Mediaboss Marketing

21st Century Democrats: Rawlings-Blake on Dems #39; Strategy; Altman on Social Security #39;s Future
First, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is the mayor of Baltimore and an up-and-coming force in the Democratic Party. She says the party #39;s dismal showing in 2014 resulted from not talking about Democrats...

By: 21stdems

Here is the original post:
21st Century Democrats: Rawlings-Blake on Dems' Strategy; Altman on Social Security's Future - Video

Democrats in the U.S. Congress have wasted no time in resurrecting a debate over net neutrality rules, with lawmakers introducing a bill that would ban paid traffic priority agreements between broadband providers and Web content producers.

A day after new members of Congress were seated, Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that would require the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to ban paid prioritization agreements. The FCC is preparing to vote on new net neutrality rules in late February, after an appeals court threw out a large portion of the agencys old rules a year ago.

The reintroduced Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, which failed to pass after Democrats introduced it last year, is designed to prevent broadband providers from creating Internet fast lanes and slow lanes, based on the ability of Web content providers and services to pay for faster speeds, sponsors said.

The primary sponsors of the bill are Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Representative Doris Matsui, a California Democrat. Other co-sponsors include six Democratic representatives, three Democratic senators, and independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The Internet must be a platform for free expression and innovation, and a place where the best ideas and services can reach consumers based on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with a broadband provider, Leahy said in a statement. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act would protect consumers and sets out important policy positions that the FCC should adopt.

FCC rules must ensure there are no tolls, gatekeepers, or a two-tiered Internet system in this country, Matsui added in a statement.

Republicans now hold the majority in both the House and the Senate, and many have voiced opposition to strong net neutrality regulations. While the Democrats bill is unlikely to pass, it puts political pressure on the FCC to ban paid prioritization. An early proposal by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler would have allowed broadband providers to engage in commercially reasonable traffic management and, in limited cases, sign traffic prioritization deals.

The bill would require the FCC to prohibit paid prioritization agreements on the last-mile Internet connection, the connection between the ISP and the consumer. It would also prohibit broadband providers from prioritizing its own last-mile Internet traffic over the traffic of other companies.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in Washington, D.C. More by Grant Gross

Your message has been sent.

Read this article:
Democrats' bill would ban paid prioritization by ISPs

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Elizabeth Warren came out swinging against both Republicans and fellow Democrats in a fiery speech to an AFL-CIO conference on Wednesday, an address that included some apparent jabs at Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who some liberals want to draft to run for president, gave a wide-ranging speech in which she claimed headlines about the economy improving dont jibe with the lives of Americans who are struggling with student loans and mortgage payments. She pressed to raise the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 an hour, an idea long pushed by Democrats.

But the speech may have been most notable for what The Wall Street Journal called not-terribly-veiled references to Hillary Clinton and attacks on Bill Clintons record in the White House. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, though she hasnt yet declared her intention to run. Warren has insisted she isnt running for president.

Heres one line from Warrens speech in which she blasts both parties: Pretty much the whole Republican Party and, if were going to be honest, too many Democrats talked about the evils of big government and called for deregulation. It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do.

As The Journal points out, part of Hillary Clintons argument is that Bill Clintons presidency presided over the economic growth of the 1990s. And as The Journal notes, Warren was harking back to President Clintons 1996 State of the Union address and its signature line The era of big government is over.

Warren has carefully couched her statements about a presidential run, saying she isnt running now. Her supporters hope her keeping a decision about a run in the present tense means shell run in the future. They were newly energized Wednesday.

Originally posted here:
Capitol Report: Elizabeth Warren doesnt spare Democrats in fiery speech

House Democrats launched the 114th Congress this week almost fully united behind Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as their party leader.

Four centrist Democrats bucked Pelosi in Tuesday's much-watched vote for Speaker, including Reps. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and newcomer Gwen Graham (Fla.).

But 25 Republicans defected against Boehner for the top spot following a very public campaign for more conservative leadership in 114th Congress. And in contrast, Pelosi's near-unanimous support from her troops sends a signal that, while the Democrats may have lost ground at the polls in November, they remain united behind Pelosi and her vision for leading the party out of the minority.

It wasn't always such.

After the Democrats were trampled at the polls in 2010, when they lost 63 seats and control of the House, 20 rank-and-file members declined to back Pelosi in the vote for Speaker.

That number plummeted two years ago, when five Blue Dog Democrats voted for figures other than Pelosi for Speaker.

The lesser defections in recent years is at least partially a reflection of a changing Democratic caucus, as most of the centrist Democrats who voted against Pelosi are no longer in Congress. Indeed, of the five members who bucked Pelosi in 2013, only two Cooper and Lipinski remain on Capitol Hill in the 114th Congress.

Cooper, who had voted two years ago for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, did so again on Tuesday. Lipinski voted for Rep. Peter DeFazio (D), a liberal firebrand from Oregon. Sinema picked Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights icon. And Graham, who had made it a campaign promise not to support Pelosi for Speaker, voted for Cooper.

At least 18 Democrats were absent from the vote, most of them New Yorkers who were attending Tuesday's funeral for former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D). The absentees lowered the number of votes Boehner needed to retain his gavel, but in the end didn't ultimately matter since he won 216 votes anyway.

The large show of support for Pelosi could have policy implications, as Boehner's struggles to rally the support of his conservative conference throughout the 112th and 113th Congresses are widely thought to carry over into the 114th a dynamic highlighted by the conservatives' attempted coup on Tuesday.

View post:
Four centrist Democrats buck Pelosi

Almost a year ago, President Obama vowed to use his pen and phone wherever possible to make a difference for middle class Americans, effectively promising to aggressively employ executive action to lift struggling Americans economic prospects in the face of implacable Republican opposition.

But now some liberals are beginning to worry that Obama may fall short in this regard, on an issue where he could perhaps give more of an economic boost to the middle class through unilateral action than on any other front. And if that happens, it could form the basis for another argument among Democrats over the partys economic direction.

The issue in question is how Obama will treat the issue of overtime pay, which is set to flare up next month. Senator Sherrod Brown, a leading member of the partys increasingly emboldened populist wing, tells me: As the party of the middle class and those seeking to join it, Democrats should stop the erosion of overtime pay.

The background: Last spring, Obama directed the Department of Labor to revise the rules that govern which private sector employees get overtime pay as part of the New Deal-era Fair Labor Standards Act. Under current rules, those who make $455 or less a mere $23,660 per year or less qualify for time-and-a-half pay if they work more than 40 hours per week. Many workers over that threshold do not qualify for that protection. That threshold is functionally lower than it has historically been, thanks to inflation: According to the Economic Policy Institute, only 11 percent of salaried workers qualify, which compares with 65 percent back in 1975.

The question is: How high will the Obama administration set the new threshold? The answer will determine how many people will benefit and could amount to differences totaling in the millions of people. Some liberals are pushing Obama to set the threshold at around $51,000 per year, which could mean overtime pay for 47 percent of workers who get salaries. Billionaire Nick Hanauer, who has forthrightly admitted that wealthy capitalists such as himself have been enriched in part by the current low threshold, wants it set even higher, at $69,000 per year.

But now the Huffington Posts Dave Jamieson reports that some of these liberals think the Obama administration is eying a much lower threshold, of around $42,000.

This is where the argument among Democrats could kick in.

Progressive Senators who have already criticized the administration on other economic issues Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin wrote a letter last spring to Obama, applauding his decision to revisit overtime pay.

But in their letter, the liberal Senators also set forth their desired threshold: Around $54,000 per year.

The differences here matter a lot. According to the EPI, raising the threshold from its current level to a sum in the neighborhood of what the liberal Senators want could mean higher overtime pay for at least 2.6 million more people than raising it to $42,000, the amount the Obama administration is supposedly eying.

Original post:
Sargent: The next big fight among Democrats?