Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is not an organization that gets a lot of press attention. With the Democrats out of power, they've been ignored as powerless fringe figures, with a scant 75 members in the House and one in the Senate to their name.

Yet there are plenty of reasons to start paying closer attention to them especially this week, as they've just released their yearly budget plan. There is a strong chance in the future that the CPC budget will be the basic policy framework for the Democratic Party, which has a solid chance to retake power within the next few years.

A good place to start is by comparison with House Republicans. For the past several years, the policy views of this group have received close attention in the press. The party's ultra-conservative wing, the "Freedom Caucus," got special attention due to their outsize influence and radicalism. So with the GOP in control of the House since 2011, and the Senate since 2015, watching them closely made good sense.

However, many observers, myself included, drastically underestimated the difficulty that Republicans would have in passing their own agenda. When Obama was president, Republicans passed dozens of repeals of ObamaCare. In this the ultras were the main driver, yowling constantly about how the policy was the death knell of freedom. I therefore thought that with Trump as president, they would simply repeat some version of that process, smashing whatever legislative barriers stood in their way. By the second week or so of the Trump administration, ObamaCare and most of Medicaid would be dead.

But when time came to actually enact some legislation, Republicans ran headlong into two things: First, that their health-care policy ideas are brutally horrible; second, that they had been constantly lying about them for years, to the public and to themselves. Even many Republicans in bright red districts looked down the barrel of voting to destroy the insurance of tens of thousands of their own constituents, after having promised that any ObamaCare replacement would cover more people for cheaper, and got cold feet. Meanwhile, the ultras balked at leaving too many people insured, and so the first effort failed.

Now, a potential repeal of ObamaCare is still very much in the cards. But it turns out that trying to pass policy which will kill thousands of people is a tough political lift, even for a party as diseased and morally bankrupt as the GOP.

By comparison, the CPC is much better politically situated to actually enact their proposals, should Democrats win power. Perhaps most importantly, they are not lying about what's in them. It's all laid out, clearly and honestly, with realistic assumptions and funding mechanisms. As laid out by the Economic Policy Institute, it would run a large short-term fiscal stimulus to reach true full employment. Additionally, it would boost food stamps, unemployment spending, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. It would also spend $2 trillion on infrastructure over 10 years.

It would partially pay for all this stuff with modest cuts in defense spending and a reduction in health-care price growth, as well as new progressive taxes (putting the budget deficit on a sustainable path, but only after full employment was reached). This would reduce inequality, push money down the income ladder, and a new financial transactions tax would also soak Wall Street a bit while improving financial services for everyone else.

More importantly, the CPC budget is by far the most realistic and serious proposal on offer to deal with the problems in the American economy. Obama's stimulus package was not nearly big enough, and the proportion of prime working-age Americans with a job is still lower today than it was at the bottom of the previous recessions (despite much improvement since 2009). Despite fairly low unemployment, the economy is still deeply structurally weak we have quite simply been crying out for something like this since at least 2010. Indeed, as Dean Baker points out, that enormous-sounding infrastructure package is only 1 percent of GDP, and merely brings the figure up to par with historical averages.

The moderate wing of the Democratic Party is, of course, resistant to this sort of spending, because it would horn in on their fundraising and post-officeholding buckraking. But their political position is much weaker than it appears. Half-measure policies like ObamaCare are not good enough, irritating and only popular insofar as they're better than nothing. Against such left-wing arguments, elite centrist Democrats posed electability it's simply the best we can do, sorry! But then their great avatar and leader, Hillary Clinton, lost to the most unpopular opponent in the history of presidential polling.

So in the future, the CPC has an enormously convincing argument, which has only started to take hold: Democrats might as well shoot for the moon and run on actually good policy, instead of fiddly little tax credits. The party has little left to lose.

See original here:
The Democrats are getting ready to govern again - The Week Magazine

But his election brought about one of the most significant but ignored progressive policy victories in years: He expanded Medicaid. With the stroke of a pen, Edwards brought one of the poorest states into the fold of the largest expansion of the welfare state since the 1960s, extending access to basic health care to almost 400,000 people.

No other state in the South, besides Arkansas, has done the same. He also ran his campaign on establishing a state minimum wage and reducing incarceration rates, in a state with an abiding love of prisons. He is an unapologetic friend to the teachers unions, in a state that has embraced charter schools and vouchers.

Edwards is by no means a lefty, but neither does he fit with the Ivy League, corporate-friendly Dems who dominate the partys center. Hes not Bernie Sanders, but neither is he Cory Booker. Hes something else someone whose biography and public profile is suited to the politics of Louisiana.

Before Edwards, Louisiana Democrats were at a historic low point. They completely lost control of state government in 2010, after which Governor Bobby Jindal ruined the states finances. In 2014, Mary Landrieu, the last Democratic senator from the Deep South, lost her seat. Columnist Michael Tomasky told Democrats it was time to write off the South and forget about the whole fetid place, in the same way some national Democrats now speak about the Midwest.

So when Republican Senator David Vitter ran for governor, he was at first thought to be a shoo-in, despite his high-profile involvement in the D.C. Madam scandal. The race pitted three Republicans against Edwards in Louisianas unusual jungle primary system. When Edwards and Vitter ended up in the runoff, Republicans defected to Edwards, because they respected him and found him broadly palatable. In polls, he has significant bipartisan approval.

In the aftermath of Trumps election, many Democrats want to rebuild the party at the local level. This is admirable and right. But many who strongly advocate this view have a very specific idea of what a Democrat should look like, and what positions they should hold.

If the goal is a truly national party, capable of achieving meaningful policy gains for a significant portion of the population, figures like Edwards have important roles to play.

Too often, Democratic candidates come from somewhere in the mushy none of the above camp. They might be technocrats, or they might just be people with impeccable rsums and a lot of money. These people sometimes win elections, but theyre limited in their ability to authentically appeal to citizens. Most candidates need a message beyond competence.

The GOP used to be the party of the big tent, but now it has a simpler platform: white nationalism. How much regional and ideological variation should the Democrats accept in order to fight it? Thats a difficult conversation for a party that has never been more geographically concentrated. But if Democrats are serious about fighting for the well-being of working people everywhere, its one that needs to happen.

This article appears in the April 2017 issue of the Texas Observer. Read more from the issue or become a member now to see our reporting before its published online.

See more here:
What Democrats Can Learn from Louisiana (No, Really) - The Texas Observer

(Jayne Orenstein/The Washington Post)

The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.

This is the Democratic Party. This is not a rubber-stamp party, Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters.

I grew up Nancy DAlesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic, she added, referring to the fact that she is the daughter and sister of former mayors of that city. Most of those people my family, extended family are not pro-choice. You think Im kicking them out of the Democratic Party?

Those comments from one of the Democrats most powerful and high-profile women come at a moment of opportunity and struggle within the party. It has been shut out of power in Washington, controlling neither house of Congress nor the White House, and its ranks have been decimated at the state and local level.

Given Trumps unpopularity and the recent stumbles that Republicans have made in Congress, Democrats have great hopes of making significant gains in the 2018 midterm elections. But the opposition party is also gripped by an internecine battle for its own identity, moving leftward with calls for ideological purity by portions of its activist liberal base while also trying to reach out to the rural, working-class Americans who turned against Democrats last year.

Abortion has become a flash point.

Newly installed Democratic National Committee Chairman Thomas Perez and former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came under criticism by abortion rights advocates during their unity tour last month, when they appeared together at a rally for an Omaha mayoral candidate who has sponsored legislature bills to restrict abortion.

Perez responded with a statement declaring that support for abortion rights is nonnegotiable for Democrats, and that they should speak with one voice on it.

At the time, Pelosi bristled at the party chairmans comments, saying on NBCs Meet the Press on April 23 that of course it is possible for an abortion opponent to be a member of the Democratic Party. She added that she has served for many years in Congress with colleagues of her party who do not share her own liberal views on the subject.

On Tuesday, she went further, arguing that the Democrats cannot afford to enforce an ideological test on the abortion issue.

In our caucus, one thing unifies us: our values about working families, Pelosi said. Some people are more or less enthusiastic about this issue or that issue or that issue. Theyll go along with the program, but their enthusiasm is about Americas working families.

She also suggested that the partys presumed rigidity on social issues is one reason that Democrats were unable to appeal to segments of the electorate that might otherwise have been in tune with their broader agenda.

You know what? Thats why Donald Trump is president of the United States the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. Thats how he got to be president, she said. Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively by that.

Pelosis comments drew a guarded rebuke from Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates leads to bad policy outcomes that violate womens rights and endanger our economic security, Hogue said via email.

The platform approved by Democrats at their national convention in Philadelphia last year went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the womens rights. It didnt just seek to protect abortion access it sought to expand it, Hogue said. If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it cant go backward, it cant back down and it cant trade away these principles.

Polling indicates that a significant portion of people who consider themselves Democrats do indeed have misgivings about abortion, which has been legal nationally since the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Surveys by the Pew Research Center have generally found that about 3 in 10 Democrats say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Pelosi expressed doubt whether any hard-line antiabortion candidate could win a Democratic presidential primary. She also noted that the debate over abortion no longer boils down to whether a candidate is for or against the basic right to the procedure, but rather over whether and what types of limits should be imposed.

As a result, within the Democrats, I dont think that youll see too many candidates going out there and saying, Im running as a pro-life candidate, she said. Its how far are you willing to go on the issue but lets not spend too much time on the subject.

Its kind of fading as an issue, she said. It really is.

Pelosi pointed to Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) as a case study in how the Democrats tolerate diverse views. Casey describes himself as personally opposed to abortion, but he has also fought alongside other Democrats against efforts to withdraw federal funds from Planned Parenthood.

Bob Casey you know Bob Casey would you like him not to be in our party? Pelosi said.

That name has particular resonance within the party. Caseys late father, Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, was denied a speaking spot at the 1992 Democratic National Convention when he asked to present a minority report opposing the partys platform plank on abortion, which declared reproductive choice as a fundamental right that should receive government financing.

In the wide-ranging interview, Pelosi expressed satisfaction at the fact that Republicans in Congress have thus far failed to overturn the health-care law that was the signature domestic legacy of the Obama administration and one of her own greatest legislative accomplishments when she was House speaker.

Pelosi was able to win passage only after adding assurances that the new law would not use government funds for abortion. She also recalled: Look, we worked with the nuns. The nuns helped us pass the Affordable Care Act. The nuns. The Catholic nuns thank God for the Catholic nuns. The Catholic hospitals are speaking out against the current GOP legislation to overturn the law.

Do we subject them to a test and say, Before you speak out on this bill, we want to know where you are on this, that and the other thing? Pelosi said. No. No.

David Weigel contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:
Pelosi: Democratic candidates should not be forced to toe party line on abortion - Washington Post

Weve all heard plenty of theories for why Donald Trump won the election: racism, sexism, xenophobia, and, well, Russia. And a number of arguments have more to do with why Hillary Clinton lost than anything Trump did to win.

But now the Democrats say their own data reveals specifically why Clinton lostand it complicates any attempt to rationalize the bizarre results as a case of racist white men unleashed.

Thats because Democrats say the real reason the election went the way it did was because of the number of voters who cast their ballots for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 andswitched their allegiance to Trump in 2016.

We have to make sure we learn the right lesson from 2016, that we dont just draw the lesson that makes us feel good at night, make us sleep well at night, Democratic strategist Matt Canter said of the findings.

The report came on the eve of remarks by Clinton, who said she would have won the election if not for FBI Director James Comey revealing that she was under investigation by the agency over leaked emails from a private server she used while serving as secretary of state.

According to a report by McClatchy, the so-called Obama-Trump voters accounted for a two-thirds majority of the reasons Clinton ultimately lost the electoral college vote. McClatchy says several members of Clintons campaign team have reached a similar conclusion based on the same data.

Interesting for those thinking ahead to 2020 isthat, according to Canter, turning out more of the Democratic base wont be enough to sway the next election in their favor. Instead, the party will need to win over more moderate butconservative-leaningwhite,middle-class voters that helped Trump win swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesnt work, Canter said. We have to do both.

The good news is that Obama did well with these voters in two elections, meaning these voters are less ideological and more likely to vote for the candidate best aligned with their economic and personal interests.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Say They've Figured Out Exactly Why Trump Won The Election - GOOD Magazine

President Trump, smarting at the notion that he was outmaneuvered by Democrats in their first real legislative showdown, is musing openly about seeking to scrap one of the last remaining checks the minority party has, even suggesting he might welcome a government shutdown this fall to further that end.

From the Rose Garden and his Twitter account Tuesday, Trump did little to hide his frustration with hardening conventional wisdom that the $1-trillion spending plan Congress expects to vote on this week represents a setback for his governing agenda, despite his party having the strongest grip on power in the capital in more than a decade, controlling the House, Senate and White House.

Meanwhile, members of both parties were at a loss to explain how what had on Monday appeared to be a rare bipartisan achievement in Washington had evolved 24 hours later into the source of recriminations.

As has often been the case with the president, this episode began with a morning series of postings on social media, in which Trump seemed to concede the funding package he signed off on over the weekend one that largely preserves funding for items he promised to slash, but does not advance his promised border wall was full of concessions to Democrats.

He then laid out options that could absolve him of the need for such compromise in the future: for voters to swell the partys ranks in the chamber to surpass the 60-vote threshold to overcome filibusters, or for Senate Republicans to eliminate the ability of any senator to demand a three-fifths majority to advance major legislation.

He capped that with a remark that seemed to embrace a fiscal crisis as a way to push his agenda.

Our country needs a good shutdown in September to fix mess! the president tweeted.

Aides later said Trump bristled at comments from Democrats claiming victory in the spending fight, as became clear when the president appeared in the Rose Garden hours later.

Flanked by members of the Air Force Academy football team in military dress, Trump boasted of the deals higher spending levels on defense, historic investments in border security, and funding for charter school programs. Put together, he said at the event congratulating the team, our Republican team had its own victory under the radar, Trump said.

And we didn't do any touting like the Democrats did, he added, before praising new military spending that he said fulfilled a core campaign promise.

Democrats had indeed been quick Monday to hail provisions of the spending bill that protected their priorities while averting what they called poison pill amendments like one to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. But legislative leaders from both parties were also eager to sell the package as an example of compromise that was possible if all sides acted in good faith.

This deal is exactly how Washington should work when it is bipartisan: Both parties negotiated and came to an agreement on a piece of legislation that we can each support. It is truly a shame that the president is degrading it because he didnt get 100% of what he wanted, Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York said on the Senate floor.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) groused at having to respond to another presidential Twitter flurry as he faced reporters shortly after the tweets were posted.

When you look at the bill, there's a lot of good conservative wins here, he insisted.

On Monday morning, Trump had indicated he was satisfied with the agreement and noted both sides could claim victory. But by late Monday, Trumps budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, was dispatched to the White House briefing room to proclaim victories for the administration.

I'd be hard-pressed to figure how we could fund more of the priorities, he said then.

By the time the budget chief spoke to reporters again Tuesday afternoon, he said Democrats had tainted future negotiations.

The president is frustrated with the fact that he negotiated in good faith with the Democrats and they went out to try and spike the football and make him look bad, Mulvaney said. If Democrats dont change that posture, he added, a shutdown may be inevitable.

It wasnt clear why the president believed a government shutdown a costly, inconvenient and embarrassing affair would be beneficial at a time when Republicans control the White House and both chambers in Congress. The White House also could not clarify whether Trump was calling for an actual government shutdown; his tweet put the term in quotation marks, which he sometimes cites later as a sign he was not speaking literally.

The last federal shutdown occurred during a standoff between President Obama and Republicans in 2013 over healthcare, lasting 16 days. In Congress, neither side of the aisle wanted a repeat of that.

That the president would say, in effect, what this country needs is a good shutdown just speaks in volumes as to his insensitivity to what a shutdown means, or his lack of knowledge of what a shutdown means, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said in an interview.

She questioned whether the comment was reflective of the advice of Mulvaney, a former South Carolina representative whom she called a ringleader of the 2013 shutdown.

Whats he complaining about? That left to their own devices, the Congress came to agreement? she asked, noting that securing Democratic votes in both the House and Senate has become essential to any government funding effort.

If the House and Senate do pass the spending bill this week as expected, it will fund government operations through the close of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. White House officials say Trump will be in even a stronger negotiating position by then.

We're hopeful that we can see as we go through the 2018 process more of a Republican-driven process, especially in the House, which would be a little bit more typical, Mulvaney said Monday.

But on the legislative front, it's unclear just what else Republicans will be capable of passing, given ongoing internal divisions and an emboldened Democratic minority.

Trump has been increasingly focused on the filibuster hurdle in the Senate. He called the chambers rules archaic in an interview on Fox News last week, one of many he sat for that was intended to promote his accomplishments during his first 100 days.

But while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was willing to deploy the so-called nuclear option to change Senate rules and allow Trumps Supreme Court nominee to advance with a simple majority vote, he and other Republicans have indicated that they are not inclined to lower the voting threshold to overcome a filibuster for legislation.

There is an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis not interested in changing the way the Senate operates, McConnell told reporters Tuesday. That will not happen.

The Trump administration is set to release a more detailed budget blueprint for 2018 later this month, part of a process that Republicans hope will be a vehicle to enact a far-reaching tax plan. First, they still hope to restart an effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

It is possible for Republicans to secure both without Democratic votes, McConnell said.

On everything else, the Senate has been known for its bipartisanship, and you're seeing a perfect example of it on the spending bill that will be on the floor this week, he said.

michael.memoli@latimes.com

For more White House coverage, follow @mikememoli on Twitter.

ALSO

Congress is on track with sweeping spending deal, but not much else

Trump's 'big beautiful wall' is not in the spending plan. Will it ever get built?

Trump holds a 100-day rally on friendly turf, snubbing the White House Correspondents' Dinner

Read the original:
Trump talks of possible shutdown next time as Democrats claim victory in spending fight - Los Angeles Times