Don't Forget To Support The Freshmen Who Are Delivering On Their Promises-- Like Andy Levin

There's only one freshman-- for that matter, only one member of Congress-- who is still rated 100% for their voting record by ProgressivePunch, Andy Levin (D-MI). What makes that even more stunning, is that Andy isn't representing some super-blue district like the others in the Top 10 most progressive list do. This was the list as of this morning. Everyone on it has a great voting record. Only Andy's is what ProgressivePunch would call perfect:

And here's the PVI of each district, in the same order as the chart above, which shows you how much more vulnerable Andy is compared to the other super-progressives:

• MI-09- D+4
• MD-08- D+14
• WI-02- D+18
• NY-13- D+43
• CA-11- D+21
• CO-02- D+9
• MA-07- D+34
• CA-27- D+16
• MA-02- D+9
• WA-07- D+33
• CA-17- D+25

Andy's suburban district, north of Detroit, includes southern Macomb County and eastern Oakland County. It's a middle class district where 77.6% of the population is white. He has two Republicans battling it out in a primary to see which will take him on. Republicans aren't running candidates against Pocan, McGovern or Jayapal and there are only vanity candidates without resources running against the others. In 2016, 43.7% of the voters in Andy's district marked their ballots for Trump. In none of the other super-progressives' districts did Trump even come close to 40%.

It takes some guts to take principled stands the way he has in a swing district like his, a district where Trump will be advertising heavily and screaming about "socialists." And a great voting record isn't all that Andy is offering. Yesterday, he told his constituents that he's "not running simply to try to vote the right way on foreign and domestic policy, and to bring home the bacon (or tofu, if you prefer) to the working people of the 9th District, although that’s all important. I am running to help lead a movement for a new politics that creates a fundamentally more beautiful America. This is about the 'more perfect union' we have always sought, but has remained frustratingly beyond our grasp. We’re looking to create an America that is:

• Transforming our systems to create equitable policies for the people
• Galloping towards a fossil-free future
• Ensuring that all have access to quality, affordable healthcare
• Revering and fairly compensating teachers-- from preschool to university
• Guaranteeing workers can form unions, be well paid, and retire with dignity

He wrote that his freshman term "came in one of the most bizarre, consequential two-year sessions of Congress in our history. It also came alongside a massive Democratic wave, with the most diverse class in history. Over the past two years we’ve seen Donald Trump’s failed government shutdown come and go (without accomplishing a thing), his impeachment in the House and 'you-call-that-a-trial?' in the Senate."

And now, beyond our wildest imaginings, a global pandemic is packing a one-two punch on our nation. Not only are we in the middle of the gravest public health crisis in a century, but we’re also witnessing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and an administration that claims their comeback is grounded in “law and order” when people are in the streets demanding long-overdue police reform and racial justice.

It’s impossible not to wonder what would’ve happened had we had competent leadership to meet this challenge. Now, we have an opportunity to turn our nation in a fundamentally new direction, rising from the ashes of this mess of an administration.

...We are all saying we’ll get through this, together. And we can. But not to go back to some previous normal. Let’s move into the light of justice.

So far, Blue America has only endorsed a dozen incumbents this cycle. A good voting record was essential, of course, but not enough. We were looking for progressive leaders for a post-Pelosi/Hoyer House Democratic caucus. Andy Levin is one of those leaders we're counting on. It would be catastrophic to lose him or any of the most progressive fighters in the House, all of whom you'll find by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Worthy Incumbents thermometer on the right.

Historic November Landslide In The Making?

Utah has a couple of blue and purple counties-- Salt Lake and Summit (which Hillary won in 2016) and Grand which she kind of won too-- 1,934 for Hillary and 1,932 for Señor Trumpanzee, a 43.4% to 43.4% tie, with #NeverTrump conservative Evan McMullin and Libertarian Gary Johnson getting most of the balance. In 2018 Mitt Romney lost both Summit and Grand to Jenny Wilson, a Democrat. And a putative Democrat, Blue Dog Ben McAdams narrowly ousted (50.1% to 49.9%) Republican incumbent Mia Love in UT-04, where the D+9 performance of Salt Lake County overcame the massive red tide in Utah, Sanpete and Juab counties.

But we all know that Utah is a beet red, blood red state. Utah voted for FDR and Truman and in 1964 backed LBJ against Barry Goldwater, 219,628 (54.9%) to 180,682 (45.1%). But 1964 was the last time Utah gave its electoral votes to a Democrat. In fact, since 2000, Obama's first race was the only time Utah gave over 30% of it;'s vote to a Democrat. McCain beat him 62.6% to 34.4%. Usually, Democrats get around a quarter of the presidential vote in Utah-- worse than in the Deep South. And that's why the new poll from UtahPolicy.com was so shocking yesterday:

If it gets so bad for Trump that he loses Utah, he'll wind up the way Strom Thurmond did when he ran for president in 1948 on the Dixiecrat Party and won 4 states. The electoral map looked very different then and current Republican bastions now-- like Texas, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Georgia and Utah-- were deep, deep blue. But these were the states that went for Thurmond in 1948 and will go for Trump in November:

• Alabama

Thurmond- 79.75%
Truman- not on the ballot
Dewey- 19.04%

• Louisiana

Thurmond- 49.07%
Truman- 32.75%
Dewey- 14.45%

• Mississippi

Thurmond- 87.17%
Truman- 10.09%
Dewey- 2.62%

• South Carolina

Thurmond- 71.97
Truman- 24.14%
Dewey- 3.78

Thurmond also did pretty well in Arkansas, Florida and Georgia. He wasn't on the ballot in Utah. Anyway, as I was saying, if Trump can't win Utah... the national election results in November will be pretty gratifying for normal Americans. How could that happen, though? Well, ever hear of a U.S. president conspiring-- relatively openly-- with Russia and Saudi Arabia to drive up the price of gasoline at the pump? Yesterday the Financial Times reported that Saudi Arabia and Russia ended their oil price war on Sunday by finalizing a deal to make the biggest oil production cuts in history, following pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to support an energy sector ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic." That may give economically hard-pressed American voters some food for thought... at least about where Trump's priorities really are. Cliff Krauss, writing for the NY Times, noted that with "Trump, facing a re-election campaign, a plunging economy and American oil companies struggling with collapsing prices, [he] took the unusual step of getting involved after the two countries entered a price war a month ago. Mr. Trump had made an agreement a key priority. It was unclear, however, whether the cuts would be enough to bolster prices. Before the coronavirus crisis, 100 million barrels of oil each day fueled global commerce, but demand is down about 35 percent. While significant, the cuts agreed to on Sunday still fall far short of what is needed to bring oil production in line with demand... While the planned cut is slightly smaller than a tentative pact reached last Thursday, the deal should bring some relief to struggling economies in the Middle East and Africa and global oil companies, including American firms that directly and indirectly employ 10 million workers."

Higher gas prices are never popular but Trump is counting on the fact that most Americans aren't using gas now and that they might not notice him driving up the price. Unfortunately for him though, most Americans probably agree with the New Yorker's David Remnick that Trump is the preëxisting condition in the Oval Office that has made everything worse than it had to be. "From the start," he wrote, "the Trump Administration has waged war on science and expertise, making a great nation peculiarly vulnerable to the foreseeable public-health calamity of the coronavirus. When has New York known a grimmer week? The sirens are unceasing. Funeral parlors are overwhelmed. Refrigerator trailers are now in service as morgues, and can be found parked outside hospitals all over town. We’re told that there are 'glimmers of hope,' that hospital admissions are slowing, that the curve is flattening. Yet the misery is far from over... Across the country, the coronavirus continues to ravage the confined and the vulnerable, from inmates of the Cook County jail, in Chicago, to workers at the Tyson Foods poultry plant in Camilla, Georgia. Data from a variety of reliable sources show that African-Americans, who suffer disproportionately from poverty, inadequate housing, limited access to good health care, and chronic illnesses such as diabetes and hypertension, are dying from covid-19 at horrific rates. The pandemic is an event in the natural history of our species, but it is also a political episode. Its trajectory is shaped by policy measures specific to particular governments. The fact that the United States is experiencing tremendous losses-- that it has far more covid-19 cases than any other country in the world-- relates to a number of collective risk factors and preëxisting conditions. The most notable one is to be found in the Oval Office." Remnick joked that from the beginning of his term, Trump "practiced social distancing from anyone who told him what he didn’t want to hear."

The coronavirus has inflicted a level of pain that is deep and global. And yet many nations, from South Korea to Germany, have done far better at responding to it than the United States has. The reasons for the American failing include a lack of preparation, delayed mobilization, insufficient testing, and a reluctance to halt travel. The Administration, from its start, has waged war on science and expertise and on what Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon called “the administrative state.” The results are all around us. Trump has made sure that a great nation is peculiarly vulnerable to a foreseeable public-health calamity.

...The knowledge that we are led so ineptly and with such brazen self-regard is humiliating to millions of American citizens, if not to their leader. Trump gives himself “a ten” for his performance and berates any reporter who dares to challenge that premise. “You should say, ‘Congratulations! Great job!’ ” he told one, “instead of being so horrid in the way you ask the question!”

A nation facing a common threat normally pulls together, but Trump’s reflex is always to divide; he has invoked a multiplying litany of enemies. He directs his fire at the Obama Administration, at the World Health Organization, and at governors from Albany to Sacramento, with their constant pleas for ventilators, test kits, and face masks. The Democrats are to blame for everything. Early in the year, as the pandemic grew, they “diverted” the attention of the federal government, because “every day was all about impeachment,” as Trump’s unfailing loyalist Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, put it.

At a time of medical peril and economic devastation, the President heads to the White House briefing room and frames the terms of his reëlection campaign. It is a campaign of cynicism and authoritarian impulses. To begin with, he has made it clear that he does not approve of efforts to make voting easier in November. Why should he? He takes a dim view of early voting, voting by mail, and same-day registration. Such reforms, he complains, would produce “levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Let's hope. As Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) told DWT readers a few hours ago, "Last week, Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.  I will support him wholeheartedly, with no reservations. As many of you know, I supported Elizabeth Warren in the primaries.  Her leadership in our current crisis, as exemplified by her April 8 NYT op-ed, shows why she could have been one of our greatest presidents. After she dropped out of the race, I switched my Michigan primary vote to Bernie Sanders. Why? Because Senator Sanders and I agree on the need to transform our country in bold ways, including:  

•  Medicare for All
• A Green New Deal
• Real worker voice and power in individual companies, industries and society

Bernie didn’t just run two successive presidential campaigns-- he inspired a movement that will have deep impacts on American policy and politics for years to come. Now, Bernie, Elizabeth and I will join with other progressives to create a veritable tsunami of organizing around our priorities to help sweep Joe Biden to power. The more we contribute, the more we help shape the fall campaign with open hearts and our best ideas, the more a Biden presidency will move America towards dignity and justice for all."

We're On The Verge Of The Deepest Recession Of Our Lifetimes-- Are The Hack Politicians We've Elected To Serve As Our Leaders Up To The Task?

Stock markets reacted badly to the Fed's panicky decision to lower U.S. interest rates to zero over the weekend, due, at least in part, to Trump's blustering, threatening, hysterical demands that they do something to save his collapsing presidency. (Too late for that.) Trading was halted immediately after the opening bell yesterday when the Dow Jones crashed by 2,250 points (9.71%). Even before the crash the Financial Times' Rana Foroohar had written a piece, How coronavirus became a corporate credit run, warning that the Fed and other central bankers "are going to have to keep the money taps on."

It was only hours after U.S. president Donald Trump told us, in an address from the Oval Office last week, "this is not a financial crisis," when markets began acting very much as though it was.

Investors dumped assets resulting in the worst trading day since 1987. Bond markets seized up, putting pressure on banks, and the U.S. Federal Reserve swooped in with yet more emergency funding for short-term borrowing markets (known as repurchasing or repo markets), a tactic which suggests we may see quantitative easing to infinity-- and beyond.

So when exactly does a coronavirus-triggered corporate market meltdown officially turn into a full-blown financial crisis? That's a question many market participants, and banks in particular, must be asking themselves.

If there has been any silver lining to the current market shock and the recession that is likely to follow, it is that it hasn't been a 2008-style banking crisis-- of the kind that jumps like a virus between highly leveraged global financial institutions and causes them to bleed dry. The Dodd-Frank and Basel III regulations that followed in the wake of the subprime crisis were designed to mitigate that risk. Banks, required to hold larger quantities of high-quality assets, were made to do less trading, and more traditional lending.

That worked, up to a point. The virus-induced brake on consumer activity and labour markets, which has in turn triggered a corporate credit run, is what caused the market panic this time, rather than risky trading on the part of global banks.

Today, it is not Wall Street financial institutions, but companies in a variety of industries that are stressed, as a simultaneous supply and demand shock means they need to tap credit lines to pay their bills. With flights halted, supply chains disrupted and the consumer economy gutted, companies are trying to stockpile cash, whether they need it immediately or not.

It's one thing for the aircraft manufacturer Boeing to draw down its entire $13.8bn credit line. It's another for multiple big corporations to draw theirs at the same time. Still, as a recent Credit Suisse report pointed out, "we now have a global banking system where all major banks have to pre-fund 30-day outflows" with high-quality liquid asset portfolios. This is one important reason why these corporate funding stresses haven't caused a real time banking crisis in the way that the 2008 subprime crisis did. Another reason is that the Fed is backstopping the banking system with its repo operations, as banks exchange Treasury bills for cash.

All of this underscores a fundamental truth-- regulators usually tend to fight the last war. The dollar deposits that corporations are currently drawing down are one of the highest-quality types of funding for banks, the same kind that the Basel III rules stipulate they should keep on hand.

Nobody assumed that a pandemic would result in huge credit drawdowns by many companies all at once. Losing these deposits so quickly threatens the liquidity profile and regulatory compliance of banks themselves. And that is before we start to see the spike in corporate downgrades and defaults that will create even more funding pressure.

The fact is that the banking system has already been pulled into the corporate credit crisis that many people predicted would be the cause of the next big market downturn. It's all too easy to see how the problems of individual companies-- technology firms, retailers, airlines and insurance companies-- could be passed to individual banks and then to countrywide banking systems. Ultimately, they could spread throughout the global financial system, leaving central bankers once again the lender of last resort, standing between us and another global financial crisis.

That is pretty much what is already happening, and we haven't even seen the next phase of falling dominoes-- the meltdown of passive and algorithmic investing, the unwinding of exchange traded funds, and the sale of even the highest quality assets by people who are desperate to raise cash in the midst of a liquidity crisis. All this means that central bankers will have to keep the money taps on, and probably increase the variety of assets that they are buying or backstopping.

We shouldn't mistake all that easy money for a cure. As Credit Suisse managing director Zoltan Pozsar points out, "QE isn't a vaccine for this outbreak." Even if the Fed can offset pressures within the banking system, that doesn't replace the loss of private-sector spending. What's needed is something more akin to a wartime fiscal stimulus programme, in which the government replaces lost consumer demand, ideally with a major public health spending programme. We might start by bolstering the number of available hospital beds in the U.S., which is woefully behind other developed countries. Sadly, the only wartime reference in Mr Trump's ill-advised speech was to the U.S. "fighting a foreign virus."

Covid-19 is, of course, an equal opportunity pandemic. Being asymptomatic doesn't mean you aren't contagious. The corporate crisis roiling the markets has already infected the banking system.

Whether unlimited central bank injections of liquidity are enough to keep it healthy over the next few weeks and months, as both the pandemic and the market crisis plays out, remains to be seen.

Goliath: The Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, author Matt Stoller tried making sensing of this for his Twitter followers with a tweet storm I've put in narrative form below. Earlier, after reading the Financial Times piece he had written that "It's clear that a massive Coronavirus Bailout is coming. As Rana Foroohar noted there's significant corporate debt distress. What is the shape of that bailout? What kinds of conditions will the government put on corporate handouts?"

We are going to bail out big corporations not just because of the virus but because Wall Street thinned out their ability to handle risk. That's what the buybacks, mergers, etc were all about. Stripping out resiliency. If we're going to inject public money let's stop that.

There should be five restrictions on any bailout terms. One, no bailouts for shareholders. Two, no stock buybacks. Three, strict exec comp limits. Four, no more lobbying. Five, no mergers or acquisitions for five years.

During the immediate viral transmission period, we may need to hit pause on any corporate bankruptcies and extend an emergency debtor-in-possession financing, which is basically loans to companies in bankruptcy to keep them functioning. After that period, there will be a bunch of corporations on the hook to the government. That's when the restructuring to put these corporations through a quick resolution process should happen.

I have not thought through what it means to cram down equity holders when private equity predators own lots of the debt, so it's critical to put real constraints on the kind of corporate control debt holders get out of the process. No financialization and asset stripping.

Same terms should not apply to small and medium sized businesses, because they have not been subjected to the same load 'em up with debt style financial games. Financialization and private equity is about loading up corporations with hidden risk. We cannot afford that anymore.

Last point. I'm hearing Wall Street analysts talk about how this market downturn is a tremendous buying opportunity. That was true in 2008-2009, and the taxpayers financed it but didn't benefit.

If it's public money doing the buying, let's use our leverage this time.

The other day we made a big point-- as did some of her colleagues-- that Orange County Rep, Katie Porter is one of the sharpest members Congress. Luckily for all of us, she's putting her brain-power behind trying to ameliorate the catastrophe Trump has bumbled into with his non-response to the COVID-19 pandemic, currently overwhelming not just medical treatment centers but financial markets as well. "Many American families are already financially insecure," she said in a quick interview. "We see that in data on 20% of people delaying treatment for a serious medical condition and the estimated 40% of households that could pay deal with a $400 unexpected expense without borrowing. The coronavirus pandemic preys not just on the health of Americans but on their financial wellbeing. Closed schools impose new childcare costs; shuttered businesses mean lost wages. We need to put money immediately (within the next week) into the hands of American workers. I support a $1,000 per worker now, with the potential of more to come as necessary. Note: Mitt Romney supports this too! While many Democratic colleagues are identifying problems with constituents such as concern about utility shut offs or inability to pay rent, the reality is the households know best what bills they need to pay. And if we do not do this cash payment immediately, before the big industry and corporate bailouts start, then families will pile on credit card and predatory debt just to make ends meet. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is talkings about refundable tax credits; that is not nearly immediate enough. It misses the reality of the vast majority of American households, who are facing increased expenses and decreased wages this week. They cannot wait for long appropriations battles about social programs. The Treasury should cut these checks before April 1 when many bills will come due."

Andy Levin (D-MI) has the single best voting record of any member of the House. Yesterday he told us that "Trump made the conscious decision to tie his success to the economy, and more specifically, the stock market. When you own the rise, you own the fall. In more ways than one, the downturn we're faced with now is because of this president's foolishness. While he couldn't prevent the initial outbreak of the coronavirus, President Trump could have done much more to prepare for it. For starters, he should not have fired the White House's pandemic response team in 2018. He also should have taken the threat of the disease seriously instead of misleading the public about its disastrous potential.

But before there was coronavirus, we were still facing a manufacturing recession. Workers' wages weren't going up and wealth inequality continued to balloon out of control. All the while, the president touted a stock market while half of Americans don't even own stock.

Thanks to hardworking medical professionals, the sacrifices made by working people and sincere efforts to practice good public health, I believe we will overcome this pandemic having learned some valuable lessons.  But never forget that many of the billions of dollars lost during the outbreak stem from a president who is able to manage neither a public health crisis nor a just economy."

Tom Winter is a progressive state legislator from western Montana running for the state's at-large congressional seat. "It's clear," he told us, "that the U.S. preparedness and response to this global pandemic has been bumbled from the get-go. Now, due to a complete lack of leadership from the top of our government we are on the verge of at the very least an economic recession, and at the very worst a financial collapse. While the federal government and politicians focus on saving Wall St. and the Big Banks, there's still a vast majority of working families in this country that were already struggling through this great stock-market run. So, my concern in the midst of this pandemic and national emergency lockdown is with the workers that aren't in line for bail outs or massive infusions of capital from the federal government. Yet, they're the ones that are getting laid off from work and still having to pay the bills. That's why, as a state legislator and U.S. Congressional candidate, I will be pushing for proactive protections for working families. Such as suspension of disconnections for non-payment from all utilities, paid sick leave extended to all workers, extension of unemployment benefits to workers laid off, pausing all evictions, making sure insurers follow through with the President's promise to make all COVID-19 testing and treatments free of any out-of-pocket expenses, and anything else that will dampen the effects felt by workers. We can not let the response and recovery of this crisis be like every other in recent memory, with all the focus, attention, and resources going to those with wealth and power."

UPDATE: From Goldman Sachs

Some of this is interesting and some of it is wishful thinking, but it's worth knowing what these big firms are thinking-- even if they're mostly off base. This is from their big investee call yesterday (with 1,500 firms dialing in):

50% of Americans will contract the virus (150 million people, give or take) as it's very communicable. This is on a par with the common cold (Rhinovirus) of which there are about 200 strains and which the majority of Americans will get 2-4 per year.

70% of Germany will contract it (58 million people). This is the next most relevant industrial economy to be effected.

Peak-virus is expected over the next eight weeks, declining thereafter.

The virus appears to be concentrated in a band between 30-50 degrees north latitude, meaning that like the common cold and flu, it prefers cold weather. The coming summer in the northern hemisphere should help. This is to say that the virus is likely seasonal.

Of those impacted 80% will be early-stage, 15% mid-stage and 5% critical-stage. Early-stage symptoms are like the common cold and mid-stage symptoms are like the flu; these are stay at home for two weeks and rest. 5% will be critical and highly weighted towards the elderly. [ASIDE: my doctor-- who has extremely important medical connections in China-- told me yesterday that 61.5% of those in critical care in the best hospitals have died.]

Mortality rate on average of up to 2%, heavily weight towards the elderly and immunocompromised; meaning up to 3 million people. In the US about 3 million/yr die mostly due to old age and disease, those two being highly correlated (as a percent very few from accidents). There will be significant overlap, so this does not mean 3 million new deaths from the virus, it means elderly people dying sooner due to respiratory issues. This may however stress the healthcare system.

There is a debate as to how to address the virus pre-vaccine. The US is tending towards quarantine. The UK is tending towards allowing it to spread so that the population can develop a natural immunity. Quarantine is likely to be ineffective and result in significant economic damage but will slow the rate of transmission giving the healthcare system more time to deal with the case load.

China’s economy has been largely impacted which has affected raw materials and the global supply chain. It may take up to six months for it to recover.

Global GDP growth rate will be the lowest in 30 years at around 2%.

S&P 500 will see a negative growth rate of -15% to -20% for 2020 overall.

There will be economic damage from the virus itself, but the real damage is driven mostly by market psychology. Viruses have been with us forever. Stock markets should fully recover in the 2nd half of the year.

In the past week there has been a conflating of the impact of the virus with the developing oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. While reduced energy prices are generally good for industrial economies, the US is now a large energy exporter, so there has been a negative impact on the valuation of the domestic energy sector. This will continue for some time as the Russians are attempting to economically squeeze the American shale producers and the Saudi’s are caught in the middle and do not want to further cede market share to Russia or the US.

Technically the market generally has been looking for a reason to reset after the longest bull market in history.

There is NO systemic risk. No one is even talking about that. Governments are intervening in the markets to stabilize them, and the private banking sector is very well capitalized. It feels more like 9/11 than it does like 2008.

Andy Levin And AOC Are Working To Tear Down A Barrier For Consumers Interested In Buying An Electric Vehicle

When Trump first got to the White House, he saw infrastructure spending as a perfect way to transfer taxpayer dollars into his own pocket and the pockets of his campaign donors-- until Pelosi and Schumer told him that isn't the way it works. So he colored on his campaign promises of rebuilding American infrastructure. He now sees infrastructure as building his useless wall on the southern border.

Last week, two of Congress' best members, freshmen Andy Levin (D-MI) and AOC (D-NY) introduced the Electric Vehicles (EV) Freedom Act, H.R. 5770. The purpose is to create a comprehensive nationwide network of high-speed electric vehicle chargers along America’s highways within five years. Yesterday, Levin told his constituents that "When it comes to purchasing an electric vehicle, many consumers are worried about the lack of public charging stations, especially along the highway. But the EV Freedom Act will ensure that drivers along the National Highway System will have ready access to charging stations that can power up their EV in the shortest time technology allows. It’s time to bring our highway system into the 21st century."

He wrote that the bill offers the opportunity to eliminate barriers to consumers who ate interesting these cars and paving the way for rapid mass adoption of electric vehicles. "This transformational legislation will not only help reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change, but it will also create thousands of good-paying automotive and infrastructure jobs. Jobs that are created through the EV Freedom Act will adhere to Buy American and prevailing wage requirements to protect the hardworking people behind America’s new EV future. And, it will make sure our poor communities and communities of color are included in both the new green infrastructure and job opportunities."

On introducing the bill, AOC said that "Cars, above all else, have historically represented America's problem with dirty oil. Establishing a nation-wide network of electric vehicles charging stations helps us reduce emissions, creates good paying jobs, and will help transition the U.S. economy to a cleaner future."

Specifically, the EV Freedom Act:

• Establishes a comprehensive, nationwide network of high-speed EV chargers within 5 years;
• Helps secure the automotive and infrastructure jobs of the future and create thousands of good-paying jobs with robust Buy America and prevailing wage requirements to protect the hardworking Americans who will build an EV future;
• Ensures the chargers built along the National Highway System keep up with new technology to achieve a simple goal-- fully power up EVs in the time it takes to fill up gas and diesel tanks;
• Promotes interoperability so drivers don’t have to fear that chargers won’t be compatible with their cars; and
• Prioritizes accessibility by guaranteeing that payment methods are secure, convenient, and equal access, and that all charging stations are ADA compliant.

The EV Freedom Act directs the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy to devise a plan to create the network of EV chargers, submit the plan to Congress and create the network of EV chargers within five years.

The EV Freedom Act has the support of a diverse group of labor, environment and climate groups, including:

Blue Green Alliance, League of Conservation Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Ecology Center, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), United Steelworkers (USW), United Automobile Workers (UAW) and the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE).

The immediate co-sponsors were Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). Yesterday I spoke with several members who I know are big boosters of electric vehicles, like Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who had written a similar bill when he was in the Maryland state legislature, Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), who all told me they are either going to sign on or are studying it and are likely to sign on. In fact, Tom Suozzi, many of whose Long Island constituents, are commuters, was the first to co-sponsor the bill yesterday... followed by Ro Khanna just moments later.

I also asked some of the top progressive candidates who are likely to be in Congress next year and will be the ones to get this passed, since McConnell is likely to block it from being debated in the Senate in 2020. I recall telephoning Mike Siegel once when he was on a picket line at a car factory supporting local strikers. So I asked him. "This is what the fight against climate change looks like: we must rebuild the American economy, piece by piece, to allow for a sustainable future. Representatives Levin and Ocasio-Cortez speak for all of us, by fighting for the infrastructure we need for electric vehicles. We know America can do this. 100 years ago we provided electricity to rural America. Under FDR we rebuilt our electric grid through the New Deal. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. And now, as we face climate change and massive wealth inequality, we need a new generation of federal programs that will create good new jobs and protect our planet. I look forward to pushing these types of efforts forward when I join the House in 2021."

Jon Hoadley represents Kalamazoo in the Michigan state legislature and he's likely to be the next member of Congress from the southwest corner of the state. He's very enthusiastic about Levin's and AOC's bill. "The Electric Vehicles Freedom Act is a common sense step in the right direction toward transitioning the U.S. away from fossil fuels and toward a cleaner future. Frankly, it should have been done years ago. By establishing a nation-wide network of electric vehicles charging stations, the EV Freedom Act will help us reduce emissions, create good paying jobs, and provide the much needed infrastructure to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels."

This legislation, if passed and signed, will be amazing news for Indiana's economy. We have two candidates running there, Jim Harper, the newest candidate endorsed by Blue America, is very excited about it. His district in northwest Indiana would benefit immensely. "The EV Freedom Act," he told me yesterday, "would be a boon to the working families of Northwest Indiana. The proposal will not only help us kick our addiction to dirty petroleum, but it will also help create good-paying, union jobs. Green infrastructure and technology are the future for our region, particularly in light of a history of industrial pollution that has fallen disproportionately hard on communities of color."

And Jennifer Christie, who is running in a more swingy district north of Indianapolis, is just as excited as Jim. "I love it!," she said when she read about the bill.  "In October, our campaign released a Climate Agenda calling exactly for this and other measures to decarbonize to zero emissions. Comprehensive Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure is essential to solving the transportation component of the climate crisis. What’s more, this will create jobs while we upgrade our highway infrastructure. We also have the opportunity to invest in rural communities and Tribal Nations as we install EV charging networks; There are opportunities to invest in solar projects around charging stations as well as local commerce that will surely develop along the EV grid. In addition to the boost EV infrastructure will give to electric car usage, it will also protect water quality. Gasoline is typically stored in underground storage tanks (USTs). Leaks, spills, and overfills from gasoline service stations are one of the most common sources of ground water pollution according to the EPA. Approximately half of the American population relies on ground water as their drinking source. With an eventual goal of replacing gasoline stations with EV charging stations, imagine the good that we can do for the environment and the economy. I am glad to see this bill introduced. We need more legislative action on climate that directly helps to reduce carbon pollution. Let’s support this bill by calling our current representatives. If I have the opportunity to vote on it, count me as a YES!"

Morgan Harper, the progressive running for the Columbus, Ohio congressional seat, realizes how important this bill will be for central Ohio. She told me this morning that she strongly supports the legislation. "Not only is it critical in our fight against climate change to invest in Electric Vehicle infrastructure, but it provides auto manufacturers, many of whom have a strong presence in Ohio, the clear incentive to invest more, sooner, in their Electric Vehicle programs."

You Expect Republicans To Oppose Pro-Union Legislation... But I Want To Introduce You To 7 Anti-Working Class Democrats

On Thursday night, the House passed Bobby Scott's PRO Act-- Protecting the Right To Organze (H.R. 2474). There were only 5 Republicans-- all in swing districts-- who voted with the Democrats to pass this. There were, however, 7 anti-working class Democrats who crossed the aisle in the other direction, Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. (It passed 224-194.) These were the so-called Democrats who opposed it:

• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)

The state of organized labor is so fucked up and the unions are so in thrall to the Democratic Party establishment that I would bet good money that most of these candidates will be endorsed by unions, regardless of their votes being a direct attack on unions. Right after the vote, Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters issued this statement:

In approving the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, the House agreed to restore fairness to the economy at a time when income inequality has stifled the ability of far too many hardworking Americans to earn a decent wage that allows them to support their families.

The PRO Act will strengthen the NLRA so that workers seeking to organize a union and negotiate higher wages and better benefits will be protected. Workers deserve a safe workplace, the ability to stand together and negotiate better working conditions, and to live a middle-class lifestyle.

"Lawmakers have realized what happens when workers are abandoned by their elected officials. The misclassification of workers is on the rise and too many working Americans are falling through the cracks. The Teamsters have witnessed such behavior firsthand as XPO workers across the country try to organize with this union. I'm glad to see a majority of the House are standing with workers by allowing them to join together to negotiate on the job.

So far this cycle, the Teamsters Union has given the DNC 120,000 and the DCCC $105,000. Four of the anti-union members are getting immense financial support from the DCCC-- Cuellar, McBath, Cunningham and Horn. The Teamsters Union has already given substantial amounts to some of the anti-union members-- $10,000 to Horn and $5,000 each to McAdams and Cunningham, as well as $3,500 to West Virginia Republican David McKinley, $2,500 to Long Island Republican Peter King, $2,000 to Illinois Republican Rodney Davis, $1,000 to Omaha Republican Donald Bacon. All 4 Republicans voted against the PRO-Act.

One good thing the Teamsters Union did do though was to write a $5,000 check to Jennifer Cisneros, the progressive Democrat opposing Cuellar in south Texas. She lit into Cuellar for voting against workers, pointing out that he sided "with his big corporate donors over working people in our district once again showing why he’s Trump’s favorite Democrat. Workers deserve the right to negotiate for proper pay, good working conditions, and benefits they deserve. I’m proud to have the support of workers in our district and local unions, who have our back because they know we have theirs." Her campaign let votes know that "Cuellar's vote comes just days after the staunchly anti-labor, pro-Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced a $200,000 ad buy" to support Cuellar primary race. Cuellar was also denied the endorsement of the Texas AFL-CIO last week, which opted to back Cisneros instead. Cuellar's campaign is being financed by anti-union corporate PACs from companies like Amazon, Exxon, Koch Industries, Core Civic, and Raytheon, with less than 1% coming from small-dollar donations.

"Being anti-union is the same as being anti-middle class," Mark Gamba told us, "so it’s no surprise that millionaire Kurt Schrader was one of the few Democrats to vote against the PRO Act yesterday." Gamba is the progressive, pro-worker mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon and he's challenging Schrader for the 5th district congressional seat. "Over the last four decades, neo-liberals like Kurt have worked to whittle down the power of the unions, because they know that if the unions are strong, the middle class is strong and they will be forced to share their amassed power. The PRO Act is simply a long overdue course correction in union law that would hold bad employers accountable for dishonest behavior and allow working folks a fair shot at organizing. This law is more important than ever with the growing gig economy. If we hope to reverse the decades long stagnation in wages, we must support our unions. Schrader’s vote is a clear signal that he neither represents the union-dense 5th district people, nor does he have any intention of working for the benefit of the shrinking middle-class."

Ever Wonder Where Trump's-- And His Followers'-- Contempt For The Constitution Is Leading Us?

Jamie Raskin (D-MD), is the guy people turn to when they want the sharpest insight into how the Constitution was meant to work and how it really does work. He's pretty much acknowledged the smartest constitutional scholar in any room. "The president just impeached by the House of Representatives for contorting U.S. foreign policy to advance his reelection," he told us yesterday, "now usurps the war powers of Congress to make assassination of strategic (not operational) military personnel an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. This is a perilous new provocation and political distraction by the impetuous, lawless and ungovernable Donald Trump. No one will miss the blood-soaked General Soleimani, but that is not the question. The constitutional question is whether the President can order killings of ‘bad guys’ anywhere in the world without a declaration of war and without even  consultation of Congress. The policy question is what America will do now as the Iraqi Parliament seeks to kick all U.S. forces out of their country and an inflamed Iranian regime, bolstered by popular backlash against Trump, threatens 'severe revenge' against the  American people, American businesses and American allies. The master of official law-breaking and monarchical arrogance, President Trump has now unleashed a new descent into chaos in the Middle East. After the decades-long nightmares of the trillion-dollar Afghan and Iraqi Wars, which cost thousands of American and allied forces’ lives, in addition to thousands of civilians in those countries, the president has brought us to the brink of another brutal and endless war. We are all much less safe today because of the President’s recent outbreak of lawless impetuosity."

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that some Bolton cronies have indicated that his testimony would likely be damning to Señor Trumpanzee and "put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him." The Times speculated that "That could fundamentally change the dynamics around the impeachment trial in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote-- 67 senators-- is needed to remove Mr. Trump. Democrats, the minority party, control 45 seats." There aren't 22 "moderate" Republicans in the Senate

A little later on today, foreign policy expert Reese Erlich will give us his back-of-the-envelope version of what happened in regard to the Trump assassinations against Iran in Baghdad. By the weekend, I expect a much fuller analysis from him. I was especially struck by his comparison of the meaning of Soleimani to the Iranian people to how Americans would have viewed the assassination of Eisenhower during World War II. Damned, I hope someone is telling the Iranians to retaliate against Trump’s own property and not against the American people. Most of us hate him as much as they do.

He wants to be a war president

Over this past weekend, The Atlantic published an essay by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway, The Soleimani Strike Defied The U.S. Constitution, warning that “if Congress fails to respond effectively, the constitutional order will be broken beyond repair, and the president will be left with the unmitigated power to take the country to war on his own-- anywhere, anytime, for any reason.” Did no one tell Hathaway that that seems to be exactly what the transpartisan DC establishment has been aiming at for decades? A complete abrogation of responsibility that the Constitution invested in the Congress.

Hathaway wrote that “Any significant military action requires legal authority under both domestic and international law. Normally, domestic law would require the president to seek the approval of Congress, usually through a law authorizing the use of military force (after all, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to ‘declare war’). International law would also require him to seek the approval of the United Nations Security Council before resorting to force, unless the host state consents (which it did not) or the action qualifies for the express, but narrow, self-defense exception. Trump did not seek approval in either forum.” Does anyone assume that Trump has any feelings other than complete contempt for the Constitution and constitutional norms? AM I missing something?

National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told reporters that the killing was justified under the 2002 law Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which was passed to permit the president to act to address threats posed by Iraq. Relying on the law would require a conclusion that the threat from Soleimani, an Iranian government official, was posed by Iraq. In other words, relying on the law is as good as admitting there is no legal basis. Vice President Mike Pence also asserted a false connection between Soleimani and the 9/11 attacks, perhaps in an effort to suggest that the strike could fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Those claims have been widely discredited, and several members of the Senate earlier expressed skepticism that the 2001 law authorized action against Iran.

Without any more solid legal authority to cite, the Trump administration seems to have turned to the claim that it was acting in self-defense. Though the administration has yet to provide any clear explanation for the legality of the strikes, it has offered various clues that the central justification is the president’s right to engage in self-defense on behalf of the United States. The Department of Defense issued a short statement suggesting that the attack was justified as an act of defense “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later more forcefully claimed that the strike was aimed at disrupting an “imminent attack.”

This claim-- were it true-- could solve the administration’s domestic and international legal problems at once. Both the U.S. Constitution and the UN charter include an exception for self-defense. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president may act to respond to imminent threats to the nation. The original idea was that there may be times when it is impractical or impossible to convene Congress-- something that was especially true when communication and travel could take weeks. In such cases, the president would not be prevented from taking necessary action to defend the nation until Congress could be convened. The UN charter, which prohibits a state from unilaterally resorting to the use of force against another state, also allows for an exception in cases where the state has been the subject of an armed attack or, most experts agree, will imminently be subject to such an attack. In both cases, the exception is narrow: The threat must be so extreme and imminent that it would be unreasonable to seek the necessary approvals before taking action to defend the country.

New reporting from the New York Times, however, concludes that “the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin.’” A U.S. government official reportedly described the claim that Soleimani was planning an attack “that could kill hundreds” as “an illogical leap.” In short, it does not seem there was any imminent threat justifying unilateral action by the president.

…Though presidents have pushed the boundaries of their unilateral authority before, this action by President Trump is arguably unprecedented. When President Barack Obama participated in the NATO strikes in Libya, at least the operation was undertaken with allies and approved by the United Nations Security Council. (He later stated that the operation was the worst mistake of his presidency.) When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his international support was tenuous, but he had clear congressional authorization. In fact, the closest recent precedent for the current operation is President Trump’s own earlier decisions to strike Syrian-government targets in April 2017 and again in April 2018-- without either congressional or international support. But those strikes were relatively minor in comparison and did not risk setting off a new regional war.

In 1973, after discovering President Richard Nixon’s secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, Congress took steps to reclaim its power by passing the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to report to Congress whenever armed forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated,” and to terminate any hostilities after 60 days unless authorized by Congress. The effectiveness of the resolution has since been undermined by, among other things, fights over the meaning of “hostilities.” Congress must now act again not only to reject the illegal use of force represented by the decision to kill Soleimani, but also to reassert its constitutional role in the decision-making process that takes the nation to war. If Congress fails to effectively press back against this unconstitutional assertion of unilateral authority, it will set a precedent that will put the greatest destructive power the world has ever known in the hands of a single man.

There have been just a tiny handful of members of Congress-- a few outlier Republicans and a few dozen (mostly) progressive Democrats-- who have stood up against this slide away from congressional authority and responsibility. At least Barbara Lee isn’t the only one any longer. The most prominent leaders against it, along with her, have certainly not been Pelosi or Hoyer or any of that claque. It’s been Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), AOC (D-NY), Justin Amash (I-MI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Andy Levin (D-MI), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Ayanna Pressley… a pitifully few others.

And all the DCCC’s crappy “majority-maker” 2018 freshmen? Not a single one! Michigander Andy Levin is a freshman but because he won a blue district he isn't considered a "majority maker." Over the weekend he sent out an email to his supporters making his feelings clear about the way Trump has been screwing up the Middle East. He wrote that after "Trump's airstrike on an Iranian General without notifying Congress, I am very concerned that he is on the precipice of starting an unauthorized war with Iran. Last year, I introduced the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Clarification Act to make crystal clear that the president does not have Congressional authorization to initiate a war with Iran. If President Trump believes he needs that authority, he must follow the Constitution, come to Congress, and make his argument. Iran is obviously a dangerous actor on the world stage, and Qasem Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. But this president is reckless-- all impulse and no strategy. We have yet to see a plan in which the U.S. avoids another disastrous war in the Middle East. In the wake of the strike on Thursday night, our top priority must be to protect Americans at home and abroad. That is my goal: To return to Washington and pass the AUMF Clarification Act to save America from another costly war.

The House Passed 2 Important Bills Before Leaving Town-- One Good One And One Bad One... And Only The Bad One Will Become Law

Before rushing home for Christmas on Thursday, the House voted to pass Trump's NAFTA 2.0-- H.R. 5430-- (385-41) and voted to pass Tom Suozzi's Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act--H.R. 5377-- 218-206. Let's start with NAFTA 2.0. Hoyer introduced it and it was supported by 193 Democrats and 192 Republicans. Trump is eager to sign it. 38 Democrats, 2 Republicans and Justin Amash (I-MI) had the sense to oppose it. It was tough for Democrats to vote against it even though they all knew it sucked because most of the unions had come out for it. Among the independent-minded Dems with the guts to say no were this outstanding baker's dozen:

• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Ted Lieu (D-CA)
• Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• AOC (D-NY)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)
• Nanette Barragán (D-CA)
• Jim McGovern (D-MA)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Chuy Garcia (D-IL)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

The bill flew right in the face of the #1 reason Ted Lieu had decided to leave his family in beautiful southern California and go work in Congress in miserable DC: the Climate Crisis. He voted NO. Yesterday he told us that "Climate change is an existential threat to our nation and our planet. We simply cannot wait until the next trade deal to begin to take action. At the very moment when we should be taking bold action to address the climate crisis, this deal continues the same old 19th century policies that got us here. For this reason, every major environmental group opposed the USMCA, and I am proud to stand with them in opposing the status quo."

Here's why one of organized labor's best friends and closest allies in Congress, Andy Levin, voted against this deceitful, Trumpist bill. It's worth listening to the whole 78 seconds of what Levin had to say. He's telling the truth-- about something that is excruciatingly painful for him-- which is more than I can say for the party leadership.




Since the bill contained some good points negotiated by the Democrats, it was a tough one to decide on. Pramila Jayapal issued this statement to explain her thinking to her Seattle supporters:

“I have carefully considered the pros and cons of the USMCA over the past several days, engaging in multiple conversations with stakeholders in the business, tech, labor and environmental community in my district and at the national level. This has been a difficult decision to make. I am grateful to the many leaders who discussed their positions and the pros and cons of this agreement with me.

There is no question that we need a new model for a trade agreement that can support American jobs, climate preservation and global business all at the same time. NAFTA was the epitome of the opposite kind of trade agreement. Since the original NAFTA agreement went into effect in 1994, it has had a devastating impact on Washington and our workers-- killing 12,560 manufacturing jobs and leaving workers unemployed or forced to take significantly lower-paying jobs. Our state’s net agricultural exports have plummeted and our giant-- and growing-- agricultural trade deficit has squeezed farmers in Washington and put small farms out of business. And while rarely recognized, the disastrous effects of NAFTA have driven migration north from Mexico, as small Mexican farmers were driven out of business and forced to seek opportunities north of the border.

Thanks to the hard work of House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi, the AFL-CIO, and key communities allies, we were able to take what would have been a disastrous USMCA deal from the Trump Administration and negotiate a significantly better trade deal, so that standards and enforcement of labor rights are included in the agreement itself. In addition, thanks to extraordinary negotiating from Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we got a clean sweep of wins to remove provisions from the Trump Administration’s proposal that would have allowed Big Pharma to make prescription drugs even more expensive for Americans. We also forced the Administration to add stronger labor and environmental protections and eliminate a provision that would have allowed wealthy investors to attack and strike down environmental protections. Let me be clear: Left to his own devices, Donald Trump would have pushed through a much worse trade deal for American workers and our planet.

However, after examining the agreement from all sides, I do not believe that USMCA goes far enough. Specific to Washington state, I am deeply concerned that jobs in the aerospace industry-- critical to our state’s economy-- have received insufficient protections. Several other large labor unions in the state have also articulated some significant concerns that this deal does not do enough to protect vulnerable and exploited workers and prevent outsourcing of jobs to places with lower labor standards. USMCA also relies on the Mexican government to strictly enforce labor standards, ensure strong Mexican unions, and not undercut American workers-- without appropriate measures or assurances to make sure the Mexican government does the right thing.

USMCA also does not do nearly enough to address climate change or protect our precious natural resources. While there are some important provisions related to the environment, the Trump Administration’s failure to recognize the facts and scientific consensus on the urgency of addressing climate change prevented them from incorporating any real measures to protect our planet and people. Every leading environmental organization has opposed the USMCA with force because it fails in all environmental priority areas.  Climate change is the singular crisis of our time, and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road. Washington’s Seventh Congressional District has led on climate issues precisely because we have so many leading scientific and advocacy organizations that have prioritized climate change.

I want to be clear that there is no question that USMCA is better than NAFTA for workers and families across our country. In listening to leading business voices from Washington’s Seventh Congressional district, I also am deeply aware that there will likely be benefits to the Port of Seattle and so many Washington businesses. I have listened to these perspectives very carefully and with an open mind.

I had very much hoped to be able to vote yes on this trade deal. While I voted no on USMCA, I recognize how important trade is to my district, and I am grateful for the feedback and conversations I’ve had with constituents on this issue. I remain committed to pushing for trade policies that are fair and promote a healthy, safe and prosperous future for our communities.”

The Suozzi bill about taxes was a lot easier for progressives to get enthusiastically behind. It was almost a party-line vote-- 213 Democrats voting for it (with 16 nays) and 189 Republicans voting against it while 5 crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats. The bill will increase the tax deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) in 2019 to $20,000 for persons filing a joint tax return. It eliminates the current $10,000 cap on the deduction in 2020 and 2021. And it increases the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6% (from 37%) beginning in 2020, and reduces the dollar amount at which the increased tax rate begins-- so a middle class tax relief bill that McConnell won't allow a vote on and that Trump would veto if it passed the Senate.

This were the 16 Democrats who crossed the aisle:

• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX)
• Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)
• Jared Golden (D-ME)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• AOC (D-NY)
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ)

CNBC reported that "New York, New Jersey and California are among the states where taxpayers are feeling the brunt from the $10,000 SALT cap. Among New Yorkers who itemized in 2017, the average SALT deduction claimed was $23,804, according to the Tax Policy Center. New Jersey itemizers wrote-off an average of $19,162 on state and local taxes that year, while Californians claimed $20,451, the Center found. These states are also home to some of the highest income and property taxes in the nation.

Controversy over the SALT cap also has spurred litigation by the affected states.

New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey have filed suit against the Treasury Department and the IRS, asserting that the SALT deduction limit was unconstitutional.

Separately, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are also fighting the Treasury Department and the IRS in court over the agencies’ move to block workarounds established by the three states.

Those workarounds would allow municipalities to establish charitable funds to pay for local services and offer property tax credits to incentivize homeowners to give.

This way, taxpayers can write off the payment as a charitable deduction on their federal returns, which is still permitted if you exceed the standard deduction. In 2019, that is $12,200 for single filers and $24,400 for married filing jointly.

The IRS and Treasury blocked the workarounds in June, saying the receipt of a state or local tax credit in return for the contribution would be a “quid pro quo.”

Suozzi’s bill also calls for raising the highest marginal individual income tax rate.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act slashed individual income tax rates across the board, lowering the top rate for the highest earners to 37% from 39.6%.

The proposed legislation would raise the rates back up to 39.6% for the highest earners and reduce the income threshold at which the top rate would apply.

“It’s hard to see it happening as a standalone bill, even with the rate increase,” said Jared Walczak, director of state tax policy at the Tax Foundation.

“It’s hard to see it happening unless it’s part of a much larger tax bill,” he said.

After the bill passed Thursday, I spoke with Suozzi on his way back to Long Island from DC on the train. You could tell he was overjoyed, not just because he was getting out of Washington, but because the bill he had worked so hard on-- first in the House Ways and Means Committee and then on the floor-- had just passed. "Conservatives," he told me, have always been trying to get rid of state and local taxes... they don't want blue states, progressive states, to be able to fund good public education, good health care programs... They want it all privatized... This was a team effort, a lot of us from all different ideological persuasions got this over the finish line. Now I have to work with Schumer to see what he can do to get this done in the Senate." I reminded him about MoscowMitch, the Grim Reaper. He's undaunted. No one thought he would get his bill passed in the House this year either, he reminded me. But... well, there it is. And he's not giving up. This bill is not just the right thing to do; it's the write thing for his Long Island constituents.

Just as we were ending our conversation-- with a little discussion of Tim Buckley's music-- a California progressive candidate from Riverside County, Liam O'Mara, called. Liam is running to represent a district held by ultra-conservative Trumpist Ken Calvert. Calvert, of course, was not one of the Republicans who backed Suozzi's bill, even though it would have been very advantageous for his own constituents. "Calvert," O'Mara said to me, "wants you to pay higher taxes, simple as that. Yep, he wants more of your hard-earned money eaten up by Washington. He voted for that when he backed Trump's terrible tax bill, which removed write-offs that helped middle class families, causing many to see a sharp rise in their tax burden. And now, he voted against the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act, which could restore some of the federal deductions for California taxes that we used to enjoy. The bill also includes a very small rise in the marginal rates paid by the super-rich, which addresses another problem with the last GOP tax cut-- its shifting more of the burden onto the middle. For the first time in American history, billionaires have a lower effective tax rate than the middle class families of the 42nd. In addition, the debt accumulated to pay for that tax break for the rich falls on the rest of us in the form of interest. It's like we all took a cash advance on our credit card in order to buy Tiffany jewelery for the richest couple in town. It makes no damned sense. By refusing to address either of these issues and voting against the Restoring Tax Fairness act, Calvert just flipped the bird to middle class families. He wants all of us to pay higher taxes so the super-rich can get even richer."