Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments for Progressives

[carlfense]

So I will ask the question again. Did she call them commandments or was that just what the writer called them?

Looks like it was what the writer called them because the Vox article links to this source which refers to them as "tenets." (Although it looks like Warren didn't call them tenets either . . . )

"What are our values?" Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up "Run Liz Run" signs. "What does it mean to be a progressive?"

 

She went on to outline 11 tenets of progressivism . . .

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-s-11-commandments-of-progressivism-20140718

[tschu]

I always grapple with "free market"

 

I mean everyone supports a free market, but it always seems like the things that need regulated the most are getting way too lax (The big corporate stuff, securities, banks, tax loopholes for all of the above), and some things like the taxi and cable industries are awful because of crippling regulation that keeps prices way way higher than they would be otherwise. So it's hard to blanket statement it.

[LukeinNE]

 

Democrats, which are little more than a Christmas tree of political client groups, but at least they tried to govern.

 

Can you expand a little more on this?

 

 

The Democrats and the Republicans tend to build their majority coalitions in different ways. A very simple way of understanding the two parties is that the GOP is the party of the Haves and the Democrats are the party of the Have Nots (note: I am drawing a portrait of their voting coalitions, not trying to make a wider point about who/what they actually stand for, or anything).

 

So, who votes Republican? Middle and upper class whites. Married people. Religious people. Do a Venn Diagram of those 3 groups and I'm betting the people you find in that overlapping region will be 75-80% Republican-voting. This constitutes the base of the Republican Party. It also happens to be a huge number of people, found in large numbers in nearly every rural and suburban area of the country. Why do they vote Republican? They'll give different reasons, ranging from abortion to taxes to immigration, but it typically always flows back to a single idea: life in America has been good to them, they don't want that life taken away or diminished. This base of voters alone will get the GOP into the 40s in a national election.

 

The Democratic coalition looks much different. They do have a base of sorts of largely white, middle and upper class ideological liberals, but there aren't nearly enough of them to approach the numbers the GOP has in similar demographics. They make up this mathematical deficiency by dominating among America's various minority groups. Here's the problem: where the GOP's base is monolithic and fairly united in objectives, the Democrats' various voting blocs are anything but, and often their priorities are incompatible. The solution to this is pretty straightforward: more government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Democrats get elected.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I frankly detest the national entities of both parties. Republicans keep their voters in line with fear and the Democrats accomplish the same ends with class envy and bribery (and yes, both parties do borrow tactics once in awhile). Neither is helpful to the country.

[TGHusker]

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/21/5918063/elizabeth-warrens-11-commandments-for-progressives-show-democrats?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=monday

 

1. "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." Ok with me. Define rules and tougher enforcement. Related: Sarbanes/Oxley, Dodd/Frank major corp finance/bank reforms that have accomplished much but also have been seen as overly restrictive by some. I think the next reform needs to deal with Crony Capitalism and the cozy relationship between big govt and big corp interests. Where the govt picks the winners.
2. "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth." Yes, but not at the expense of our economy. Until China and India come to the table, what we do will have little impact - but the cost of Cap and Trade, for example, will drag our economy making us less viable in meeting this challenge. I don't think 'taxing our way' to a cure helps. I'd rather see tax incentives given to new energy researchers or in celebration of our 1969 moon landing - develop a 'space program' for our planet that enables industries to generate cost effective new energy models. Until then, drill as much as we can, in a clean responsible way, so that our economy can be strong to develop such new energy sources.
3. "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality." In principle. What does she mean 'real' vs what??
4. "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage." #4, 5, 6 are related indirectly and I'll address as a package: I believe in equal opportunity but not equal results. Results come from what each of us put into our work, education, etc and is also based on our talents. The Min wage has been addressed much in this discussion - I still believe there should be entry level jobs and jobs traditionally reserve for the young. Fast Food (#5) and other similar types of jobs are ideal for this purpose. I would rather see our efforts going to enhance Vo-Tech (for those whose talents fit that type of education) and making college more affordable. If we can achieve more affordable college/tech options, then we may not see so many trying to make a living by living on min wage or working fast food. Of course our economy has to be vibrant enough to produce those jobs. Also, curtailing illegal immigration will make more of these entry level jobs available to youth and others in our society not able to complete or obtain a degree via college or vo-tech.
5. "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them." Something is wrong wt our society if we are relying on fast food jobs to provide a living wage.
6. "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt." Maybe more internet base education will help to drive prices down, Do we dare address the cost of tenured professors, sports programs etc and their affect on the cost of college??
7. "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions." Yes, GWB tried to reform SS but got no where. This needs to be addressed.
8. "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work." When comparing exact jobs - for sure.
9. "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America." Civil unions - for benefits, sure. Anyone should be able to name whomever as beneficiaries. No discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc for race, sex, disabilities, etc. However, I'm still a DOMA supporter and the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
10. "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform." What does this sugary language mean? LEGAL immigration made this county strong. Those who followed the legal process, who became citizens and 'melted' into our society - tying one ethnic fiber to another ethnic fiber made the American cloth strong. Illegal immigration does not do this. We have cultures keeping their languages, living in the shadows, and not melting into the culture and often undercutting those other minorities from getting jobs - whether it be the African American youths or all other immigrants who came here legally. Should there be reform? Yes, start wt a real secure boarder. When boarders are erased, how does a nation exist? It soon won't. No quick route to citizenship for illegals. (I'm sure this is what the Dem party wants to see) With that said, all people, should be treated humanly. Most illegals came here for the same reason most legals came here - to better their lives for themselves and their families. Thus, I'm for reform and a path to citizenship eventually, but it shouldn't be a quick reward for jumping the boarder. I'll give a 1/2 because I believe real reform is needed.
11. "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" More inflammatory language from the left. This was discussed in another thread. I believe first in the right to life of the unborn (go to the other thread to discuss the 'viability' issue and when a fertilized egg obtains person-hood or life). I'll stand wt Hobby Lobby on this one - when a corporation is family owned, they should be able to express those family values via the corp. HL only disagreed to 4 out of 20 drugs. So no one took away the right for women obtain contraception and if they want the other 4 items, these items are still available at the pharmacy of their choice.

 

I've felt this way for a year or two, but I'll say it again - you've got my vote should you run for President in 2016 or 2022, Mrs. Warren. I don't disagree with a single thing on that list. I don't think that she'll run since the left is pretty well united behind Hillary at this point and Warren probably won't want to get in the way, but regardless, Warren continues to impress me with pretty much everything she does and says.

 

:

OK I'll take a stab at this - my comments in red

[Whistlebritches]

Here is the conservative one since you are wondering.

 

 

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill says.

2. Reject the EPA’s Overreach

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simpler, flatter, and fairer tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is easily understandable. Eliminate the death tax and cut the capital gains tax.

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Execute a full independent audit of federal agencies and programs. Assess their Constitutionality, and identify duplication, waste, ineffectiveness. Determine which agencies and programs are better left to the states or local authorities to reform or eliminate, and restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution.

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending that balances the budget within 10 years.

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries.

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs.

9. Stop the Pork

End all earmarks.

10. Protect American’s Privacy

Protect Americans’ privacy, including data and any other records from government intrusion by prohibiting and criminally punishing any private or political use of data gained or distributed by government officials.

11. Stop Unconstitutional Executive Branch Power

Develop a plan to sunset federal regulations and limit the Executive Branch’s power, which has grown substantially over the past decade.

http://contractfromamerica.org/

This looks like list from the Libertarians and/or Tea Party. I'd be interested in seeing something from the more moderate R's, the so-called RINO's.

[carlfense]

Here's the problem: where the GOP's base is monolithic and fairly united in objectives, the Democrats' various voting blocs are anything but, and often their priorities are incompatible. The solution to this is pretty straightforward: more government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Democrats get elected.

Isn't this equally accurate? Less government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Republicans get elected. (Of course the "less government spending" being the claim . . . which history shows to be . . . ahem . . . less than accurate.)

 

For every claim about the DNC pandering to a voting bloc (often legitimately) I can provide an example of the GOP pandering to the wealthy.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Here's the problem: where the GOP's base is monolithic and fairly united in objectives, the Democrats' various voting blocs are anything but, and often their priorities are incompatible. The solution to this is pretty straightforward: more government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Democrats get elected.

Isn't this equally accurate? Less government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Republicans get elected. (Of course the "less government spending" being the claim . . . which history shows to be . . . ahem . . . less than accurate.)

 

For every claim about the DNC pandering to a voting bloc (often legitimately) I can provide an example of the GOP pandering to the wealthy.

 

I wouldn't just use the word "wealthy" here.

 

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Republican party in the last 10 years hasn't been their pandering to the wealthy. I may be wrong but when i see pictures or video of tea party demonstrations I don't see a bunch of wealthy people sitting around. When whack jobs were rallying around the idiot rancher in Nevada, I don't think all of those were the wealthy wall street corporate types.

 

Both parties pander to their base. I basically agree with Luke's description of the bases for each party. The base for Republicans is mostly white, middle aged and older in rural or suburban areas. Democrats have mastered the art of making everyone a minority. Heck, they were successful in making 99% of America feel like a powerless minority with their 1% campaign.

 

In the end it all is the same. Pander to the base and see what happens. Rinse and repeat.

[carlfense]

 

 

Here's the problem: where the GOP's base is monolithic and fairly united in objectives, the Democrats' various voting blocs are anything but, and often their priorities are incompatible. The solution to this is pretty straightforward: more government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Democrats get elected.

Isn't this equally accurate? Less government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Republicans get elected. (Of course the "less government spending" being the claim . . . which history shows to be . . . ahem . . . less than accurate.)

 

For every claim about the DNC pandering to a voting bloc (often legitimately) I can provide an example of the GOP pandering to the wealthy.

 

I wouldn't just use the word "wealthy" here.

 

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Republican party in the last 10 years hasn't been their pandering to the wealthy. I may be wrong but when i see pictures or video of tea party demonstrations I don't see a bunch of wealthy people sitting around. When whack jobs were rallying around the idiot rancher in Nevada, I don't think all of those were the wealthy wall street corporate types.

 

Both parties pander to their base. I basically agree with Luke's description of the bases for each party. The base for Republicans is mostly white, middle aged and older in rural or suburban areas. Democrats have mastered the art of making everyone a minority. Heck, they were successful in making 99% of America feel like a powerless minority with their 1% campaign.

 

In the end it all is the same. Pander to the base and see what happens. Rinse and repeat.

 

My take on the GOP is that they tend to pander to the crazies primarily in their rhetoric and to the 1% primarily in their deeds.

[LukeinNE]

 

Isn't this equally accurate? Less government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Republicans get elected. (Of course the "less government spending" being the claim . . . which history shows to be . . . ahem . . . less than accurate.)

 

For every claim about the DNC pandering to a voting bloc (often legitimately) I can provide an example of the GOP pandering to the wealthy.

 

 

I would separate pandering (which is what politics are all about) from clientelism, which is what I consider the Democrats to be disproportionately guilty of. Pandering is ideological. Clientelism is material. The distinction is that clientelistic relationship could be defined by a distinct, tangible, and exclusive benefit reaped on the part of the client, in exchange for votes. A person who doesn't want his taxes raised voting for the person who promises to not raise his taxes doesn't meet that test.

[knapplc]

 

 

Isn't this equally accurate? Less government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Republicans get elected. (Of course the "less government spending" being the claim . . . which history shows to be . . . ahem . . . less than accurate.)

 

For every claim about the DNC pandering to a voting bloc (often legitimately) I can provide an example of the GOP pandering to the wealthy.

 

 

I would separate pandering (which is what politics are all about) from clientelism, which is what I consider the Democrats to be disproportionately guilty of. Pandering is ideological. Clientelism is material. The distinction is that clientelistic relationship could be defined by a distinct, tangible, and exclusive benefit reaped on the part of the client, in exchange for votes. A person who doesn't want his taxes raised voting for the person who promises to not raise his taxes doesn't meet that test.

 

 

Where do people like the Koch Bros. & Sheldon Adelson, or Eli Broad & Fred Eychaner, fit into the "clientelism" model?

[carlfense]

 

 

 

Isn't this equally accurate? Less government spending or favorable laws, specific to those groups, coming their way when Republicans get elected. (Of course the "less government spending" being the claim . . . which history shows to be . . . ahem . . . less than accurate.)

 

For every claim about the DNC pandering to a voting bloc (often legitimately) I can provide an example of the GOP pandering to the wealthy.

 

 

I would separate pandering (which is what politics are all about) from clientelism, which is what I consider the Democrats to be disproportionately guilty of. Pandering is ideological. Clientelism is material. The distinction is that clientelistic relationship could be defined by a distinct, tangible, and exclusive benefit reaped on the part of the client, in exchange for votes. A person who doesn't want his taxes raised voting for the person who promises to not raise his taxes doesn't meet that test.

 

 

Where do people like the Koch Bros. & Sheldon Adelson, or Eli Broad & Fred Eychaner, fit into the "clientelism" model?

 

Neatly, knapplc. They fit neatly.

 

But I'm sure all of those anti-EPA tropes have nothing to do with the Koch Bros.

[carlfense]

The distinction is that clientelistic relationship could be defined by a distinct, tangible, and exclusive benefit reaped on the part of the client, in exchange for votes.

How about a tax policy exclusively benefiting a certain group (client if you prefer) in exchange for monetary support? Or an energy policy?

 

Quite frankly, I don't think your distinction is particularly accurate.

[BigRedBuster]

An interesting take on feminism.

 

LINK

 

“One of my biggest frustrations with contemporary feminism today is that it has painted women as agency-less,” says Schaeffer, “as victims who are constantly in need of either government protection or who are always the underdog — rather than seeing women are accomplishing more than ever before and outpacing men professionally, financially.”

Read more: Conservative Feminists Flip the 'War on Women' | Fast forward | OZY

 

[tschu]

I suppose "interesting" is one way to phrase it

[Husker_x]

 

Here is the conservative one since you are wondering.

 

 

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill says.

2. Reject the EPA’s Overreach

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simpler, flatter, and fairer tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is easily understandable. Eliminate the death tax and cut the capital gains tax.

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Execute a full independent audit of federal agencies and programs. Assess their Constitutionality, and identify duplication, waste, ineffectiveness. Determine which agencies and programs are better left to the states or local authorities to reform or eliminate, and restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution.

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending that balances the budget within 10 years.

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries.

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs.

9. Stop the Pork

End all earmarks.

10. Protect American’s Privacy

Protect Americans’ privacy, including data and any other records from government intrusion by prohibiting and criminally punishing any private or political use of data gained or distributed by government officials.

11. Stop Unconstitutional Executive Branch Power

Develop a plan to sunset federal regulations and limit the Executive Branch’s power, which has grown substantially over the past decade.

http://contractfromamerica.org/

 

 

1. The fastest way to destroy what the founding fathers built with that document is to act as if it's a rigid, unchangeable creation. It needs to be adaptable to the needs of the country today. The 2nd Amendment in particular cannot be set in stone, and must be reshaped in light of the gun culture as it sits today. Think that's wrong? Sit back and watch the reaction to the underlined. If that doesn't prove the point, you should maybe stop voting.

 

2. Asinine. Basically saying that if we can't fix the entire problem, let's not attempt to fix any of the problem. Fossil fuels are killing this planet. This is the single most selfish plank in the conservative platform - it's robbing everyone's children of the future. We're already seeing climate change. It is going to get worse if we burn more fossil fuels. The EPA is designed to protect our environment, but in the interest of lobbyists and their big business cronies, conservatives are willing to curtail or eliminate this agency. Here's the path conservatives want to send us down by gelding the EPA. It isn't pretty, but it's the reality we face. Conservatives need to stop demonizing the very people trying to protect our environment from businesses who put profit over people.

 

3. Conditionally a good idea, but once again...

 

4. See #3

 

5. This is a flat-out lie. Conservatives don't want smaller government, they want a government that focuses on what they want - free rein to big business, and an increasing gap between the nation's wealthy elite and the poor. And again with Constitution-thumping, and again with the same answer - it's a living document, intended to reflect the needs of the time, not the needs of the 18th Century projected to modern times. Audit federal agencies? Sounds like a great idea, and conditionally I'm all for it. Waste is stupid wherever we see it. But who does the auditing, and why should we trust them, because the implication here is that "the other guys" are the fiscally irresponsible ones, and honey, that's utter crap. None of the conservatives were worried about fiscal responsibility when they allocated trillions upon trillions of dollars for W.'s pet war. And in case anyone thinks that's in the past, nope - it continues today, for purely political reasons. Conservatives cannot with a straight face rail against fiscal irresponsibility with this on their record.

 

6. Another flat-out lie. Conservatives have zero interest in cutting their pet projects, top on the list being the military, whose spending dwarfs that of the next three highest-spending nations combined. What they mean is, stop spending money on the people, privatize as much as possible, less oversight, which will lead to yet more abuses by the private sector. "Government spending" is the talking point - the goal is to allow big business (with no elected officials accountable to the people) to run amok. Basically, the Koch Bros.' wet dream.

 

7. Yet another whip-up-the-base BS party line. It's been well-established that Obamacare is substantially similar to conservatives' healthcare plans of the past, and not-so-recent past. The utterly dumbfounding thing about the conservatives' bitchfest over Obamacare is that it's transparently political, has nothing to do with the plan itself, and the constant votes to repeal it is wasting ungodly amounts of governmental time and money - something they seem to be upset about in #6. The biggest sham in all of this - the word "replace." There is no conservative idea ready to roll out - or if there is, Washington Republicans have done an utterly awful job of pushing their idea to the forefront of the conversation. What would have been FAR better than Obamacare would have been to have an open debate between the merits of Obamacare and the conservatives' plan(s?), and let the people decide. But that never happened, because they never bothered to roll out a plan. All they ever intended to do was waste time & money trying to block anything Obama did. And this can all be traced right back here, which constitutes one of the most despicable wastes of government time & money in my lifetime (after W's Iraq war fiasco).

 

8. Horrifying. How bad does the environment have to get before we ween ourselves off fossil fuels? We have more than enough NEARLY FREE CLEAN ENERGY BOMBARDING US DAILY, yet for some reason conservatives continue to champion the primacy of fossil fuels. America would be far-better served by spearheading the development of non-fossil-fuel technology, becoming the world leader in the field and exporting that technology, but sadly that lobby isn't lining the politicians' pockets.

 

9. This has to be a straight-up joke. Again, the implication is that conservatives aren't the ones guilty of pork-barrel spending, tacitly laying the blame at the feet of liberals, but that just ain't so.

 

10. Great idea. Only problem is, the NSA and domestic spying span decades, over several presidential administrations, over congressional control by both parties, and nothing was done by either party to curtail the problem. It's great to promote this, and everyone's all for it, but this is hardly a conservative idea, and not one conservative in Washington is going to stop governmental spying.

 

11. Another flat-out lie - at least in the implication that it's Obama we should be pointing the finger at. As we've covered in other conversations in this forum, Bush issued far more executive orders than Obama (thus far in his presidency). Conservatives aren't interested in curtailing the Executive Branch, they're interested in curtailing Democrat presidential executive power. If Romney were in office today we wouldn't be hearing one word about this.

 

 

 

 

This is why people like myself, JJ, BRB & LukeinNE no longer self-identify as Republicans. All of us were once registered Republican, none of us have ever registered Democrat, and in general we're all (presuming a bit on Luke, he's kinda new to these conversations) moderate-to-conservative.

 

It wasn't that we left the Republican party. They left us, to ally with big money political contributors and special-interest wing nuts.

 

The worst of it is, it's not like we can say, "Republicans, you're no longer representing my beliefs. I'm going to join the opposite party because, opposed to you, they must be the 'good' party now." because the freakin' Democrats aren't much better (only 73% crap, as opposed to the GOP's 84% crap ).

 

The one thing this list has right is when it strongly implies that government is broken and needs fixing. It just doesn't grasp how it's broken, or in what way(s) it needs fixing.

 

 

I think I'm in love.

 

The points on the environment are particularly salient. I just got back from spending a year in China. If you want to see what an unregulated climate disaster looks like, breathe that atmosphere for a few days. When I landed for a layover in the Beijing airport last summer, the smog was so thick that you couldn't see buildings a few hundred feet away. Even in southwest China, a relative haven compared to the East coast cities, their good air quality days are of the kind that would set off pandemonium in most Western countries. The smell permeates the air, and rush hour in a busy part of town is a headache-inducing experience. People often wear masks when they're out because there's nothing business or the government is going to do; except, that is, import more cars and burn more coal.

 

And that's just one climate disaster that's wrecking China. I could go on all day about the lakes you can't swim or fish in, the mountains they're chopping down to make room for more cities, the non-existent food safety standards. To hear conservatives tell it, they'd like nothing more than to see the EPA dismantled so we can go right down that road. We need government regulation. We can't take the risk of letting businesses decide whether its in the interest of their bottom line to believe in climate change. Unlike the creationism vs. evolution debate (which isn't much of a debate), climate change has immediate consequences for our lives, and we get to watch them unfold year by year.