Mediaboss Marketing

Why do we have building codes if we arent going to enforce them? Mayor de Blasio styles himself a progressive. But a century ago, the original progressiveswanted everyone to have a safe place to live, regardless of income. In turning a blind eye to tens of thousands of people living in illegal and dangerous apartments, Hizzoner ironically subscribes to a type of pre-progressive caveat-emptor philosophy.

In 1890, muckraker Jacob Riis How the Other Half Lives chronicledthe shocking fate of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, mostly poor immigrants and their children, crammed into the inhuman dens of disease-ridden tenements. Even back then, though, New York had a law against this, enacted in 1867, giving people a legal claim to air and sunlight, as Riis wrote. The city just didnt enforce it.

Similarly, 146 people died at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory downtown in 1911 not because New York didnt have laws against locking exit doors, but because the owners didnt follow them.

Both the laws and their enforcement improved, part of New Yorks century-long public-health triumph. Now, were going backward. Eleven people, including 2-year-old Lobsang Lama, drowned in their basement apartments during last weeksflash floods.

Five of the six apartments in which they drowned were illegal. The city had complaints about at least three of these illegal apartments and didnt do much to investigate them.

Most basement apartments are illegal for a good reason: You cant easily escape from them. But Gotham has long ignored illegal dwellings: Last year, three people died in fires in illegal units.

DAs should prosecute owners who endanger their tenants; the owners of these buildings should face manslaughter charges.

But what about the citys culpability? Last week, de Blasio acknowledged that at least 100,000 people, mostly illegal immigrants,live in illegal apartments.

Illegal crowding has helped spread COVID, too, just as it spread infection disease in Riis day. Its a reason why the citys death toll from coronavirus is 403 per 100,000, by far the highest in the country.

But the mayor doesnt plan to do anything about it.

Sure, he made an empty gestures, saying that next time we have a flash flood, the city will tell people to evacuate such apartments temporarily. How? A flash flood, by definition, comes quickly.

One answer to this humanitarian crisis is to build more housing.

Yet property owners already have the option of upgrading their basement apartments. They dont do it, because such upgrades would make the apartments too expensive for their tenants. Trying to make an illegal basement apartment up to code is very difficult physically, very costly, the mayor said last week.

Why cant the tenants afford legal, safe housing? Because they supply New Yorks illegally cheap labor. Black-market workers earn below the minimum wage, and often toil in unsafe working conditions.

These are the people who die in preventable construction disasters, paid by the day, with no workplace-safety protections, as well as the people who struggle through floodwaters to bring restaurant customers their hot food in a historic storm, for cheap.

Legalizing long-term immigrants they arent going anywhere, after all would give them some leverage over exploitative landlords and employers.

Except it wouldnt solve the problem. We would quickly import a new cohort of undocumented immigrants, unprotected from wage, housing and workplace laws, because the city depends on cheap labor.

De Blasio loves to be virtuous about the citys $15 minimum wage, as well as mandated sick leave, but the only reason any of this works is that hundreds of thousands of people toil in the second-tier, basement-dwelling economy.

New York City is full of failure to enforce the law. Vending licenses, for example, enable lawful workers to earn a decent living, but they dont work if the city has tens of thousands of illegal street vendors competing against them.

New Yorks progressives want their apartments cleaned and renovated, their children watched and their food delivered hot and fast, and they love to romanticize the churro lady but they dont want to think about the people drowning in the basement.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor of City Journal.

Twitter: @NicoleGelinas

Read the original post:
Flooding of illegal units belies NYC progressives' self-righteous claims - New York Post

Sep 7, 20216:17 AMEDT

Labor Day didn't go by without progressives renewing calls for the Senate to pass the PRO Act.

By Kaitlyn Kennedy

Washington DC Squad members and other progressive politicians rang in Labor Day by urging the Senate to do away with the filibuster and pass the PRO Act.

The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act was passed in the House in March along mostly party lines, but it has since stalled in the Senate.

Advocates have called the legislation the most consequential revamping of labor laws since the New Deal in the 1930s.

The bill outlines a host of provisions intended to provide workers greater security when organizing for better wages, benefits, and safety in the workplace.

Concretely, the bill would end mandatory anti-union meetings. As things stand now, employers can require workers to attend sessions that detail all the alleged disadvantages of unions, as occurred during the high-profile unionization vote at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama earlier this year.

The bill would also end "right to work" laws currently in place in 27 states, which allow people who don't pay union dues to receive union benefits. This weakens unions by depriving them of funds and membership, stripping them of their bargaining power.

Employers would be required to negotiate with unions until a first contract is reached and would not be able to delay union elections, fixing two of the biggest obstacles to organizing.

Workers would also receive additional protections, including a ban on employers permanently replacing striking employees.

Secondary strike limitations would also be removed, allowing unions to encourage workers in connected jobs to participate in boycotts and so amplify the strikers' negotiating power.

The PRO Act would prevent employers from misclassifying employees as "independent contractors" as a means of limiting access to full workers' rights and restricting unionization efforts.

Members of the Squad and other progressive politicians used Labor Day as an opportunity to remind fellow lawmakers about the importance of passing the PRO Act.

"So much of what we take for granted in this country is due to the tireless work of the labor movement. We need to protect and grow the power of working people everywhere. To start: let's turn the PRO Act into law," said New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman.

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar agreed: "The Senate must pass the PRO Act to put power back in the hands of workers."

New York Rep. Mondaire Jones simply tweeted, "Happy Labor Day.Abolish the filibuster and pass the PRO Act."

Passing the PRO Act is the best way Congress can honor and strengthen the labor movement, they argue.

But doing so seems to require some big structural changes within the legislative branch.

The PRO Act is currently experiencing a similar fate as much of the most consequential Democratic-sponsored legislation aimed at expanding political and economic enfranchisement.

Senate Democrats with their narrow majority are unable to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, and even within their own camp, there is a familiar holdout Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.

Unless the filibuster is removed or significantly reformed, or Sinema and 10 Republican colleagues suddenly see the light, the PRO Act doesn't stand much of a chance of passing.

That's why some Democrats and labor advocates are working to get parts of PRO Act included in $3.5-trillion Democratic reconciliation bill, including empowering the NLRB to penalize employers if they violate workers' rights.

Still, the usual suspects Sinema and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin have expressed doubts over passing the reconciliation bill with its current price tag, making it unclear whether Democrats will be able to advance many of their boldest reforms.

Nevertheless, the brain behind the budget, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, remains confident he can get the 50 votes necessary to send the reconciliation bill to Biden's desk.

Cover photo: IMAGO / ZUMA Wire

More on the topic US politics:

See the article here:
"Power to the workers": Progressives commemorate Labor Day by renewing calls to pass the PRO Act - TAG24 NEWS

Progressives should love cryptocurrency, the latest innovation that brings power to the people. Turns out, they dont.

Perhaps surprisingly, it is precisely because crypto circumvents the corporate, permissioned, speech-controlled online world that angers progressives. Crypto threatens to nix not just the corporation but also the bureaucrat, which puts it at odds with the progressive ethos that demands government experts ensure a just and common good.

Progressive politicians want to make this industry heel to Washington or, even better, replace it wholesale with a government version. In a recent hearing, progressive Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) assailed crypto as run by shadowy super coders and phony populists. Senator Brown wants government-run central bank digital currency as an alternative.

The current top-down internet, where oversight boards, safety councils, and terms of service legalese control access, fits the progressive vision. Progressives have increasingly demanded and mostly received a compliant tech industry where contrary voices are nonvoiced, whatever the validity of their arguments.

In theory, a crypto-centered web would change the paradigm. Permissionless decentralized applications run over blockchains have no dictators. Blockchain changes arrive through consensus, those that disagree with a software update, or fork, remain on the un-forked blockchain or fork themselves. Forks lacking developer support wither and die.

But the crypto worlds ideal of a rapidly innovative, individual-centered internet that ends top-down control and allows people to buy, share, borrow, speak, trade, rent, and collaborate outside government or Big Techs purview is a better match for the conservative/libertarian worldview.

President Donald Trump, for all his bluster, nominated the two most pro-crypto people to ever work in the executive branch, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce (aka Crypto Mom) and Brian Brooks, former acting Comptroller of the Currency.

The infrastructure debate saw passionate crypto defenses from Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) among many others. House conservatives like Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) tirelessly support crypto, while progressive bellwether Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs (D-NY) support for unlimited public spending via Modern Monetary Theory starkly contrasts cryptos penchant for sound money.

Ideally, the coders, programmers, foundations, policy wonks, and others creating the crypto-economy could ignore politics. They could be left alone to produce a common good decided by individuals making choices and not by protective regulators. Hardly anyone receiving the benefits of their labors would think twice about the political or ideological motivations of the people creating the tokenized economy. What matters is if peoples lives become easier or more prosperous.

But any upstart industry needs friends in Washington. The crypto industry should choose wisely. If cryptos main players, as well the sectors emerging entrepreneurs and investors, want the best for the approaching internet phase known loosely as Web 3.0, they should diverge from the progressive movement and its Big Tech allies, which will never be their friends.

Paul H. Jossey is an adjunct fellow and crypto policy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and founder of http://www.thecrowdfundinglawyers.com. Follow him on Twitter @thecrowdfundlaw

Read more:
Perspective: Crypto Should Divorce From the Progressive Movement - Crowdfund Insider

Rep. Cori Bush, the first-term Democrat from Missouri who has quickly become a progressive standout, describes her life as one of constant learning.

Its an education that has taken the 45-year-old from the streets of Ferguson, Mo., to the steps of the Capitol, where she slept outside for days demanding that Congress pass legislation to extend an eviction moratorium.

One of her first educational courses was from her father, Errol Bush, who has served as both a local alderman and mayor.

I grew up in a home where my dad was always teaching us about civil rights, Bush told The Hill in a pair of phone interviews. He always helped me to see your skin color does not make you less than anyone ... you are a leader, he instilled that in me from as early as I can remember, but I didn't understand it yet. I didn't understand what he meant until I was out there on those streets.

Those streets were in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb where Black teenager Michael Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer in August 2014.

Browns death sparked nationwide anger and was a flashpoint in the burgeoning Black Lives Matter movement; Ferguson itself was dominated by unrest and protests, and its police department eventually was forced to enter a consent decree with the Justice Department.

Formore than400 days, Bush and other protesters marched and held demonstrations. On day one, Bush was a registered nurse, pastor and mother of two; by the end, she was a leader of the movement.

I feel like I learned everything, Bush continued. What I didn't learn in school in a school book, I learned out there on those streets, because [they] helped me understand the experiences that I had walked through prior.

I learned how to use my voice.

Bush was persuaded to jump into Missouris Senate race in 2016, but she didnt make it beyond the primary.

Two years later, the St. Louis native fell short again, this time in a House race, losing in the Democratic primary to then-Rep. Wm. Lacy ClayWilliam (Lacy) Lacy ClayLobbying world Ex-Rep. Clay joins law and lobbying firm Pillsbury Liberal advocacy group stirs debate, discomfort with primary challenges MORE.

But she never stopped organizing, and her tenacious, grassroots approach finally paid off last year, when she was propelled to an upset victory against Clay.

In November, she easily won the general election, becoming Missouris first Black congresswoman.

She credits lessons learned from trauma and hardships, both shared and unshared, as contributing factors to who she is today.

Bush is a survivor of sexual assault, a former low-wage worker and has been evicted multiple times. More recently, she was sidelined for the better part of two months last year with a bout of suspected COVID-19induced pneumonia that landed her in the hospital twice.

I always say that St. Louis built me ... because of all the hard knocks that I've gone through, Bush said.

So many of them happened on the street, or they happened because of what our communities look like. I've watched so many of my friends and neighbors go through so many of the same things that I did.

Her lived experiences and deep roots in activism are far from commonplace in Congress, but those close to her say thats where she draws her strength from.

The special thing about Cori is her passion, passion for people and the genuineness that she has for people, Ohun Ashe, a St. Louis organizer and activist who has worked with Bush, told The Hill.

If you listen to Coris story, you know that shes had some bad experiences with being a Black woman in America. And I think that that has given her a special light to seeing other people, and a special fight and passion not everyone has.

Bushs experience with evictions and homelessness served as the basis for her protest on the Capitol steps at the beginning of August. It also underscored some of the tensions between progressives and Democratic leaders who have not always been in lockstep on legislative priorities.

When it came to extending the eviction moratorium, Democrats didnt have the votes to pass the legislation, but Bushs demonstration on the Capitol steps garnered the media attention needed to pressure the White House. President BidenJoe BidenTrump to offer commentary at heavyweight fight on 9/11 Manchin would support spending plan of at most .5T: report South Dakota governor issues executive order restricting access to abortion medicine MORE later extended the moratorium until Oct. 3.

Bushs protest drew praise across the Democratic caucus.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiManchin would support spending plan of at most .5T: report Overnight Health Care US hits new vaccine milestone White House pitches House Democrats on messaging for .5T spending plan MORE (D-Calif.) lauded her powerful action to keep people in their homes.

Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalMore than 100 Democrats back legislation lowering Medicare eligibility age to 60 On The Money Manchin slams brakes on Biden spending push Progressives hit Manchin after he calls for 'pause' on Biden's .5T plan MORE (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, credited Bushs clear-eyed, committed activist mentality.

I think that it would not have been possible to get to this result without Rep. Bush's action, Jayapal said at the time.

The Supreme Court, however, struck down the new moratorium, after saying two months earlier that only Congress could extend the temporary ban.

Bush told The Hill that her heart broke when she heard the news.

Even though I'm not on the steps anymore, this isn't over for me and for my office and so many of my colleagues, Bush said.

She said shes working with Rep. Maxine WatersMaxine Moore WatersCawthorn to introduce resolution condemning political violence after warning of 'bloodshed' if elections are 'rigged' On The Money Eviction ruling puts new pressure on Congress Pelosi backs bill to expedite rental aid after eviction ruling MORE (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, to get legislation introduced that would improve disbursement of the $46 billion that Congress approved for emergency rental assistance, the majority of which has failed to reach struggling tenants and their landlords.

Bush also said her office is working on drafting legislation that would give the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to implement eviction moratoriums.

But the national spotlight also brought with it criticism of other policies that Bush is a proponent of, namely defunding the police by redirecting money from police budgets to improve social services such as violence prevention.

In an interview with CBS on Aug. 6 shortly after Biden announced the new eviction moratorium Bush's expenditures on private security were juxtaposed with her support for defunding the police.

You would rather me die? Is that what you want to see? You want to see me die? You know, because that could be the alternative, she responded.

According to The Hills analysis of Federal Election Commission filings, Bush spent almost $70,000 on private security after the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection the most of any House lawmaker.

Bush told The Hill that death threats against her have been commonplace ever since her activism in Ferguson and that the events of Jan. 6 made the transition to Congress more challenging.

"I was told you're more safe here [at the Capitol] than you were before," Bush said. "But the insurrection, just a couple of days in, showed me that that was not the case. And so that was what was difficult."

Going forward, Bush and fellow Democrats are likely to start criticizing each other as new legislative challenges emerge.

Democrats will soon face a true test of unity when they craft what could amount to a $3.5 trillion spending bill and vote on a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Some progressives have threatened to oppose the infrastructure bill which has already passed the Senate if its voted on ahead of before the $3.5 trillion measure thats packed with progressive policy proposals.

I think that the possibilities are wide open right now. It seems like every day there's something different, Bush said.

I'm not going to back down from making sure that both the budget and the infrastructure plan, that they go together, they have to go together. ... I said that coming to Congress that I will do the absolute most for St. Louis and that is this, so I will not back down from this fight.

Cristina Marcos contributed.

Read the original:
Cori Bush hits her stride by drawing on activist past | TheHill - The Hill

Unless youve spent a significant amount of time in a trial courtroom, your understanding of judges power likely remains little more than a vague set of impressions drawn from episodes of "Judge Judy" and "Law & Order." But for those who have spent time in a courtroom especially as a criminal defendant that power is all too real.

The thing with judges power it's like oxygen, right? Youre not really conscious of oxygen until youre deprived of it, Holbrook said. And with judges, youre not conscious of their power until youre in their courtroom or you see them obstructing your interest through the judicial system.

When it comes to many criminal proceedings, it is not an exaggeration to say that judges decisions can be a matter of life and death. In some jurisdictions, state legislatures have adopted mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines and other provisions to constrain judges discretion. But in many cases, judges are afforded fairly broad discretion to apply a states rules of criminal procedure, rules of evidence, and sentencing guidelines. In practice, that means that judges frequently have the power to decide whether a defendant is held on pre-trial bail, what sort of plea bargain prosecutors can negotiate between defendants and victims, what the ultimate terms of a sentencing agreement look like, and how long a person must remain on parole or probation after serving his sentence. In family and housing courts, judges can steer cases toward less punitive outcomes by opting against lengthy probation periods for minors convicted of nonviolent offenses, for example, or by granting more lenient stays in eviction disputes between tenants and landlords.

In part because of the wide array of judges responsibilities, Americans have never agreed on the best way to select judges to the bench, and our collective indecision is reflected in the complex patchwork of state laws that govern judicial selection. Although public debates surrounding the optimal method of judicial selection tend to divide the approaches into two distinct categories those that rely on popular election versus those that rely on some sort of appointment the reality of judicial selection defies simple categorization.

When it comes to many criminal proceedings, it is not an exaggeration to say that judges decisions can be a matter of life and death.

In practice, most states deploy hybrid models that mix and match different selection methodologies, often depending on the type of court in question. In Kansas, for example, some judicial districts empower a commission to appoint judges to the district court a system known as merit selection while others use partisan elections, where candidates are required to list their party affiliation. Meanwhile, judges on the Kansas Court of Appeal are appointed by the governor, confirmed by the state senate, and then subject to face a yes-no retention election after one year at which point they are allowed to serve a four-year term before facing another retention election. In the case of the state Supreme Court, Kansas uses a commission-based appointment without legislative confirmation, followed by retention elections. By contrast, Alabama selects all state judges across all levels of the judiciary through partisan elections. Multiply this complexity across all fifty states and the truly byzantine nature of judicial selection in America begins to come into focus.

Notwithstanding this complexity, nearly all state judges face some sort of electoral scrutiny. According to a 2015 study by the Brennan Center, roughly 87 percent of judges will face at least one election during their careers on the bench. The nature of this scrutiny varies from race to race some judges run in hotly-contested partisan elections, while others merely face up-down retention votes but historically, one dynamic has united most judicial elections: They favor hard-line, tough-on-crime candidates.

Tough on crime messaging has been overwhelmingly the dominant message in judicial elections across the country, said Alicia Bannon, the managing director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Thats true both in terms of professional backgrounds, where it is very unusual, for example, to see judges come from public defender backgrounds or civil rights backgrounds, as well as in the kind of messaging you see in campaigns, where its so much more common for judicial candidates to be targeted [for being] soft on crime and praised as tough on crime.

Read the original post:
How Progressives Are Knocking Out Local Judges Across the Country - POLITICO