Socialist Party USA: 'Response to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union.

Source:The Daily Times 

"The phrase that came to mind immediately upon hearing President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech is “too little, too late.” After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for “economic fairness.” To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich. For working people in America real fairness means the right to a job, a guarantee of healthcare for all and an end to the Military Industrial Complex. Obama won’t deliver this. That’s why I am running for President against him." 

Read the rest at The Independent Political Report 

"President Obama delivers the 2012 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation." 

From The White House

Democratic Socialists and even Socialists who today call themselves Progressives in America (at least since the turn of the 21st Century and back since the Progressive Era in American politics) have been talking about the need for not only democratic socialism in America to make America more like Canada and Europe, for the need for not only big government socialism in America, but for a more centralized Federal Government in America.

Socialists want to move America to Canada and Europe economically and politically: “So we can have a Federal Government big enough to meet the needs of the American people”. To do the things that so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) doesn’t trust the private sector to do. 

Socialists want the national government running things like health care, health insurance, education, infrastructure investment, banking system, pensions, etc. And the need to have the tax revenue and taxes high enough to fund this big government. 

One of the problems that Socialists have had in America is that they haven’t been united, they’ve basically all had the same message. But have been spread across the country in different socialist parties, as well as being in the Democratic Party.

If Social Democrats were to unite in American politics and be unified, they would have one united vision, coming from one Socialist Party. And be able to have the members to at some point depending on how well they build their party, to at some point break the backs of the two-party system in American politics. And take on Democrats and Republicans and even beat them at some point the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (or Democratic Socialist Caucus) in the Democratic Party. Which is basically a political party within a political party.

Social Democrats aren’t Liberal Democrats, believers in liberal democracy. But Social Democrats believers in social democracy as we see in Europe. You start with them, bring fifty or so U.S. Representatives that make up the Progressive Caucus in the House. The 3-5 U.S. Senators in the Senate, bring in the so-called Progressive Party (not Theodore Roosevelt's party) bring in the Democratic Socialists USA, the Green Party, leftist Independents, you would start off the bat with about sixty members of Congress. Perhaps 10-20% of the voting public right off the bat. And a Socialist Party to build on.

What you have now with the social democratic movement in American politics, is that they are spread out over several different political party's. And what happens is that they compete with each other for votes. Instead of competing with Democrats and Republicans for votes and elections. And they end up dividing their own movement. But together into one SocialistParty, they would have the members and votes. To take on Democrats and Republicans in the future.

Buddy Roemer: The Last Word- 'Special Interest Money Controls Washington'

Source:Buddy Roemer- talking to The Last Word, on MSNBC.

"2012 Presidential Candidate. Fair Trade. No Tax Loopholes. No Special Interests. Energy Innovation & Independence. $100 Donation Limit. Buddy Roemer." 

From Buddy Roemer

I like a lot of Buddy Roemer's message when it comes to corruption and limiting special interest influence. The problem is a lot that he wants to accomplish, isn't currently constitutional. It would require a constitutional amendment or amendments to pass a lot of what Governor Roemer wants to do. Because it would get thrown out by the current U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. 

Passing constitutional amendments at this point to pass a lot of these progressive reforms that Buddy Roemer, Dylan Ratigan, whether they are good ideas or not, are at least five to ten years away and that's starting after you get a constitutional amendment out of Congress.

So my approach in all of this have been practical but aggressive: do what we can now that would hold up to constitutional scrutiny. And if that's not enough, try to pass constitutional amendments down the road. And my approach is more of a liberal-libertarian approach, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Yes, I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud of it. 

Has anyone ever asked why we have thousands if not tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lobbyists in Washington? ( To use a Billy the Kid line )  because that's where the money is. So force those people to disclose who they do business with and when and who they contribute too. 

And force all members of Congress and the executive branch to do the same thing within 24 hours of talking to these people and giving or taking their money. In other words: full-disclosure of campaign contributions, campaign and lobbying activity. 

My other reform would be to get a lot of of the money out of the Federal Government. But do it in a way that holds up to constitutional scrutiny. Reduce the size of the Federal Government. It currently has a Federal budget of 3.7T$ by far the largest Federal budget in the world. Pass that money down to the state and local government's and private sector. Especially as it relates to social insurance: turn those programs over to the states and locals. And design them to help and empower the people who need them.

Cut the the defense budget by 200B$ a year or more and pull our troops out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves. And by doing this we would be able to lay off a lot of defense contractors and cut a lot of pork out of the defense budget. And a lot of defense lobbyists as well and reduce the influence the defense industry has on the Federal Government.

Milton Friedman made a documentary movie in 1979-80 called Free to Choose. And in one part of that movie he had a segment about special interest influence in Washington. And one of his solutions had to do with the size of the Federal budget. Back when we were spending 18-19% of GDP instead of today where we are spending 24-25% of GDP.

I like a lot of Buddy Roemer's message about limiting special interests as I already said. But he has a couple of problems. Some of his ideas are currently unconstitutional and he's running for President in the wrong party to get done a lot of what he wants to do. 

If Buddy Roemer runs for the Reform or Independence Party, he might have a better shot at getting his message across. Also if he made his message about fiscal conservatism, limiting the special interest influence on the Federal Government by cutting back on the power of the Federal Government, he would get a lot more play in the media.