In a (gated) article at the Washington Post today Paul Kane writes that it is complacency among rank and file donors that has led to a 25% drop in donations to the Democratic party’s three major fund raising arms. He also notes that third party groups don’t appear to be preparing to put the same effort into electing Democrats this time around. For much of the article, he also tries to put that on equal par with a drop in large donor donations as well. However, the Ds are still bringing in three times the money from large donors that the Rs are.

It’s not complacency that’s causing us to close our check books. The surge in Democratic fund raising in 2006 and 2008 came from progressive, grass roots democrats who were desperate for a change. We got our change and we’re not that happy with it. The House is certainly better than the Senate where we’re being told that it takes 60 votes to do anything. The fact of the matter, though, is that progressive groups are finding themselves having to run ads against Democratic congressmen and senators to get them to do progressive things that are supported by solid majorities in their districts and super majorities of Democrats. There is some talk among grass roots groups and labor of finding and supporting progressive primary challengers. It’s a sure way to turn some of these seats back over the Republicans, but it’s also a way of showing that you can’t take our money and votes and then ignore us anymore–like you’ve done since the 80s.

We’re not complacent. We’re pissed. Not giving the bastards money is the hardest hitting outlet we’ve got for now.

It’s certainly true that some of the fight we’ve seen this summer over health care reform is about protecting the profits of insurance companies, insurance companies who make their money by denying you coverage. It’s also true that there’s a strong ideological component to it. There are laissez faire types who genuinely believe that greater government interference will reduce the quality of care. There’s also a republican strategy of obstructing whatever Obama tries to do and appealing to the fringe crazies who think he’s an illegitimate president. But what this is really about is plain, old electoral politics. The Republicans understand something that seems to elude a lot of the democratic party and the progressive blogosphere. It’s a simple thing. When Democratic social programs subsidize the quality of life of middle class and working class Americans, they win their votes. Just like when Republican and Democratic policies subsidize the bottom lines of different industries, they win those industries’ support. The difference between the two parties is that while both are content to subsidize the hell out of corporate America, only one has even a passing interest in subsidizing American families. A successful, overtly government run health care option would give the Democrats a lock on congress for several sessions if they can get it implemented before they’re voted out. A single payer plan would give them control of congress for a generation, but they lack both the vision and courage to seize that opportunity.

It’s been a while since I’ve put anything up on this space. I had a whole bunch of personal stuff going on this summer, including starting a very demanding new job. Hopefully, some of you are still reading.

I have a 90 mile a day commute. It gives me a lot of time to think. I had an idea this morning that I believe is simple, but also pretty damn clever. My proposal for a simple reform as part of the supposed reform of our financial system that’s on the horizon is this: No one who works in a regulated financial services, banking, or insurance organization can make more money in bonus or commission than they make in salary. Let’s put that hefty compensation right there on the books as a regular, recurring cost. If you think an employee might be worth $100 million dollars a year, you pay him $50 million and let him make the other half in bonus. If you don’t think an employee is worth that guaranteed $50 million a year, then maybe you should rethink what you’re paying him and others like him. I’m sure that the toady boards of directors probably wouldn’t have a problem approving outrageous salaries like this at many companies, but I bet their shareholders would.

This isn’t a cure for, well, almost anything, but it’s an idea that I like and that could be easily implemented. What do you think?