Support For Job Guarantee Is Growing Rapidly-- Will It Be A Campaign Issue?

A campaign manager I've worked with on a few campaigns in the past has been asking for for the last few days to consider endorsing the candidate he's working with this time. The candidate doesn't seem bad and it's a winnable race. There are 4 Democrats competing for the nomination and the DCCC isn't involved so they all seem somewhat progressive. His candidate doesn't seem financially competitive-- but when have we ever allowed that to determine supporting someone. The newly redrawn district has counties that went for Bernie and counties that backed Hillary. In the general, Trump won-- though not by double digits.

Before agreeing to speak with his candidate-- let's call him Candidate X-- I asked him a few questions... like which primary candidate is most progressive and if Candidate X supports Job Guarantee and College Debt Elimination. His response was that "It is close, but X is more progressive-- his priorities are good jobs, better public schools and quality and affordable health care for everyone-- it is still a Republican district and he will have to pick up Independents and Reasonable Republicans-- so kitchen table issues are the way to go on the surface. Below that-- he is very strongly against gun violence and pro-choice. He put out a statement against Trump's Transgender Ban in the military and is strongly for LGBTQIA+ rights. He has signed the no money from Fossil Fuels Pledge (all four candidates have)-- but X will be signing the End Citizens United No Corporate Money pledge in the next couple of days-- no other candidate has signed it... He supports plan for a job guarantee for people that want a job-- although it is new concept to him and we spoke about it."

Not very convincing. Remember, what Blue America is looking for is courageous principled candidates-- like Kaniela Ing, Jenny Marshall, Alan Grayson and Dan Canon who are going to go to Congress and not worry about voting with conservatives in order to get reelected. Another campaign manager told me last week that his candidate will do it "the West Virginia way, like Joe Manchin does." Good luck with that. It's not what we're looking for-- not even close.

So, he didn't answer the question about College Debt Elimination and didn't have anything much to say about Job Guarantee. So what will he be like in Congress? A scardy cat? Who thinks voting for equal right for gays and willing to vote pro-Choice defines a progressive? Doesn't sound like the kind of champion we're looking for this late in the cycle. But I'll keep an open mind. And send him the Marie Solis report in Newsweek from yesterday: Can A Federal Jobs Guarantee Help Democrats Defeat Trump In 2020? How about elect a Democratic House in 2018? Bernie is about to unveil plans "that would guarantee every American worker a minimum $15 an hour position complete with health care, a retirement plan and the same paid leave benefits granted to federal public-sector employees." Even less credible would-be presidential candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker are trying to jump on the bandwagon.

There’s already widespread support for a federal jobs guarantee program among voters across the country, and-- most notably-- across the political spectrum, according to Sean McElwee and his colleagues at Data for Progress, a progressive polling and analysis firm. In March, they found that a majority of voters in all 50 states supported a jobs guarantee, even in states that went overwhelmingly to Trump. The state that polled lowest was Utah, where a solid 57-percent majority still said they would favor the proposal.

When researchers at Civis Analytics, another progressive data analytics firm, narrowed the data by voting pattern, they found that 56 percent of those who went from voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 supported a jobs guarantee, and 58 percent of non-voters looked favorably on the idea as well.

... “If we’re speaking strictly about winning campaigns, running on jobs is 100 percent a smart move, and it’s 100 percent what Democrats should be doing,” Sean McElwee, a researcher and co-founder at Data for Progress, told Newsweek. “Democrats can run on jobs without sacrificing other progressive causes.”

McElwee cautioned Democrats against getting too excited about the number of Obama-turned-Trump voters they can win over with the policy-- it’s still modest. But it’s enough to cut a path to victory in 2018, he says.

“If you can get back about one-third of Obama-Trump voters and energize non-voters, there you are,” he said. “You’ve got your House majority.”

Indeed, some who switched their votes from Barack Obama to Trump told Newsweek the idea seemed common-sense.

“If this could help the people get jobs, I support it,” said Eileen Sorokas, from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which went to Obama in 2012 but to Trump by 20 points four years later. “I know what it’s like not to have a job-- it’s kind of scary. If it works, I’m all for it.”

Before she retired, Sorokas, now 70, worked at a dress factory that shut down and went overseas in the mid-90s. Her husband Richard worked at Procter & Gamble for over three decades until he retired 17 years ago. He said a jobs guarantee interests him because he’d like to see fewer Americans rely on the country’s welfare system.

“I remember Trump wanted to get people off of welfare, and he said he was going to make jobs for people who want to work” he told Newsweek. “What stuck out for me was getting people off of welfare. I thought that was a great.”

Both Richard and Eileen-- who said they’d been lifelong Democrats-- said they’d consider voting for a member of their party again if they campaigned on a strong jobs platform, like the guaranteed jobs proposal.

But they’re not totally sold yet. After a beat, Richard posed what might just be a multi-billion dollar question: “Where do you get the money?”

Policy research institutes like the Center on Budget and Policy Proposals and the Center for American Progress have priced federal jobs guarantee plans similar to Booker’s and Sanders’s at $543 billion and $158 billion, respectively. The government could fund a jobs program by raising income tax on the rich-- a proposal that is controversial in some circles. But proponents of the policy in the Senate see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

...House candidates are already testing the waters for the 2020 presidential hopefuls. Dan Canon, who’s running in the Democratic primary in Indiana’s 9th District-- which went to Trump by double digits in 2016-- says he’s spoken to hundreds of voters about his proposal for a jobs guarantee, and not one of them has voiced any opposition to the idea.

“A jobs guarantee is good for the economy, it’s good for unemployment and it’s good for infrastructure,” Canon said.

In Canon’s district, home to some of the most rural parts of Indiana, he says voters have two top concerns: jobs and infrastructure. As Canon sees it, fixing the first problem with a jobs guarantee can solve the other. If people need jobs, they can take government-sponsored work fixing the district’s roads, public transit system, energy grids and broadband access, Canon says. The House candidate's proposal, and others like it, harken back to the Works Progress Administration implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a program that gave some 8.5 million unemployed Americans jobs building up the country's infrastructure during the Great Depression.

“I have not found a single person in Indiana that disagrees with this idea or thinks it’s a bad one,” Canon told Newsweek. “The only pushback I ever got when presenting people with a jobs guarantee is from political theorists who think the district just isn’t ready. But those tend to be D.C. think-tank types who don’t understand the people on the ground here in Indiana."

We asked some the other candidates Blue America has endorsed how they speak about Job Guarantee to the voters. Hawaii candidate Kaniela Ing told us that "America’s promise has always been clear-- work hard and your family will prosper. Today, too many hard-working Americans feel that our leaders have gone bad on that promise. I talk to folks who tell me everyday, they grind and sweat, but struggle to get by. Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are rising, the threats of automation and globalization are becoming real, all while costs are skyrocketing. But just take a walk outside and look around at all the work that needs to be done in America. There are bridges to be built, highways needing repair, kids to be taught, aging folks needing care, oceans to be cleaned, trees to be planted. But private markets fall short. For every job opening in America, four people are gunning for it. This pits worker against worker and creates a power imbalance between workers and their bosses. It’s too risky for a worker to stand up to wage theft, inhumane working conditions, or sexual harassment, when they know there’s nowhere else to go. Our elected representatives must stop pretending that everything is okay, and that the job market will some home fix itself. It’s time for real solutions that will actually help working families across America. It’s time for a new New deal. Since the start of my campaign, I’ve been leading with a universal job guarantee, and I ask other progressive candidates to join me. Let’s remind the establishment that the ability to work for a livable wage is a human right that should be afforded to all. In these uncertain times, progressives will lead with real solutions that offer hope to the many, and just the privileged few."

Ellen Lipton is the former state legislator and progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. She's interested in Bernie's Jobs Guarantee ideas and told us that "the federal government has been at the mercy of corporate-controlled lobbyists for long enough. How long are we going to allow them to offer the same tired economic policy of tax cuts for the phantom 'job-creators?' How about trying something that actually has a track record of working-- direct federal investment in people rather than profits. A guaranteed jobs program would put people to work on everything from infrastructure to IT, renewable energy to healthcare and social work-- the possibilities are endless."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running in the open Albuquerque district, is also a big fan of Job Guarantee. This is what she told us some time ago: "I believe that all human beings deserve to live in dignity, and that as part of that we build a government that ensures a well-paying job to each and every individual. Imagine if we guaranteed to all human beings a well-paying job with a livable wage that allows for healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and ultimately the dignity of work? What it would mean for our communities, poverty, racial and gender equality? Well, we've done parts of this before with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Imagine a program that achieves delivering well-paying work to all individuals, all while overhauling our nation's infrastructure and educational systems. It has the potential to breakdown the entrenched racial and gender-based inequality that exists in our labor force, and enshrines the ideal that all Americans who want a good job will have one. It assures that the dignity of a well-paying job is not just for a plurality of Americans, but for all who seek it. In an increasingly evolving economy, it's important that our government think creatively about the future of our labor force, and ensure that people's needs are put first in the changing labor economy."

Like Dan Canon, Jenny Marshall's North Carolina primary is May 8 sees the idea of Job Guarantee as something relatively easy to explain to voters. (Maybe that's because she's a school teacher.) She's campaigning for the seat held by a multimillionaire, Virginia Foxx, who has never exhibited any interest whatsoever in giving a hand to working families. "People," Jenny told us," want to work and give back to their communities in real tangible ways. They also want to provide a decent, secure life for their family. Think of all the New Deal programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration that helped put people to work and which began to pull us out of the Great Depression in the 1930's. While those programs did not lift all out of abject poverty it did jump start our economy in a way that can still be witnessed today. Frankly, our infrastructure is long outdated and our national parks and memorials need tending to. Here in the 5th district we have national forest that needs trail cleanup, buildings that need to be repaired and programs that need to be staffed. We need to repair dams, bridges and other infrastructure projects. People need jobs and ones that pay a living wage. Why not offer work that would put an investment back into our communities?"

Republicans Stoke White Resentment Over Discrimination In The World Of Car Loans

West Virginia is the Trumpiest state in the union. The PVI is R+19 and Trump beat Hillary 489,371 (68.5%) to 188,794 (26.4%). Trump won every single county in the state. (In the primary, Bernie also won every single county in the state and beat Hillary 124,700 (51.4%) to 86,914 (35.8%). In fact, on primary day, there were plenty of candidates where Bernie took more votes than Trump. West Virginia voters wanted change; they voted for change in the primary-- and took a gamble-- a bad one-- in the general.

Joe Manchin is a very popular politician in West Virginia and his popularity is despite him being a Democrat. so when he votes with the Republicans-- as he often does-- voters back home don't hold it against him. It helps bolster his popularity. Wednesday he took a very bad vote. He was the only Democrat to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans on a bill that will hurt West Virginia voters. But it won't hurt his reelection chances; it will improve them. It shouldn't.

The Senate voted 51-47 to kill another pieces of Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This pieces was a policy warning auto lenders not to discriminate against minority borrowers. An old friend, Karl Frisch, the executive director of Allied Progress, a consumer watchdog group, said that "Many auto dealers are actively discriminating against people of color. This behavior is pervasive, and the CFPB’s guidance would help to end it. They may try to dress it up with political spin, but today the Senate endorsed discrimination."

The Washington Post reported that "The fight centers on guidance issued by the CFPB in 2013 that took aim at a common industry practice that allows auto dealers to mark up interest rates offered by finance companies. Finance firms such as Ally set an interest rate based on objective criteria-- including borrowers’ credit history and the size of their down payments. Auto dealers are then free to raise the interest rates within certain limits. The finance companies and the dealers split the extra profits.

The CFPB argued that auto dealers were using that discretionary markup to charge black and Hispanic borrowers more than white ones, even if they had the same credit scores. Over several years, the agency fined several auto lenders millions of dollars for discriminating against minority borrowers, and some lenders stopped allowing discretionary markups, cutting into auto dealer profits.

The guidance quickly became one of the CFPB’s most controversial campaigns. House Republicans launched a multiyear investigation into the matter, arguing that the CFPB used faulty data to support the policy. The guidance, auto dealers said, made it more difficult to offer consumers discounts on their car purchases out of fear they would be accused of discrimination.

House Republicans are eager to follow suit. The grotesquely crooked chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),-- who sits safely in an uber-gerrymandered district that stretches from Mesquite and the suburbs east of Dallas all the way into the most backward and racist part of the state where Louie Gohmert's, Kevin Brady's and Brian Babin's districts meet (PVI is R+16) turned reality upside down with his statement on stoking white resentment: "Studies showed that the rule could lead to many credit-worthy borrowers paying more for their auto loans."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez is a former University of New Mexico law professor who has used her legal background to fight for social justice. This outrageous GOP action in the Senate is in her wheelhouse... so I asked her about it. She told me that "If Congress votes to kill these provisions that protect consumers, it is effectively voting to enable discrimination in auto lending. The ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) exists for the express purpose of preventing the types of systemic discrimination that existed in the industry prior to the CFPB being created. The reversal flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that when African Americans or Latinos go to purchase a vehicle, dealerships are twice as likely to add a markup to a loan than compared to their white counterparts. Congress should be in the business of protecting consumers and ultimately regulating systemic market problems like these, and not in the business of reversing important evidence-based reforms."

Hopefully, Alan Grayson, no fan of the sleazy kind of racism Hensarling practices, will be back in Congress in January-- working on issues like this again. After the vote he told us flatly that "This reflects a deep divide in America politics and society. You can be for an unfettered 'free market,' or you can be against discrimination, but not both. Many Americans had hoped that we had decisively chosen the latter over the former when we integrated lunch counters, but apparently not."

Congressional Democrats Are Learning-- Slowly-- That They Can't Trust Trump And His GOP Colluders

I asked several members of Congress about the DCCC's reticence to take on Trump. Most didn't want to be quoted by name. One e-mailed me "I don’t want to be quoted on this, but you’re absolutely right, and the deeper problem is that this is part of the socialization process that leads even good candidates to become worthless pieces of crap upon election. Ann Kuster, for instance-- she could have gone either way. But once the DCCC and Steve Israel were done with her, she was fit only to sing a cappella in the eunuchs’ choir. Every Democrat to whom I speak wants the Democrats to go after Trump-- and a lot of Independents, too. Just look at the polling-- even Trump’s supporters think Trump is an ass. How could people who live and breathe politics, for a living, be so stupid?"

Progressive candidates were less reticent about speaking out. Jenny Marshall in running against GOP extremist and Trump boot-lick Virginia Foxx in North Carolina. Her statement wasn't wishy-washy (and never is): "How many times does it take for Lucy to pull the football away before Charlie Brown learns she is just going to yank it away every time? At every turn Republicans claim they are coming to the bargaining table with honest intentions only to turn around and yank those promises away. Are some of our Congressional Democrats really that naive or do they just not care? It is time for Democrats to stand up and protect the interests of the people of our country or go home. I have been standing up for my community against the GOP assault on education for the past decade and it's time we send strong Democrats like me to Congress. It's time to return the people's voice in Congress."

The DCCC has been urging their crap candidates in swing districts to talk about working with Trump while campaigning. But Trump is a lying sack of shit and voters know it. And when Democrats compromise with him they wind up covered in shit. Remember a few weeks ago when many right-of-center Democrats provided Republicans enough votes to pass the omnibus spending bill? The claim was that they “got a good deal” out of the Republicans. Sure they did! A report from Roll Call yesterday:

Trump and congressional Republican leaders, frustrated they had to work with Democrats to pass a fiscal 2018 omnibus spending measure, are mulling a way for their party to effectively cut some of the funds they just approved.

The idea would be to deploy lesser-used provisions of the 1974 budget law to roll back spending by impounding some of the appropriated funds.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974-- more frequently referred to as the Budget Act, the sections of the law that are more commonly used-- provides an expedited process for the president to propose and Congress to review a rescission resolution identifying appropriations that the administration does not want to spend.

…The budget law would provide a path for the Senate to consider a rescission resolution with only a simple majority support.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has been discussing the possibility of a rescission package with White House officials as a way to curb domestic spending in the omnibus, a GOP aide confirmed Monday evening following reports from ABC News.

McCarthy and Trump personally discussed the idea during a phone call this week, while the speaker’s office has had staff level discussions with the White House about the concept, a senior GOP source added. Since the rescission process has not been used in a long time, congressional leaders are still discussing how it all might play out but it is an idea they're taking seriously, the source said.

The discussions come after Congress passed and Trump begrudgingly signed into law a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill last month.

Republicans celebrated a boost to defense spending, while lamenting the increase to domestic spending that was necessary to win Democratic support.

Trump, in an an omnibus signing ceremony held hours after he threatened to veto the measure, called on Congress to give him line-item veto authority on spending bills-- a law Congress passed in 1996 but the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional just two years later.

The impound procedure provides the president with similar power to reject specific spending but only with the constitutionally required approval of Congress, which holds the power of the purse.

The maneuver may succeed in the House but would be a tough lift in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 50-49 majority (soon to be 51-49 after Cindy Hyde-Smith is sworn in to fill the Mississippi Senate seat vacated by Thad Cochran).

Getting 50 Republican votes to roll back spending the Congress just approved might be a long shot given the delicate nature of crafting the omnibus itself.

Such an effort would almost certainly make it harder for appropriators to negotiate future bipartisan spending deals. Congress has just six months to attempt to pass all 12 appropriations bills, whether individually or packaged again as an omnibus, before the start of fiscal 2019 on Oct. 1.

McCarthy's involvement in the rescission discussions comes after he led a congressional effort to use a similar expedited procedure to roll back more than a dozen regulations approved under the Obama administration. The Congressional Review Act provides Congress with 60 legislative days after an executive agency finalizes a regulation to pass a resolution to repeal the rule.

Like the rescission resolution, CRA measures were able to move through the Senate with only a simple majority vote. However, Republicans are much more united in their opposition to regulations than they are to domestic spending.

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez is the progressive Democrat running in Albuquerque. If she wins her primary, she pretty much guaranteed the congressional seat. Her perspective hits the nail on the head: “Republican complicity in going back on a deal  that they just made is a well-known Trumpian strategy-- negotiating with neither integrity nor good faith. We expect more of our Senators and Members of Congress, but Republican rule has been vicious in its partisan zeal. This strategy creates an environment in which there is no incentive to come together and govern. Republicans refuse to fill their constitutional role to provide a check and balance to this president who was not elected by the majority of voters but was appointed by an electoral college that bears no relation to its original purpose. This blind loyalty to a president who has no mandate makes a mockery of our democracy.”

Levi Tillemann, the progressive in the race to defeat Mike Coffman in the Denver suburbs, got right to the point-- and it sure isn’t appeasement: "Yet again, Trump wants to take a sledgehammer to norms, institutions, communities, and values that progressives, and most Americans support. We need to hold Trump accountable, which means impeachment, instead of enabling him through appeasement."

Sam Jammal is another progressive Democrat running for Congress (CA-39, Orange County) who doesn't need to be taught not to trust Trump. "We are in an all out war to preserve our country against Trump, he told us today. "I will gladly work with him to repeal his awful tax law or his dangerous roll backs of our environmental regulations. Somehow I don't see him agreeing to this. Other than that, this is about standing firm to protect what we have and ensure that Trump and his cronies don't completely upend our social safety net, entitlements and the investments critical to growing our economy. We are in a fight for not just the soul of this country but what kind of country we are going to be. There are times to find consensus and times to hold firm and fight. This is a time to fight."

Why Aren't There More Women Of Color In Congress?

This is not-- nor will it ever be-- Joe Crowley

If you follow this blog at all, you probably know, this is a place where identity group politics gets short shrift. We believe, strongly, that the best candidate should be supported, regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. That said, there are 435 members of the House and my guess is that if the best candidate was elected, at least 217 would be women, but probably more than that. Instead, there are just 83 women in the House (19.1%)-- 61 Democrats and 22 Republicans. Of them 31 are women of color. Why so few?

[Of the 22 congressional candidates on the Blue America page, 9 are women (although we just removed one after she joined the New Dems. Around half--although our criteria is not gender, just quality.]

Mary Matiella was Assistant Secretary of the Army until 2014 when she returned home to Tucson. She's currently running for the AZ-02 open House seat and you can contribute to her campaign here. She told us this morning that "women of color, like myself, are making history by stepping up to run in non-majority-minority districts. Many of these districts, like Arizona’s second, have never seen a person of color represent them in congress. Which means they have never been fully represented. Candidates of color, like myself, must show up with a resume twice as long, work twice as hard, and will face twice as many barriers. This is why it is so important for organizations to make policy and potential -based endorsement decisions, rather than over-prioritizing the size of a candidate’s war chest during the infancy stage of a campaign. Giving candidates a level playing field to compete for organizational support will ensure that more voices are heard, more first-time candidates will succeed, and we will have more diversity of representation. I am incredibly grateful for the support of organizations like Democracy for America, Justice Democrats, and Project 100 who saw that I had the experience, vision, grassroots support, and passion to win this race, even if my pockets were not as deep as my opposition."

Earlier this month, Arena urged that political groups invest in women of color this year. Of the 9 women we've endorsed on that page, 3 are women of color. They wrote that "while all first-time candidates face an uphill battle to win elections, it is hardest for women of color. And our recent data analysis confirms the deep asymmetry in financial support for women of color candidates."

The problem starts when women decide-- to run or not to run-- for office. In 2016, just 4% of all candidates who ran for the US House were women of color. Why? On top of the already daunting barriers that any candidate faces (like public scrutiny and no guarantee that you’ll “land the job”), women of color face additional obstacles like securing institutional support and the funding needed to build winning campaigns.

Women of color also get fewer endorsements by the major players. Our analysis indicates that even many well-respected political organizations who endorse early are under-supporting minority women (although EMILY’s List and Latino Victory Fund set great examples). This may have to do with a misguided perception of viability. For example, we’ve had a surprising number of conversations with organizations to garner support for female candidates of color in which they’ve responded, “we’re just not sure that district is winnable.” At the same time, these same groups are supporting White men and women in districts with comparable electorates.

The fundraising gap facing women of color is tremendous, as data compiled by The Arena highlights. Women of color raise less in all types of financial contributions than White candidates.

In 2016, Black and Latinx female incumbents raised only a half as much as White women and roughly two-thirds as much as White men. The data for non-incumbents is incomplete, but we believe similar trends persist. Losing early fundraising traction perpetuates a vicious cycle in which candidates get fewer endorsements, raise less money and reach fewer potential supporters going forward. Of late, it seems that women of color are deemed worthy of establishment endorsements only after they raise large funds on their own or appear on the cover of major publications. That must change now, and quickly.

Why does having more women of color in public leadership matter? When more women with different life experiences and perspectives serve, we get more done. Research on state legislators indicates that the major motivation for women to run for office is to make policy change. Once in office, they take a results-oriented approach that can often overcome partisan gridlock. Women are more likely to focus on solving problems and getting things done, less on the “trappings of power,” like whose name goes on a bill.

Studies on Legislative Effectiveness in Congress shows that women have higher Legislative Effectiveness Scores than men and even higher effectiveness scores when they are a member of a minority party.

And women of color are more likely to champion the interests of everyone in their districts - not just those who look like them, or who voted for them, or who vote at all. They bring a valuable perspective to policy debates that can give voice to the voiceless. As Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) puts it, “Mine was the only voice in [the Judiciary] Committee that spoke for the importance of family unity [in debates over immigration reform]. And so I brought [that voice], …not only as a woman but also as an immigrant. And this is why it is important to have minority representation on all of these committees. Because you have different life experiences, different perspectives.”

America’s inclusion of women of color in public leadership is awful at all levels. Women of color make up 19.7% of our population and growing. But they are just 6% of federal legislators, 2% of statewide elected executives, 8% of sitting state legislators, and 8% of big city mayors. White women fare better, but are still underrepresented-- at 31% of the population and 19% of these same elected officials.

So, what do we do about it?

As individuals, we can prioritize the candidates that we donate to, volunteer for and highlight to our social networks and make sure they include many women of color. Higher Heights, Latino Victory Fund, AAPI Victory Fund, and Project 100 are just a few great resources for learning about some fantastic women of color who are running for office around the country. Your dollars can also fuel organizations working hard to find, recruit and train these women for successful races. Groups like the Collective PAC, Run for Something, Emerge America, Civic Engagement Fund, New American Leaders, Rosa PAC, and others could use your support.

We’d like to see every major committee and PAC commit to endorse at least 25% women of color for the 2018 elections. Institutional support from groups like EMILY’s List and the DCCC goes a long way in credentialing candidates in the eyes of donors. Donors who commit to fund pre-primary can have big impact in tipping victory towards a woman of color candidate. Early endorsements and funding especially matter. And for women of color, they can provide the momentum many need to build broader support networks and win elections.

For our part, The Arena is committing that at least 50% of our 2018 candidates will be women, and at least 50% of the women we support will be women of color.

Of course, all of us play a part in dispelling the false narratives that suggest women of color aren’t qualified, are only viable in majority minority districts, or that they can’t win elections. None of that is true. Just ask the elected officials who are actively proving otherwise with their leadership-- like Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, Delegate Hala Ayala, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and many others.

Here's where we run into problems. Stephanie Murphy, an Orlando Blue Dog is a garbage member of Congress, who no one should support... regardless of gender. She has a dreadful anti-working family voting record and, while she's better than a Republican, she's sitting in a seat that could be occupied by a much better member, whether a man or a woman-- Black, white, Latino or Asian. Catherine Cortez Masto isn't as bad but she's, at best, mediocre and not what you could seriously call a good senator. This last week, for example, she helped the Republicans to tank an amendment by Bernie Sanders to end the war in Yemen, one of just a tiny handful of Democrats to cross the aisle on that... and one of only 2 Democratic women to do so, the other being Heidi Heitkamp, the Democrat with the worst voting record in the Senate.

But let's look at a very typical real life 2018 example where a woman of color, Alexandria Ocasio, is running against a white male in a district where 70% of the voters are also non-white and in a case where it would be hard not to notice that she's a far better candidate than he (Joe Crowley) is. As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, Ocasio had raised $59,767 and had $18,842 in her campaign account, compared to Crowley, one of Congress' most overtly corrupt members, who had raised $2,137,582 and had $1,380,724 in his campaign war chest. How is she going to beat him, regardless of the fact that she's an incredible candidate and he's a piece of shit? If you'd like to help, please consider chipping in whatever you can afford to her campaign, by clocking on the Act Blue thermometer on the right. And while you're at it, please consider other candidates of color on that list Lillian Salerno (TX), Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (NM), Kaniela Ing (HI) and DuWayne Gregory (NY).

Alexandria Ocasio said no one should be surprised "that women of color, who have historically been blocked from access to wealth and power in the US, are underrepresented in Congress. Yet from Fannie Lou Hamer to Dolores Huerta, women of color have a rich history of activism and played critical roles as some of the most prolific organizers in U.S. history. Women of color vote at higher rates, tightly organize their communities, and respond to local needs quickly. Progressive women of color should hold office at higher rates-- not simply by virtue of representation for representation's sake, but because, as in the case of Doug Jones' electoral win in Alabama, they are often the ones doing the work."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez is running in the Albuquerque congressional district. Her eloquence speaks for itself: "As a woman of color, a Latina, a survivor, and an anti-domestic violence advocate, I believe that women of color offer a unique perspective to our political discourse that is not only necessary, but if left out, results in inadequate public policy making. There is an intersectionality that exists within the chronic problems that we, as progressives, hope to address. Issues of poverty, income disparities, housing and access to healthcare, are all most acutely felt in communities of color and ever prominently among women of color. In order to confront these challenges, inclusion and representation matter a great deal to good policy-making, and so empowering women of color and other diverse voices then becomes imperative. It's our responsibility to then breakdown the barriers to entry for women of color, mainly financial and political support often denied to them in the nascent stages of a campaign. I'm proud to say that, as a law professor, I used my role as an educator and Associate Dean of the law school to promote these principles of empowering under-represented communities. I devoted my career to empowering others and to opening doors of opportunity."

Will The Bernie/Elizabeth Warren 2020 Campaign Include Job Guarantee? It Sure Appears So

Monday evening, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took their probable 2020 campaign out for a test run, calling their 90-minute TV show the Economic Inequality Town Hall, or more formally, "Inequality in America: The Rise of Oligarchy and Collapse of the Middle Class." You can watch the whole thing above. Last night 1.7 million people did. And Bernie's goal was clearly towards shaping and promulgating a national progressive narrative that very few in Congress are communicating effectively, Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal being four of the pitifully few exceptions. Warren-- rumored to be Bernie's pick to run on a 2020 presidential ticket with him-- was a co-host, as were Michael Moore and New School economist Darrick Hamilton. They interviewed three guests: Catherine Coleman Flowers, a founder of the anti-poverty Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise Community Development Corp., Cindy Estrada, a vice president of the United Auto Workers and University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer, who helped explain how corporate special interests have helped turn our democracy further towards plutocracy.

Hamilton brought up one of the likely planks in Bernie's 2020 platform: Job Guarantee, something that several of the best cutting edge congressional candidates are already running on. Kaniela Ing, for example, has been working with Bernie's economic advisor, Stephanie Kelton, on how to make sure Job Guarantee serves the needs Hawaii's working families, where he serves in the state legislature and is now running for the open HI-01 congressional seat. A few weeks ago Kaniela told us that "America’s promise has always been clear-- work hard and your family will prosper. Today, too many hard-working Americans feel that our leaders have gone bad on that promise. I talk to folks who tell me everyday, they grind and sweat, but struggle to get by. Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are rising, the threats of automation and globalization are becoming real, all while costs are skyrocketing. But just take a walk outside and look around at all the work that needs to be done in America. There are bridges to be built, highways needing repair, kids to be taught, aging folks needing care, oceans to be cleaned, trees to be planted. But private markets fall short. For every job opening in America, four people are gunning for it. This pits worker against worker and creates a power imbalance between workers and their bosses. It’s too risky for a worker to stand up to wage theft, inhumane working conditions, or sexual harassment, when they know there’s nowhere else to go. Our elected representatives must stop pretending that everything is okay, and that the job market will some home fix itself. It’s time for real solutions that will actually help working families across America. It’s time for a new New deal. Since the start of my campaign, I’ve been leading with a universal job guarantee, and I ask other progressive candidates to join me. Let’s remind the establishment that the ability to work for a livable wage is a human right that should be afforded to all. In these uncertain times, progressives will lead with real solutions that offer hope to the many, and just the privileged few."

Ellen Lipton is the former state legislator and progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. She's interested in Bernie's Jobs Guarantee ideas and tildes that "the federal government has been at the mercy of corporate-controlled lobbyists for long enough. How long are we going to allow them to offer the same tired economic policy of tax cuts for the phantom 'job-creators?' How about trying something that actually has a track record of working-- direct federal investment in people rather than profits. A guaranteed jobs program would put people to work on everything from infrastructure to IT, renewable energy to healthcare and social work-- the possibilities are endless."

Tim Canova, a South Florida reformer in a tight contest with status quo Democrat Debbie Wassermann Schultz has been a long time supporter of a federal jobs guarantee. "In the 1990s, at the National Jobs For All Coalition, we called for this approach,” he told me recently. “The need for a federal job guarantee has been even greater since the 2008 financial collapse and the trickle down recovery that has followed. New Deal public works programs helped build so much of the country’s infrastructure while providing hope and dignity to millions of people. Today there are millions of Americans, particularly among our youth, who are unemployed or underemployed in bad part time jobs. We need to provide them with opportunities in public jobs programs, building our crumbling infrastructure, in conservation projects, and in service to others. This is a big part of our agend."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running in the open Albquerque district, us also a big fan of Job Guarantee. This is what she told us this morning: "I believe that all human beings deserve to live in dignity, and that as part of that we build a government that ensures a well-paying job to each and every individual. Imagine if we guaranteed to all human beings a well-paying job with a livable wage that allows for healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and ultimately the dignity of work? What it would mean for our communities, poverty, racial and gender equality? Well, we've done parts of this before with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Imagine a program that achieves delivering well-paying work to all individuals, all while overhauling our nation's infrastructure and educational systems. It has the potential to breakdown the entrenched racial and gender-based inequality that exists in our labor force, and enshrines the ideal that all Americans who want a good job will have one. It assures that the dignity of a well-paying job is not just for a plurality of Americans, but for all who seek it. In an increasingly evolving economy, it's important that our government think creatively about the future of our labor force, and ensure that people's needs are put first in the changing labor economy."

Tuesday morning Kelton followed up with a note about Job Guarantee from the Sanders Institute, starting with a quote from Franklin Roosevelt: "“The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

In 1933, President Roosevelt launched a series of public programs aimed at helping Americans recover from the Great Depression. The right to a job was his first policy item in his Second Bill of Rights.

Then in 1967, a group of core organizers of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom introduced the Freedom Budget for All Americans. This program was the blueprint for achieving Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have A Dream” speech, and also called for a national employment guarantee as a way to eradicate poverty within ten years.

In 2007, the Great Recession began and, despite the prevailing narrative of our economy being at full employment, we have still not recovered from it. There are still millions of people who are underemployed or discouraged from looking for work, and an estimated 43 million Americans still live in poverty.

It is time to take a fresh look at the policies and ideas that could help all of our people to recover, not just the very wealthy. It's time to seriously consider the country's need for a National Jobs Program.

I recently sat down with Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders to talk about how a National Job Guarantee Program for the 21st century might work. Over the past year, I have been working with a team of economists to create a full report on the costs, benefits, and projections of such a program.



Our proposal, which will be released next month, will fulfill the goals outlined in FDR and MLK's visionary programs by employing an estimated 14-19 million people, and will almost completely pay for itself.

This is a bottom-up program, designed to shrink the existing levels of income and wealth inequality and guarantee a fundamental right to employment for anyone willing and able to work.

Government at its best can be used to increase the health of the individual and society itself. We can transform America with a federal job guarantee, caring for our people, our planet, and our communities.

Politicians Are Taking Longer To Adapt Than Delta And United Air-- They May Not Get Another Chance

Blue Dog John Barrow (GA) is a putz. He never belonged in Congress and never accomplished anything while he was there. After his Democratic constituents saw the ad above, they abandoned him and he lost his seat, since Republicans int appealed to had their own candidate. Pelosi and the DCCC never gave up on Barrow. When he was finally defeated, the DCCC wasted $2,382,846 trying to save him. Pelosi kicked in another $194,510 from her own SuperPAC. This year, Barrow is back at it-- this time running for Georgia Secretary of State, still pretending to be a Democrat.

The outrage over the latest brutal NRA/GOP gun massacre, the one in Parkland, Florida, is finally scaring people out of complacency-- everyone but the DCCC, who continues recruiting NRA allies like Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Jeff Van Drew (NJ). The DCCC should drop them and other NRA-Dems from their Red to Blue page, which is crawling with them, and pledge to stop supporting gun nuts (tantamount to murderers; let those politicians join the GOP where their perfidy will be appreciated). Even Republicans can tell which way the wind is blowing and are jumping off the SS NRA. But not idiots like Pelosi and Lujan. They'll be the last to figure it out. They should take a lesson from corporate America, which understands it is no longer tenable to be associated with the NRA. Delta Airlines, arguably America's worst carrier, is savvier than Pelosi, Lujan and Jeff Van Drew. "Two major airlines. A cybersecurity firm. Six car rental brands. A home security company. An Omaha bank. Companies," wrote Jackie Wattles for CNN Saturday, "have scrambled to cut ties with the National Rifle Association over the past couple of days, and the list continued to grow into the weekend. But not the geniuses who do the candidate recruiting for the DCCC. Anyone talking about cutting NRA postergirl Ann Kirkpatrick loose? Not at all-- only about the DCCC undermining her progressive opponents.

Delta Air Lines announced Saturday morning that it's ending discounted rates for NRA members. "We will be requesting that the NRA remove our information from their website," the company said in a tweet.

United Airlines followed a short time later, saying the company will no longer offer discounts on flights to the NRA annual meeting.

And TrueCar, a car buying service, said late Friday that it would end its deal with the NRA as of February 28.

The companies were the latest to abandon partnerships with the NRA amid a renewed public debate over tightened gun laws following a school shooting in Florida last week that left 17 dead.

First National Bank of Omaha on Thursday pledged to stop issuing an NRA-branded Visa card. A bank spokesperson said "customer feedback" prompted a review of its partnership with the NRA, and it chose not to renew its current contract.

There was also a wave of car rental outfits. Enterprise Holdings, which runs the Enterprise, Alamo and National car rental groups, announced that it will end the discount deal it has with the NRA on March 26.

On Friday, car rental company Hertz said in a tweet that it's also ending its NRA rental car discount program.

The NRA was advertising a Hertz partnership on its "member benefits" page as recently as Friday morning, but that listing disappeared by the afternoon.

The National Rifle Association did not immediately comment on Saturday about the decisions by the various companies to sever ties.

Avis and Budget, which are owned by the same company, were also listed as discount providers on NRA's website Friday. But when reached for comment, Avis Budget Group told CNNMoney that it too was ending its partnership with the organization.

"Effective March 26, our brands will no longer provide the NRA member discount," an Avis Budget Group spokesperson said via email.

More big names followed suit.

A spokesperson for moving van lines Allied and North American, which are both owned by Sirva, said Friday that the brands "no longer have an affiliate relationship with the NRA effective immediately."

"We have asked them to remove our listing from their benefits site," the spokesperson added. The company did not describe what kind of benefits had been offered to NRA members.

Insurance giant MetLife said Friday that it's ending its discounts on home and auto insurance for NRA members.

Symantec, which makes the Norton anti-virus software and owns the identity theft protection company LifeLock, said Friday that it is severing ties with the NRA. And SimpliSafe, which sells home security systems, said the same.

None of the companies gave details about why or when they decided to cut ties with the NRA, but the news comes as the hashtag #BoycottNRA has circulated widely on social media.

After the shooting in Parkland, Florida on February 14, survivors of the massacre have protested for stronger gun laws. Students across the country have walked out of class to demand new restrictions on the sale of firearms and an end to mass shootings in the U.S.

Some survivors of mass shootings confronted NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch at a CNN town hall on Wednesday. Loesch blamed a flawed system for letting people who shouldn't be able to buy guns slip through the cracks.

Two other companies-- the insurer Chubb and Wyndham Hotel Group-- confirmed to CNNMoney Friday that they've recently ended partnerships with the NRA. However, those decisions were made prior to the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida last week.

Chubb said in a statement that it "provided notice of our intent to discontinue participation in the NRA Carry Guard insurance program" three months ago.

The NRA Carry Guard program offers coverage for certain costs associated with gun-related accidents or incidents in which the gun owner claims they lawfully acted in self defense.

Lockton, another insurance firm, continues to underwrite policies for the NRA Carry Guard program, according to the NRA's website. Lockton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wyndham Hotel Group said in a statement that it "ended our relationship with the NRA late last year."

Saturday we listed 12 House candidates from every part of the country vowing to vote for a ban on selling assault weapons. "It worked in 1994, and should be reinstated," said Hawaii state Rep Kaniela Ing. I grew up in Alabama, and i understand hunters," said Michigan candidate Ellen Lipton. "Assault weapons are not for hunting." Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the leading candidate in Albuquerque: "I unequivocally support an assault weapons ban. Military weapons have no place on our streets." American companies and smart political leaders are denouncing the NRA. Lujan and Pelosi should get onboard by throwing Ann Kirkpatrick, Jeff Van Drew, Anthony Brindisi, Andrew Janz and other gun nuts overboard, very publicly, very loudly.

Smart Democrats are communicating with voters the way Katie Porter was doing in Orange County yesterday: "Since the Parkland shooting, Mimi Walters hasn't had a lot to say. And there's the reason. The NRA has bought her silence. The reason the NRA and other special interests are so powerful in this country has nothing to do with the issues or what voters want. The reason special interests own Congress is because the Citizens United decision stacked the deck against working Americans by allowing corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited sums to advance extreme agendas. We've got to pass real gun reform in this country. But we'll only be able to get Congress back to a place where its serving us instead of special interests if we change our campaign finance laws."

Austin progressive Dem Derrick Crowe took just as hard a stand yesterday, not one you're going to hear from any DCCC-Democrats, like Collin Peterson (MN), Henry Cuellar (TX), Tim Walz (MN) and Darren Soto (FL):

The NRA exists for one purpose: to serve the interests of gun manufacturers. They profit from the sale of assault weapons, and they’ll profit if the GOP starts arming teachers in response. They’ve bought our Congress and this president.

I am not for sale. I refuse all corporate PAC money, signed the No Fossil Fuel pledge, and the No NRA Money pledge.

According to Quinnipiac, 67% of Americans want a ban on assault weapons and 97% of gun owners want universal background checks. When the majority of Americans want something and we don't get it, you need to ask, "why?" The "why" is that powerful business interests have bought our political system.

The NRA. Big Pharma. Private health insurance. The Military Industrial Complex. The Prison Industrial Complex. Oil and Gas Companies.

And Omaha progressive Kara Eastman sent out a similar e-mail to her supporters in Nebraska late yesterday:

The gun lobby has far too much control over some of our elected officials. Congressman Don Bacon has taken over $18,000 from the NRA to advance their agenda. 

It’s time to listen to students, parents, and teachers, not the gun lobby. Our children’s lives depend on it.

Weapons of war such as the AR-15 should not be available to everyday citizens and sensible gun safety laws are long overdue.

Arming teachers is not the answer and not what teachers want. They want to feel safe in their schools and to know their students are safe too. "More guns" is not the answer.

How Trump's Way Of Looking At Short Term Metrics Is Destroying American Innovation

In 2014 Oklahoma reelected conservative Republican Mary Fallin over conservative Democrat Joe Dorman 460,298 (55.8%) to 338,239 (41%). Although there have been some shocking recent special election wins by Democrats in Oklahoma, the state Senate has 39 Republicans and just 8 Democrats and the state House has 73 Republicans and 28 Democrats. The Oklahoma congressional delegation consists of 5 Republican congressmen and 2 Republican senators... and no Democrats. The state Agriculture Commissioner is a non-partisan job but every other executive brand job-- from Auditor, Attorney General, Treasurer and Labor Commissioner to Lt. Governor, Secretary of Commerce, Insurance Commissioner and Superintendent of Public Instruction-- is held by a Republican. Oklahoma is what you would call a one-party state.

Tangent: Democrats keep running conservative establishment types-- and losing. Last year Allison Ikley-Freeman's successful campaign for a state Senate seat in Oklahoma-- a seat where Trump beat Hillary 61.4-32.7%-- was in a very red district southwest of Tulsa. No one though she had any chance at all. It's the kind of area where the DCCC always says-- and always wrongly-- that only a rich Republican-lite Blue Dog could win. But Allison is a young progressive who was outspent 3-1, campaigning on Bernie-like issues. And she's a proud lesbian, married to an African-American. She doesn't fit the DCCC model at all.

Yesterday, Boing Boing ran a story about how Oklahoma schools have now gone on 4-day weeks so teachers can work at Walmart on Mondays to make rent. That's what one party conservative rule looks like. This is one party conservative governance:

In 1992, Oklahoma passed a ballot initiative saying that the state could only raise taxes with a three quarters majority in the state assembly, creating a one-way ratchet where every tax cut becomes effectively permanent, including the sweetheart deals cut for frackers and the deep cuts to taxes on the wealthiest residents of the state.

As a result, the state is going broke. Teachers haven't gotten a raise in 10 years and the only way they can afford to accept the pay-- third-worst in the nation-- is by negotiating a four-day school week in 90 districts, freeing teachers up to take jobs at Walmart on Mondays to make ends meet.

Teachers are fleeing the state in droves, including the Teacher of the Year, who quit his job in 2016 shortly after receiving his award, taking a better-paid teaching job in a neighboring state (the Dallas school system actively recruits Oklahoma teachers with Oklahoma City hiring booths).

Teachers are especially hard hit: their health plan was replaced with a private system that eats up more than $1000/month for a family of three-- one teaching aide was actually paying to work her job, spending $200/month more on health insurance than she was paid in salary. Teachers make ends meet with public housing vouchers and food stamps, and school food-bank drives sometimes give their leftovers to hungry teachers and their families.

It's not just teachers: the highway patrol has been given orders not to completely fill their gas-tanks at the pump, to help with state cash-flow; drunk drivers go free because there is no one available to process their tickets, and the prison system is on the verge of collapse.

Another example: Oklahoma

Looks bad, doesn't it. And it's not just Oklahoma. 7 states have failed education systems that are even worse than Oklahoma's. From bad to worse:

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arkansas
• Mississippi
• West Virginia
• New Mexico
• Louisiana

And this is connected to an embarrassing new report from Bloomberg, the annual innovation Index. For the first time-- and you won't hear Señor Trumpanzee bragging about this one, the way he bragged about airline safety and a rising stock market-- the U.S. fell out of the top 10. Why? Education. And if Trumps-The-clown cuts off immigration... the U.S. will keep falling. The top 10:

• 1- South Korea
• 2- Sweden
• 3- Singapore
• 4- Germany
• 5- Switzerland
• 6- Japan
• 7- Finland
• 8- Denmark
• 9- France
• 10- Israel

There are 7 criteria Bloomberg uses to come up with their scores.

The U.S. fell to 11th place from ninth mainly because of an eight-spot slump in the post-secondary, or tertiary, education-efficiency category, which includes the share of new science and engineering graduates in the labor force. Value-added manufacturing also declined. Improvement in the productivity score couldn’t make up for the lost ground.

“I see no evidence to suggest that this trend will not continue,” said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation in Washington, D.C. “Other nations have responded with smart, well-funded innovation policies like better R&D tax incentives, more government funding for research, more funding for technology commercialization initiatives.”

Singapore jumped ahead of European economies Germany, Switzerland and Finland into third place on the strength of its top ranking in the tertiary-efficiency category.

“Singapore has always placed strong focus on educating her populace, especially in STEM disciplines,” said Yeo Kiat Seng, professor and associate provost at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, referring to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It also has a “steadfast commitment to funding R&D and innovation,” added Yeo, who holds 38 patents.

  South Korea remained the global-innovation gold medalist for the fifth consecutive year. Samsung Electronics Co., the nation’s most-valuable company by market capitalization, has received more U.S. patents in the 2000s than any firm except International Business Machines Corp. And its semiconductors, smartphones and digital-media equipment spawned an ecosystem of Korean suppliers and partners similar to what Japan developed around Sony Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp.

China moved up two spots to 19th, buoyed by its high proportion of new science and engineering graduates in the labor force and increasing number of patents by innovators such as Huawei Technologies Co.

The U.S. did well in several of the criteria-- #2 in Patent activity, #1 in high tech density, #6 in productivity-- but got destroyed in 2 areas where the Trump Regime has no interest: educational efficiency (#42) and researcher concentration (#20). They're about the future and Trump is about the quarter, not about long term success. He's the worst thing that ever happened to America.

One of the first people I turned to, among the Blue America candidates, for a perspective on this was Jenny Marshall a an educator herself. "As a public school teacher in North Carolina I can tell you first hand that neither Trump with his disastrous pick of Betsy DeVos nor Virginia Foxx give one thought to bettering educational opportunities for all students. They seek to defund, deregulate and eventually privatize our public school system so that only those with the means will succeed. It feeds in to this elitist model that doesn’t look at the whole picture though. For our country to innovate we must broaden the base making education equitable for all students. That is why I am an advocate for fully funded, tuition free public schools from pre-K all the way through college. On the other side of the aisle Rep. Foxx is making it harder on students to obtain a college degree if her PROSPER Act passes. Even more horrible is that Rep. Foxx chairs the education and workforce committee in the House. The exact place that forward thinking ideas begin to shape into law. With Foxx in charge we will see little gains in education or workforce development."

There is no candidate Blue America has endorsed who is more passionate about education and its relationship to innovation and economic development than Lisa Brown, until recently Chancellor of Washington State University, Spokane. She knows what she's taking about and told us that "state and federal government can support innovation and real economic development that can actually reverse rising inequality by focusing on a critical factor, what economists call 'human capital.' Human capital is investing in the potential of the people-- from quality early learning  through ample K-12 and skills training, to medical schools, like the one I helped start in eastern Washington. The tax bill, supposedly focused on economic growth, missed this critical human capital element entirely, and  the version House Republicans originally passed was actively anti-education-- taxing graduate students and worsening the burden of student loan debt. Leaving the Dreamers to languish is the moldy icing on a stale cake-- not only a human rights violation-- but a significant anti-innovation move, that will cost us economically, as we lose the tremendous potential of these young people to transform their lives and contribute to their communities."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez served as a Law Professor at the University of New Mexico for over 27 years, including eight years as Associate Dean of UNM’s Clinical Law program. She told us she's concerned that the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 in innovation, but she's not surprised. "While we have some of the best colleges, universities and vocational/apprenticeship training programs in the world, our government doesn't sufficiently invest in the long term success of our people. In order for our country to continue to innovate and grow, we need to invest in research and quality education and training in science, technology, engineering art and math. And, we must also invest in human needs that allow for the type of innovation that takes place in countries like Sweden. Single-payer healthcare, livable wages, and debt-free college allow for people to commit themselves to R&D and innovation. Giving people the dignity and security of having readily accessible healthcare, employment opportunities, affordable housing, and educational and training opportunities without a debt-sentence, is the type of forward-thinking investments in human capital that we need to make. The costs of not prioritizing human needs not only affect the individuals in our communities, but affects our overall ability to thrive as a country."

  Philadelphia chemist Nina Ahmad completely agrees. "Our research funding has fallen behind 2003 levels when indexed for inflation, even with recent modest increases and despite the President's best effort to enact further cuts," she told us. "As a scientist, I have seen the way that investing in research can spur economic growth for people throughout the economic spectrum. However, this Congress decided we needed a massive tax giveaway to the wealthy first. We need to change our priorities. Soon."

Lillian Salerno, the progressive in the race against Pete Sessions in the north Dallas area told us that she grew up with meager resources and that her parents didn’t go to college, nor could they afford to send her. But she told us that she "depended on quality public schools and PELL grants to help me achieve the life that allowed me to become a business owner, provide jobs, and advocate for anyone without a voice loud enough to be heard in DC. My government invested in me and believe me, I paid them back ten fold. Without teachers like Mr. Erpamer, my English teacher, I likely would never have attended the University of Texas, dramatically changing the course of my life and my family’s life. Look, the American dream is built on a foundation of equitable access to high quality education. If we don’t elevate the teaching profession, pay teachers what their worth, and give all of our public schools, in every neighborhood across our country, what they need to be successful, we are putting the nail in the coffin of the American dream. And that’s what the GOP wants to do. Income inequality is working for them, but it sure as hell isn’t working for us. It is time we demanded that the rich stop getting richer on the backs of the rest of us-- our teachers, children, and public servants included. I have nieces, brothers, and sisters who are teachers and school and district leaders. Every single one of them is a passionate advocate for every kid, every single kid no matter their zip code or background, getting what they deserve from our public education system. I see how their passion translates into long work hours, working overtime with no pay, and spending their own money on school supplies. They deserve to be paid what their worth and given what they need to help our children soar to the greatest heights. What are our educators worth? Well, frankly, a lot more than the GOP lawmakers who are putting our children at risk of not reaching their fullest potentials. I can think of nothing more criminal than that." Before she decided to run for Congress, Lillian worked in the Obama administration as Deputy Undersecretary for Rural Development.

And how could we not end this with the progressive Democrat who has the best chance to break the Republicans' grip on the congressional delegation, Tom Guild, who's running for the House seat in Oklahoma City... and an educator himself.

Oklahoma has followed a trickle down economic model and has put the trickle in trickle down with great gusto. For the last decade, Republican legislatures have given away the store to the fossil fuels industry and the uber wealthy, aka Okies with God’s unlisted phone number. For the last eight years they have had a Republican trickle downer as governor and hold all statewide elected and congressional offices, a super majority in the state house, and a super duper majority in the state senate. They have refused to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. They have defunded public education both K-12 and higher education. They have watched the Sooner State’s infrastructure crumble around us. They finally had to pony up money to refurbish the state capitol building when pieces of the sky like mortar etc. were literally falling on the heads and desks of public employees trying to concentrate on their work.

Four years ago the gross production tax was lowered from 7% to 2% to reward big individual donors and also PAC donors in the oil and gas industry. They continually lowered the state income tax mainly for the benefit of the wealthy and also the faulty automatic trigger for lowering income taxes they put in place triggered reductions even when the money coming into the state budget was falling. As a result, many Oklahoma school districts now have four day school weeks, so that teachers can work at Walmart three days a week to pay their bills. This results in inadequate education for our children and more financial pressure on parents to safeguard their children while they try to earn a living. Teacher’s salaries are pathetically low and as a result quality teachers are flocking to surrounding states in droves.

The state legislature made it ILLEGAL for municipalities to raise the minimum wage just as we were filing a petition to do just that in the state’s capital city. It’s so low that Okies can’t survive with just one job. The legislature made it ILLEGAL for cities and towns to regulate oil and gas production in their city limits just as Stillwater and other local governments were trying to impose reasonable regulations. This was to protect their huge wealthy donors.

The state of the state of Oklahoma is dismal and decaying. The Republican governor is one of the two most despised in the country even though she rules the roost in a DEEP RED STATE. The state legislature is so bad that a compensation panel LOWERED their pay just recently in a DEEP RED STATE.

Why is Oklahoma a failed state? Follow the money! The state chamber crowd that heavily funds local and state races yells “jump” and the governor and legislature ask, “How High Master!”  The fossil fuels industry unleashes their PACs on anyone and everyone who doesn’t bow to them and also heavily finances dutiful lackeys holding public office. Oklahoma is on par with the dismal track record of autocratic governments around the world. Just what you would expect from a wealthy selfish oligarchy with pliable politicians answering their beckon call.

What’s Wrong with Oklahoma? The same thing that’s wrong with Kansas!