Mediaboss Marketing

In 2006, Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, and Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had an expletive-laden shouting match on the steps of the Democratic National Committee.

Emanuel was pleading for more money from Dean to pour into competitive congressional races. That year, Democrats had a unique opportunity to seize control of the House for the first time since 1994. President George W. Bush was unpopular, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were descending into their respective quagmires.

But Dean had a different idea. Elected on a promise of revitalizing and rebuilding the 50 state Democratic parties, Dean invested funds into state legislative and local races in hard-to-reach red states to the delight of those state party chairs.

On Election Day, Emanuel got his wish of a Democratic-controlled House led by its first woman speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). As for Dean, Barack Obama exercised his presidential prerogative and ousted him from his party chairmanship in 2009.

That long-ago shouting match, together with the release of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito overturning Roe v. Wade, highlights an important difference between how Democrats and Republicans think. The Alito draft, if it stands, represents the culmination of a decades-long charge by Republicans to overturn Roe.

Beginning in 1980, the Republican Party adopted a pro-life plank in its platform. This was the beginning of a decades-long quest. In 1982, the Federalist Society was established. Its purpose was to return to an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, a view that had no room for rights, including abortion, not specifically enumerated in the document. Replacing the American Bar Associations gold standard endorsement by which prospective judges once were measured, the Federalist Society became an essential seal of approval that Republican presidents needed when it came to nominating federal judges. Lists of prospective candidates were drawn up by the society, and the organization achieved its goal by not only supporting the current Supreme Court justices nominated by Republican presidents but adding hundreds of its approved judges to the federal courts.

During his term as president, President Trump slavishly adhered to the lists submitted by the Federalist Societys president, Leonard Leo. Leo told others it was easy to come up with names for Trump because there were decades of conservative lawyers in the pipeline. Of the six names that Leo submitted to Trump, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett made the cut. Taking pride in his ability to confirm these judges, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)says, If you prefer America right of center, which I do, and youre looking around at what you can do to have the longest possible impact on the kind of America you want, it seems to me you look at the courts. While McConnell boasts about his judicial confirmation record, he would be the first to acknowledge that he had plenty of help.

Democrats think very differently. Instead of planning for the long term, Democrats think in the moment. Once the Alito decision was leaked, the outrage was palpable. Outside the Supreme Court, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) shouted, I am angry because we have reached the culmination of what Republicans have been fighting for, angling for, for decades now! Her colleague Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said she was pissed.

Demonstrations erupted outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, and spontaneous marches were held in cities around the nation. Standing in front of a Planned Parenthood office, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) captured the anger of his fellow Democrats: Wheres the Democratic Party? Why arent we standing up more firmly, more resolutely? Why arent we calling this out? This is a coordinated, concerted effort. And yes, theyre winning. They are. They have been. Lets acknowledge that. We need to stand up. Wheres the counteroffensive?

That counteroffensive is lacking because Democrats, unlike Republicans, have not built the organizations needed for long-term victories. The Federalist Society is only one example of how Republicans have constructed apparatuses designed to reshape American life in the long term, even if the immediate results were not apparent. Besides the Federalist Society, in 1992 the Susan B. Anthony List was formed. Following the victories of several female Democratic senators and Bill Clinton that year, this organization was established with the purpose of electing more pro-life Republican women into office.

Another example of long-term Republican thinking is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Formed in 1973, ALEC describes itself as dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets, and federalism. ALEC writes proposed bills and encourages conservative state legislators to copy their formulaic texts and push for their enactment. Should the issue of abortion be referred to the state legislatures for adjudication, expect ALEC to write bills strictly limiting abortion with the goal of having it adopted in as many states as possible.

Until Democrats start thinking long-term, they will be reduced to being a party prone to primal screams and symbolic votes, while Republicans accomplish goals they have spent decades working assiduously to achieve.

John Kenneth White is a professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. His latest book is titled What Happened to the Republican Party?

See the article here:
Democrats think in the moment. Republicans think in decades - The Hill

Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images (Getty Images)

Veronica Escobar watched in horror as then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used his power and influence to keep a Supreme Court seat vacant for 293 days in 2016 and 2017, because Barack Obama was the one trying to fill it. At the time, Escobar was a local government leader in El Paso, Texas, with eyes on a congressional run. Surely, she thought, this state of politics wouldnt still exist by the time she made it to Washington.

Now, Escobar is a U.S. Congresswoman, and shes joining a growing chorus of voices demanding to expand the Supreme Court. At one point I just made the decision that there was no going back from the depths of the lack of integrity that was sustaining the court, Escobar told Jezebel. I think it is absolutely reasonable given the circumstances. And I think, in fact, it is absolutely necessary, given the fact that we now have a Supreme Court willing to do anything to achieve its political ends.

On Thursday, Escobar and other Democratic lawmakers welcomed nearly a dozen state-level abortion rights groups to the battle to expand the Supreme Courta policy proposal once considered unthinkable. It is unconscionable that we wouldnt see leaders at the administrative or at the congressional level, do everything they possibly can to protect the real people, pregnant people, women and families, particularly black folks, people of color, people trying to survive on low incomes in tough places like Missouri, Pro-Choice Missouri executive director Mallory Schwarz told Jezebel. They have the power to do something. Right now, its unfathomable that they wouldnt.

The Senate, notably, failed to codify the right to abortion access and provision for the second time earlier this month.

Polling shows a plurality supports court expansion. The Judiciary Act of 2021 has 56 co-sponsors, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who signed on this week. By contrast, the Senate bill has only two co-sponsors alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tina Smith (D-MN).

Schwarz said the post-Roe reality in Missouri is not sustainable. We know the courts wont save us, with the way the courts are stacked in our own state and now at the federal level, Schwarz told Jezebel. We dont have the luxury of time.

Schwarz knows she and her organization must take the long view. We know that were playing a long game. We know that were not going to flip enough seats in 2022 or 2024, just like we knew that in 2020, to end our veto-proof supermajority in the next five years, maybe 10, she told Jezebel. There are actions that our leaders can take. And if they dont take them, they need to know that they are choosing not to help those most in need and most at risk when the Roe decision is overturned.

Continue reading here:
Democrats, Abortion Rights Groups Say It's Time to Expand the Supreme Court - Jezebel

A new report from the governments internal watchdog found that richer taxpayers are benefitting the most from a broader decline in audit rates by the IRS, adding impetus to criticism that the U.S. tax system favors the wealthy, and possibly bolstering a White House push to increase taxes on the wealthy.

During the 2010s, audit rates of individual income tax returns have fallen an average of 72 percent across all income levels and tax brackets. That means that while taxpayers had about a 1 percent chance of being audited in 2010, they had about a 0.25 percent chance of being audited in 2019.

But that 72-percent drop hasnt been evenly distributed. People earning less than $25,000 were only 60 percent less likely to be audited than they were in 2010, while people earning more than $200,000 were roughly 90 percent less likely to be audited, the report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found.

Democrats seized upon the discrepancy to paint a picture of a bifurcated tax collection system that treats the rich one way and average Americans another.

There cannot be one tax system for the wealthy and another for everyone else. And yet that is exactly what we have, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, said during a hearing on the report.

Pascrell did not spare his own party in assigning blame for unfairness in both the design and implementation of the tax system.

We have had multiple hearings on making our tax system fair. We havent done much in getting things accomplished, though. Thats interesting, he said.

Clearly, our tax code can be fair, and I have offered legislation to close that gaping loophole and many loopholes in our laws that have faced resistance by vested interests. And thats not all Republicans. My own party, sometimes we cant get out of our own way.

Republicans, meanwhile, reacted to the report mostly with operational concerns related to the pandemic-induced backlog of unprocessed tax returns, showing general lack of interest in the ethical debate put forward by Democrats on biases in the tax system.

I believe the most significant unfairness facing American taxpayers right now is the lack of customer service at the IRS, Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) told the subcommittee.

The IRS is sitting on 13 million unprocessed tax returns and over 26 million tax returns that are waiting, needing further IRS action. At the same time, IRS phone service levels are at near all-time lows, making it nearly impossible to reach an IRS agent for help with tax or audit matters.

Pascrell acknowledged that Democrats, Republicans and agency administrators were all talking past each other, saying, were in two different worlds.

Theres this aspect of it operations, he said. And the other aspect is the laws itself, of a secretary paying a higher percentage than her boss on her taxes.

The GAO report notes that wealthy taxpayers are still more likely to be audited than low and middle-earners. In 2019, people making more than $5 million a year had about a 2 percent chance of being audited, while those making between $25,000 and $200,000 had about a 0.17 percent chance of being audited.

IRS officials said audit rates declined because of staffing decreases and because it takes more time and expertise to deal with complex higher-income audits, according to the GAO.

The overall trend toward looser tax enforcement on the rich is consistent with other longer-term tax policies benefiting the wealthy that have been pushed by both Democrats and Republicans.

One such loophole long supported by Democratic lawmakers like Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the tax exemption on carried interest, which allows managers of private investment funds simply to skip out on paying taxes on the bulk of their income.

Closing the carried interest loophole was notably not a part of the Biden administrations billionaire minimum income tax proposal, which does include provisions on taxing capital gains like stock price earnings.

As Jared Bernstein of the White Houses Council of Economic Advisers told CNBC last year, This is a loophole that absolutely should be closed. But as you well know, when you go up to Capitol Hill and you start negotiating on taxes, there are more lobbyists in this town on taxes than there are members of Congress.

One of those lobbyists is former Democratic North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, now with consulting firm Alliantgroup, who led a campaign last year against a Democratic proposal to tax capital gains at death, arguing against a very similar measure to the Biden administrations billionaire tax proposal.

My point of view is you have to have a realization of that income in order for it to be taxed, Heitkamp said in an interview. Historically and consistently in America, it doesnt apply until you realize the gain, and thats the point that Ive been making, is that taxing unrealized gains will have unintended consequences.

You could set the limit at $5 million, but if you had a small business that had $5 million worth of gains, you may be forced to sell your small business instead of having the family pass it on, she added.

Of Bidens billionaire tax, Heitkamp said, Its not likely going to pass.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats pounce on latest tax perk for the rich: falling audit rates - The Hill

The crew that would come to take over the Democratic Party organized themselves, in the 1980s, around the idea that the party had become discredited among the public because it was in thrall to its more liberal elements. These New Democrats gravitated toward Gary Hart, who unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic Party nomination in 1984, positioned as the candidate of new ideas against Walter Mondale, ostensibly the embodiment of stale Great Society liberalism. Hart, along with allies like Representative Tim Wirth, articulated what Geismer calls larger generational skepticism with large institutions and bureaucracy. In practice, large institutions tended to mean unions and government agencies. The New Democrats were similarly allergic to transactional politics and special interest groups, which Geismer helpfully defines as African Americans, women, white farmers, and, especially, organized labor.

Even by the mid-1980s, Jesse Jackson could correctly note that this definition of special interests happened to define them as the Democratic Partys actual base of support, or, as he put it, members of our family. Hart was notably more popular with white pundits than with Black primary voters. But what the New Democrats truly wanted, and truly believed their policy agenda would win, was the white suburban vote. In the wake of Ronald Reagans reelection, in 1985, the political strategist Al From founded the Democratic Leadership Council, with an inaugural membership of 41 people, including 14 senators and 17 representatives. Of that group, two members were nonwhite, and none were women. The philosophy of the DLC, shaped by early members like From, the political consultant David Osborne, and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, was to go after the aspiring middle electorate in suburbia rather than the working class and dispossessed, and to appeal to it with an agenda that stressed economic dynamism, free trade, embrace of the tech industry, andvitallythe destruction of the welfare state.

This gets to a central tension in New Democrat thought. Seemingly at no point can anyone conclusively decide if their policy agenda is meant to be politically effectiveto win over white suburbanitesor to implement successful policy, which in this case would mean reforming welfare in a way that would leave poor people better off. Once Bill Clinton was in power, actual welfare reform, the destruction of the New Dealera Aid to Families with Dependent Children assistance program, was passed largely because end welfare as we know it was a Clinton campaign trail promise, and Bruce Reed, of the White House Domestic Policy Council, had come to believe that phrasewhich he had taped up in his officehad been vital to Clintons 1992 victory. Clinton, then running for reelection, was comfortably ahead in the polls when he signed the welfare reform bill. His political adviser Dick Morris had urged him to sign it as insurance.

Read more from the original source:
The Disastrous Legacy of the New Democrats - The New Republic

For people who love name-calling and mudslinging, progressives sure have their collective panties in a bunch over the word groomer. As the debate over Floridas Parental Rights in Education bill continues to rage, folks on the hard left are all kinds of upset because conservatives are giving them a small dose of their own medicine.

In case youve been living in a cave over the past few months, the issue started when far-leftists became angry at people for supporting the notion that teachers should not be instructing seven-year-olds on matters pertaining to gender identity and sexuality and cutting their parents out of the equation. Conservatives responded by referring to those pushing this type of ideology on schoolchildren as groomers.

Of course, these folks dont mean groomers in the traditional sense in which a pedophile grooms a child in order to victimize them. Nobody is saying teachers and people opposing Floridas law are trying to have sex with minors. But the fact that they want state employees to speak to children without their parents knowing is a form of grooming.

But now, high-profile leftists are whining about what they believe to be an unfair label after spending five years calling anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders Nazis and literally Hitler.

In Politicos newsletter, author Matt Friedman deceptively claimed the groomer term was being used to promote the false stereotype that gay people regularly prey on children to convert them into homosexuals. He wrote:

Lately, commentators on the right are characterizing these standards and laws as indoctrination or, arguably worse still, grooming. Thats playing on an age-old anti-gay trope that theres a compulsion among non-heterosexual people to convert vulnerable children to their sexual orientation. Nevermind that some of the organizations that have had the worst sexual abuse scandals have historically been anti-gay. Do you really need me to name them?

The New York Times published a piece featuring four progressive podcasters and columnists. These folks also chimed in on the cultural battle over school curriculum. Podcaster Jane Coaston took issue with the use of the term, referring to a right-leaning writer who has used it:

Rod Dreher, the conservative writer said that, oh, no, no, when were talking about grooming, were not talking about pedophiles which is ridiculous. But he essentially said that, oh, it means that an adult who wants to separate children from a normative sexual and gender identity to inspire confusion in them, which just reminds me of Anita Bryant in 1978, essentially arguing that homosexuals must recruit, and that all children are cisgender and heterosexual until something happens.

Former Vox editor Ezra Klein also complained about people being called groomers and even made a pathetic attempt to link it to conspiracy theory cult QAnon. He said:

And on the other side you have this groomer thing, which is an attempt to take QAnons view which is one reason its resonating on the far right that all of politics is an effort by Democrats to protect pedophiles and then find some way to sort of wink, wink that youre on board with that view of politics while saying its actually a little bit about something else.

Last, but not least, we have New York Times commentator Jamelle Bouie, who also pretended the term was being used specifically for members of the LGBTQ community. He said:

To go back to what weve been talking about, I think that something similar may happen with these bills. Screaming that your kids gay third-grade teacher is a pedophile or a groomer when you know that this person has been absolutely lovely to you, your child and your family its not going to fly, I think, for most people or for people outside of this narrow bubble.

Of course, these folks dont actually believe for a second that when conservatives use the term groomer, they are referring to the stereotype about members of the LGBTQ community. They know better.

The problem is that they know they or people in their camp have been engaging in this type of behavior for decades. Are conservatives inaccurately labeling some folks as groomers? Of course, they are in many not all cases. Does the term get its point across? Depends on who you ask, but for those who arent taking the progressive line on this, it is more likely to make sense.

But the left has no leg to stand on when it comes to the use of this particular political tactic.

Where were the folks on the left criticizing their comrades when they tried to convince the public that anyone who disagreed with them was a racist/sexist/homophobe/other slur? When Democrats were calling Republicans racist for disagreeing with Obamacare, we didnt see these folks call out anyone on their own side.

Democrats and the activist media have been comparing Trump supporters to people who gassed millions of Jews and killed millions more during World War II. There was nary a peep coming from the left.

Their president tried to lump in people who disagreed with the Democrats Voting Rights Act with the likes of Bull Connor and other purveyors of Jim Crow. Where was the pushback coming from his party?

Case in point.

Sure, there are a few on the left who will criticize their fellow leftists for engaging in this behavior. Jane Coaston is one of them. Conversely, there are folks on the right who will rightly point out that not everyone who questions Floridas law is supporting the sexual grooming of little kids. But this is the world the far-left has created. These are the rules they wanted to play by. Like Ive said before, dont dish it out if you cant take it.

Now, would American political discourse be much healthier if neither side engaged in this behavior? Of course it would. It would also be nice if someone gave me a million dollars, but that aint happening today, is it?

What we are seeing is progressives losing a battle they thought they could win. Although, for the life of me, I cant figure out why they thought arguing against parental rights and promoting teaching sexuality and gender identity to small children was ever going to be a winning issue. But they are now dealing with backlash coming from Democratic and Republican voters alike. They dont like being hit with that label. But if they didnt want this to happen, they shouldnt have started it in the first place.

Read more here:
Progressives Exhibit Woke Fragility Over Being Labeled Groomers