Mediaboss Marketing

#LatimerLostUs

A group of volunteers and supporters that were behind George Latimers County Executive run have come together to launch a new progressive, grassroots group opposing the 30-year politicians controversial run for NY-16s congressional seat.

The group, called Westchester Progressives, is made up of progressive Democrats from across the county who say that while Congressman Jamaal Bowman champions the districts progressive values, Latimer has sold them out in both rhetoric and record.

Said Farah Kathwari, (George Latimer Transition Team member & Westchester County Human Rights Commission board member) I voted for George Latimer because I thought we needed somebody who would stop trying to divide us along ethnic lines. Instead, hes spreading hateful rhetoric about Muslims and accusing people of being Hamas supporters just for wanting peace. I remember what it was like after 9/11I dont want that to happen to my children.

Brook Packard, a resident of George Latimers hometown, Rye NY said, We elected George to get MAGA Republicans out of Westchester. Now hes win-ing and dining with top Trump Donors, taking a million dollars from a Republican-funded PAC. They even registered thousands of Republicans as Democrats to vote for him. All to run against one of the most important progressive champions in Congress. He wasnt uplifting our values; he was uplifting himself.

The campaigns supporters cite Latimers extensive support from Republicans, both through the AIPAC right wing lobby group which recruited Latimer to run and is spending over $25 million to support him in what could be the most expensive primary ever, and directly from Trump fundraisers [he attended].

Said Sandra Bernabei (Founder, Antiracist Alliance, National Association of Social Workers President 2014-16) We worked to build the Democratic party so we could keep unseating Republicans. We were ready to spend this year going all-in on helping Democrats, just like we went all-in on helping George beat Rob Astorino in 2017. Instead, were now defending one of the most vital young Black progressives in Congress from George! Running against Jamaal Bowman is dividing the party at the time we should be uniting.

Westchester Progressives are announcing their launch with the #LatimerLostUs social media campaign. Members are asking like-minded progressives, who previously supported Latimer, to use the hashtag #LatimerLostUs to share their reasons why they are not endorsing George Latimer to represent them in the U.S. Congress.

Westchester Progressives can be found on Instagram (@WestchesterProgressives), on Twitter/X (@WEProgressives) and the Westchester Progressives Group on Facebook.

Go here to see the original:
"Westchester Progressives" New Grassroots Group Forms to Support True Progressive Values in Heated NY-16 ... - Yonkers Times

Members of the NFP after the announcement of the program, June 14, 2024. Source: La France Insoumise/X

French President Emmanuel Macron dissolved the National Assembly following the devastating outcome of the European Parliament election on June 9. The liberal coalition to which Macrons Renaissance party belongs won only 13 seats, compared to 30 seized by Marine Le Pens far-right National Rally. The announcement was initially cheered by the far-right and met with shock at the center.

Macrons government has been hemorrhaging popularity due to several controversial policies: increasing the retirement age, tightening immigration guidelines, and signaling readiness to send French soldiers to Ukraine. Additionally, the administration has faced criticism for its treatment of overseas territories, including, most recently, the crackdown on popular uprisings in New Caledonia.

Current polls forecast around 33% of the national vote going to the National Rally, convincingly more than Renaissance, which is just below 20%. In this scenario, the National Rally would not hold the absolute majority, but would still have enough space to pursue its anti-immigration and security agenda.

Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, the National Rallys candidate for prime minister, have been negotiating with other right-wing and center-right parties to improve their standing. Talks were held with Reconquest, ric Zemmours far-right group, and The Republicans, a Gaullist conservative party.

However, all the negotiations have faced obstacles. Zemmour announced there would be no alliance with the National Rally, causing a split with his European Parliament candidate, Marion Marchal, who returned to Le Pens (her aunts) camp. Among the conservatives, The Republicans president, Eric Ciotti, announced an alliance with the far-right, but the rest of the party leadership opposed it, leading to Ciottis expulsion. Ciotti and The Republicans are now trying to resolve the dispute in court, just days before the campaign starts.

While ruptures abound on the right, center-left and left parties have spent the days since the European election trying to form a joint platform to prevent Le Pen from seizing power, and reverse some of Macrons policies. On Friday, June 14, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the Greens, and France Unbowed (La France Insoumise, LFI) announced the program of the New Popular Front (Nouveau Front Populaire, NFP). The joint platform includes lowering the retirement age and curbing rising food and energy prices. The coalitions main objective, according to LFIs Manon Aubry, is to improve living conditions for millions of people.

Building unity on the left is a positive development considering the popularity of the National Rally, though there has obviously been hard bargaining over the program. Previous platforms left of the center have dissolved over disagreements on the wars in Ukraine and Palestine. While LFI has advocated for peace and disarmament, the others adopted a more mainstream European stance, shying away from substantial criticism of the pro-NATO trend that has been growing stronger in the region.

At the NFP launch, party representatives stated their priority would be returning to a path of peace for France on the international stage, including support for Ukraine in the face of Vladimir Putins war of aggression and giving ourselves the means to obtain an immediate ceasefire in the face of the ongoing massacres in Gaza. The extent to which friction over the interpretation of this priority will affect the NFPs success remains to be seen.

Currently, the unified left front holds around 28-30% in the polls: not enough to overtake the National Rally, but enough to mount resistance if the expected scenario occurs.

Read more:
Left and progressives form New Popular Front to counter far-right in French elections - Peoples Dispatch

WASHINGTON A group of advocates and progressive Democratic lawmakers called on the U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday to end its contract withMOHELA, a Missouri-based student loan servicer.

U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Greg Casar of Texas and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts urged the department to cut ties with MOHELA, also known as the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, during a press conference hosted by the Debt Collective, which advocates for canceling student debt.

Advocates and the lawmakers accused MOHELA of being a predatory loan service and failing student borrowers, citing mismanagement, administrative failures and hours-long wait times for assistance.

It is time to stop their contract, it is time to fire them, it is time to listen to the borrowers that have been speaking up about the struggles that they are facing, and it is time for us to do the right thing, Omar said. We are asking the administration to take this step forward because it is past time that we listen to the borrowers that have been suffering under the incompetence of MOHELA.

The Education Department did not respond on the record to a request for comment Wednesday.

In moves it has characterized as bolstering protections for borrowers, the department launched a newaccountability initiativein November and has transitioned to new loan servicing contracts.

MOHELA is at the center oftwo class-action lawsuitsin recent months accusing the nonprofit of a failure to timely process and render decisions for student loan borrowers enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

One of the lawsuitsnames MOHELA alone,while the other namesboth the nonprofit and the U.S. Education Department.

The student loan servicer has also taken heat from the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group, and the American Federation of Teachers, a major teachers union. In areportfrom February, the two entities accused the nonprofit of failing to perform basic servicing functions.

They also claimed that more than four in ten student loan borrowers MOHELA services have experienced a servicing failure since loan payments resumed in September 2023.

In March, MOHELAsent a cease and desist letterto the Student Borrower Protection Center, accusing its report of making false, misleading and sensationalized claims and insinuations regarding MOHELA and its business activities.

A spokesperson for MOHELA said in an emailed statement Wednesday that borrowers are not better off when outside groups spread false and misleading information about our work as a federal contractor for FSA. The spokesperson added that MOHELA remains committed to continuing to provide the highest quality of customer service to the borrowers that we serve.

Student loan servicers are companies contracted by the federal government to handle billing and other administrative tasks regarding federal student loans, according toFederal Student Aid.

MOHELA services nearly 8 million borrowers after winning a contract in 2022 to handle the Education Departments Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, said during Wednesdays event that at every step, MOHELA has failed student loan borrowers.

Theyve lost paperwork, theyve given people the runaround, Pierce said while standing next to an exhibit displaying what appeared to be a nine-hour hold time when trying to reach one of MOHELAs customer service representatives.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, at Wednesdays press conference said MOHELA has a call-deflection scheme.

When it is critical for people to be on the phone with someone, they cant get on the phone with someone, Weingarten said.

Shamell Bell, a member of the Debt Collective, said her interactions with the student loan servicer have been nothing short of a nightmare.

Bell said she was in a labyrinth of just false information, false promises and failures that are not just administrative errors but also systemic obstacles that jeopardize the financial stability and mental wellness of countless borrowers like myself.

Meanwhile, theBiden administrationsaid earlier Wednesday that it had approved an additional $7.7 billion in student debt relief for 160,500 borrowers. The bulk of the relief more than $5 billion went to nearly 67,000 borrowers partaking in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Wednesdays move brought the administrations total loan forgiveness to $167 billion for 4.75 million Americans.

The Biden-Harris Administration remains persistent about our efforts to bring student debt relief to millions more across the country, and this announcement proves it, U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. One out of every 10 federal student loan borrowers approved for debt relief means one out of every 10 borrowers now has financial breathing room and a burden lifted.

Follow this link:
Progressives push Biden administration to cut ties with Missouri student loan servicer Missouri Independent - Missouri Independent

Over time, ideologies can evolve in unforeseen ways. Consider the following four public policy developments:

1. The Biden administration has attempted to forgive many student loans for college education. 2. Several cities in California have imposed rent controls. 3. Florida recently banned lab grown meat. 4. North Carolina is attempting to ban mask wearing in public.

While the first two examples are often views as progressive legislation and the other two are viewed as populist initiatives, they all share something in common. In each case, the legislation can be seen as a perversion of an earlier form of the ideology in question.

Lets start with progressivism. At the beginning, this ideology was heavily motivated by flaws (real or imagined) in laissez-faire economics. Progressives worried that unrestrained capitalism might lead to abusive monopolies and a highly unequal distribution of income. This led to policy initiatives such as regulation of rates charged by utilities and redistribution programs such as the earned income tax credit.

Over time, however, progressivism became increasingly associated with the means, and not the ends of legislation. Thus to be a progressive meant to favor regulation and redistribution, regardless of whether it achieved the original goals of the movement.

Obviously, the case for rent controls in markets with thousands of individual landlords is far weaker than the case for price controls when there is a single monopoly provider of water or electricity. And it is equally clear that the case for redistributing money from the general taxpayer to college educated Americans is far weaker than the argument for redistributing money to low wage workers. But the progressive movement is dominated by younger Americans. This group is disproportionately comprised of recent college grads living in apartments in expensive coastal cities.

The recent wave of populism was at least partly motivated by resentment against the perception that elites were forcing the public into undesirable changes in their lifestyle (such as mask wearing during pandemics) and unpopular climate change initiatives (such as the discouragement of meat consumption.) But over time, the lifestyle issues gradually came to displace the freedom aspect of populism. Opposition to mask mandates morphed into simple opposition to masks. Resentment that elites were trying to impose a certain lifestyle was replaced by attempts to ban the undesired lifestyle.

This is the natural evolution of populism. It begins as an attempt to free the public from oppression, and ends up imposing another form of oppression once the populists gain power.

One could cite many more such examples. The college free speech movement of the 1960s was originally focused on allowing students to express far left political views. By the 2000s, the freedom aspect was forgotten and college activists had begun trying to mandate that students express left wing views.

Similarly, right wing opposition to woke excesses began as an attempt to allow more free speech on campus, but in at least some places has evolved into an attempt to ban certain left wing ideologies.

The civil rights movement began as a crusade for a colorblind society. While the initial focus was on outlawing discrimination against minorities, over time the emphasis shifted toward mandating discrimination in favor of minorities. (Those reverse discrimination policies may have had unintended side effects, such as making employers reluctant to hire workers that they might be unable to fire at some point in the future.)

Feminism began as an attempt to stop society from treating people differently because of their gender, but has evolved into an ideology demanding that people be treated differently because of their gender.

Why do ideologies continually lose their bearings? I suspect the problem reflects the fact that very few people are committed to broad principles such as freedom or utility maximization. Instead, they have special interests, and use these various ideologies as a convenient cudgel to attack their opponents and achieve their actual policy goals.

PS. Matt Yglesias has a very good post discussing some of the same issues.

See the rest here:
Problems with Progressivism and Populism - Econlib

A failed bipartisan border security measure is on track to receive even less support the second time around when Democrats put it up for another vote in the Senate later this week.

Nearly all Republicans are lined up in opposition while several progressive Democrats indicate they still oppose the bill that was previously attached to a foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel but failed in February after a GOP revolt.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was disappointed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is holding a second vote without changes to the legislation for pathways to citizenship as Democrats try to put the squeeze on Republicans in an election year on a contentious policy issue.

I certainly hope this is not the new starting point for Democrats when it comes to border or immigration negotiations, Padilla told the Washington Examiner. Weve already voted on it, and its already gone down. Time for a new plan.

The measure, which was the byproduct of months of bipartisan negotiations and centers on restricting illegal immigration and expanding deportations, does not include protections for pathways to citizenship for those who came to the United States illegally as children, known as Dreamers.

This is a price that a lot of my Democratic colleagues were willing to pay months ago in order to ensure we delivered funding to Ukraine. Thats been done, Padilla said.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said he will oppose the legislation after initially voting for it because legal pathways are not included and that it would ultimately fail to address the root causes of regional migration and illegal crossings. In a statement, he slammed Republicans for previously opposing it, saying he was appalled and that it was the height of hypocrisy.

I remain committed to pursuing common sense, bipartisan legislation to modernize our immigration system so that it aligns with our most fundamental values, Booker said.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said shell reject the bill for a second time when it comes to a vote on Thursday.

We need border security and a pathway to citizenship for people who are here. The two should be tied, Warren told the Washington Examiner. Thats what my vote reflects.

The bills February vote was 49-50 but required 60 senators to pass. Five members of the upper chambers Democratic caucus voted against, including Padilla, Warren, Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Ed Markey (D-MA). Just four Republicans voted in favor: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), and James Lankford (R-OK).

Sanders told the Washington Examiner he was undecided on his vote this week but that his previous opposition was because of military aid to Israel that was attached.

Schumer suggested the border security bill that once had bipartisan backing would be easier to accomplish than measures pushed by progressives to expand legal citizenship.

Lankford, the bills lead GOP architect, told the Washington Examiner last week hell vote against what he called Democrats nonserious effort to pass stronger border security. McConnell will also oppose.

Collins disparaged Democrats handling of the issue but remained uncertain about how shell vote.

Its clearly just a messaging ploy by the Democrats, which is unfortunate because we have a real problem, Collins told the Washington Examiner.

Despite its doomed prospects and the potential for an even worse defeat on the Senate floor, Schumer is forging ahead.

All those who say we need to act on the border will get a chance to show this week that theyre serious about fixing the problem, Schumer told reporters. Theyll get a chance to show whether theyre just talking points to them or whether they want to improve the status quo.

President Joe Biden phoned McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Monday about the legislation, in which the president told the Republicans to stop playing politics and act quickly, according to the White House.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

McConnell and his deputies doubled down on whats been Republicans main response: Biden can take executive action to curb the illegal immigration crisis anytime he pleases.

Mr. President, you caused this problem. If theres no legislation that allowed the problem to be fixed, why dont you just renew what the previous admin was doing, which got the border in decent shape? McConnell told reporters. Going to a border bill right now is just a gimmick, a way to try to convince the American people theyre concerned about this when they caused it.

David Sivak contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Border bill boxes in Senate progressives as Schumer forges ahead with doomed vote - Washington Examiner