Auto Bailout Controversy: ‘Gotcha’ Politics vs Building Trust

In Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate, just two days before Michigan’s primary takes place, Hillary Clinton dropped a ‘gotcha’ bomb on Bernie Sanders, saying Sanders “was against the auto bailout.” (Clinton is also running ads on Michigan radio making the same accusation.) From the transcript of the debate:

CLINTON: Well — well, I’ll tell you something else that Senator Sanders was against. He was against the auto bailout. In January of 2009, President-Elect Obama asked everybody in the Congress to vote for the bailout.

The money was there, and had to be released in order to save the American auto industry and four million jobs, and to begin the restructuring. We had the best year that the auto industry has had in a long time. I voted to save the auto industry.

(APPLAUSE)

He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference.

Sanders’ reply was cut off:

SANDERS: Well, I — If you are talking about the Wall Street bailout, where some of your friends destroyed this economy…

CLINTON: You know…

SANDERS: … through — excuse me, I’m talking.

Sanders recovered from the interruption and tried again:

Your story is for — voting for every disastrous trade agreement, and voting for corporate America. Did I vote against the Wall Street bailout?

When billionaires on Wall Street destroyed this economy, they went to Congress and they said, “please, we’ll be good boys, bail us out.” You know what I said? I said, “let the billionaires themselves bail out Wall Street.” It shouldn’t be the middle class of this country.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: OK, so…

There was another interruption as Sanders tried to respond, then:

SANDERS: Wait a minute. Wait. Could I finish? You’ll have your turn, all right?

But ultimately, if you look at our records, I stood up to corporate America time and time again. I went to Mexico. I saw the lives of people who were working in American factories and making $0.25 an hour.

I understood that these trade agreements were going to destroy the middle class of this country. I led the fight against us (sic). That is one of the major differences that we have.

Clinton dropped a ‘gotcha’ bomb, saying two days before the Michigan primary that Sanders is against auto companies and workers, and then as Sanders tried to respond he was strategically interrupted, preventing him from effectively correcting the record.

So What Are The Facts?

In December of 2008 there was a bill to specifically help the auto industry. H.R. 7321 (110th): Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act was a $14 billion plan that passed the House but was filibustered by Senate Republicans.

Sanders supported that bill and voted to break the filibuster. From Vermont Public Radio:

Senator Bernie Sanders voted against the $700 billion bail out of the financial services industry but he says this package is different:

(Sanders) “The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed and that could spread and I have serious concerns about that I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.”

Then, in January 2009 the auto rescue funds were folded into part of the huge, $700 billion “Wall Street bailout” bill. The Washington Post writes in, “The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders clash over the auto bailout, explained“:

Clinton and Sanders were both in the Senate at the time, and contrary to what Clinton implied Sunday, both supported the idea of an auto bailout.

… Sanders argued that letting the auto industry go under was too big of a risk for middle-class workers — it could lower wages across all sectors of the economy and have a ripple effect on states like Vermont that were fairly far removed from the auto industry.

… But Sanders was vehemently against the larger $700 billion bailout to prop up the banks. (As evidenced by his presidential campaign, Sanders is no fan of Wall Street.) So he voted against the bank bailout.

The bank bailout was so big it had to be doled out in portions. In January 2009, Senate Republicans tried to block the Treasury Department from releasing the second half of the money, some of which was designated for the auto industry. Sanders, based on his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, voted against releasing that money as well.

At the time of this January Wall Street bailout vote the public had been learning about Wall Street’s huge bonuses even as bailouts were required. Headlines were informing the public that “Banks That Got $188 Billion in Bailout Money This Year Paid Out $1.6 Billion to Top Execs Last Year” and “75% Of Latest Bank Of America Bailout Used To Pay Merrill Lynch Bonuses.”

This second Wall Street bailout vote, which contained auto bailout money, occurred in the context of a public upset (to say the least) about huge bonuses for the banksters who had crashed the economy, and Sanders opposed it. The Detroit Free Press, in “Explaining Hillary Clinton’s, Bernie Sanders’ votes on the auto bailout,” explains this complicated second vote further:

The $82 billion that helped finance the bankruptcy of General Motors, Chrysler, their finance subsidiaries — GMAC and Chrysler Financial — and a handful of large suppliers were part of a much larger Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that covered more than $700 billion that went to bail out the largest banks, and AIG, the insurance giant that has issued credit default swaps that came due when the banks could not cover their losses on mortgage-backed securities.

In short, a Senator or congressman could not vote to rescue GM and Chrysler without voting to provide the money to keep the nation’s largest investment banks from failing.

Sen. Clinton voted yes. Sen. Sanders voted no.

Politico summarized: “Sanders was supportive of the bill that would have bailed out the auto companies. So while Sanders might not have voted for the bill that ultimately provided funds to the auto industry, he did support bailing out the automakers.”

But two days before the Michigan primary Clinton turned Sanders’ opposition to the Wall Street bailout into a Sanders vote “against the auto bailout.”

Gotcha!

Some in the media mistakenly reported that Sanders replied talking about Wall Street instead of responding about the auto bailout, thinking these were separate bills. For example, Richard Wolffe at The Guardian, “Sanders, standing in Flint, had no answer for the vote – other than to retreat into his corner opposing Wall Street’s bailout.”

But overall the media has tried to correct the record. Media reactions to Clinton’s gambit range from calling it a “gamble” to “somewhat disingenuous” to “twisted” to “quite a stretch.”

Michigan’s Michael Moore, known for the 1989 “Roger and Me” documentary about General Motors and Flint, even tweeted that “Hillary lied.

Sanders’ Reaction

Initially the Sanders campaign tweeted, “From the @WashingtonPost: “Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/the-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debate-over-the-auto-bailout-explained/

Later the campaign issued a statement, “Clinton’s Claims on Auto Industry ‘Not True’”

One day before Michigan Democrats go to the polls, Bernie Sanders on Monday campaigned for president in Michigan and set the record straight on Hillary Clinton’s dishonest distortion of his record on an automobile industry rescue package.

… used a Sunday night debate in Flint, Michigan, to disingenuously mischaracterize Sanders record on the auto industry. In fact, Sanders voted for the carmaker bailout.

… “It is absolutely untrue to say I voted against helping the automobile industry and workers,” Sanders told the Grand Rapids, Michigan, television station.

… Sanders said, Clinton “went out of her way to mischaracterize” his record of support for auto workers. “There was one vote in the United States Senate to support the automobile industry and, of course, I voted for it. To say otherwise is simply not telling the truth,” he said.

… To read more on Sanders’ record of supporting the auto bailout, click here.

Gotcha Politics

Clinton’s last-minute, misleading accusation is a tactic known as “Gotcha politics.” This is a tactic where a politician attempts to lure or entrap an opponent by use of a supposed fact, gaffe, mistake or statement that makes it appear the opponent is a hypocrite or untrustworthy. Then the politician “pounces,” hence the term “gotcha.” It is often used just before an election so the opponent has little time to respond with the correct facts. The tactic depends on voters not receiving accurate information in time.

The debate was Sunday. Tuesday is the Michigan primary. This leaves little time for Sanders to explain the reality of Clinton’s “Sanders is against autos and auto workers” implication. This likely means it will cause votes that might have gone to Sanders in the primary to instead go to Clinton, or to just stay home. As the Washington Post explanation puts it, “[I]t seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.”

Is There A Cost?

This kind of “90’s-style” politics is a “scorched earth” tactic, leaving little goodwill in its wake. In the short term it might gain votes, even win a primary, but those votes bring with them longer-term costs.

Over time, as the fact-checking of Clinton’s “gotcha” accusation unfolds, Clinton risks increasing voters’ perception that she has a “trust” problem. Winning a primary with a tactic that risks increasing voter perception that she can’t be trusted could cost her.

Worse, many voters are tired of this “old-style” politics of misleading voters in order to gain votes at any cost. They prefer to hear accurate information and real policy discussion that addresses the country’s real problems. This is part of the reason Sanders’ campaign is drawing such enthusiasm. Gaining votes by accusing Sanders of something being “against” auto companies and workers could cause many Sanders voters to decide not to support Clinton if she becomes the party’s nominee for president.

‘Gotcha’ politics doesn’t just harm the candidate using it in the longer term, it also breeds public cynicism about the political system in general. Clinton supporter Lanny Davis wrote a 2006 book, “Scandal: How ‘Gotcha’ Politics Is Destroying America.” The book’s Amazon description explains, “Davis tells us how this poisonous atmosphere is damaging not just politics but American society as a whole.”

The stakes are very high in this election, and if Clinton is the nominee she is going to need goodwill – and all the votes she can get. Isn’t there a higher road with lower risks that Clinton can follow in this campaign?

——-

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.

The Sanders “Economic Plan” Controversy

“When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.”
– James K. Galbraith

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he wants the American people to join him and “fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides health care for all.” His website outlines a number of proposals toward this end, including increasing taxation of corporations and the wealthy and using the money to repair the country’s infrastructure, extending public education four years to cover college, extending Medicare to everyone, expanding Social Security and addressing climate change.

Gerald Friedman, a respected economist (and Clinton supporter by the way) took a look at Sanders’ proposals, ran the revenue and spending numbers through a standard economic model, and suggested that the very high level of spending would provide a “significant stimulus to an economy that continues to underperform, with national income and employment at levels well below capacity.” This stimulus could lead to several positive economic outcomes, including increasing gross domestic product growth to 5.3 percent a year, cutting unemployment to 3.8 percent and increasing wages by 2.5 percent per year. This, combining with the revenue proposals, would bring a budget surplus. Friedman wrote:

Continue reading

Does Clinton Really Oppose TPP? There Is A Test For That

Many people have come to believe politicians say what they need to say to win, and then turn on them. If Hillary Clinton wants to win the Democratic nomination and inspire people to vote for her in the general election, she must find ways to overcome this voter skepticism.

There is one test that, if she passes it, could convince voters that Clinton is on their side. It involves what Clinton does over the next few months to prove that she meant it when she came out in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal a few weeks ago.

Politics In 2016 Will Be Different

Politics is different this time. Voters feel betrayed by the politicians they have supported in the past. Just look at what is happening on the right. The conventional candidates like “Jeb!” Bush are polling at 3 percent or so – or just dropping out of the race. The candidates who have never held office and do not exhibit any qualifications whatsoever for governing – Donald Trump and Ben Carson – are way ahead.

On the Democratic side the problem is, as always, voter turnout. Working people – wages stagnant or falling and employers putting the squeeze on in hundreds of imaginative ways – have figured out that they’ve been sold out by “establishment” politicians who have helped “rig the game” against them. And they are fed up.

Continue reading

How The Clinton and Sanders Infrastructure Plans Measure Up

“Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive across the board.”
– Hillary Clinton

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has announced a plan for infrastructure investment. How does her plan stack up against that of her chief competitor, Bernie Sanders?

Also, how will Clinton and Sanders pay for their plans? On that question, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recently came up with a set of principles we can use to judge this.

Clinton’s Infrastructure Plan

Clinton on Monday announced a plan for investing in infrastructure improvements. Meteor Blades laid out the need for infrastructure investment at Daily Kos in “Clinton proposes $275 billion spending for infrastructure“:

… 11 percent of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient and a fourth of them are functionally obsolete. Similar deficiencies can be found in schools, dams, levees, railroads, the electrical grid, and wastewater facilities. In its 2013 quadrennial report card on U.S. infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers said the nation would need to invest an additional $1.6 trillion by 2020 to put its infrastructure into good repair. And that doesn’t include innovative infrastructure like universal broadband.

Continue reading

Run For Congress As A Democratic Socialist

Bernie Sanders is going to give a big speech on Democratic Socialism.

I think this presents an opportunity for people to run for Congress in Democratic primaries — or as the ONLY Democrat is some districts — as Democratic Socialists. I’m looking at how to register to run in my district.

You might not win but I think it makes sense to make the case for — and get people thinking about — taxing the rich, corporations and Wall Street transactions and using the money to provide:
● Increases in Social Security
● Medicare-for-All
● Free higher education with a stipend while attending
● Low-cost child care
● Help elderly stay in homes and low-cost nursing home care
● Modern mass transit, high-speed rail, etc.
● Well-maintained modern infrastructure (and associated jobs)
● A huge push to solar, wind and other alternative energy, with a weatherization program (and associated jobs)
(The “associated jobs’ thingy is part of a full-employment program.)

Think of other things that We the People can do together to make our lives better — also known as democratic government for the people.

What Bernie Sanders Has Already Won

When Sen. Bernie Sanders initially began running for president, his hope was to “trigger the conversation” about the way the economic and political system is rigged by the billionaires and their corporations. He wanted to begin a movement around a vision of how the country could be run for We the People instead of a few billionaires and their giant corporations, and give that movement momentum.

That was the idea; start a movement out of a campaign that could get a “for-the-people” message out. All the people he brought in would take it from there.

Continue reading

I Want To Support Clinton, Too, But…

Like everyone I am in contact with (everyone who knows who he is, anyway) Bernie Sanders has my heart. But I really want to support Hillary Clinton, too!

But this is getting ridiculous. TPP, Keystone…

Here is her statement on an issue I will not name, because it is her basic answer on every issue:

“On the XXXX itself, again, I think, we have to look to see what are the pluses and minuses that are embodied in a decision,” she said. “I’ve obviously looked at the arguments on both sides, and I think we’ll gather more information and that will perhaps give us a better path forward.”

Hillary’s strategy is to sit on her big lead, and not say anything that will hurt her with the big donors.

My Post That Krugman Links To

Paul Krugman links to a post I wrote last year. With the revote on Fast Track possibly coming up soon I think it is a good post to repeat. So here it is.

Democrats Who Move Right Lose Elections – There Is No “Center”

Mainstream Democratic campaign consultants and pollsters typically tell candidates they should “move to the right” and campaign to the “center” with positions that are “between” the “left” and the “right.” This is the way, they say, to “attract swing voters” who would be “scared off” by a candidate who takes populist positions that favor the interests of the 99 percent over the interests of the 1 percent.

Polling and experience show that exactly the opposite might be true.

Continue reading

How “Citibank Budget” Push Foreshadows “Fast Track” For Trade Deals

It is worth examining how the process was rigged to push that budget deal through Congress over the weekend that contained Citibank-written derivative deregulation and all kinds of other goodies for the rich and powerful. That’s because the “cromnibus” formula will be formalized in the next big deal, in a process called “fast track.”

Congress passed the “cromnibus” (continuing resolution for omnibus budget) right at the deadline for another government shutdown. (After they extended the deadline, actually.) The budget contained a Citibank-written provision that undoes some Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulations. It authorizes a cut in many people’s pensions by up to 60 percent, severely cuts the IRS budget and its ability to collect taxes, dramatically expanded the ability of big money to influence elections, reduced the EPA’s authority, and included many other provisions that could not have passed in the light of day. This budget “deal” was pushed through Congress using a rigged process that kept representative democracy from stopping it.

What lessons can we learn from the way the “Citibank” provisions in the budget deal were pushed through? How do these lessons apply to the next big fight?

Continue reading

Is The Democratic Party Relevant Anymore?

Many Democrats examining what happened in the 2014 midterms are asking “what did the voters want?” But the right question is why did only 36.4 percent of potential voters bother to register and vote? Obviously Democrats did not give those voters a good enough reason to take the trouble. Is the Democratic Party relevant anymore?

“New Coke” Democrats

In 1985 Coca-Cola was the market leader, but Pepsi was gaining market share. Coca-Cola’s executives panicked and reformulated its flavor to taste like the more-sugary Pepsi. But Pepsi drinkers already drank Pepsi and Coca-Cola drinkers were left with no brand that they liked. If this sounds like an analogy to the Democratic Party consultants who keep urging Democratic candidates and politicians to be more like Republicans, that’s because it is.

Democrats were considered the majority party from the time of Roosevelt’s New Deal until the 1980s. All they had to do to win was to get a high enough voter turnout. Democratic operations were more about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) than giving people reasons to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans. They just assumed most people agreed with them – because most people agreed with them. But that time has passed.

Continue reading

Give Americans A $2000 Check From “Deferred” Corporate Taxes

U.S. multinational corporations are hoarding an estimated $2 trillion “offshore” to take advantage of a loophole in our tax laws. At our 35 percent top federal corporate tax rate, that represents up to $700 billion in taxes owed but “deferred” because they are “offshore.” This is not imaginary or future money; it is taxes owed on $2 trillion of profits these companies have already made. Who should get this money?

A loophole in the corporate tax code allows companies to “defer” paying taxes on profits made outside of the U.S. until they “repatriate” it – bring the money back to the U.S.. Because of this loophole corporations are holding an estimated $2 trillion of profits “offshore.” Companies are increasingly moving jobs, production and profit centers out of the country to take advantage of this scheme – or are engaging in schemes to make it look like they are. (The amount is increasing 11.8 percent a year and the rate of increase is increasing as well.)

That $700 billion is serious money. Washington lobbyists are working with Congress to come up with various corporate tax “reform” schemes designed to let the corporations off the hook for much of this tax bill – and to lower their future tax bills as well.

The most popular “centrist” idea is to let the corporations just keep much or most of the tax money they owe, if only they would just let us use some of it to maintain our country’s infrastructure. Going along with this would reward these companies for engaging in schemes to “offshore” jobs, production and profit centers, thereby moving (or making it appear that they moved) these profits out of the country – and certainly would encourage doing even more of this from now on.

Send A $2,000 Check To Every Adult – AND Fix Our Infrastructure

Instead of letting these companies off the hook for this tax bill, here is an alternative idea: Let’s collect the taxes that are due on these profits that have already been made, send every adult in the U.S. a check for $2,000, and use what’s left over to fix up our infrastructure.

This is real money, and a lot of it. Instead of making a “deal” on deferment and letting the corporations just keep this money they owe us, let’s fix this loophole and give most of this tax money to the 242 million U.S. residents over 18 as a $2,000 check. What’s left over (and there might be a lot – as much as $215 billion) can be used to fix our infrastructure and other priorities like research and development, fighting Ebola and other diseases, forgiving student debt – you name it.

This is about who gets the money. Do we give the tax money that is already owed to We the People, or do we let the giant corporations just keep it? By making this about a $2,000 check directly to every adult, it becomes personal. It becomes an issue of real money in people’s pockets, not some distant sum that “government” uses for their own good but that people never really feel or touch. Sending people a $2,000 check turns this battle over this money into a personal fight, not just some nebulous, distant, complicated government policy issue.

Who Should Get The Money?

By the way, when we talk about “corporate” money and corporate tax cuts, this is what – more accurately “who” – we are really talking about:

The top 1 percent own 50.9 percent of all stocks, bonds, and mutual fund assets. The top 10 percent own 90.3 percent. The bottom half of all of us own 0.5 percent – one half of one percent. That was 2007 – the top few have only increased their ownership percentages since.

This is about who gets the money. There is up to $700 billion in taxes due and someone is going to get that money. By making this about a $2,000 check to each adult American vs. billions to the owners of the giant corporations, we’re making the “who gets the money” argument personal instead of abstract.

Effect On Economy

What happens to our economy if every adult gets a $2000 check? How much hiring happens in local stores, etc?

What happens to our economy with up to $215 billion going into infrastructure work, with the related hiring and purchases of supplies?

What happens to our economy if companies lose the incentive to move jobs, production and profit centers offshore to take advantage of this loophole?

But wait, there’s more. There’s also that other $1.3 trillion – the “after tax” part that is offshore, too. If we do something about this deferment scam companies would lose the incentive to move jobs, production and profit centers out of the country to make it look like their profits are made elsewhere, and would “bring that money back.” The money would either be invested in the corporation or distributed to shareholders. This would be a big stimulus to the economy either way.

The Numbers

There’s as much as $2 trillion (maybe more) sitting offshore representing up to $700 billion in taxes owed at the top tax rate of 35 percent. (Taxes already paid to other countries are subtracted from what is owed here. This is why the tax bill is “up to” $700 billion. State taxes are also due on these profits, this article concerns itself with the federal share.)

According to the Census Bureau’s QuickFacts there were 316,128,839 Americans in 2013, 23.3 percent of them under 18, leaving 242,470,819 adults.

Sending a $2,000 check to 242.5 million adults costs about $485 billion. Up to $700 billion owed minus $485 billion leaves up to $215 billion for infrastructure and other priorities.

Summary

It’s a great way to accomplish several things that are good for the country:

1) Get cash to people right now. Helicoptered in, $700 billion would make a very big difference that people would feel now and the economy would feel for a while.

2) A $2,000 check shows people how corporate tax breaks are seriously costing them.

3) This puts pressure on “corporate tax reform” deals that reward the corporations by letting them keep any of it.

5) The best part is these companies already owe the money. This is about who gets the money that is owed to We the People. It makes the “We the People” part personal.

The awareness “making this personal” would bring to the issue would lend public support to other efforts to get companies to pay their taxes.

—-

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.

Whoever Wins, Democrats Should Learn This Lesson: Be Democrats

Democrats should to learn a lesson from this year’s election campaigns: Democrats should be Democrats. Democrats should not try to run away from the things Democrats stand for. It doesn’t work.

Supporting Republicans ideas is not going to win you Republican votes. It won’t stop Republicans from calling you a socialist, communist, extremist, whatever. And it is not going to give you any cover at all when the public gets their chance to weigh in. If you do things the public doesn’t like it is going to come back and bite you. Unless you are campaigning for the job of post-defeat lobbyist, embracing Republican ideas so you can call yourself a “moderate” or a “centrist” buys you nothing.

Exhibit A: the “centrist” Simpson-Bowles deficit-cutting plan. Right now Republicans are running campaign ads attacking Democrats who supported the Simpson-Bowles deficit-cutting plan, because it proposed “entitlement reform” that would cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and raise the retirement age.

Here is a Republicans ad running in North Carolina. “Hagan is a big believer in a controversial plan that raises the retirement age…” referring to the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan:

Here is a Republican ad running in Georgia attacking John Barrow for supporting Simpson-Bowles:

Democrats should never forget that Republicans have been running ad after ad after attack ad like these, going after Democrats who supported deficit “entitlement reform.”

Exhibit B: In Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor voted against background checks for people buying guns at gun shows. How did that work out? Answer: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is spending $1.3 million to defeat Pryor in Arkansas.

Lesson: Democrats Should Be Democrats, Not Try To Be Republicans

This election should provide a lesson to Democrats, forever, to remain Democrats and not fall for DC elite calls to be “moderates” by supporting things like cutting entitlements or otherwise acting like Republicans. If you think you are going to be praised and rewarded for following the conservative/corporate line — ain’t gonna happen.

Democrats are for things like:

  • Social Security.
  • Medicare.
  • Helping the poor.
  • Higher minimum wages.
  • Higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations to fund the fruits of democracy.
  • Good and well-funded public schools and colleges.
  • Maintaining and modernizing the country’s infrastructure.
  • Protecting the environment.
  • Regulating giant corporations and Wall Street (that includes airlines and telecommunications).
  • Helping people join unions.

Democrats are against things like:

  • “Fast tracking” trade deals that send jobs out of the country.
  • Letting corporations get away with ripping people off and deliver bad or harmful or fraudulent products.
  • Letting corporations use their size and power to keep other companies from innovating and competing.
  • Letting corporations pollute the environment and harm workers.

P.S. In 2010 Democrats were blasted by hundreds of millions of dollars of ads accusing them of “cutting Medicare” and it was these ads that helped Republicans take the House. Even though this was about Obamacare, and was a just a lie, it should have been a warning that things that make people’s lives better, like Medicare and Social Security, are popular.

Visit PopulistMajority.org to learn about other things that are popular.