I was sobered to see some of the details of the revised DSA platform.

[Bluetus]

121. And when you don't ask for anything at all?

Which is where much of the party is. Mostly the rhetoric is in " Trump is a poopy head" mode with no unified vision of what we actually are asking for.

Another benefit of the " big ask" approach is that we get more media coverage and much of that is more on OUR terms.

Many of the issues in the DSA list have complexities that will require some time before the public can become comfortable with them. But we have two issues TODAY that stand out as being front-of-mind for large majorities and are begging for bold actions. And even less educated red districts are feeling these things. Those issues are the outrageous abuses by the mega-billionaires and the tsunami of AI and AI data centers. The public is outraged by both of these, and the Democratic Party ought to be out there with strong, bold, unified proposals in both areas. For example:

AI data centers: There is some discussion and proposed legislation for a moratorium until we can produce some white papers. OK. That's something, but it doesn't meet the moment. We should be talking about an immediate moratorium AND immediate attention on what it would take to permit some of this to move forward. And the "what would it take?" should include at least two areas: regulation of AI and impact on national resources (electricity and water mainly). We should be having a real discussion about holding the AI crowd legally and financially responsible for the damage their technology does -- no exclusions. And on the resource side, we could propose that every new data center must include the building of new carbon-neutral electricity generation in the amount TWICE what the data center will ever consume, and that extra electricity will flow to the taxpayers in the form of REDUCTIONS to our monthly bills. And something comparable for water, even if that means the data center people will have to build massive solar/wind-powered desalination plants.

That is an example of a bold proposal that would get media attention and give the public something to rally around.

And on the billionaires, there is already a strong consensus that billionaires are getting a free ride and should be forced to pay their "fair share". But how? There is little discussion of the modality of this, and that can quickly get beyond the financial understanding of most Americans. One thing all these ultra-billionaires have in common is OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Musk achieved his trillion by creating companies, hyping their potential, and awarding himself vast numbers of shares. In 95% of the cases, he has paid no tax on those share, yet is able to use them as if they were cash, buying and selling companies, getting loans etc. Same story with all of these guys. So one thing we could do, and this is admittedly technical, is to say whoever they deal themselves these options and stock grants, they are taxable at the highest rate just as soon as they try to use them like case. If they are used as collateral for bank loans. If they are used in a stock swap for acquisitions, or anything like that, they will immediately be taxed at, say, 50%. And such a provision need only apply to transactions greater than $50,000,000 for example. I'm sure a policy expert could come up with a better way to say this, but basically, it is an "Other People's Money Tax".

These are just examples of real, tangible policies we could be discussing to change the frame for discussion.