189 Comments
User's avatar
Michael Rasey's avatar

I don’t see tax reform on here but maybe I missed it. If not we need to reform the tax system and heavily tax the rich. We need reform and rules against the existence of billionaires with a limit to how much wealth is allowed. Too much money is antithetical to democracy. The tax money from corporations/billionaires/etc will fund social programs.

Expand full comment
Karen Ashikeh LaMantia's avatar

Tax reform is NOW by the stopping of payment of Taxes. It is in progress. It can be done by stopping Federal Withholding Tax from every paycheck. This is completely legal that will allow you to have your money, yourself. If you owe taxes, you have a choice to pay or not. If you do not owe taxes, no need to wait for a "refund" you have your money, already and can invest it in property, in what you need for your best welfare. STOP giving your money to be used for wars here or abroad without any say in it. Contact your HR department for a simple form you fill out. to withdraw from Federal Withholding taxes ( you can still pay State taxes to support where you live, if you wish)

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

While I agree with this premise, the fact is federal taxes do not fund fedeal spending. This is the biggest "conspiracy" lie that we've all been sold. Early Americans had a much better understanding of the benefits and power of a fiat currency--but that has been intentionally obscured for the last 100 or so years. Ask yourself, who benefits if we are made to believe taxes fund federal spending? Hint: it's not the 99%! A good primer on this subject is the work of former congressional economist, Stephanie Kelton, and her book, "The Deficit Myth."

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

Money is NOT antithetical to democracy. But the inherently undemocratic system of capitalism that concentrates wealth is antithetical to democracy. It is capitalism that must be ripped out at the root. If we are to survive as a species we must convert to a worker-owned economy.

Expand full comment
John C's avatar

all good—just workshop another name. tacking “new” to something from the 90s is counterproductive and isn’t gonna catch. need something as stupid/provocative/‘catchy’ as maga, that would resonate with folks from the left to the right. something like “Save America (Again)” but better, with alliteration, and most importantly a touch of humor.

Expand full comment
Scott's avatar

Calling it "Project 2028" is a terrible name because it echoes of "Project 2025".

Call it by the people it's meant to help. "Project 99%" or "Project Restore America's Middle Class".

Expand full comment
Corbin Trent's avatar

Project 99% is cool.

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

I like it too. Not a bad idea to echo the Occupy actions

Expand full comment
Thom Paine's avatar

I've been on the Left for many years and one problem we have is that we have a lot of trouble compromising, even with ourselves. Picking a name that everyone accepts is a major task. That's not as bad as trying to pick a leader. Without a leader that we all get behind is essential. For example, if for nothing else but to show unity, all on the Left in the last few elections should have gotten behind one of the non major party candidates

Expand full comment
Hugh's avatar

I love what you're saying, Corbin. I hope I can convince you to say it this way: Make Life Better. People know Trump sucks, and they know corporate Democrats just suck more quietly. If we're going to offer the alternative, it better be useful, and understandable.

Being "builders" is great. Branding ourselves that way is insufficient. Building is *how* we Make Life Better. But building isn't all we stand for. Making Life Better is. Check it out: Q: What do Democrats stand for? A: Making Life Better. How? By making it more affordable. Holding power accountable. And making democracy work for you again. Hope this helps.

Expand full comment
Corbin Trent's avatar

That’s a good point. Would backers be Better Life Dems? Better Lifers?

Expand full comment
Hugh's avatar
1dEdited

Thanks so much! I'd say "Makers," - which could be nicely juxtaposed against "Takers." As a bonus, we could (very informally) be the "MLB." Being on the side of lower beer prices and getting rid of the zombie runner are actually good, straightforward examples of what we're about.

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

I really hate the idea of continuing the makes/takers ideology. I'd prefer the 99%/1% concept.

Expand full comment
Hugh's avatar

Not only does this new usage flip the script, but it’s actually true - we’re talking about a government that’s interested in physically making things, instead of deciding which people (spoiler alert: not us) get to take things. Plus, the 1% you speak of has taken *$79 trillion* out of our pockets since the 1970s - they’re lucky I don’t call them much worse.

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

I get it. But, I guess I think that's going to be a really tough narrative to flip in most people's minds bc the right literally silent decades crafting it and indoctrinating people.

Expand full comment
Hugh's avatar

And I get that. It’s my belief that turning it back on them would be easier than you might think if it’s tied to literal making-of-things.

Expand full comment
Eric's avatar

"The Good Life party" inspired by the state motto of Nebraska

Expand full comment
Bruce Dickson's avatar

Make Life Better for working families - Love it.

Expand full comment
debra's avatar

Everything you say is true, Corbin, and as I listen to podcasts with new (James Talirico) and old (Gavin Newsome) Democrats saying the same thing you are (hell, Obama was the "Hope and Change" candidate who promised a lot more than he delivered), I wanna know WHO we can believe. Even our gal AOC is being Washingtonized in her refusal to primary Schumer. Whether you intended to or not in writing this Substack, maybe it's YOU! Trump has shown us that trust in a candidate's platform is second to trusing the candidate him or herself. We need someone who will DO what he (or she) promises, and we need a Congress who'll say yes to those promises.

Expand full comment
Corbin Trent's avatar

My eyes are peeled!

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

another thing to consider is laws of political responsibility so a candidate can be removed if he or she goes against what they promised once in office. Of course that depends on holding a lot of political power

Expand full comment
Karen Ashikeh LaMantia's avatar

Look closer at the records of "politicians" like what happened to Bernie. There are some people in Congress, Like Jeff Merkley who have been speaking for the environment, came out against our actions in Gaza, first and are fighting against a system, to focus on what people and Planet need, through the Biden years. Merkley is the author of the system we called the IRA Bill that funded so much of what is needed for greening the USA and began the introduction of private investment money into the Green New deal. This movement does continue on and would have grown further, were it not for Oil and Gas interference, running and ruining our government. It will not die, because it is less cost to expand energy systems with clean energy than with polluting gas and oil. The genie is out of the bottle and there is nothing we can wish for, except someone who does not stop of slow it by illegal, presidential edicts.

Expand full comment
Tom Gruver's avatar

But for AOC to primary Schumer she NEEDS the backing of either the DNC or a vast majority of Dems in the Senate and/or the House. Peloser needs to go NOW! Resign or be humiliated by ignoring her with crap committee assignments

Expand full comment
debra's avatar

Which might be to Corbin's point. Pelosi has been trying to "school' AOC sinc she took office.

Expand full comment
Carl Van Ness's avatar

A better path to the White House for AOC might be to run for governor. AOC in Albany could also provide support to Mamdani. Sadly, though, she doesn’t seem to be running for either position.

Expand full comment
Ed Nuhfer's avatar

You've nailed it. Remember how Newt Gingrich quarterbacked Republicans "Contract with America" to a winning year for these SOB's? Democrats need a similar GOVERNANCE plan with promised deliverables. DEMOCRATS HAVE NO GOVERNANCE PLAN!!!

I suggest Bernie Sanders, JB Pritzger & Jasmine Crockett be in the task force to draft the deliverables. Make it with at least ONE MAJOR deliverable like universal health care, repeal citizens' united, or full restoration of Constitutional Bill of Rights which has been unlawfully restricted, especially by Israel and its efforts to use bribery to restrict Americans' press, free speech and rights to peaceably assemble. Maybe going for firearms regulations similar to Switzerland's that emphasize intense training, supervision, and monitoring and securing of certain weapons in the home without disempowering law-abiding citizens who pose no threat.

Expand full comment
John Schwarzkopf's avatar

Medicare for all should be te first selling point. Show how much the average cost of private insurance is versus the savings with Medicare for all. I think even some trumpers might go for that.

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

I dont want M4A!!! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pushing that!

I want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, not insurance. M4A leaves a place for private insurers bc under Medicare everything has to purchaseca supplement policy. I'd much prefer the British NHS model that we child QUICKLY do by nationalizing all medical facilities and schools under the VA (which already trains 70% of our physicians and nurses!). The VA shuttle be converted to a national health system, and the HMO law signed by Nixson, which allowed the profitization of medicine repealed.

Private education and medicine should completely prohibited bc anything less ensures that 1% have a means to opt out of the systems that the rest of us must use. We've seen how this is then used to crush public education and reroute public dollars to private institutions. We have to end this and we can start by making all medical care and education EXCLUSIVELY public.

Expand full comment
Robert Clyman's avatar

Agreed. A federal, national health care system eliminates the costs associated with processing insurance claims. Medicare for all leaves profit-driven companies like United Health in charge of our care, in which profit is more important than keeping us healthy. These companies have turned health care into factory work , with providers being employees on an assembly line. In public health systems, patient care is the measure of good service, not quarterly profits.

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

YES! YES! YES! Thank you for seeing and acknowledging what I said! So often, responses are just snide or vicious attacks that fail to engage with the substance of the comment. Obviously, that discourages commentary and doesn't promote the visionary thinking that will be necessary to get out of this mess!

Expand full comment
John Schwarzkopf's avatar

Excellent points. I was mainly using M4A as shorthand for universal Healthcare, but you are correct.

Expand full comment
Thom Paine's avatar

A common mistake is that Medicare For All Act would carry the bad points of Medicare. It was a mistake to name the Act with the name "Medicare" in it. Yes Medicare is insufficient in itself but that is not the case with M4A. Yes Medicare does require additional coverage but the M4A Act DOES NOT.

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

They may well be. However, rather than reinvent the wheel, or create an insurance system--even if private insurers have no role--I much prefer a system of universal health care through the expansion of the VA system.

Expand full comment
Ed Nuhfer's avatar

It's a worthy contender for #1 in my book.It is even of collateral benefit to the others I was thinking of above.

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

It's timely as a response to Medicaid cuts - though those don't go into effect until after the midterms. What about focusing on Affordability and let each candidate learn from the voters what is their biggest problem? Mamdani-style. Might be housing, healthcare, education, transportation, food prices

Expand full comment
Michael Baldwin's avatar

I agree with your ideas and policy recommendations and have been saying many of the same things for the last 20 years. These are not new problems. They started with Reagan and have continued with every administration since. We need a progressive tidal wave. It won't happen unless we can convince the people of rural America to vote progressive. We must show them that their interests lie with progressive policies rather than with knee-jerk conservatism.

Expand full comment
George Gantz's avatar

Good start. Do not get distracted. The public trust is broken. The public good has been hollowed out. Blow up the neoliberal fantasy - we need stronger democracy representing the public interest to govern and control not to coddle or cozy up. That means money frozen out of electoral politics - use deliberative (random) panel selections (eg juries) for nominations --- shorter voting cycles --- term limits --- no perks or payola... I trust ordinary citizens more than today's elit politicians....

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

interesting idea for nominations! and then public funding for the election itself. Which like a lot of the structural changes requires a lot of power. Another option is to make advertising and media equally available to all candidates. In the interim, the fact that our candidates take no money from corporations, billionaires and superPACs is a selling point. They must be completely free to legislate according to the PLAN rather than special interests.

Expand full comment
Carl Van Ness's avatar

I agree that this is not an ideological movement nor should it be. In a previous post, I stated that an organization like DSA could launch the movement but it could not be the movement. This movement will unite socialists, progressives, prairie populists, and traditional liberals. (Yes, the last still exist. See Robert Reich for instance.) However, we need to take a page from the Mamdani campaign and maintain our support for identity issues. We can do both. They are not mutually exclusive, although there is a potential for conflict. We can navigate those issues as they arise but we need to politely reject purity tests.

Expand full comment
Terry Bruno's avatar

Absolutely 💯 A direct response to turn this Country Around!! I am very

Impressed with all of your efforts!!! I see many ideas

Out there, they are not Comprehensive!! The sooner this happens the more people will find faith

In what works!! Respect for

What’s really important !!!!!

I will share this, I think its

Amazing! I thank you, 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥♥️

Expand full comment
Corbin Trent's avatar

Please do!

Expand full comment
Robert stilwell's avatar

www.thedemocracycollaborative.com

They've been actualizing a comprehensive plan of reform for several years. The Next System project is close to your ideas.

Expand full comment
Terrence Ross Cowan's avatar

Consider stabilizing social security by the government financial guaranteeing it.

Expand full comment
Heather Haskins's avatar

Everything sounds legit, but there's an element missing. There's a reason that the right spent 4 decades successfully whipping up their base over abortion and gay marriage, and there's a reason they were able to get their base to react emotionally to the very utterance of "DEI" and "Woke"

White male supremacy is so deeply baked in to the fabric of this country that it won't fade as a byproduct of a New Contact for America that replaces Trumpian white male supremacy with an enlightened movement that just happens to be white male dominated/led, where women and minorities are welcome to participate.

White, straight male supremacy is the lifeblood of the right and the motor by which they keep their base going.

This issue has to be dealt with one way or another. I don't have the answer as to what that way looks like, but we can't ignore the Achilles heel of our national culture and hope for the best.

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

Good point Heather. I'm not sure though how to disentangle the racism and sexism from the legitimate resentment from years of being screwed over and looked down on. On one hand, this crap seems to run deep. John Ganz's When The Clock Broke, is a good analysis of the racist roots of MAGA. On the other hand it seems to get way worse when the working class has no future and their present sucks.

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

I completely agree. At least part of what needs to happen, IMHO, is that there must finally be consequences. Nobody in power was prosecuted for treason after the Civil War or J6. Similarly, there were no prosecutions for the Great Depression, Iraq War or 2008 Crisis. This has to change! We must VIGOROUSLY prosecute the current regime including those at the highest levels who went along with, empowered, and planned this over decades!

Then we must institute a program of "denazification," to end not just white supremacy but fundamentalist religions, starting with removing the tax exempt status of churches, and prohibiting private religious education. All education, K-PhD, and medical care must be public.

Completion of a national civics and monetary education program should be required in order vote in national elections, obtain a passport, any kind of federal licensure, to join the military or work for the federal government. Until we have a generation who have a foundational level of education on government and the monetary system, we are in trouble!

Expand full comment
ordaj's avatar

We need to end the two-party system. Too easy to capture. We need to overcome the bottlenecks to progress: The House Speaker decides which bills sees the light of the day. Same with the Senate Majority Leader.

Expand full comment
Bruce Dickson's avatar

Good News for changing the two-party system: https://www.equal.vote/learn

For 11 years, election math nerds have been publishing papers in journals about how STAR and Approval voting-ballot-method is more democratic that either horse-race voting (current system) or Ranked Choice. RCV is favored by those wishing to preserve the status quo duopoly. STAR and Approval are both better for third parties. Get educated :) The funding gap between RCV and STAR is the main barrier now.

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

worth considering for sure!

Expand full comment
Aubergine's avatar

We need to convert to a parliamentary system with a prine minister, not POTUS, ending the entire odea of a unitary executive, and establishing recalls thru no confidence votes and snap elections.

Expand full comment
Mary Anne Kolb's avatar

Great ideas! Let’s get started!

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

I agree!

Expand full comment
Lagardere's avatar

For a popular movement to form, you need a vision for the future, not just empty bellies. After VWII, the US was, despite all the barbarity of its empire, the country of hope for the future of humanity. It has self-destrructed into the country of despair for humanity. It could revert to its former role. A noble goal people thirst for, and desperatly need: both rising, tempratures and nuclear risks of armaggedon. Rather than dominate in adelusional unipolar world, cooperate for humanity's survival.

Expand full comment
Corbin Trent's avatar

Yeah. That’s the idea

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

This is wonderful and could be part of the "vision thing" I talk about in my comment below.

Expand full comment
SUE Speaks's avatar

What can replace the charismatic leader we don't have? My vision sees a need for that inspirational force to be in play, delivering pep talks to humanity. Such things are being delivered, like Pritzker just gave, but none from a commanding source. Could there be some squadron of Champions for Humanity that coordinates somehow to equate to a great leader?

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

worth a try! I like the idea of the message being front and center and the messengers very diverse

Expand full comment
Chris Wells's avatar

and there are some strong leaders emerging. They are new to the game but that might be a good thing. Zohran Mamdani, James Talarico, Graham Platner ...I'm sure there are others!

Expand full comment