With Washington already broken, the last thing we need is a left-wing version of the tea party. But I am worried about where some of the loudest voices in the room could take the Democratic Party.
Rejecting a trade agreement with Asia, expanding entitlement programs that crowd out other priorities and a desire to relitigate the financial crisis are becoming dominant positions among Democrats.
John K. Delaney
May 28, 2015
Written in a Washington Post op-ed by my congressman, these words sparked a particular ire in me. Since when did continuing oversight after a banking failure and enforcing laws that preserve our environment become "left-wing" fringe positions?
The "too big to fail" banks that needed assistance to avoid bankruptcy are bigger than they were, and they have repeated the same risky leveraged debt wagers that got them in trouble before. The left wing of the Democratic party is not trying to relitigate the past, we are trying to avoid repeating the past.
Delaney says we had to let Obama negotiate the Trans-Pacific trade agreement lest his successor draft a worse one. A trade deal that weakens worker protections in any country is not something we should support. A trade deal that gives foreign corporations investor-state status to sue our government and, hence, us, is not a good deal. Putting you and I on the hook for any profits lost when a corporation operating in America has to adhere to our environmental laws, worker protection laws, or even if it is burdened by our government competing for needed resources is about as bad a deal as I can imagine.
Congressman Delaney has proposed that we can tax our way out of the climate change problem, and then he supported a bill that would allow corporations to sue our government and not pay these taxes. It's as if he publicly announces that he's pro environment, and then he winks at his corporate friends.
Congressman Delaney wants to get things done, and for that he should be lauded. But at what cost does compromise come? As I read the words from my congressman's op-ed, I realized that he had crossed the line.
I believe there is a line between compromise, and enabling the opposition. His Infrastructure 2.0 Act offers up as much as a half of a Trillion dollars in income tax amnesty. It could be argued that without tax amnesty, no portion of some $2 Trillion held overseas will get taxed, but it could also be argued that the anticipated repeat of the 2004 tax amnesty is the reason why so much is currently being hidden from the tax man. Making that amnesty permanent would absolutely destroy our nation. It would encourage companies to move to the Bahamas and repatriate the profits to and starve the government of tax revenue. What do you think America would look like after 10 years of that?
Politicians like John Delaney are what cause people to declare that both sides are the same. Politicians today are pro-corporation. They put the needs of the corporations first. They say that whatever is good for the corporation must be good for the people. Tell me is it such a radical notion that the government do things that are directly good for the people? You know, without the middleman?
Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits programs. No Democrat worth his salt uses the word 'entitlements' to refer to them.
It's frustrating seeing the guy I voted for in the office and not doing it right. Last election, Delaney ran unopposed in the primary. The notion has been growing on me that I am not going to be able to throw my support behind the first progressive candidate that comes along because one might not come along. Gradually I've come to the conclusion that if I wanted to see the progressive side represented on the ballot that I would have to step up, and speak out.
THIS IS THE LINE WHERE I WOULD HAVE ANNOUNCED MY CANDIDACY FOR U.S. HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE
But reality interfered. I'm on dialysis. I am in a financially precarious position. MD-06 runs from the beltway to West Virginia. As much as I wanted to do this, as much as I felt compelled to do this, I just can't (this time around).
In my pajamas. From my dad's basement. You got a problem with that?
That would have been my campaign slogan. You know, confront your critics head-on.
But don't let my circumstances curb your enthusiasm. If the first part of my essay got you fired up then I want you to seriously ask yourself, 'Why not me?' There's plenty of time before the 2016 election.
So why not YOU? We all complain about career politicians but then we think that we could never do the job. Or our personal lives are too important to sacrifice for the common good. In our country's earliest days men would literally lay down their plows to serve their communities for a couple of years.
We need people who don't see the job as a stepping stone or a way of furthering their career. We need people who see it as an obligation that they have to meet if they want to continue to run their mouths about their lack of representation.
You can win. Because your ideas will win.
If for nothing else, we need to advertise and promote the progressive caucus of the party. The idea of the progressive caucus is not left-wing, fringe, or centrist. It is to move forward and make progress.
I wanted the Democrats of this district to know the truth when they vote for John Delaney because I don't think they know what they are getting. If your representative is a Republican then I'm sure you know how I feel and even if your representative is a Democrat like mine you still may be able to relate.
If you hear my message then answer my call. Would you run a losing campaign just to get the message out? More importantly, are you prepared to accept the consequences of winning?
Think about it for a minute. Why not you?