Progressives Urge Biden to Abandon GOP Outreach, Move Swiftly on Bold Package

"A Republican minority shouldn't be allowed to hold the nation's economic recovery and public health hostage."

by Jake Johnson

Photo: Tom Lohdan / Flickr // People for the American Way

\With Covid-19 killing thousands of people each day in the U.S. and the economy still mired in deep recession, progressives are calling on President Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress to abandon futile outreach to the GOP and push ahead with a robust relief package after a pair of so-called "moderate" Republican senators voiced skepticism Wednesday about passing another major spending bill.

Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), members of a bipartisan group of lawmakers calling itself the Common Sense Coalition, indicated shortly after Biden's inauguration Wednesday that they would have difficulty supporting relief legislation on the scale of the $1.9 trillion plan the president unveiled last week—a proposal progressives criticized as inadequate.

"Who cares what Romney thinks. Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation." —James Medlock, policy analyst

Romney characterized Biden's opening offer as "not well-timed" given that Congress "passed a $900 billion-plus package" last month. Some economists argue that between $3 trillion and $4.5 trillion in spending will be necessary in the short-term to bring the U.S. out of recession and pave the way for a speedy recovery.

"Let's give that some time to be able to influence the economy," Romney said of the December relief measure

Murkowski echoed Romney's concern, complaining that "the ink is just barely dry on the $900 billion." Biden's relief proposal—which includes $1,400 direct payments, a boost to unemployment benefits, and other key measures—would require "a fair amount of debate and consideration," said the Alaska Republican.

Given that Biden would likely need the backing of both Romney and Murkowski -- as well as other Republicans -- to achieve his hope of passing a relief bill with bipartisan support, progressives said the two senators' comments further bolster the case for ignoring the austerity-obsessed GOP and using unified Democratic control of government to swiftly pass an ambitious package.

"Who cares what Romney thinks," tweeted policy analyst James Medlock. "Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin[istration] will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation."

Medlock was referring to the expedited, filibuster-proof process that allows passage of certain kinds of legislation with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes -- a threshold that would require the support of at least 10 Republican senators.

Biden has not explicitly endorsed passing coronavirus relief through reconciliation if Republicans obstruct his agenda. But White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during the new administration's first press briefing Wednesday that while the president's "clear preference is to move forward with a bipartisan bill," Biden is "not going to take tools off the table for how the House and Senate can get this done."

With the reconciliation process a possibility, another -- and, according to some progressives, much better-option is to quickly eliminate the legislative filibuster, a move that would allow passage of legislation without any Republican support.

Democrats control the Senate by the narrowest possible margin, meaning they would need the backing of the entire caucus plus a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris to pass legislation in the absence of the filibuster, which Democrats can kill with a simple majority vote.

"A Republican minority shouldn't be allowed to hold the nation's economic recovery and public health hostage," progressive organizer Ilya Sheyman said, urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to use one of the two tools at his disposal to pass a major relief bill.

Amid growing GOP hostility to additional coronavirus relief spending, Biden's economic advisers are expected to meet with the Common Sense Coalition in the coming days, continuing outreach to Republicans and conservative Democrats -- such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) -- that began before the inauguration.

"We can do 1,000 straight days of this song and dance or we can just zoom ahead and enjoy a glorious, filibuster-free existence," tweeted Ryan Kearney of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. "Your choice!"

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Wednesday that while he has "no problem with reaching out to Republicans" and "would prefer to do it that way," he has no intention of wasting precious time trying to bring intransigent GOP lawmakers onboard.

"If we hear very early on that Republicans do not want to act in a way that meets the needs of working people in this country or the middle class, sorry, we're gonna do it alone," the Vermont senator said in an appearance on ABC.

As progressive Democrats and advocacy groups demand quick action, the timeline for movement of a coronavirus relief package remains unclear. Punchbowl News reported Wednesday morning that "Democrats do not expect to be able to send Biden a Covid relief bill until early March," when emergency unemployment benefits are set to expire for millions of Americans.

Progressives made clear that waiting until March to pass a relief bill would be unacceptable, given the enormity of the public health and economic emergencies that are ravaging the country.

"We urge the President to continue to act swiftly and boldly to address the multiple crises our nation faces," Rahna Epting, executive director of advocacy group MoveOn, said in a statement late Wednesday. "People's lives depend on it. We cannot allow Washington gridlock or Republican obstruction to stand in the way of the urgent needs of the nation."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued a similar call to action, demanding that the Biden administration and Democratic Congress work toward "the swift passage of a comprehensive and bold relief package that meets the scale of this crisis."

"We have no time to waste," said Jayapal.

[Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Follow him on Twitter: @johnsonjakep]

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Basic Income: An idea whose time has come

"We live in a new world, remade by many forces: the disruptive technological revolution,
brought about by the computer and the internet; the globalisation of trade, migration and communication; a fast-growing worldwide demand running up against the limits imposed by a shrinking pool of natural resources and saturation of our atmosphere; the dislocation of traditional protective institutions, from the family to labour unions, state monopolies and welfare states; and the explosive interactions of these various trends." -- Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght in Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy

Can we have less "lesser"

Good candidates are running across the country, and pretty much every Democrat is better than his or her opponent. But the national leadership has not crafted a compelling program comparable to the New Deal or the Great Society (to say nothing of MAGA). They haven't even tried, the closest thing being the proposal to use the tax cut to pay teachers, a pr stunt not a program.

Many of the most compelling candidates (in Texas, Florida and Georgia, for example) owe little or nothing to the national party. In many cases, the "great candidates" the DNC and DCCC did recruit are ex-military and veterans of the security state apparatus, which means they will not be of great help in turning swords into plowshares, an essential project if we are to find solutions to our festering problems in such areas as poverty, infrastructure, housing, education, and health care.

When Republicans got the polls, they know what they're going to get, as awful as that is. The same cannot be said for Democrats, who once again are being asked to vote against rather than for something. Will the Democrats as a party fight for infrastructure spending, progressive taxes, Medicare for All, a living wage and universal basic income? Who can say? Are they going to take on the military-industrial giants and the security state? Not likely, but who really knows.

The House and maybe the Senate are at stake; it would be helpful to know what the stakes really are.

And, parenthetically, in a census year, the outcomes in races for governor mansions and state legislatures will determine the makeup of the House for at least a decade.

The Party of Hope and Change -- or the new Whigs?

If you look at today's Democratic Party and wonder, how did we get here?, consider words Bill Clinton uttered on April 7, 1993: "'I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans,' he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. 'We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?'" (from The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House by Bob Woodward).

Though he spoke those words in frustration, what he said was true. The party of FDR and LBJ had become -- and in many ways remains -- the party of Ike: on some issues, on support for Labor and protection of Social Security, for example, on economic policy and national security, the Democratic Party today stands to the right of 1950s Republicans.

It is because the party leadership has been doing Wall Street's bidding for so long, now going on four decades, that Democrats have lost much of their following among the middle and working classes; nor will the voters return unless in the next two election cycles the party changes direction as radically as it did in the 1990s.

At the grassroots level, Democratic voters, and people who would vote Democrat if the party were true to its roots, are organizing: fighting pipelines and fracking; pushing for a living wage or a guaranteed income; demanding gun control; defending the Dreamers; shoving back against free trade; marching in defense of the environment; calling for Medicare for All. Even the general public sides with the left on a number of key issues that reflect on the size and purpose of government: hefty majorities support higher taxes on the wealthy and the corporations and think the government should be actively reducing the growing gap between the rich and the rest; want legislation to significantly increase in the minimum wage; and look to Washington to create jobs by making urgently needed repairs to our neglected infrastructure.

What nearly all Americans crave most, though, is leadership.

Part of Donald Trump's appeal as a candidate -- his only appeal, really -- was in his promise to do something, even if that something was just to break up the furniture. Doing something was more appealing than poking along the road to ruin, as the Democrats seemed to intend on doing.

The elections of 2018 and 2020 together will mark a turning point in our history. Another round of defeats for the Democrats, and the party will fade into irrelevancy. There is still a chance that the Democrat Party will again take the lead in the struggle for social and economic justice. If it does, the party will be invincible. If it doesn't, a new Liberal party will arise from its ashes as surely as tomorrow will dawn.

Must read: The Left ascendant

"With his primary election victory last week, Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski -- a Blue Dog and cultural conservative -- won the first major 2018 battle between the Democratic Party's establishment and progressive wings. But don't be confused about what it means. The war is already over, and the establishment lost.

"Even though only two states have actually voted so far this primary election season -- Texas, a red-state redoubt, and Illinois, a blue-state stronghold -- the battle for supremacy this primary season is all but complete. In state after state, the left is proving to be the animating force in Democratic primaries, producing a surge of candidates who are forcefully driving the party toward a more liberal orientation on nearly every issue.

"These candidates are running on an agenda that moves the party beyond its recent comfort zone and toward single-payer health care, stricter gun control, a $15 minimum wage, more expansive LGBT rights and greater protections for immigrants. In the surest sign of the reoriented issue landscape, they're joined by some of the most prominent prospects in the 2020 Democratic presidential field -- Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris among them -- who are embracing the same agenda."

The rest of the story:
Forget about Conor Lamb and Dan Lipinski. The progressive wing has already beaten the establishment in 2018: How the Bernie Wing Won the Democratic Primaries by Charlie Mahtesuian (Politico).

A rose by any other name...

I was accused today of being a Berniac, plainly a creature of uncertain pedigree and ill repute. It left me wondering:

Is one who supports reducing the work week to 30 hours and expanding paid leave; providing guaranteed jobs at a living wage to all;

providing a decent standard of living to everyone; establishing a national child care system; reestablishing the right of all workers to join unions; providing affordable universal health care and free universal public education; and restoring the infrastructure while keeping it in public hands; and opposes the national security state, militarism, empire and endless war, is such a person a Berniac or a lifelong Democrat who wants to see the Democratic Party return to basic principles?

Extra credit:
A wage floor is an effective way to fight poverty -- and it would reduce government spending and intrusion: The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income Creating by Noah Gordon (The Atlantic)
Giving everyone a job is the best way to democratize the economy and give workers leverage in the workplace: Why We Need a Federal Job Guarantee by Mark Paul, William Darity Jr and Darrick Hamilton (The Jacobin)
Working moms can have it all -- in France: Trapped by European-style Socialism -- And I Love It! by Claire Lundberg (Slate)
In 1971, a national day-care bill almost became law. Therein lies a story: Why America Never Had Universal Child Care by Nancy L. Cohen (New Republic)
The weakness of labor hurts all employees in every sector: The Decline of Unions Is Your Problem Too by Eric Liu (TIME)
A growing number of Americans support Medicare for All: A Canadian Doctor Explains How Her Country's Single-Payer Health Care System Works by Michel Martin and Denise Guerra (All Things Considered/NPR)
The US earns a D+. It is, in a word, a mess. It's Time to Fix America's Infrastructure. Here's Where to Start by Jordan Golson (Wired)
“Infrastructure is such a dull word. But it’s really an issue that touches almost everything.”: System Overload by James Surowiecki (The New Yorker)
A lack of transparency and oversight has led to abuses time and again, in every era: Why Does Anyone Trust the National-Security State? by Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic)
The military's evolving role in U.S. foreign policy decision-making: The Politics of American Militarism by Joshua Foust (The Atlantic)
Untangling truth and fiction in an age of perpetual war: American Imperium by Andrew J. Bacevich (Harper's Magazine)
Imagining the World in 2025: Empire of Madness by Tom Engelhardt (Truthdig)

Must see TV: Two Principled Progressives Discuss H. Clinton

The Duopoly: They're not the same.

But does it matter?

Democratic Party apologists like to remind us that the two sides are not the same. And everyone to the left of Calvin "The business of America is business" Coolidge has a grand time pointing the finger at all the batty stuff Republicans think they have to say to appease their base.

But, meanwhile, the front runner on the other side is expressing perfectly reasonable but equally fanciful things about economic justice, peaceful foreign policy initiatives, and privacy protections.

This dance happens every four years.

But, at the end of the day, neither party has made a realistic effort to prevent the growth of the military-industrial complex and the rise of the security state, nor to arrest 40 years of disintegrating infrastructure and disappearing middle class.

On the contrary, they've walked hand in hand up Mt. Oligarchy.

You're standing on the street. A guy carrying a machete walks up to you and whacks off a hand and a foot. It's brutal and painful. A second guy approaches you with a chloroform-soaked rag and a scalpel. He knocks you out, carefully lowers you to the sidewalk, then slices off your other hand and foot. You don't feel a thing.

They're not the same, not by a long shot.

But, either way, you don't have hands and feet.

Santa Monica: Roll back executive pay

The hiring of a replacement for exiting city manager Rod Gould provides Santa Monica with the chance to begin -- at the top -- the difficult but necessary task of reducing the outrageous salaries paid at upper levels of city staff.  

Gould's annual haul -- at least $352,889 -- beggars the imagination. For comparison, the compensation paid the mayor of the City of New York -- you know, with its $70 billion budget and its 325,000 employees -- is $225,000, and the People get to do the hiring! In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown took home $165,288  -- it shouldn't require a sacrifice to go from running the City of Santa Monica to governing the State of

California. Even limiting comparison to other charter cities, Santa Monica's salary schedule is out of whack: the city manager in Culver City, for example, tops out at $256,139.00 and Newport Beach's at $282,318.00. The National League of Cities latest figures (for 2009 -- five years ago, so inflation may have pushed some numbers higher; but, also, not reflecting the implosion and stagnation of the economy since) show the national average remuneration for chief administration officer/city manager as $106,408 and, by way of comparison, for chief law enforcement official as $82,015, in stark contrast to pay in Santa Monica for jobs like city attorney -- $294,878 -- and assistant city attorney -- $295,243, or assistant city manager -- $283,312 (not to mention a police sergeant racking up $293,264 with overtime). While the League of Cities averages include municipalities in areas of the country that have lower costs of living than west Los Angeles, they also include towns that are much bigger, much more problem-riddled, and much less pleasant and prestigious to work in. 

Typically, when a city bureaucracy tries to lower its costs of doing business, it begins by cutting services, reducing staff or getting lower-level employees to accept less in pay and benefits. With the change of administration, Santa Monica has a unique opportunity: reducing the burden of staffing at the executive level is -- economically, politically, morally -- the right thing to do.

Economic Populism at Heart of Emerging Debate Among Democrats

Published on Friday, July 11, 2014 by

Campaign for America's Future Blog

[Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), center, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, make statements introducing Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) seated at left, to the committee during his confirmation hearing to become secretary of state, replacing Clinton, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)]

by Robert Borosage

Over at The Washington Post, the usually sensible Greg Sargent endorses the notion that divisions among Democrats are “mostly trumped up.” The tension between the Wall Street wing of the party and the Warren (as in Elizabeth) wing is an overblown fiction of a press corps desperate for some action.

It’s true that the prior divisions on social issues have dissipated, as liberals have swept the field. Obama’s halting attempts to wean the US from its foreign wars have garnered widespread support. And on economics, Sargent argues that Democrats “largely agree on the menu of policy responses to the economic problems faced by poor, working and middle class Americans — a higher minimum wage, universal pre-K, higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a stronger safety net, job creation and job training — whatever the broader rhetorical umbrella is being used.” Even Hillary says she agrees with Thomas Piketty that extreme inequality is a “threat” to our democracy.

There are differences on how aggressively to go after the big banks or whether to expand Social Security, Sargent admits, and a debate underway about “whether to push the Democratic Party in a more populist direction,” which he declines to define. But generally, he argues, there’s broad agreement that Hillary or any Democratic candidate will run on.

All of this is true except the conclusion. There is a broad agreement on what might be called a “populist lite” agenda — one that has been put forth repeatedly by Obama and frustrated by Republican obstruction. And the reforms — from the minimum wage to universal pre-K — are important and will make a difference.

But it strikes me as bizarre to suggest that there is no serious debate among Democrats when the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country and a key power in Democratic circles, has just called for the resignation of Obama’s education secretary. Democratic House and Senate leaders refuse to allow even a vote on fast-track trade authority sought by the president, and a majority of the Democratic caucus lines up against Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Progressives in both houses demand bold action on jobs, on taxing and investing that the president resists. Democrats revolt against the White House desire to trim Social Security benefits.

In fact, there is a fundamental debate brewing in the party, grounded on very different perspectives that lead in significantly different directions.

On one side are the passive voice populists, which include both Clintons and Obama. They argue that our Gilded Age inequality is the product of technology and globalization, as if these were autonomous forces like the weather. The effects — a declining middle class, stagnant wages, spreading misery — can be ameliorated by sensible policies, like the agenda Sargent ticks off. Most of all, Americans need to make certain the next generation gets better education and training so they can better compete in the global marketplace. Universal preschool is a first step to that. But the largest thrust — driven by the party’s deep pocket donors — is an assault on teacher’s unions and public schools, investment in charters, public and private, and a focus on high-stakes testing to measure teacher and school performance.

Undergirding this is an acceptance that we can’t really afford to do even the minimum in public education or child poverty, so the focus has to be on cheaper ways to make progress. This assumption also fuels the interest in cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, experimenting with public-private partnerships to raise funds, and so on. All this assumes that we’re close to the limits on taxes, that corporate tax reform should be “revenue neutral,” (that is, companies should not contribute one dime more to our investment or budget needs), and that taxes on the wealthy can’t produce much additional revenue.

The activist-voice populists disagree fundamentally with both the analysis and the prescription. They argue that extreme inequality results from rules that were rigged to benefit the few and not the many. That leads to the demand for structural reforms to change the rules: fair and balanced trade and tax policies to replace those created by and for the multinationals; breaking up big banks and curbing Wall Street’s casino as opposed to accepting banks that are too big to fail and too big to save; progressive tax reforms to create revenue for the public investments that we need in everything from education to infrastructure to an expanded safety net; empowering workers and curbing CEO license to ensure workers share in the profits they help to produce; expanding Social Security and public pensions while moving further towards true universal, affordable health care.

These differences are only now emerging, as the failure of the recovery forces a bigger debate about our economy. The Wall Street wing presses forward with corporate trade deals that are opposed by a growing majority of voters. The bankers bear no accountability for their pervasive frauds and lawlessness, while most Americans are looking for perp walks. Well-heeled lobbies block any sensible tax reform, while polls show Americans strongly want the rich and the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Obama has already felt the revolt of the Democratic base against his plans to pare Social Security benefits. Clinton and Obama have been essentially AWOL in the war on labor and collective bargaining, essential elements of any strategy to rebuild the middle class.

Obviously, many of these questions pit the wealthy Wall Street and Silicon Valley donor class against the vast bulk of Democratic voters who are struggling in this economy. It’s not surprising that smart politicians have moved to adopt the populist lite agenda to appeal to the latter without offending the former.

But the divisions are likely to grow because most Americans are struggling in this economy. (Most still think it is in recession.) And with the deck still stacked against most Americans, little is likely to change without a new deal (to borrow a phrase).

And in addition to this is Hillary’s apparent intent to run to the right of Obama on foreign policy — to champion more interventionist and hawkish views at a time when Americans want to rebuild at home. If she pursues this course, it will likely spark a new debate around foreign policy that Obama’s relative caution largely avoided.

Democrats have always been a big-tent party. The divisions between Southern segregationists and Northern liberals were apparent. The battles over civil rights, women’s rights, choice, wars and gays and guns were fierce. Many of these debates now have largely dissipated as liberals have won and the party’s base has evolved. The New Dem scorn for traditional liberals and labor drove big primary fights.

But the new debates over economic direction and the likely battle over policing the world are just beginning to take shape. And if the economy continues to reward the few and not the many, the divisions won’t need to be trumped up.

[Robert L. Borosage is the founder and president of the Institute for America’s Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.]

Where is Horatio Alger when you need him?

The Economist ranks US 16th best place to be be born: above us on the list are nothing but socialist hellholes with confiscatory taxes.

Class Unconsciousness

President Obama has gotten a lot of free advice since Nov 6 from progressives who think he should refocus his attentions on their priorities. But why should he? Since, when it appeared he needed them, they volunteered their support for his reelection without demanding anything in return, why should he now feel obligated to take their wishes seriously?

When he was first running for president, then Sen. Obama repeated the famous story about a delegation of progressives, led by the great labor organizer A. Philip Randolph of the railroad porters' union, meeting with another newly elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The delegation described the things they believed FDR needed to do to help fix the economy and improve the situation of ordinary citizens. As the story is told, FDR listened intently, then replied: 'I agree with everything you have said. Now, make me do it.'

Making Obama "do it" is going to take a lot more than op-ed pieces, open letters and online petitions. To move this administration in a more progressive direction, to overcome its leader's native caution and to beat back the relentless pressure it is under from the corporate class and the military-security state apparatus will require an equal or greater pressure from a national movement demanding economic justice and a restoration of the middle class. Such a movement can only be built if the identification that currently exists between the 99% and their oppressors can be broken. In other words, until Americans become class conscious there will never be a reason for Obama, or any politician, to do anything other than carry on with business as usual.

Building class consciousness won't happen -- can't happen -- by recruiting people to join the Peace and Freedom Party or the Greens (although third party mechanisms will be necessary in the future as the country continues its decline under the Democratic-Republican duopoly, so it's to be hoped that Jill Stein's paltry 396,684 tally is enough to keep the Green Party on state ballots). But class consciousness can be built by engaging in practical political work in our communities.

There are a number of local issues that are looming (or that are chronic, is more like it) -- repairing the public schools; providing universal access to public institutions of higher learning; keeping hospital emergency rooms and clinics open and accessible; raising local minimum wages to livable levels; restraining public transportation costs and assuring availability; resisting hand-outs to developers; opposing the crushing of local businesses by big-box stores and malls; increasing infrastructure spending; making state and local taxes more progressive; supporting labor actions by janitors, hotel workers, grocery clerks, teachers, factory workers -- that offer opportunities for common-sense, real-world discussions about capitalism and economic and social justice.

Also, reforms that would make our political system more democratic and thus more responsive to the majority -- weekend voting; instant run-offs; proportional representation; public financing of elections -- will only gain traction if they are tested and proven effective on the local level. And that won't happen, either, unless that majority begins to understand whose interests are served by the creaky, calcified, undemocratic political mechanism we use now.

This is not to say that we should give up attempting to affect national issues -- the security state; the war machine; our murderous and counter-productive foreign policy; the immoral drone campaign; climate change; free trade; protecting and expanding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; the private health care insurance gravy train; control of the government by oligarchs; the kleptocracy -- but these are matters for discussion and op-ed pages; organizing around them will only make sense when people active locally begin to connect the dots between community concerns and macro issues, and local organizations join together to demand change on these national issues.

The Democratic Party as a whole has moved steadily to the right for four decades. But many people within the party who share our goals are potential allies in local fights; these engaged people also need and deserve support when they resist the pro-business, anti-labor forces that dominate the party. After the "change" election in 2008, many on the left suffered buyer's remorse when Obama adopted a business-as-usual attitude toward governing (and doubled-down on many of Bush's worst security-state policies); yet four-years later they found themselves with seemingly no choice but to push once again for the lesser-of-two-evils option. If we're going to use our limited personal energies in electoral politics going forward, it should be in local races and political institutions where we can build trust with our communities and demonstrate concrete results. If this country is going to begin down a new road, the journey will start at Neighborhood Watch and the PTA, in community organizations, planning commissions and city councils. Not only is it possible to make concrete changes in our lives at the micro-political level, but local successes will demonstrate the practical worth of our ideas.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Independent in Politics

Bill Moyers interviews Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who’s been an independent in Congress for 21 years — longer than anyone in American history. Sanders talks about jobs, the state of our economy, health care, and the unprecedented impact of big money on the major political parties.

“What you are looking at is a nation with a grotesquely unequal distribution of wealth and income, tremendous economic power on Wall Street, and now added to all of that is big money interests, the billionaires and corporations now buying elections,” Sanders tells Bill. “I fear very much that if we don’t turn this around, we’re heading toward an oligarchic form of society.”
From Moyers and Company 2012-09-10

Lesser of two evils? Really?

Like Bill Clinton as president (you remember: banking "reform," telecom "reform," welfare "reform," WTO, NAFTA -- that Bill Clinton), President Obama has tried to deflect criticism by adopting the policies of his opponents, in effect, as used to be said, being more Catholic than the Pope. In domestic affairs, this has led to passivity and inaction, allowing the Right to stake out the parameters of the political debate: the pursuit of austerity; the advancement of tax cuts (more of a muddle now that candidate Obama is a born-again populist); the promotion of the health of the insurance industry ahead of the health of the people; the setting "on the table" of cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

But, as troubling as the administration's domestic agenda has been, it is in the area of foreign policy that its behavior is most distressing. Not wishing to allow criticism from conservatives, Obama has not just continued George W. Bush's Long War, but has enlarged it both in scope and in ferocity. The legal and physical framework established during Bush's reign, from the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act thru Gitmo to drones, not only remains in place, but has been extended to include contract killings and a list of conflict points that looks like the departure board of an international airline.

So where does that leave the Left in November 2012? True to form, the presidential wing of the Democratic Party is campaigning on the shop-worn "lesser-of-two-evils" platform, even though it has become so threadbare the only part not in tatters is the fear-mongering about appointments to the Supreme Court. (And, by the way, how different is jazzing up the Democratic base over Roe V. Wade from the GOP's cynical use of "social issues" to get its base hyperventilating? Here's something you can put money on: whether Obama or Romney is president, the next appointee to the Supreme Court will be a reliable defender of corporate interests and the status quo.) Even if you're appalled, as you should be, by the idea of Mitt Romney in the White House (and Paul Ryan a heartbeat away), how can you vote for Obama without endorsing his policy choices?

The answer, of course, is that you can't. In 2008, it was possible to convince yourself that the Democratic candidate's general blandness ("hope," "change," "yes we can") and specific conservatism (missile attacks on Iran, more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, advocacy of the death penalty, deliberate blurring of the clear language of the 2nd amendment, bipartisanship as a policy goal) was a disguise intended to slip him past voters on election day, a "whites of their eyes" strategy as it is (now wistfully) described to get hold of the reins of power before turning the carriage of state down the road to peace and economic justice. In 2012, deluding yourself that Obama is the candidate of change is no longer possible. No wonder the campaign is spending its millions demonizing the hapless Romney (Obama has been supremely lucky in his opponents, but never more so than this season); what else is there to talk about?

If you're not a supporter of fiscal austerity except when it comes to funding endless war, what do you do? In some states, third party candidates will be on the ballot (in California, no joke, Roseanne Barr was nominated for president last week by the Peace and Freedom Party, which also has in Marsha Feinland a first rate candidate for U.S. Senate against that pillar of the status quo, Sen. Diane Feinstein; Barr is also working hard to get on the ballot in other states; and the Green Party has a worthy candidate in Dr. Jill Stein). In most of the places where where liberal disappointment in the president is greatest -- New York, Illinois, California, New England and the Pacific Northwest, the distortions of the electoral college have rendered votes in the Obama-Romney contest so meaningless that even progressives persuaded by lesser-of-two-evils argument can cast a third party protest vote without worrying. There also are numerous opportunities to affect the much more important matter of who gets to serve in the national legislature: in addition to such obvious choices as Sen. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Alan Grayson, scores of federal and local progressive candidates need your support: you'll find most (or all) of them at the fundraising site ActBlue. And you can work to build a third party more in tune with the your politics than the duopoly; get involved in local politics; join the struggle to create alternative power bases, for example in labor or community organizations; pursue change in specific policy areas (such as militarization or the environment); assist civil rights and civil liberties defenders like the Southern Poverty Law Center or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Or you can take to the streets.

What you can't do, it seems to me, is sit passively in the audience of our political theater; what you can't do is agree to business as usual; what you can't do is once again accept without resistance the lesser of two evils.

Do we need a new People's Party?

2012: Lets have a real debate in the California U.S. Senate race

The June 6, 2012 primary offers the voters of California a unique opportunity to stand against business as usual in Washington: with 24 candidates on the ballot for United States Senate, six of them Democrats, it's possible, at least in theory, that a unity candidate could win second place and the chance to debate centrist Diane Feinstein face-to-face in the run-off in November. Marsha Feinland of the Peace & Freedom Party would fill this role perfectly: she is articulate, personable, dedicated, and right (that is to say, Left) on the issues. It would be illuminating if, before she heads back to Washington to act in our name, our senior senator was required to explain her positions on such matters as international trade, military adventurism, immigration, homeland security and the bankster crime wave (she's for aggressively prosecuting Julian Assange for espionage, for example, but much less enthusiastic about putting financial crooks in jail), to say nothing of addressing unresolved allegations of corruption stemming from her days on a military appropriations subcommittee.With Democrats and Republicans divvying up the primary ballots, it might not take very high numbers to grab second place; it would certainly make for a livelier debate in the general election to have a representative of the 99% sharing the stage with Sen. Feinstein rather than another one-percenter like herself from the GOP.

Project VoteSmart's summary of Dianne Feinstein's key votes.

Reform: Four Smart State Laws Set to Move in 2012

Congress may be deadlocked, but practical, popular solutions are gaining momentum at the state level.

by Charles Monaco (Yes! 2012-01-13)

In the year since conservatives took control of the U.S. House of Representatives and legislative bodies in states across the nation, we’ve seen them move their agenda with alarming disregard for both democracy and the economic security of the nation. From the irresponsibly provoked debt ceiling “crisis” to the wholesale obstruction of job creation efforts, conservatives on the national stage took an approach of reckless political brinksmanship over the past year that put the entire economy at risk. And from Wisconsin to Alabama and beyond, 2011 saw conservatives in the states—buoyed by support from their corporate allies in the 1%—launch attack after attack on workers, women, voters, and immigrants.

But the new year brings new hope for progressives looking to turn the tide—hope that, for the time being, largely resides not in the halls of Congress but in the 50 states. Elections in every corner of the country last November—from Arizona to Maine to Ohio—saw voters decisively reject a range of right-wing legislative attacks. The shady practice of corporations writing state laws to benefit their own bottom lines (through organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council) has been subject to an increasing amount of sunlight and public attention. And the public sentiment behind the explosive growth of the Occupy movement last fall has remained, even as many physical occupations have been forcibly dismantled. On issue after issue, public opinion remains firmly in favor of policies that will begin to address the needs of the 99 percent.

While progressives in the states will be focused on a range of economic priorities, here are four specific policies that state lawmakers are advancing in 2012 that are practical, popular, and are set to gain real momentum as new legislative sessions kick off starting this month:

1. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Proposals that Can Pass in Red and Blue States Alike:

When President Obama introduced the American Jobs Act last fall, he included in it a handful of elements that had already been passed with bipartisan support—and proven successful—in many states. These included the banning of employer discrimination against the long-term unemployed, saving jobs by allowing work-sharing as part of unemployment insurance programs, and requiring that states “Buy American” in their contracting practices in order to create jobs here at home. These measures have shown both that they work and that they can pass even in conservative-controlled chambers.

Public opinion remains firmly in favor of policies that will begin to address the needs of the 99 percent.

In 2011, New Jersey passed a bill prohibiting employers from discriminating against job applicants based on their current employment status, and similar bills are set to move across the nation in 2012. Likewise, work-sharing—a pro-worker measure currently in place in 23 states that allows workers to keep their jobs and gives employers flexibility to weather a downturn by allowing workers to earn partial UI benefits while working part-time—passed in states, including Pennsylvania and Maine, with conservative legislatures. And “Buy American” provisions are also set to move in a slew of states (such as Nebraska) this year.

2. Creating State Banks to Foster Local Economic Growth:

With revenue and budget crises certain to be in the headlines once again in many states in 2012, lawmakers are increasingly looking towards structural changes that will ensure they can rebuild and sustain prosperity—even as conservatives once again look to cut much needed public services to the bone.

While demanding corporate transparency and accountability—and requiring that the 1 percent and corporations pay their fair share in taxes—will continue to be a priority for progressive state lawmakers in 2012, they will also be attempting to capitalize on widespread public frustration with big banks by proposing the creation of state development banks similar to the one in place for over 90 years in North Dakota. The creation of state banks would allow states to invest dollars in their local communities rather than line the pockets of Wall Street CEOs. Additionally, according to one study, state banks have the potential to close some current state deficits by anywhere from 10 - 20 percent. The measure will be hotly debated in Oregon this year, where it has the potential to pass, and introduced in many other states as well.

3. Restoring the Minimum Wage to Grow the Economy:

One of the simplest ways for states to jumpstart their economies and address the needs of the 99 percent—all without increasing spending—is through restoring the minimum wage. Studies have shown that raising the minimum wage provides a direct boost to economies by giving lower-income workers more purchasing power.

The basic principle that no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty clearly resonates with the public.

While proposals are under consideration in many states, including New York and Missouri, perhaps the most exciting development is in Illinois, where legislation is under consideration that would restore the minimum wage to its historic 1968 value: $10.50 per hour, after adjusting for inflation. Other states are considering measures that would index the minimum wage so that it rises with inflation, or to boost it by lower amounts. In 8 states, automatic increases took effect on January 1st, providing much needed economic stimulus; in Washington, the rate is now at $9 an hour.

Regardless of the specific proposals, raising the minimum wage has proven incredibly popular, with approval for the policy ranging from 75 to 90 percent in recent polls. The basic principle that no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty clearly resonates with the public, and bodes well for continuing efforts to raise the minimum wage and grow state economies in 2012.

4. Rejecting Arizona’s Immigration Approach, Businesses Line Up Behind Tuition Equity

After Arizona enacted SB1070, its controversial “show me your papers bill,” in the summer of 2010, conventional wisdom had it that states would be lining up to copy this destructive, enforcement-only approach to immigration. Prominent copycat bills in states like Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina notwithstanding, the vast majority of states have rejected similar bills. This widespread rejection has been due in no small part to the efforts of the business community, which is acutely aware that the deep economic pain and social upheaval that has accompanied the passage of SB1070 copycats is simply not good for business, or for a state’s economic prospects.

Over the last two years, states have increasingly turned towards common-sense legislation that welcomes the economic contributions of (and taxes paid by) immigrants and non-immigrants alike. One of the chief ways they are doing so is by advancing tuition equity measures. Already enacted in 14 states, these laws allow talented undocumented students to attend state universities and colleges at the same tuition rate as their U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident classmates. Many are on the agenda again in 2012, including in Colorado, Hawaii, and New Mexico. Colorado State Sen. Mike Johnston, a former high school principal, reflected on the reason such laws see growing support: “Colorado’s future depends on forward-thinking approaches to immigration—ones that focus on nurturing talented youth and putting our tax dollars to better use than destroying immigrant families.”
_________________________________________
Charles Monaco wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Charles is director of Communications and New Media with the Progressive States Network.

This article is reprinted under the the Creative Commons license.

Federal Budget: "I would rather have no deal than a bad deal"

Wolf Blitzer appears never to have met a principled liberal before.

They're rare enough. Maybe he never has.

2012: If he wishes to continue in office, President Obama needs to get passionate about change.

Americans are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it -- more of the same -- any more.

If 2008 had been a normal political year, John Edwards would have been the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. He was young, attractive, articulate, far more liberal than his opponents, and had been the party's 2004 candidate for vice-president; it would have been unsurprising if he had captured the top spot in 2008. Disastrous, too, of course, but we didn't know about Rielle Hunter then. In the event, Edward's log-cabin story was overwhelmed by two other narratives, those of the first woman and the first black to make plausible candidates for President of the United States.

As he prepares to run for reelection, President Obama apparently hopes to resuscitate the rhetoric of hope and change he used to sweet-talk his way to the Oval Office. But it is going to be a lot harder than the White House imagines to recast this business-as-usual politician once again as an agent of change. The big donors, the corporate shills and Blue Dogs in Congress, and the "pragmatists" running the campaign may think the president can ride the same hot-air balloon to victory, but the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will need something a lot more audacious than mere hope to get it fired up again.

As support for the Occupy protests makes clear, Americans still long for change. They want a government that treats them fairly and acts on their behalf; they want well-paying, meaningful employment; they want  criminals imprisoned rather than enriched; they want safe streets, functioning schools, bridges that don't fall down; they want those who benefit from the system to pay their fair share for its upkeep.

In 2008, I argued that Barack Obama had no "politics," meaning that he was not animated by a vision of a better America; that he was not driven, as were many who voted for him, to make our nation more equitable, more just, more democratic; that, despite all the talk, he had no passion for change. Having politics, in this sense, is not about pursuing a particular set of policies; it is certainly not about elections. Rather, it is a kind of faith in the transformative power of collective action, a belief that acting together we can make the world a better place. If he cannot find that passion in the next few months, it's very unlikely he will gain reelection.

Eight years ago at the Democratic Convention, accepting the nod for vice-president, John Edwards had that passion. As a child of the working class, Edwards understood that there were two Americas, one that was benefiting unduly from the system; one that was benefiting little or not at all. He believed, and he made you believe, that it doesn't have to be that way. "We have much work to do," he told the convention.

Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet.

It doesn't have to be that way.

It doesn't have to be that way, he said. And it's wrong, he said. Inequality is wrong. Poverty is wrong. Lack of opportunity is wrong. Injustice is wrong. John Edwards had the passion -- the anger, the commitment -- we require now in our president. Barack Obama needs to get angry. Not annoyed. Not testy. Not petulant. Outraged. Pissed off. Passionately, righteously angry.

Barack Obama needs to get mad as hell. Or he's not going to be president any more.

There is very little time left for the president to "get it." If Obama had lost in 2008, it would not have been because he is too much like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, but because he is too much like Al Gore and John Kerry. Inaccurate or unfair as this may be, he comes across as cold, aloof, arrogant, privileged; he does not appear to understand the fears and hopes of ordinary people. He was quick to rescue the miscreants who nearly broke the system; he has still not responded adequately to the need to create jobs and to help folks whose lives were damaged or destroyed by the financial crisis. More people are living in poverty today than were there at the start of his term of office; this is not a fit record for a Democrat to run on. The perception is that Obama fought passionately for Goldman Sacks; now he needs to tap in to some of the passion that made ordinary people believe that John Edwards was mad enough to fight for them.

Barack Obama has been very lucky in his opponents. Taking nothing from his fine-tuned operation in 2008, the candidate had only to get past Hillary Clinton's disastrously managed effort before he was up against the hapless duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Also filling his sails were an imploding economy, an unprecedented advantage in fund-raising (tellingly, mostly from Wall Street and Big Pharma), unpopular wars, and what was viewed at the time as a failed Republican incumbency. And he had a large portion of the voting public ready to indulge a candidate who based his appeal on the promise that this time would be different. Yet, in the perfect political storm, he couldn't crack 53% of the vote.

This time, opinion is widespread that he is the failed incumbent. He now owns the war in Afghanistan, and if things go wrong in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or Libya, he'll own them, too. He also owns the economy. If the jobless rate is still eight or nine percent at this time next year, well, he's the president. Though he has not been unproductive as chief executive, he has spent far too much of his political capital legitimizing his opponents instead destroying them. Until Occupy changed the topic, he and the Republicans were bickering about budget caps and spending cuts, not jobs programs and infrastructure spending, austerity not prosperity.

A lot of energy that went into the Obama campaign in 2008 will be focused this year on issues campaigns, Occupy, and retaking the House of Representatives. And while it can be said that Obama is still lucky in his opponents, unfortunately the least clownish of the Republican aspirants appears destined to be the GOP candidate (the Mormon cult may be an issue in the primaries, but the conservatives will anoint the Church of Latter Day Saints a mainstream Christian faith within 24 hours of Romney's elevation).

While it's possible that Mitt's empty suit will leave room for the president to squeak past, it's more than likely that Romney's blandness and serenity will make him hard to beat. The former governor is presenting a facade strikingly similar to the blank slate Obama displayed three years ago. If you, the average voter, are offered two candidates with more or less the same personality who appear to favor more or less the same policies, do you pick the one who has presided over four years of decline and is surrounded by controversy -- he's a socialist; he's from Kenya; he wants to take your guns; he wants to raise your taxes; he favors death panels and death taxes; he has no birth certificate? Of course not. Where there's smoke there could be fire; you go with the new guy.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and I'm probably the Labor Movement.

If there had a been a political version of the reality TV show "Biggest Loser" during the 2008 presidential race, the hands down "winner" would have been the unions. While the rest of us projected our hopes and dreams onto the blank face of the Obama campaign, Big Labor was trading phone banks, door knocking and hard cash for influence. But while the rest of us have only ourselves to blame for conjuring up a fantasy hero to change everything in Washington, Big Labor got snookered. As Randy Shaw wrote this week,

...labor is the big spender on the left, and as 2012 approaches, are unions really going to pour another $200 million into Obama’s campaign? And millions more into Senate Democrats, not one of whom (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who did speak out, is not a Democrat) spoke out strongly and tried to organize actions against the debt deal?

Labor made the right decision to pour massive resources into electing Democrats in the 2008 elections. But this strategy failed. Now unions must redirect resources to ongoing organizing, and make it clear to Obama’s campaign that it should look to the “independents” whose support it so desperately seeks, rather than the union members whose agenda it scorns, for money and volunteers in 2012.

At least some unions seems to have learned a lesson from shadow boxing with the Democrats. The International Association of Fire Fighters, to take one example, decided in April to pull back from national politics (as Jeanne Cummings reported in Politico):

As newly elected Republican state legislatures aggressively push a slew of anti-union measures, the International Association of Fire Fighters is freezing its federal political spending and shifting all resources toward its beleaguered state and local colleagues.

“With the survival of our union and the ability to preserve and protect the rights, wages, and benefits our members deserve in jeopardy in the states, we have re-evaluated how to get the best results from our political dollars,” IAFF President Harold A. Schaitberger said...in an email blast to members....

The fire fighters' PAC spent more than $4 million in the 2010 midterms and was still writing checks at the beginning of this year. “But until we see our friends in Congress be as committed to standing and fighting with us with the same level of intensity and ferocity as our enemies are trying to kill us, I’m turning the spigot off,” Schaitberger told Politico. Cummings reported Schaitberger was particularly ticked off that Senate Democrats killed a firefighter grant program that his members had helped push through the House despite GOP control.

Not every spark turns into a firestorm, of course. But where there's smoke there's fire. Okay. Whatever. The point is that 2012 may not be a repeat of 2008. Even if the Democrats manage to scare many progressives to vote for their ticket on election day with phantasmagoria about the demons on the other side, it's already clear that there will be less enthusiasm, and less money than in 2008. Obama couldn't crack 53% in the political equivalent of the perfect storm; the Democrats will find it hard to repeat even if the Republicans offer another unattractive and transparently incompetent contender, their typically empty-suitor.

The national Democrats' difficulties are not a problem but an opportunity. Even if Obama had been the second coming of FDR, wresting control of the Democratic Party from the banksters and their cohort would have problematic; having a corporate Democrat in the White House makes it impossible. But should the Democrats lose the executive, the way may be clearer to increasing Labor's sway over public policy.

From: Labor Idle As Obama, Democrats Back “Raw Deal” for Working People by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-08-04)
See, also: Labor's Revival Depends on Workplace Organizing, Not Electoral Politics by Randy Shaw (BeyondChron 2011-06-13)