense

Every man, woman, and child in America is now being told to ante up $2,000 – an estimated $700 billion in all – to bail out Wall Street’s recklessness, or the very people who created this crisis are telling us that they will bring down our entire economy.

The Treasury Department’s proposal that the Secretary be given essentially unlimited authority to spend $700 billion to bail out any financial institution across the world is irresponsible and unacceptable.

We urge the Congress to insist on some basic conditions for any bailout.

Public Oversight. This kind of power can never be centralized in a single individual – much less one who did not even stand for election. Any funds must be controlled by an independent entity, with consumers and workers given seats on its board. Congress should be empowered to name independent monitors and to approve all board members.

Protect the Taxpayer. The Treasury bill would have taxpayers buying paper that nobody else wants at prices far above its current value. If a firm wants to auction off its toxic paper to the US Government, taxpayers should get equity in that firm equal to any amount paid in excess of the paper’s value. This will deter profitable firms from using the government as a dumpster for their toxic paper. And it will insure that if the bailout works and the firms become profitable, taxpayers, not simply bankers, benefit from the upside.

Curb the casino. This crisis was caused because sensible regulations of the banking system that worked for dozens of years were dismantled or went unenforced. No bailout can go forward without requiring the necessary regulation to insure this does not happen again. Any institution, which receives assistance, should agree to come under a microscope going forward in terms of disclosure requirements, and it should have stringent capital requirement imposed upon it.

Invest in the real economy. Ending the bankers strike is not sufficient enough to avoid the recession into which we have been driven. Major public investment in new energy and conservation, rebuilding schools and infrastructure, extending unemployment and food stamps, helping states avoid crippling cuts in police and health services – is vital to get the real economy moving and put people back to work. No bailout should proceed without being linked to support for a major public investment plan to get the economy going.

Hold CEOs and Boards of Directors Accountable. Wall Street CEOs shouldn’t be pocketing millions while taxpayers are forced to bail them out. Any firm that applies for relief must agree to cancel all stock option programs and CEOs should have stringent limits placed on their compensation until the Company has repaid all taxpayer assistance.

Aid the victims, not just the predators. Both bankers and home owners made foolish bets that home prices would keep rising. Many homeowners, however, were misled by predatory lenders into taking mortgages that they didn’t understand and couldn’t afford. It would be simply obscene to help the predators and not those that they preyed upon. No bail out of the banks should take place without measures to help people in trouble stay in their homes. Explicit provisions should ensure use of the full array of financial and legal tools available to the government to stop foreclosures and restructure home mortgage loans for ordinary Americans, including amending the bankruptcy code to allow judges to modify mortgages. Where workouts are not feasible, people should be allowed to stay in their homes as renters.

--Robert Borosage, co-director, Campaign for America’s Future
--John Sweeney, president, AFL-CIO
--Andy Stern, president, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
--Gerald McEntee, president, Am. Fed. of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
--Randi Weingarten, president, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
--Larry Cohen, president, Communications Workers of America (CWA)
--Dennis Van Roekel, president, National Education Association (NEA)
--Leo Gerard, president, United Steelworkers (USW)
--Maude Hurd, national president, ACORN
--Nan Aron, president, Alliance for Justice
--Amy Issacs, national director, Americans for Democratic Action
--Kevin Zeese, executive director, Campaign for Fresh Air & Clean Politics
--John Podesta, president, Center for American Progress Action Fund
--Deepak Bhargava, president, Center for Community Change
--Deborah Weinstein, executive director, Coalition for Human Needs
--Donald Mathis, president, Community Action Partnership
--Jane Hamsher, firedoglake.com
--James D. Weill, president, Food Research & Action Center (FRAC)
--Brent Blackwelder, president, Friends of the Earth
--John Cavanagh, director, Institute for Policy Studies
--Sarita Gupta, executive director, Jobs with Justice
--Wade Henderson, president, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
--Carissa Picard, esq., president, Military Spouses for Change
--Sally Greenberg, executive director, National Consumers League
--Christine L. Owens, executive director, National Employment Law Project
--Gary Bass, executive director, OMB Watch
--Adam Lioz, program director, Progressive Future
--Joanne Carter, executive director, RESULTS
--William McNary, president, USAction
--Paula Brantner, executive director, Workplace Fairness
--Dan Cantor, executive director, Working Families Party
--Mark Lotwis, executive director, 21st Century Democrats

NEW AD QUESTIONS FINANCIAL BAILOUT WITHOUT CONDITIONS

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON – With people across the country calling for greater oversight of the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial markets, a new ad in The New York Times and on several blogs today asks pointed questions that need to be answered before Congress hands the administration massive amounts of taxpayer money and unlimited power.

The ad features an extortion note with cut-out letters that read, “Give us $85 billion or the economy gets whacked.” The ad goes on to expose the latest reality in the financial crises: “It turns out that last week’s emergency bailout of once-mighty AIG was chump change. Now Wall Street is extorting another $700 billion from the taxpayers to cover their losses.”

The ad, called “Banksters Run Amok,” is the second in a seven-part ad campaign series sponsored by the Institute for America’s Future that encourages Americans to demand a real debate focused on “seven national crises that won’t wait.” This week’s ad focuses on the Bush administration’s “fast track” proposals in response to the possible meltdown of the U.S. financial system triggered by the mortgage crisis.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said that the real heist occurred decades ago when conservatives in power deregulated the financial system.

“Americans deserve a full accounting of how we got into this financial mess,” said Borosage. “Conservatives destroyed commonsense rules of the road allowing financiers to make billions playing with our system. These huge sums spent to cover bad bets could’ve been used to make America better.”

The ad raises three basic concerns surrounding the bailout. It points to the need for oversight in return for rescuing the banks. It also raises questions about the corruptive influence of Wall Street money on our politicians and justification for bailing out bankers rather than spending valuable taxpayer dollars on helping average Americans who need it most.

Each ad in the series seeks to provoke widespread discussion of major challenges facing the country. Leaders of the Institute are urging people to take the ads to public meetings, church groups and civic associations – to demand the debate the country needs.

The first ad outlined how the American dream is slipping out of reach for more and more families. Other ads in the series will focus on our soaring global debt, broken health care system, collapsing public infrastructure, the looming global warming challenge, increasing robber baron corruption and the seemingly endless occupation of Iraq and the war on terror.

The full text of this week’s ad follows:

BANKSTERS RUN AMOK
>#2 In A Series
A Debate Worthy of a Great Nation in Trouble

“Give us $85 billion of the economy gets whacked.”

It turns out that last week’s emergency bailout of once-mighty AIG was chump change. Now Wall Street is extorting another $700 billion from the taxpayers to cover their losses.

And like AIG, Bear, Fannie and Freddie, their brink of disaster plea is conveyed to the Feds as a dire threat, almost a ransom note: “Save us or we’ll take everyone down with us! We’re too big to fail!

These huge sums spent to cover bad bets could have been used to make America better—fix a broken health care system, end our addiction to oil, rebuild a country that’s falling apart. Instead we’re forced to bail out the banks to keep a credit meltdown from laying waste to the real economy.

Finance is too important to be left to the bankers. Our grandfathers learned that lesson in the Great Depression. But over the last thirty years Wall Street money and market fundamentalism took over Washington, disarming the cop on the financial beat. Now we’re paying the price for that folly.

3 Basic questions for the debate

What serious regulation of Wall Street banking practices must we demand in return for rescuing the banks?

Wall Street is a monster donor to both major parties. How can we trust any promise to crack down on these miscreants from politicians who compete for their contributions?

Rather than just bailing out bankers, shouldn’t we be helping the folks they victimized – freezing home foreclosures, renegotiating mortgages, reviving usury laws to cap predatory interest rates, investing public money in the real economy and putting people to work?

INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
>for more go to www.ourfuture.org

# # #

**NOTE: To obtain an electronic copy of the “Banksters Run Amok” ad, background information and additional resources, please visit www.ourfuture.org.**