I have to take the DMI to task for the so-called "Middle-Class" report card for the U.S. Congress. When I first read about it on Senator Kerry's web site I was intrigued (he gets an A). But as I read through the legislation and the positions of the DMI judges, it's my opinion that a lot of the legislation (and the DMI position) would not resonate with the middle class. In fact, I'd guess a good chunk of the middle class would disagree with the DMI positions on the illegal immigration and CR-DAFTA bills, among others.



The DMI executive summary reads in part, "After examining each bill in detail, Congress at the Midterm assigns a grade to each member of Congress based on his or her support for the middle class." While there are some middle class issues (student loans, prescrip drugs), the DMI report card really reflects Congress' support for the working poor, the disenfranchised, and the exploited. DMI would be better off naming it more accurately, but I suspect the title, "Congress at the Midterm: Their 2005 Middle-Class Record", is an attempt at achieving a broader, more mainstream appeal. This is admirable, but next time, I suggest DMI select legislation that more closely affects the American middle class.

Steve R.,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the Scorecard. I would encourage you to take a look at the analyses on the website for a better idea of why the Drum Major Institute believes that these bills affect the middle class directly.



For example, the CAFTA bill that you brought up can significantly affect the middle class in several ways-- one expected result of CAFTA is an increase in the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to Central America; these jobs are not jobs that are "beneath" the U.S. middle class; many jobs that historically have paid well and come with good benefits are vulnerable to outsourcing. U.S. middle-class workers are likely to see wages and benefits decrease as they are placed into direct competition with as they are placed in more direct competition with low-paid Central American workers who lack the protections and rights Americans enjoy. In the U.S., the experience of NAFTA suggests that more jobs will be lost due to displaced domestic production than will be gained due to export growth. This will be difficult for middle-class workers who lose their jobs, aspiring middle-class workers for whom new jobs are not created, and for everyone who has a job that needs to provide financial support to those without. Futhermore, CAFTA is projected to increase the U.S. trade deficit with Central America by $100 million according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the minimum percentage of the decline in the U.S. manufacturing employment that can be attributed to the nation's trade deficit is 34%-- surely this is no small matter.



As Solomon Grundy at the Left Behind blog noted, "DMI is not evaluating whether the middle class supports the legislation, but whether the legislation supports the middle class." While, as you point out, a "good chunk of the middle class would disagree with the DMI positions on the illegal immigration and CR-DAFTA bills" (if you have followed recent elections, you know that the middle class seems to be split pretty evenly on many issues), this legislation ultimately harms the middle class's ability to maintain or improve its economic status, and raises barriers for those who aspire to become part of the middle class.

I don't argue your points about the potential impact of CAFTA to the middle class. What I argue is whether it resonates with the non-unionized middle class, i.e. is it a concern, does it have the "Give a Hoot" factor. In this example, the threat to the middle class from foreign workers is not the Dominican Republic, it's from India.

The American middle class does not "give a hoot" about job competition from poor, uneducated Central Americans (the working poor should, and I'd guess union workers), in my opinion, but they see real erosion from outsourcing to firms in countries like India that has a tradition of higher education, a trained and skilled workforce, and a real emerging and competing middle class.

Or maybe my definition of middle class is wrong, but I see the middle class as educated and/or skilled, white collar professionals, skilled tradesmen, and unionized workers. Given the concern on CAFTA, when DMI says "middle class", my guess is they mean "union". That's fine, but misleading.

When we say "middle class" we don't just mean "union".

In defining the middle class, DMI focuses on a middle-class standard of living which, as we describe in the scorecard, includes "a well-paying job, health insurance, the chance to own or keep a home, the opportunity to provide a good education to their children and the security of looking forward to a dignified retirement." Our scorecard rates Members of Congress on their votes on both strengthening and *expanding* the middle class, thus we selected legislation primarily of concern to those trying to hold onto a middle-class standard of living (the current middle class) and those aspiring to a middle-class standard of living (people you describe as the poor and disadvantaged).

Each piece of legislation in the scorecard would either strenghten or expand the middle class (often both) or shrink and weaken it. Thus "middle-class record" is a very accurate way to describe it.

One thing the scorecard is not is an opinion poll reflecting how a particular segment of Americans feel about an issue -- the goal is to educate readers about policies that impact the middle class and aspiring middle class, not just to reflect what people already "give a hoot" about.