Once again–sigh–what this financial mess shows is how the progressive movement is disorganized, incoherent and fragmented. The bankers are pretty clear what they want. The public has been heard loudly that it rejects the Paulson bailout for bankers. But, progressives? I think I’ve seen at least half a dozen different "THIS IS THE SOLUTION" suggestions coming in via e-mail and a few more floating around out there on the Internet (that apparently has become the only mass mobilization arena for some progressives).

   Part of that is pure ego and organizational survival–the idea that "our organization" has to have its proposal out there, partly to show our funders that we are worthy of their support. But most of this has to do with lack of leadership and coherence–and, so, we will get a whole bunch of paper floating around and it won’t have the effect it should have–that is, capturing the anger bursting at the seams throughout the country and converting that anger into a long-term, sustained movement to defeat Market Fundamentalism–one that we will need no matter who is president after January 2009.

   I’m struck by how relatively narrow the proposals are. Most focus solely on narrow parameters of reacting to the bailout of bankers. That is, they inject some progressive elements, or at least reject the worst parts of the original Paulson plan, to make it more palatable but they do not demand a much broader vision of the economic crisis, and, thus,  a demand that more be done as part of laying out a massive amount of money. I suggested yesterday some ideas but, c’mon, where is the creativity? Don’t just think in the box you are told to think in.

   Change To Win has a broader vision here–I like its focus on health care, retirement and a fair tax system. But, it’s not clear what CTW has done to, for example, reach out to the AFL-CIO to forge a joint agenda and try to stoke public support for the vision.

   The Progressive Caucus in the House put together a package–but it’s not even on their website so you’d have to go the SEIU site to see the principals. Again, I don’t understand why the Caucus is so narrowly defining the "economic crisis" as limited to reacting to the Paulson plan; the plan seems to, at least in the version posted at SEIU, have even dropped Rep. Peter DeFazio’s proposal for a tiny stock transactions tax, a good idea that should be a no-brainer and a way to raise $150 billion. It’s a failure of imagination.

   When one of the most chattered about "improvements" to the bailout for bankers bill is raising the insurance limit for depositers from $100,000 to $250,000 (which, on its own, is not a bad thing), an idea incorporated as one of the five points of the Progressive Caucus’ plan–supported by both Barack Obama (who has shown zero leadership on this issue and, in fact, was effectively supporting the basic premise of the bailout) and John McCain–you go reach for your shot glass, and shake your head in sadness and amazement.

   C’mon, folks, you have a seething public out there. Take advantage of it.

   I got a bunch of emails from yesterday’s post about some broader ideas. Here was one:

How about the government forcing a moratorium on credit card interest rates?  I, like many, have huge credit card debt not because we squandered the money on vacations, restaurants and upscale purchases but because the roof had to get fixed, the tuition was due, lose of job, etc.

 

I always pay more than the minimum due on my credit cards but half of the amount is usually eaten away by interest charges.  Let me have three years without interest charges and I can wipe out my debt and can actually save some money for a change instead of making the credit card companies richer.

 

   I don’t know if you could win that but…why not raise the point? Banks are going to get relief so why not regular people?