Mediaboss Marketing

Progressive groups will rally Thursday on the Ellipse to press President Biden and Congress to keep paid family medical leave in the social spending package that ultimately gets a vote, Axios has learned.

The big picture: Look for these and other advocates to step up their public engagement to keep their cherished programs from being axed, as congressional negotiators trim the size of Democrats' budget reconciliation package to roughly $2 trillion, from a $3.5 trillion starting point.

Between the lines: Some of the biggest supporters of a paid leave proposal costing as much as $500 billion have been reading tea leaves since President Biden did not mention it in his Michigan speech last week.

Driving the news: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday appeared to be bracing her caucus for major proposals to be scrapped from the package when she told colleagues in a memo that Congress should do fewer things well.

Be smart: Through the Care Cant Wait Coalition, groups are seeking to remain united rather than turn against one another's programs to save their own.

Details: Democrats have three main caregiving proposals: paid family medical leave, a new program to help cover costs for caring for an older family member and subsidies for day care and universal preschool.

What we're watching: Paid leave advocates are making it clear that they supported the American Families Plan, which dedicated $225 billion for the program, much lower than the $500 billion in the House version. They're willing to trim the number of weeks from 12 to four that someone can take off to care for a family member.

The bottom line: At a certain point, the groups now presenting a unified front may be asked to endorse a final bill that doesnt include their specific program.

Read this article:
First look: Progressives plan rally to keep paid family leave in plan - Axios

Opinion: Infrastructure bills should provide a foundation for a fairer more equitable society, not hurl us against the rocks as conservatives would have you believe.

Alan Austin| opinion contributor

In his commentary on Sen.Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Republic Editorial Page Editor Phil Boas soundsgenuinely confusedby what he terms her radicalism.

Her opposition to spending, however, does fit in with his own political philosophy and background with its echoes ofthe Calvinist heresy where the world is divided into the powers of good and evil who fight it out.

Boas writes that mans worst instincts are the result of animal impulses only to be redeemedpresumably by the sanity of the elect and righteous. According to Boas, Democrats, with their repeated condemnation of Sinemas actions, give forth apocalyptic rants and err on the side of profligacy, spendingour money wantonly on some chimericbrave new world.

Republicans are the calm conservatives, cautious preservers of the status quo. Democrats, on the other hand, are the devils of excess, a monolithic party of radicalsforcing infrastructure reforms down the throat of a weary populace.

Such fears of social and economic chaos from political division also haunted the Founding Fathers. They eyed the chaos of the French Revolutionwith fear though they espoused it values and were careful to put the Electoral College in place to prevent the mob from taking over.

Privilege and power were to rest in the steadyhands of the propertied and educated classes. There were to be no peasant revolts in America, no manning of the barricades, no Madam La Guillotine. Too much ill-informed democracy in the hands of the illiterate masses could, in their view, onlylead to moral and social chaos.

Though Boas doesnt say this in his piece, its implied.

In Arizona, if you actually count the votes, Republicans are the minority party but control the Legislature and have done for many years.

As in the rest of the country, it has used gerrymandering and voter suppression and the pressto restrict and discourage minorities and the poor and disadvantaged from voting. Postal voting, which they thought would increase the Republican vote, is now suddenly a threat because its convenient and popular and helped Biden win.

Looking for the other side of the story? Subscribe today for access to even more opinions.

The recent sham audit was Republicans pressing their panic button. Now conservative editorial writershave the challenge convincing voters that the out of control mob is going to take over and spend everyones money, convenientlyforgetting Trumps tax cut or the fact that the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during his time in office.

The Radical Democrats are heading the ship toward the rocks or the iceberg or whichever metaphoryou prefer. Boas enjoins us to sit down and debate whether the reformswill make life better.Surely, he writes, we all need time to recover from Trump and the pandemic?

We sat down anddebatedall these issues prior to the 2020 elections and the country voted for Biden. Now, Republicans Plan B, with a little help from Democratic senators in partisan states, goes into motion and to their joy twowilling Democrats are doing the job for them.

The Senate, a democratically lopsided institution, where Democrats represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republicans, is split 50/50 so two senators can make themselves the focus and can control what happens.

Boas never suggests that we dont need the reforms proposed in the two bills in question. The bills have popular support across a widepoliticalspectrum. They will not bankrupt us but should provide a foundation for a fairer more equitable society where people matter as much as profits.

The young Miranda who utters the words Oh Brave NewWorld is commenting on her first sight of other human beings as they recover from a shipwreck, an appropriate parallel. Miranda represents youth, and hope against the political and natural forces ofdestruction and division.

We need her youth,joy and idealism as we pass the torch to a younger generation, in a world wrought by division, hostility and a deteriorating environment. A Brave New World is all we can hope for.

Alan Austin was a longtime English teacher in Arizona. He lives in Phoenix. Reach him ataustinas@cox.net.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives see a 'brave new world.' Republicans see chaos and catastrophe - The Arizona Republic

How ironic that Bill Nemitz calls progressives the language police (Warning to those on Portlands payroll: Keep your criticisms to yourself, Oct. 8) when, in fact, progressives were responding to Robyn Baileys own policing of the language of others.

In her email to the City Council that was brought to the school boards attention, Bailey calls for two charter commission members to be held accountable for their social media posts (saying they would be done, gone, and trashed if they were not people of color). If that is not policing language, I dont know what is.

Nemitz also gets wrong why progressives object to Baileys letter. It is not that she had the gall to question the local progressive movement. Raising questions in good faith is welcome. The problem is that Bailey, a school administrator, minimized the problem of racial bias in Portland and attacked two women of color, claiming they were given a pass because of their race. One had referred to a city official as a white supremacist. Frankly, combating white supremacy is vastly more important than criticizing someone for using the term. The other woman had tweeted lightheartedly a couple of times about bodies and sex. So what.

Finally, it seems relevant that Bailey wrote this letter after her husband lost the election to the charter commission, and these two women had won. Nemitz might have delved into her motives for looking through their past social media posts.

Abigail FullerPortland

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Original post:
Letter to the Editor: Progressives were not the 'language police' - Press Herald

I have a confession to make. Im hopelessly behind the curve. Excuse my language, but Im old-fashioned. Im one of those Neanderthals who is so unwoke that I actually believe forgive me again, please that only women can get pregnant and have babies.

But at least Im open to new ideas and trust me, there is no shortage of new ideas about whos capable of childbirth.

Lets start with the progressives in lefty-land at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Altria - Jan. 6 panel flexes its muscle Why do progressives want to cancel women? Couric says she edited Ginsburg interview to 'protect' justice from criticism MORE on abortion, but instead of quoting her accurately, this is what came out of the ACLUs woke sensibilities:

The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [persons] life, to [their] well-being and dignity.

Justice Ginsburg wrote about women, not persons. So the ACLU apologized for tampering with her actual words. But the folks over there apparently know something about who can and who cant bear a child that I dont know. Theres a line in a great old love song about how The fundamental things apply, as time goes by. Dont bet on it.

And the ACLU is hardly alone in noticing that people not just women should have the right to an abortion.

In September, House Democrats introduced a bill that states its purpose is To protect a persons ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care providers ability to provide abortion services.

Note the word persons, instead of womans. Then, a little further down into the bill, the Dems explain their reasoning: This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy cisgender women, transgender men, nonbinary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others.

Im not saying I disagree with any of that. But I am saying that, after reading those words, I have a headache.

Then theres the Department of Justice (DOJ), which put out a brief against the Texas abortion law a brief that refers to any individuals who become pregnant. Im not cool enough to understand why the DOJ didnt simply say any woman who becomes pregnant.

And the folks at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) want everyone to know that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant people.

The White Houses 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding. This prompted Jessica Anderson, of the conservative Heritage Action, to tweet, Why does [President] Biden want to cancel mothers?

Theres even a Birthing Peoples Bill of Rights. No fooling. I found it on the web.

And on a website called Parents, I read an essay by someone named Amber Leventry who wrote that, Transgender men (men who were assigned female at birth based on their biological sex) and nonbinary folks like me (those who don't identify as either male or female) can and do get pregnant.

Nicole Ault, who writes for the Wall Street Journals editorial page, says that, Language and the law are inseparable. If we erase sex-specific words from our language, we erase, too, what it means to be a man or a woman. Where does it stop? There are people you can look it up who identify as not human. Is person an insensitive term?

I did look it up and heres what I found on the University of Cambridges website: As social beings, a sense of identity plays an important role in our relations and in our own happiness. But identity doesnt have to be narrowly human.

In the article was a picture of a young woman who obviously doesnt identify as a human, with this caption: When people ask me How does it feel to be a cat? Im like, How does it feel to be a human?

Im so confused! I used to believe all the birds and bees stuff. But then, Im a pathetic cisgender man, so what do I know? Actually thats a rhetorical question because I do know this much: The fundamental things no longer apply as time goes by.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

The rest is here:
Why do progressives want to cancel women? | TheHill - The Hill

Happy Thursday and welcome to On The Money, your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line. Subscribe here: thehill.com/newsletter-signup.

Todays Big Deal: Progressive Democrats want leaders to go broad and dare Republicans to let popular programs expire. Well also look at a sharp decline in jobless claims and climate concerns.

But first, congrats to the woman who found a giant diamond in a state park!

For The Hill, Im Sylvan Lane. Write me at slane@thehill.com or @SylvanLane. You can reach my colleagues on the Finance team Naomi Jagoda at njagoda@thehill.com or @NJagoda and Aris Folley at afolley@thehill.com or @ArisFolley.

Lets get to it.

Left doubles down on aggressive strategy

Emboldened progressives are doubling down on their aggressive strategy after an early victory over centrists, suggesting they see that approach as a winner in the intraparty fight.

Liberal lawmakers in the House and Senate are calling for social safety net programs to be as universal as possible, pushing back against centrist Sen. Joe Manchins (D-W.Va.) calls for programs to be means-tested and targeted toward the lowest-income households.

They also want programs that provide benefits to families to start as quickly as possible, rather than have a delayed start date in an effort to minimize the price tag.

The background:

They argue that priorities such as child care and education will be popular with the public, so lawmakers will feel pressure to extend any temporary programs once they begin.

"If given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly, we strongly encourage you to choose the latter, and make robust investments over a shorter window," Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) leadership said in a letter to Pelosi Wednesday.

Naomi Jagoda and Scott Wong have more here.

LEADING THE DAY

Jobless claims fall below 300k for first week since lockdowns

New weekly claims for jobless aid sunk to a pandemic low last week, according to data released Thursday by the Labor Department, falling below 300,000 for the first time since COVID-19 shattered the economy.

While job growth fell off sharply in August and September amid surging cases of COVID-19, the continued decline in jobless claims this month suggests businesses have been able to avoid widespread layoffs. I explain why here.

UNBREAK THE CHAIN

What you need to know about the supply chain bottlenecks

Supply chain snarls and labor shortages are driving prices higher and creating shortages as the economy struggles to adapt to a new phase of the coronavirus pandemic.

After slashing prices and laying off workers at the onset of COVID-19, manufacturers, suppliers and retailers have struggled for months to meet the quick rebound in demand unleashed by unprecedented federal aid and highly effective coronavirus vaccines.

While the Biden administration is scrambling to ease the problem, Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at audit and tax firm RSM, warned that only time will fully normalize supply lines.

At this point there's not much that the federal government can do to what can accurately be described as a behavioral shock, Brusuelas said.

Heres what you need to know about the supply chain challenges.

TOXIC CLIMATE

Moderates split over climate plans in Democrats' spending package

Climate change provisions in a sprawling Democratic spending package are dividing moderates, creating major obstacles to getting the legislation across the finish line.

Key aspects of the House package would make sweeping changes to address climate change, through tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles, a fee on methane emissions from oil and gas, and a program that seeks to switch electricity to clean energy sources through a combination of grants and fines.

But the divisions among moderates largely reflect regional interests, underscoring the challenges to getting the moderate wing of the party on board with the multitrillion-dollar spending package. Naomi and Rachel Frazin have more here.

Good to Know

Prices charged by producers rose at a slightly slower rate in September despite supply chain snarls and shortages that have driven up manufacturing and shipping costs.

Heres what else have our eye on:

Go here to see the original:
On The Money Progressives play hard ball on Biden budget plan | TheHill - The Hill