Can OWS apply pressure to Congress

[ProSense]

The President delivered several progressive proposals in his SOTU speech. Now it's time for Congress to act. Unless pressure is brought to bear on members of Congress, nothing changes. If Democrats are going to take advantage of the framing the proposals, they need to be held accountable for walking the talk. The President is already on board.

Democrats eager to make Romney poster boy for 'Buffett Rule'

By Michael O'Brien, msnbc.com

Democrats pivoted quickly on Wednesday to make Mitt Romney the poster boy for the "Buffett Rule," the concept announced by President Obama during his State of the Union address that no millionaire should pay less than 30 percent in taxes on their income.

Democrats hope that Romney becomes a prime example of the excesses of the current tax structure. The linkage is meant not just to boost efforts to reform the tax code, but to also tarnish the former Massachusetts governor as a general election candidate by highlighting his wealth, and the restructuring work he did in the private sector to earn it.

<...>

A CBS News poll in December found that 60 percent of U.S. adults favor increasing taxes on households earning more than $1 million to help bridge the budget deficit. Mindful of that, Democrats sought to use a surtax on millionaires to finance a variety of components of the president's jobs bill when they came up for a vote last fall; all failed due to Republican objections.

On the more specific issue of dividend income, a New York Times/CBS News poll released this week found that a majority of Americans favor taxing it the same as income from employment.

- more -

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10235979-democrats-eager-to-make-romney-poster-boy-for-buffett-rule?chromedomain=nbcpolitics

[TheWraith]

1. By voting and stumping for candidates, sure.

There is exactly fuck-all else that's going to pressure the Republicans in Congress and/or the Tea Party types holding them hostage to the threat of a primary challenge. The one and ONLY solution is to ELECT DEMOCRATS.

[ProSense]

2. It

would be impressive if OWS could get Congress to act, think the Clean Air Act. Of course, Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.

Focusing solely on getting a commitment from the President is only part of the solution.

[TheWraith]

3. The problem is, insane people aren't leveraged well.

Particularly when their one and only priority is destroying everything.

[Selatius]

4. That kind of stuff can take several decades of lobbying and protesting to accomplish.

It took how many decades before the civil rights movement finally had many of its grievances addressed in the form of codified law? If you want it done within a few legislative sessions nowadays, you would need a billion dollars for advertising and for donations to candidates who would otherwise rely on sources of money that may be hostile to your own interests.

OWS is a lot of things, but it isn't a wealthy lobbying interest. Big Pharma, health insurance interests, banking interests, arms manufacturers, oil companies, etc. have far bigger guns to bear as far as getting bills passed into law or preventing certain bills from getting into law than OWS. In many cases, they out-gun even the labor unions. OWS' strength isn't anywhere in the legislative sphere, yet. Their strength thus far has been in helping but not entirely deflecting the national dialogue towards a direction that is more critical of entrenched corporate power.

Obama doesn't have the legislative support for any think-big legislative proposals. He can get marginal changes through at the current rate but nothing on the scale of, say, the New Deal or the Great Society or even a Public Option in health care. I'm not even sure he could convince Congress to raise the minimum wage another dollar with the current crop of politicians in Congress.

The polls don't really mean anything unless people actually reject identity politics. When asked in a vacuum questions regarding liberal or conservative approach on a solitary issue by itself such as taxation, the liberal side typically wins. However, when the issue is rolled into the others and framed in the form of broad Democratic vs. Republican proposals, anything with a Democratic label is automatically considered bad in the minds of many voters with modest means who typically don't rely on very heavy research before making a decision with respect to being a voter in a republic and are constantly plagued with memes such as "tax and spend liberal" or "Obamacare" or "welfare queen" or other such stupid nonsense like "job creators."

This is a problem that can't be bridged without much struggle. People who push the corporate narrative through print media, the radio, and corporate news outlets aren't helping people becoming better educated. They tend to want to mislead voters. A testament to that is the stunning number of voters who believed Saddam had a running nuclear weapons program despite what both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC found and reported, and there was little if any critical examination of the the Bush White House's narrative in the corporate press. This kind of poisoned atmosphere of information could easily lead voters one day to enshrine a dictatorship in the mistaken hope of finding a false sense of security.

[ProSense]

5. Basically,

That kind of stuff can take several decades of lobbying and protesting to accomplish...Obama doesn't have the legislative support for any think-big legislative proposals. He can get marginal changes through at the current rate but nothing on the scale of, say, the New Deal or the Great Society or even a Public Option in health care. I'm not even sure he could convince Congress to raise the minimum wage another dollar with the current crop of politicians in Congress.

...I agree with the premise, but using the example of the Clean Air Act, the tax proposal is one thing that an organized effort should be able to push through. With its focus on inequality, broad public support and the fact that it's an election year, OWS (and supporting organizations) should be able to mount a successful effort to get this done.

[T S Justly]

6. Occupy won't carry water for Obama and his "progressive proposals" ...

If that's what you're asking. Lol.

[ProSense]

9. Huh?

"Occupy won't carry water for Obama and his 'progressive proposals'"

I guess you imagine a movement pushing thin air. I mean, you can protest to get nothing done, but I don't think that's a worthwhile goal.

[MineralMan]

12. So, you don't think there are any shared goals?

Really? It's not a matter of "carrying water." It's a matter of getting something done. If Obama and OWS share a goal, then doesn't it make sense for OWS to press Congress to accomplish that goal?

Or are you so opposed to Obama that you can't envision any goals you share with him?

[hack89]

7. Congress cares about money and votes

when OWS can demonstrate that they can deliver either one they will have real influence in Congress.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "Can OWS apply pressure to Congress"

You either bring a bloc of votes or a truck of money or both.

There is no 4th option.

[ProSense]

10. What

"You either bring a bloc of votes or a truck of money or both. There is no 4th option."

...or who is responsible for stopping SOPA? There is no excuse.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. That would be the bloc of votes.

"public outcry" works on the presumption the outcry will turn in to ballots. Imagine the threat to a public official who hears a message that says, "We have X millions of members who absolutely will NOT vote one way or the other next election, regardless of how you vote regarding Issue Y." That's not much of a threat or promise.

I'm not implying OWS said the above but unless a group is willing to turn their activism into something tangible why should any politician left, right or center be motivated to care especially if other blocs will provide tangible effects?