We're In A Deep Recession And McConnell And Congressional Republicans Are About To Turn That Into The First Depression Since 1929

The Senate Republicans-- Mitch McConnell and his cronies-- have decided to let the 4 month long moratorium on evictions during the pandemic lapse-- despite the fact that the pandemic is raging worse than ever. Friday saw +78,009 new one-day cases and 1,141 one day COVID deaths. The pandemic is out of control in Florida, southern California, Texas and Georgia and rapidly and dangerously rising in smaller states like Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arkansas... McConnell forced the moratorium to end Friday night, knowing full well that it would cause a surge of evictions from coast to coast-- including in Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green, and Owensboro in his own state. And McConnell planned to see that the ban on evictions would end just as pandemic-related enhanced unemployment benefits also ended. Millions-- literally, millions-- of Americans will lose their homes because of two very wealthy men: Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, the former having married into wealth and the latter who inherited it. Around 20 million Americans are now unprotected by either federal or state eviction moratoriums. Landlords who were covered by the moratorium-- 12 million households-- must give tenants 30 days notice before they can actually evict them from their homes.

In May, the House passed a rescue package-- enhanced last month by the addition of legislation that would extend the federal eviction ban until March of next year-- and both Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren have introduced similar legislation in the Senate. McConnell and his Republican cronies have adamantly and arrogantly refused to take any of the bills up. On Thursday, on the Senate floor, Sherrod Brown said that "Right now, millions of Americans are in danger of losing their homes. The last thing we need in the middle of a public health crisis is families being turned out on the streets." This is a list of senators whose names should appear on every eviction notice-- along with Trump's-- before November 3:

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Cory Gardner (R-CO)
• Steve Daines (R-MT)
• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Thom Tillis (R-NC)
• Joni Ernst (R-IA)
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)
• David Perdue (R-GA)
• Shelley Moore Capito(R-WV)
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
• Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
• Ben Sasse (R-NE)
• Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
• Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
• Mike Rounds (R-SD)
• Tom Cotton (R-AR)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)

Neither rent relief nor unemployment relief are priorities for the Republicans; legal immunity for businesses that kill their employees is what drives them. As Annie Lowrey wrote Friday for The Atlantic, "Now We'll Know What The Recession Feels Like-- Congress Is Severing A Lifeline For Millions Of Americans. This week, Congress will decimate the economy, in an unfortunately literal sense: It will cut unemployment-insurance payments to more than 25 million people, more than one in 10 American adults. When it does, the coronavirus recession, already historic in its severity, will become far, far worse. The CARES Act, the coronavirus-relief legislation, included a huge expansion of the unemployment-insurance (UI) program, to include gig workers and freelancers not normally eligible for benefits. It also added a $600-a-week bonus payment to state UI payouts, which generally range from $100 to $400 a week. For four months, these $600-a-week bonus payments have prevented the country’s jobs catastrophe from becoming a catastrophe for family budgets too. They have helped laid-off workers pay their rent, put groceries on the table, and keep the lights on... [T]he $600-a-week payments were a lifeline. Research by the JPMorgan Chase Institute, a think tank housed in the mega-bank, found that the recession and the pandemic cut the spending of employed workers by roughly 10 percent. That makes sense: Many workers had their hours cut, many families spent less as they sheltered in place and worked from home, and many cut back due to fear and uncertainty about the economy. But unemployed workers actually spent a little more than they did before the pandemic hit, due to the additional UI money. The think tank concluded that 'expanded unemployment benefits are acting both as a source of stability for unemployed individuals and also as a form of stimulus to the overall economy.' Congress is now severing that lifeline. The $600-a-week bump functionally expires on Saturday. Even if Congress were to pass an extension now, state UI systems would not be able to program the benefits back in quickly enough to avoid a lapse for millions of recipients. Nor do Republicans want to extend the benefits in full. Concerned about the economy not restarting (a result of the virus, not UI), concerned about the $70-billion-a-month cost of the payments (chump change, given that the economy is collapsing), concerned about disincentivizing work (which, again, does not appear to be happening), Republicans are proposing to cut the payments to just $100 or $200 a week through December, or perhaps to cut them to $300 a week and then extend them only two more months."

Obviously, this kind of a reduction "will hurt families struggling to navigate the dangers of an incurable virus, the disastrous loss of child care and in-person education, and the worst job market in 80 years. Reopening is not leading to a boomerang in economic activity-- indeed, the number of people employed fell from mid-June to mid-July, the Census Bureau reported this week. Jobless workers can’t just go out there and make some money. Now they won’t be able to go out there and spend money either." In other words, what McConnell and his cronies are doing is quite simply "turning a stalled recovery into a double-dip recession. Workers on UI will see their income drop. With no work and no UI, they will spend less, hurting local businesses. Those businesses will purchase less from suppliers, cut their investments, and perhaps lay off employees. This vicious cycle will repeat millions of times, in millions of places across the country. The United States’ economic problems will get worse, not better." Republican politicians are already figuring out how to blame this catastrophe on Biden and the Democratic Congress in the 2022 midterms!

Last week, reporting for the Wall Street Journal, Ruth Simon, Amara Omeokwe and Gwynn Guilford wrote that small businesses are bracing for a prolonged crisis. Many small businesses are shutting down or slashing jobs again after having "brought back staff beginning in mid-April, believing they could get back to business. Now, many are shutting down or slashing jobs again as local officials and consumers pull back and the pandemic shows no signs of abating... [M]any business owners are facing make-or-break challenges. Many may not last. Businesses are entering this phase just as many are exhausting their rescue funds from the federal Paycheck Protection Program, a $670 billion coronavirus stimulus measure launched in April to offer loans to small firms." Billions of the PPP money was stolen for Trump and congressional cronies

An estimated 1.85 million U.S. businesses closed their doors or temporarily suspended operations in the second quarter, according to Oxxford Information Technology Ltd. in Saratoga, N.Y., which tracks roughly 32 million U.S. businesses of all sizes using data from credit bureaus, surveys and government sources.

Raymond Greenhill, Oxxford’s president, forecasts that total losses this year will be greater than in the last recession, when 20%, or roughly 4.5 million businesses, disappeared in just over a year. He added that some of the losses will be offset by new business formation.

Mr. Greenhill said small firms are especially vulnerable now and will account for most of the losses. He said most lack the working capital to survive the downturn or to meet customer needs when the economy recovers. He added that it’s more difficult for young businesses and for other businesses that entered the year in weak financial shape to tap funding from banks and other sources.

As states eased restrictions in May and June, spending at small businesses-- which commonly offer in-person services-- recovered more slowly than in the rest of the economy, according to Womply, a data and technology company with 500,000 small-business customers, mostly in the food and beverage, retail, health and beauty and automotive services sectors.

...Enterprises with fewer than 500 employees accounted for almost half of private-sector employment in 2017, the most-recent data, according to the Census Bureau. Small firms also employ a majority of the workers in industries such as restaurants and personal care that are most affected by capacity restrictions.

“If a small- or medium-sized business becomes insolvent because the economy recovers too slowly, we lose more than just that business. These businesses are the heart of our economy and often embody the work of generations,” Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last month during testimony before Congress.

Michael Gibbons, co-owner of three restaurants in Portland, Ore., with his wife, Evelyn, reduced his staff in mid-March to 10 from 97 after shifting to takeout and delivery. The business experimented with outdoor dining on Father’s Day, but scrapped it. “Some guests are just not compliant with safety measures,” he said. Staffing was a hurdle too, as former employees were reluctant to return because they were concerned about their safety and earning more by collecting unemployment benefits, he said, adding that protests in the city didn’t factor in his decision.

Mr. Gibbons said he plans to test outdoor dining again later this month, but also said that Oregon’s uptick in Covid cases is worrisome.

Consumers are pulling back across the country, but spending in small-business categories such as food and beverage, retail, health and beauty has fallen even more sharply in places with rising coronavirus cases, such as Texas, Florida and Arizona, said Michael Stepner, economist at Opportunity Insights, a nonpartisan research institute.

At bars, for example, national spending in mid-July was less than half what it was a year ago, with even worse numbers in Texas, Florida and California, according to Womply.

“It’s hard for small businesses to weather the storm when they don’t know when this will be over,” Mr. Stepner added.

...Nearly one-third of small businesses had less than one month of cash reserves on hand at the end of June, according to the Census Bureau.

Congress sought to allay those strains with PPP funds. The program provided a quick influx of cash to struggling businesses, allowing many of them to retain employees or bring back workers. The loans are generally forgivable if businesses spend a certain share of the funds on payrolls and meet certain other requirements.

The federal government as of July 21 had approved about five million PPP loans, worth a total of $518 billion, according to the Small Business Administration, the agency overseeing the program.

But lawmakers designed the PPP to help owners manage through a V-shaped recovery-- a steep but brief collapse in demand, followed by a swift rebound. Many firms have now burned through the loans, but sales have only barely picked up-- leaving them without funds to keep paying their full pre-pandemic workforce.

On Friday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Congress should consider automatically forgiving PPP loans taken out by the smallest U.S. businesses and offer a second helping of aid to some firms.

...A July survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business advocacy group, found roughly 22% of PPP loan borrowers have laid off or anticipate having to lay off employees after using their loan, according to the 615 survey respondents.

A renewed downturn in activity could especially affect minority-owned businesses, which have been harder hit by the pandemic and slower to rebound.

Robert Fairlie, an economics professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, found that 81% of Black-owned businesses and 82% of immigrant-owned businesses that had been up-and-running in February were still operating in June, compared with 95% of white-owned businesses, in a study that analyzed Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

Immigrants and minorities are more likely to be in industries, such as restaurants and personal services, hard hit by social-distancing mandates and economic and health concerns, he said. Even more important, many of these businesses “are really small,” Prof. Fairlie said. “It’s much harder for them to operate during the pandemic, and many lack the financial resources to move forward.”

He said that Black and immigrant business owners tend to hire from their local communities. “If the business owners are struggling and the employees are struggling, it’s a double hit to those communities,” he said.

For some industries, economic pain might not end until the health crisis is fully extinguished.

A survey by Drizly, an online alcohol delivery company, found 13% of respondents said they would return to bars and restaurants again only when a coronavirus vaccine became available. A further 31% said they had no plans to return to bars soon.

Washington Post's Jeff Stein and Erica Werner reported that Mnuchin and the Democrats have said they want a deal by the end of the month, but McConnell said that reaching an agreement could take several weeks, "a timeline that could leave many unemployed Americans severely exposed... Part of the problem stems from a push by administration officials and GOP lawmakers to reduce a $600 weekly payment of enhanced federal unemployment benefits. The White House and the GOP disagree about how to do this, and talks remain highly contentious. They hope to release a proposal early next week... In practice, the coming lapse in the jobless benefit means millions of workers are receiving their last enhanced benefit payment this week... [L]eading Republican lawmakers have argued for cutting the $600-per-week bonus down to $200-per-week, these people said, with one possibility being that this amount slowly phases out over time."

The proposed legislation could come on Monday, a lag that has prompted scorching criticism from congressional Democrats who have been demanding action for months. Congress has not passed any coronavirus relief legislation since approving four bipartisan bills in March and April that pumped around $3 trillion into the economy. McConnell wanted to wait to see how the unemployment benefits and other programs approved in that unprecedented stimulus effort played out before taking additional action.

“This weekend, millions of Americans will lose their unemployment insurance, will be at risk of being evicted from their homes, and could be laid off by state and local government, and there is only one reason: Republicans have been dithering for months while America’s crisis deepens,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) said in a joint statement Friday.

If adopted, the new unemployment plan could complicate negotiations with congressional Democrats, who favor extending the $600 weekly payment through January. And it’s unclear if balky state processing systems would have the capacity to implement a complicated new formula on such short notice.

“We’re dealing with the mechanical issues associated with that,” Mnuchin told reporters about the wage replacement plan.

The proposal would, in key respects, meet the conflicting political and economic pressures bearing down on the GOP and White House as the unemployment deadline looms for millions of Americans months away from Election Day.

Senate Republicans and White House officials have been clear that they are not willing to extend the $600-per-week benefit, which conservatives and many business organizations say encourages people to stay home rather than work. Many economists dispute this notion. Senior Republicans have also said they do not want additional federal unemployment benefits to go away entirely, acknowledging that some additional federal help should still be provided to those made jobless during the pandemic. The benefits are politically popular, with a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll finding close to 60 percent of Americans supporting their extension.

...Congressional Democrats and many economists say the current benefit should be extended in full to prevent a crucial stimulus from disappearing from an already wobbly economic recovery.

Given the difficulty of reaching a deal with Democrats before the existing benefits expire, Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Thursday floated a stand-alone extension of unemployment provisions as part of a package with school funding and a type of lawsuit shield to make it harder for employees to sue their employers if they become sick with the novel coronavirus.

Senior lawmakers in both parties oppose this piecemeal approach, but if they are unable to reach a deal, they might be forced to pass some type of stand-alone benefit extension next week.

In March, lawmakers initially discussed increasing unemployment benefits so they would represent 100 percent of a worker’s prior income. Congress ultimately abandoned the idea in favor of the universal $600 bonus, in part because Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia warned that the nation’s unemployment systems could not handle the complexity of matching every individual’s unemployment benefits to the person’s prior income, according to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who led those negotiations.

“Scalia said, ‘It can’t be done,’ ” Wyden said in an interview. “We have not seen a single piece of paper describing how this would be administered without the downsides Scalia pointed out months ago.”

Mnuchin acknowledged the technical challenges posed by converting from one system to another when addressing reporters on Thursday. He said the matter was being discussed with state unemployment offices. “Let me just say, different states are in different places,” Mnuchin said. “Some states can implement this quickly. Some states will take time."

Some experts are skeptical. State unemployment offices have been badly overwhelmed by the unprecedented surge in claims, and there were another 1.4 million claims last week. Thousands of the newly jobless have struggled for months to obtain benefits and in some states have camped outside unemployment offices overnight to be ahead in line for help.

The $600-per-week bonus was chosen for its simplicity compared with targeted, individual wage replacement-- but it has proved tremendously difficult for states to implement as the nation’s unemployment rate spiked to 15 percent before falling to 11 percent.

Last Decision Days of DED-Heads-- A Guest Post By Emorej

Choices of "DED-Heads" (Dem.Estab.Donor.Heads)

after Senate Primary Dominance survived 2020:

(ii) leave some $ on table, or

(i) suicidally double down


Status update:

Now that big money staved off Progressive Senate nominations in Kentucky (Booker) and Colorado (Romanoff), the 2020 primary cycle has failed to mark the official death of Democratic Senate nominations’ dominance by Democratic Establishment big Donors and their loyal servant Democratic Party heads ("DED-Heads").

Meanwhile, Trump’s electoral college math is in free-fall as Florida, which has long been the hill where Republican Presidential nominees must do-or-die, is racing toward every type of “die” as the Trump-turbocharged Pandemic passes the point of no return towards a major culling of the elderly retirees who disproportionately vote in Florida’s elections.

Thus, 2021 policy will be made by a non-Trump (probably Democratic) President facing a Senate containing zero or few new Progressives.

DED-Heads’ Options


How will DEDheads use the above reprieve (during the short interim before the Senate seats of Schumer, Warren, Harris and others are besieged by Progressive challengers)?


Option (i), which would be psychologically consistent with their track record, would be to double down on worshipping big donors’ cheap purchasing of economic and ecological domination, while using a few Black and/or Brown female faces and identity politics rhetoric in order to ‘rainbow-wash’ a continued lemming-like rush over economic, political and ecological cliffs towards mass genocide and suicide. The most prominent and transparent symbol of this option would be a Biden-Harris Presidential ticket, likely to win (with zero coat-tails) mainly because of Trump’s Pandemic cherry on top of broader self-marginalization.

Option (ii) would follow the tradition of “today’s winners leaving some money on table for today’s losers in order to keep the game alive.” For this option, too, the most prominent and transparent symbol would be the Democratic Presidential ticket, as discussed below.

Biden + Black Woman Dem


A Biden-Harris ticket (even more than a Biden-Demings ticket) would confirm many of the worst suspicions of swing and variable turnout voters about the DED-Heads. For example:

1. DED-Heads’ comfort with (a) Biden’s cognitive decline, soft (at least) corruption and coddling (at least) of racists, and (b) Harris’s three-fer identity profile outweighing her laughable unpreparedness (thanks to CA’s 1-party echo chamber) for the barely warming up spotlights of her first Presidential primary. Even Harris’s recent marriage is a negative, because her White husband (whose day job coincidentally enjoyed a leapfrog up into a mega-lobbying Big Law firm) highlights suspicions that ‘cultural Blackness’ has been mainly a career strategy for Harris, whose (East) Indian mother raised her mainly in Montreal after divorce from her (partially) Black Jamaican father, who has publicly denounced Harris’s joke about Ganja-smoking stereotypes.





2. Even Demings would be a modest upgrade over Harris, because (a) Demings’ anti-Progressivism can be attributed to need to please the Orlando electorate (and the Presidential ticket’s goal of pleasing swingy Florida), and (b) Demings’career as a policewoman suggests a potential cultural bridge between police and the victims of over- and overly-brutal policing (unlike Harris’s career as a prosecutor who had to overcome her lack of cultural connections to police by pandering to them at the expense of their victims).

Better Options

What alternative Democratic Presidential tickets would embody more politically effective symbolism and/or substance?


1. For Vice-President, Barbara Lee would be a slam-dunk, because Barbara, along with the traditional experience of 2+ decades in Congress, (a) has a Black woman identity to pre-empt complaints from box-checkers (and is too old to clog the lines of succession for very long), and (b) is widely admired (notably for her 2001 casting of the sole vote in the House against the Cheney-Rove-W. administration’s first endless war bill) by many Progressives including Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders, but (c) has ‘matured’ (along with her rapidly gentrifying district, where Black voter percentage has declined even more rapidly) into avoiding fights with the Dem establishment.

2. For President, Al Gore would be an intelligent choice, offering many advantages over Biden, especially in order to minimize Dems’ loss of voters to the Green Party Presidential ticket. Examples include: (a) early identification with climate change awareness, and 2003 public opposition to invading Iraq, (b) recent proximity to Silicon Valley (which is great for raising money and is necessary for understanding options relating to the looming surveillance apocalypse), (c) arguably being owed a ‘gift-wrapped’ nomination as compensation for loss-by-theft of the 2001 Presidency, and (d) also old enough to not clog the lines of succession.

3- For either President or Vice-President, a master-stroke would be Condoleeza Rice, who would (a) formalize the merger of establishment Democrats with anti-Trump (non-Libertarian) Republicans, and (b) enable the Presidential popular vote to better reflect voters’ ideological alignments, such as:

• Condi ticket 50%;
• Trump ticket 30%;

• Libertarian ticket 4%;
• Green ticket 16%-- creating a base camp for a stronger 50-state (expanded GreenEntry) ticket in 2024.

Obviously the DED-Head-whipped Dem establishment is unlikely to follow the above advice, because they are too bubble-brained to catch up with the new reality that (riffing on Chuck Schumer’s infamous failed 2016 prediction):

"For every vote the Dems lose to a Green or other Lefty Presidential ticket, the Condi-led Dems could win both a vote and a donation from another Republican suburban woman."

Instead, they’re more likely to waste this last chance decision by re-running their old playbook, and then try to enjoy their golden caskets while the rest of us sleep easier in mass graves.

The House Voted To Prevent Trump From Attacking Iran; Moscow Mitch Laughs

Yesterday, the House passed a bill written by Ro Khanna and one written by Barbara Lee that taken together would put the country on a much more peace-oriented path than the one the Trump regime has been leading the country down. Khanna's bill would block funding for a war that Trump starts against Iran. It passed 228 to 175. Only 3 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, warmongers whose names you can probably guess: Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Conor Lamb (PA) and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR). At the beginning on the video above, you can hear Ro referring to the leader of the warmonger faction in Congress, Michael McCaul (R-TX). I might note that on Wednesday, Ro had endorsed his election opponent, Michael Siegel.

Right after Schrader voted for war with the Republicans, I called Milwaukie mayor Mark Gamba, his opponent for reelection, to ask him why Schrader would make a move that so obviously flies in the face of what Oregon voters want. "The constitution wisely gave the power to declare war to Congress," he said. "That has been eroded and overridden for the last 50 years or so. In that time we have engaged in a number of wars without the direct authorization of Congress to our detriment. The main beneficiaries have been the military industrial complex and often, a president looking to improve his polling. The bill that the House passed without the vote of Kurt Schrader and the Republicans, simply attempts to return those powers to where they belong. At a time when the least stable president in my lifetime is looking for anything to distract the public from his mis-deeds, it is the very least the House could do. Why on earth would Schrader vote against it? Does he yearn for yet another endless war? Are the trillions we've spent over the last few decades not enough? Are the young lives put at risk of no concern? They certainly won't be to the narcissist-in-chief. Why would you give free rein to someone who has proven his immorality? Kurt has taken a lot of cynical votes in his time that do not represent the people of Oregon's 5th congressional district, but this may be the most disgusting vote of his career. I hope the folks in the district will remember this vote the next time Kurt pretends to lament the endless wars at one of his town halls. We have real problems to solve like stopping climate chaos and providing 21st century, world class healthcare to everyone in this country. The last thing we need to do is bleed another few trillion dollars into the sands of Iran."

Lee's bill repeals the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. Her bill passed 236-166. Lamb stayed over on the Republican side of the aisle for this one too and was joined by Nashville warmonger Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN). There were even 11 Republicans (+ Justin Amash) who backed Lee.

Both bills are attached as amendments to the bipartisan Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Medal Act already passed by the Senate. The fate of the amendments will be determined in a reconciliation committee of members of both houses. Ro told me earlier that "Senator Church helped end the Vietnam war by stopping the funding. We can prevent war in Iran by cutting off the funds. This amendment does that." He told reporters just before the vote that "The reality is that Congress needs to exercise the power of the purse. We need to make it very clear that Congress is not going to authorize a dime for an offensive war in Iran."

Many People Say Trump Started The California Wildfires As A Kind Of Sick Revenge

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier represents a district (CA-11) northeast of San Francisco and Oakland-- most of Contra Costa County: Walnut Creek, Concord, Pittsburg, Danville Antioch, Mount Diablo-- where people are always vigilant to the dangers of wildfires. Mark sits on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. This morning, as the California wildfires continue to cause devastation, he reminded us that "California has some of the strongest environmental laws in the country, but the effects of climate change are causing fires to intensify, and the anti-environment policies enacted by the Trump Administration are only making matters worse. Trump’s attacks on California’s leaders are baseless, and he is grasping at straws to gin up support from his political base. If the President acts on his threat of stripping funding from California, it will be met with fierce opposition."

The California fires are no laughing matter, but Trump is a joke, albeit a tragic one. How predictable is it for him to try blaming the raging California fires on... Adam Schiff and on other Democrats he doesn't like. The L.A. Times covered it over the weekend. James Rainey wrote that "Autumn in California now comes not only with fierce, wind-driven wildfires but with routine claims from President Trump that the state’s leaders are to blame for the disasters, followed by assurances from experts that the president doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The cycle renewed again Sunday, when Trump tweeted that Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) had failed to properly manage the state’s forests, causing a string of recent blazes. Newsom 'has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must clean his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers,' Trump said in an early-morning missive on Twitter.

A few hours later he concluded a slam on Democrats for their impeachment inquiry against him, concluding, “Corrupt Adam should clean up & manage the California forests which are always burning!”

The president tossed in a shot at the state for its “ridiculously closed” water distribution policies.

The missives drew a combination of incredulity and anger from many Californians, in part because the vast majority of the acres consumed by fire since early October were grasslands and chaparral, far from the forest.

Residents also remarked on the president’s failure to express sympathy for the thousands of people displaced from their homes in recent weeks.

The online fracas did little to illuminate the realities of forest or water policy in California.

Of the 33 million acres of forest in the state, 57% is controlled by the federal government and even the timber industry-- which Trump appears to be trying to support-- has slammed the U.S. for doing too little to manage those vast holdings.

California’s leaders have acknowledged the need to reduce the fuel buildup in the forest the state does control. Gov. Jerry Brown signed a series of bills last year to streamline regulations for thinning forests in fire zones, allow limited removal of some larger trees and force cities and counties to plan better defenses for homes and communities. And Newsom has continued fire threat-reduction initiatives since he took office in January.

“You don’t believe in climate change. You are excused from this conversation,” Newsom responded to Trump via Twitter. The governor later issued a statement: “We’re successfully waging war against thousands of fires started across the state in the last few weeks due to extreme weather created by climate change while Trump is conducting a full on assault against the antidotes.”

The state government’s expanded commitment to wildfire prevention under Brown included a $1-billion pledge over five years to clean up thousands of acres of deadwood, scrub brush and forest — California’s biggest-ever program to reduce fire fuels.

That $200 million-a-year annual commitment and other spending are helping the state by “reducing fuels in the forest, increasing forest health, and defensible space around homes,” Newsom’s office said.

Countering Trump’s contention that the governor is in the thrall of environmentalists, his office said he had waived environmental regulations to fast-track work on 35 critical fire breaks to protect 200 of the state’s most vulnerable communities.

Newsom’s office contrasted California’s stepped-up efforts with what it said was the federal government’s slashing of spending on the same kind of work.

The U.S. Forest Service has reduced the forest it plans to “treat” through thinning, controlled burns and other measures to 220,000 acres, from the previously promised 310,000 acres, Newsom’s office said.

And California said Trump’s 2020 budget cut $40 million from hazardous fuels reduction.

But that discussion is all about forest land, while the fires that have bedeviled California for several weeks have mostly ignited far away from the tall timber.

The most destructive of the wildfires broke out in brushland near the 405 Freeway on L.A.'s suburban Westside, not far from the Getty Center museum. It was similar terrain that sparked the Easy fire, which threatened the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley.

The Hillside fire began in national forest land in the San Bernardino National Forest, before quickly burning downhill into a San Bernardino neighborhood.

Although the massive Kincade fire in Sonoma County burned some forest, it also shifted into grass and scrub country alongside vineyards.

“These fires are not burning in forested landscapes where you could go in and do anything to alter the forest,” said Glen MacDonald, a geography professor at UCLA and expert on climate change and wildfire. “These are scrublands and grasslands and a discussion of forest management is completely not applicable.”

Trump’s statements also fail to acknowledge the amount of work California has done to correct a legacy of fire containment that has left some forests overgrown and loaded with fuel, said Jay Ziegler, director of policy for the Nature Conservancy in California.

“California’s pace and scale of action in addressing this issue at the end of the Brown administration and now under Gov. Newsom is really unprecedented,” Ziegler said.

Trump’s slam was the latest in a series of attacks on California, coming after his attempt to reverse the state’s stringent fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks and his blaming of government for the exploding homeless population.

The White House issued no official statement on wildfires, but it appeared the president may have been responding to an interview in which Newsom accused Trump of “a full-on assault” on the state’s attempts to rein in Earth-warming greenhouses gases.

Trump concluded his string of three tweets on California’s wildfires with his attack on the state’s water regulations.

“Also, open up the ridiculously closed water lanes coming down from the North,” he wrote. “Don’t pour it out into the Pacific Ocean. Should be done immediately. California desperately needs water, and you can have it now!”

That embraces the position of some of the state’s farmers-- that too much water is being allowed to flow into the San Joaquin and Sacramento River delta to support salmon, other fish and endangered species.

But it belies the fact that greater snowpack in 2017 and 2019 allowed bigger water allotments to Central Valley farmers, Ziegler said.

“It’s really misleading to tell farmers they could do better and get more water in future years,” Ziegler said, “when we are right at historic export levels because of the big winters we had in 2017 and 2019.”

Trump’s latest broadside comes just short of one year since he attacked California for “gross mismanagement of the forests.”

As with his most recent tweet, he then threatened to withdraw funding from the state, saying “Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”

Among those chastising the president then was the president of the California Professional Firefighters. Brian Rice called Trump’s message and threat to withhold aid “ill-informed, ill-timed and demeaning to those who are suffering as well as the men and women on the front lines.”

A couple of months before that, Trump had used Twitter to claim that wildfires were “being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amount of readily available water to be properly utilized.”

Again, experts closest to the scene corrected him. “We have plenty of water,” said Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “We are not having any issues with a lack of retardant or water.”

In his latest message Sunday, Trump said that the yearly pattern of fire in California was routinely followed by the state “coming to the Federal Government for $$$ help.” He added: “No more.”

That pronouncement particularly infuriated those who had read just three months ago how Trump had told Russian President Vladimir Putin that the U.S. stood ready to send aid to fight massive wildfires in Siberia.

Tweeted one disgruntled American on Sunday: “You forgot to send your thoughts and prayers to those affected by the fires....but of course we in California didn’t help get you elected so you don’t give a damn about us.”

In 2016, Hillary absolutely pulverized Trump in California--  8,753,788 (61.73%) to 4,483,810 (31.62%). And two years later, just in case Trump didn't get the idea about how the state feels about him, half of California's Republican members of Congress were defeated by Democrats-- 7 out of 14. Orange County was once to the GOP what Bavaria was to the Nazi Party in Germany. Now there is not a single federally-elected Republican left in the county-- 4 having gone down in the 2018 midterms. Next year, a competent DCCC would take down the rest of the California Republicans or at least win the LaMalfa, Nunes, Hunter and McClintock seats as well as the open Cook seat... but there hasn't been a competent DCCC in decades. You can help turn California bluer by clicking on the 2020 California thermometer on the right and contributing what you can to the progressives running against LaMalfa (R), Nunes (R), Republican-lite Blue Dog Jim Costa and one other very special California Democrat who opposes Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal.

Rep. Barbara Lee, like most people in California, is angry at the way Trump is approaching the fires. "Trump," she told her supporters, "is threatening to pull federal aid for those affected. Thousands of people have been forced to evacuate their homes while thousands more watch the radar in fear as new areas fall under critical threat. For Trump to threaten to pull federal aid for those desperately in need makes me sick. My heart is with all those impacted by these terrible wildfires. I’m so grateful for the first responders who have been working tirelessly to keep us safe in California." She asked people who would normally be contributing to her to give what they can to the California Community Foundation’s Wildfire Relief Fund to help all those impacted by the California wildfires.

Trumpanzee: "The FBI Director Is Wrong"

Barbara Lee is ready for impeachment proceedings to begin.Thursday, she told her constituents that "The Trump administration’s corrupt behavior surrounding the Mueller report has been startling to say the least. Both Trump and his right-wing surrogates have pushed blatant lies, twisting the truth in a thinly-veiled cover-up. After a nearly two-year long investigation into the Trump campaign’s criminal behavior, Special Counsel Robert Mueller made it clear: 'If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.' This is a big deal. After two years' worth of extensive interviews, intense background checks, and multiple convictions of Trump’s closest allies, Mueller could not clear Trump of any wrongdoing. And just last night, Trump admitted he would use dirt on political rivals from foreign governments. That’s right, Trump just welcomed foreign governments to interfere in our elections-- again... Mueller and his report gave the House everything we need to start impeachment proceedings."

Jonathan Chait's headline was a provocative Trump Goes on TV to Solicit 2020 Foreign Collusion. "Trump," he wrote, "continues to show every sign of hoping and expecting to benefit from foreign collusion in 2020. In May, he intended to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to pressure the government to supply dirt on Joe Biden. He and his ally, Mitch McConnell, are blocking measures (including ones with bipartisan support) to help safeguard elections against foreign attacks and social-media propaganda. His message to Russia, or any other government that wants a close relationship with him, is obvious: Do anything you can to help me win. Trump also said the whole Republican caucus takes foreign dirt on their opponents. "When you go and talk, honestly, to congressmen, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research."

That has made-- this whole controversy has made-- Republicans on Capitol Hill very nervous. McCarthy is trying, absurdly, to blame it all on Adam Schiff! Less sleazy Republicans than McCarthy-- pretty much meaning any other Republican-- are taking this more seriously. Tom Cole (R-OK): "I don’t think it’s appropriate to ever do anything like that and I think you have an obligation to pick up the phone and call the FBI if we know this is from a foreign government. I am just worried about the general carelessness of that remark. I don’t think that’s going to sit well with most Americans. It shouldn’t. It’s just not an appropriate way to behave in a political campaign." Mike McCaul, one of the most vulnerable Republicans being targeted for political extinction is 2020, said "I wouldn’t accept it,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), adding, “I don’t trust Russians." Mike Siegel, the progressive Democrat who nearly defeated McCaul in 2018-- with no help from the DCCC-- is going to finish the job next year. He noted that "McCaul's refusal to criticize the President, even when Trump flouts the rule of law and undermines the foundations of our democracy, is unfortunately par for the course. If McCaul and his Republican buddies would use their power to keep the President in line-- instead of occasionally distancing themselves through ineffectual comments-- we would not be in the position we are in now. Instead, we have an out-of-control President, openly courting foreign interference in our elections. Again."

George Conway and Neal Katyal teamed up for a full-fledged editorial at the Washington Post, Trump Just Invited Congress To Begin Impeachment Proceedings.

On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy-- that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.

The case involves a House committee’s efforts to follow up on the testimony of Trump’s now-incarcerated former attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump had allegedly committed financial and tax fraud, and allegedly paid off paramours in violation of campaign finance laws. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s accountants in mid-April for relevant documents, and Trump tried to block the move, only to be sternly rebuked in mid-May by a federal judge in Washington.

The appeals brief filed Monday by Trump attacks that decision. But to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it. He argues that Congress is “trying to prove that the President broke the law” and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s “an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch.”

But in fact, Congress investigates lawbreaking, and potential lawbreaking, all the time. Mobsters, fraudsters, government employees, small companies, big companies-- like it or not, all types of people and businesses get subpoenaed from time to time so that Congress can figure out whether current laws are effective, whether new laws are needed, whether sufficient governmental resources are being devoted to the task, whether more disclosure to the government or the public is required, or greater penalties, and so on.

To this, Trump’s brief complains that “Congress could always make this (non-falsifiable) argument” to justify any investigation. But that’s simply the result of the fact that, as the district court explained, Congress’s “power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation’s history.” Congress, relying on English parliamentary tradition, has performed this function since the founding.

To accept Trump’s argument to the contrary-- to say Congress can’t look into matters that might involve crimes-- would in many cases gut Congress’s ability to gain information it needs to legislate. And perversely, in Trump’s case, it makes a virtue of the fact that he has been accused of committing crimes.

Which brings us to the main point: England’s King George III was above the law, but the founders of our republic wanted a system that would divide power and have the branches check one another. The idea that only the president can investigate the president is an argument for autocrats, not Americans.

Trump says “trust me,” but that was exactly the argument the founders rebelled against. They knew that public officials would not always be angels, and that power had to be checked and dispersed. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 51, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

The only redeeming quality of Trump’s legal brief is its seeming, grudging acknowledgment that Congress’s powers might be greater in an impeachment proceeding. That has things only half-right. Yes, Congress could investigate Trump’s finances in an impeachment proceeding, but it can do so without launching the formal process of impeachment.

That said, Trump’s brief can be construed as an invitation to commence impeachment proceedings. In those proceedings, Trump’s attitudes toward our Constitution’s checks and balances, in addition to evidence of obstruction of justice, must play a key role. Indeed, the third article of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, charged him with defying lawful subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Not only has Trump done that, but he has also demonized judges who disagree with him and insulted the press (despite its constitutional status) for calling him to account. Other leaders around the world may behave this way, but these are not proper actions of a president of the United States. What makes the United States exceptional is its commitment to its constitutional architecture, particularly divided powers.

For the past three decades, many constitutional law classes have begun with Nixon’s breathtaking statement to David Frost in May 1977: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Generations of students have gasped, shocked that a former president could say such a thing. This time, it’s not a former president but a sitting one. Every principle behind the rule of law requires the commencement of a process now to make this president a former one.

As the morning crew at Politico pointed out, Trump handed those who want to impeach him a gift. "far be it for us to divine why the president said this," they wrote, "and what exactly is going through his head. But the people we spoke to Wednesday night said it is rooted in a win-at-any-and-all-costs mentality -- a life-is-complicated vibe that tries to paint everyone else as rubes, and yet ignores the guts of American law. Furthermore, it reflects his thinking that he hates the idea the 2016 election was stolen from him, so he tries to rationalize the very things he and his campaign stand accused of doing. In our time covering Congress-- going back a decade-- we’ve never heard anyone ever even privately say they would accept foreign assistance in an election. Ever. And a lot of members have said crazy stuff to us privately!... If you are a Republican or a Democrat and you'd like to defend the president here, drop us a line. OK... how about a floor objection from Trump puppet Marsha Blackburn?

Pelosi's comment was some bullshit about what a bad boy Trump is but said Democrats are "no closer" to impeaching him. At Bloomberg News, Jonathan Bernstein wrote that Trump's Awful Comments Need a Real Response. He wants Republicans to take a stand, reminding his readers that Senor Trumpanzee supplied "a helpful reminder on Wednesday that he’s entirely unfit for the office he holds by once again welcoming foreign interference in U.S. elections... How bad is all this? Most of the comments I’ve seen condemning Trump’s remarks-- none, I should note, from Republicans in Congress, although perhaps I missed some-- treat it as grievous misbehavior for a political candidate. True enough. But it’s considerably worse coming from a sitting president. Trump’s obligations in office extend far beyond following campaign laws. He’s the country’s commander in chief and top diplomat, and as such responsible for making clear to all foreign nations and other groups that messing with the internal affairs of the United States will have serious consequences. Instead, he’s basically inviting everyone in."

As the political scientist Jennifer Victor says: “Democracy happens when people use a legitimate process to select leaders from among its citizens. If people from another country influence the selection of leaders, the sovereignty of the democracy is eroded.  If foreigners affect an election, the results are comprised.” The flip side is that the U.S. government is supposed to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation, not on behalf of the personal interests-- political and private-- of the president.

So what should happen now?

For one thing, it would be helpful for Wray to speak up and explain why Trump is wrong. If he doesn’t do so on his own, perhaps the House Judiciary Committee could invite him to explain it to them. This would be an appropriate time, too, for former President George W. Bush to say something. (Whatever one thinks of Bush’s terms in office, it’s hard to imagine him inviting a foreign nation to disrupt our elections.) The same for any former FBI directors, secretaries of defense and state, and other heavyweights, especially Republicans.

But we all know the truth: This is really on the current Republicans who could do something about it. That includes the people at Fox News and other Republican-aligned media, who don’t actually have to pretend that encouraging foreign nations to influence U.S. elections is exemplary behavior for a president. And it includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other congressional Republicans, who have the ability to put an end to this if they want. As long as they’re all willing to join Trump in this kind of despicable behavior, there’s no reason to expect him to stop.

Notice, in the video, how agitated Trump got at the mention of the FBI chief-- the one he hand-picked as head of the FBI? According to reporting from Darren Samuelsohn and Natasha Bertrand yesterday, Trump's willingness to accept foreign assistance has essentially invited overseas spies to meddle with 2020 presidential campaigns, undoing months of work. They wrote that "Nearly two years ago, FBI Director Chris Wray set up an office tasked solely with stopping the type of Russian interference efforts that infected the 2016 campaign. On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump undercut the whole operation in a matter of seconds... America’s enemies will see Trump’s comments and likely 'come out of the woodwork like never before to try to influence the president,' said longtime FBI veteran Frank Figliuzzi, who served as the bureau’s assistant director for counterintelligence until 2012. 'And it’s going to be more difficult to defend against because they’ll try harder than ever to mask their attempts.'"

Is Anyone Really Going To Address Economic Inequality... Beyond Empty Promises?

Last week Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders introduced the Inclusive Prosperity Act, which is meant to make Wall Street fund the progressive agenda. "Through a small sales tax on Wall Street trades," she wrote, "our government could gain billions of dollars to invest in critical programs like Medicare for All, Debt-Free College, affordable housing, and more. It’s time for Wall Street to pay their fair share of taxes and help fix our country’s deep economic inequality. Since the day Trump stepped into office, his reckless policies have protected and enriched the wealthiest class in America at the expense of everyday families. It’s no secret that the GOP Tax Scam tilted the playing field in favor of wealthy interests, and families of color have been systematically excluded from wealth-building opportunities. To make matters worse, people of color are hit the hardest when Wall Street speculation undermines good jobs and drives productive investment out of communities."

The Inclusive Prosperity Act they introduced "would improve our economy and lead to greater equity for Americans of all backgrounds by forcing Wall Street actors to finally pay their fair share of taxes. Trump is enriching the ultra-wealthy on the backs of [ordinary Americans]."

In a statement on his website, Bernie wrote that "The legislation imposes a tax of a fraction of a percent on the trades of stocks, bonds, and derivatives. This tax on Wall Street speculation, also known as a financial transaction tax, is estimated to generate up to $2.4 trillion in public revenue from wealthy investors over 10 years. An added benefit of the proposed tax is deterring the high-frequency trading that increases the instability of the financial sector and produces no economic value."

The original House co-sponsors are Ro Khanna (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Pramila Jayapal (D-CA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Al Lowenthal (D-CA), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jared Huffman (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Mark Takano (D-CA) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).

Early yesterday, New York Magazine published a piece by Eric Levitz, In Appeal To Moderates, Sanders Calls For Worker-Township Of Means Of Production, that makes the clear case that Bernie Sanders, and perhaps Elizabeth Warren, is the political leader to fundamentally make America a more equitable society. "The inequality is too damn high," he wrote. "In the United States today, the richest 0.1 percent of the population owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. And the chasm between our aristocracy’s fortunes-- and those of the average Joe and Joanna-- is only growing. Since 1980, the real annual earnings of the top 0.1 percent have grown by 343 percent; the poorest nine-tenths of the country, meanwhile, have seen their earnings grow by a mere 22 percent in that time span. Absent drastic reforms of our political economy, there’s every reason to think that this income polarization will continue apace in the decades to come.

And drastic reforms ain’t easy. In fact, even modestly reducing inequality (and/or ameliorating its most troubling effects) through tax and transfer programs poses major political challenges. For example, while raising taxes on the rich is very popular, transferring income away from the upper reaches of the middle class is less so. Even when broad-based tax hikes are pegged to overwhelmingly popular forms of redistribution, such as universal health care, voters often have trouble swallowing them. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 56 percent of Americans favored Medicare for All-- until they were told the policy would “require most Americans to pay more in taxes,” at which point support plummeted to 37 percent. The credibility of this finding is buttressed by the failure of movements for single-payer health care in Vermont and Colorado, where aversion to tax increases fueled opposition. And the unpopularity of tax hikes on the non-rich can also be seen in the reluctance of even the leftmost Democrats to present detailed plans for how they intend to finance their most ambitious redistributive programs.

Bernie Sanders appears to understand all this. Which is why the 2020 candidate is preparing to shift the focus of his economic message away from divisive “tax and spend” liberalism and toward more broadly popular approaches to reducing inequality-- like, say, worker ownership of the means of production. As the Washington Post’s Jeff Stein reports:

We can move to an economy where workers feel that they’re not just a cog in the machine-- one where they have power over their jobs and can make decisions,” Sanders said in an interview. “Democracy isn’t just the opportunity to vote. What democracy really means is having control over your life.”

Sanders said his campaign is working on a plan to require large businesses to regularly contribute a portion of their stocks to a fund controlled by employees, which would pay out a regular dividend to the workers. Some models of this fund increase employees’ ownership stake in the company, making the workers a powerful voting shareholder. The idea is in its formative stages and a spokesman did not share further details.

Sanders also said he will introduce a plan to force corporations to give workers a share of the seats on their boards of directors. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), another 2020 presidential candidate, proposed a similar idea last year.

Sanders’s plan for giving workers at major corporations an ownership stake in their firms is by far the most “socialist” policy he has ever endorsed as a national politician. The idea is, in essence, a scaled-down version of the late Swedish economist Rudolf Meidner’s plan for gradually socializing ownership of industry by requiring employers to funnel a fixed percentage of their annual profits into collectively owned, trade-union-managed “wage-earner funds.” Meidner’s plan, and all other blueprints for “funds socialism,” is derived from a simple observation, deftly simple observation, deftly summarized by Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project:

[C]apital ownership no longer takes the form of an individual business owner presiding over an empire, but instead takes the form of affluent families owning diversified portfolios of real estate and financial assets like stocks and bonds. The socialization of those assets into funds owned and controlled by workers or society would thus provide a relatively simple glide path into a kind of market socialism.

And then, in terms of the 2020 presidential nomination, there's this horrifying "alternative" (art courtesy of Nancy Ohanian):

Americans Have Something Else To Be Thankful For: Barbara Lee Is Running For A House Leadership Position

Tuesday, we saw that Ted Lieu is running for a junior leadership post, co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC). The other member that people keep urging to run for House leadership is living legend Barbara Lee. I spoke to her when she was in Texas a few weeks ago stumping for BETO and making calls for progressives running for congressional seats. As you probably already know, she's an amazing woman.

When I was in the process of retiring from Reprise, I was eager to move from L.A. One of the artists I worked with, Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day told me there was a house for sale in his Oakland neighborhood. "You should move there," he said. "We can have barbecues and invited Barbara Lee." I moved to Stroudsberg, PA instead... what a mistake, since righted by moving back into my old house in Los Angeles. I'm not much of a barbecue guy anyway and I was lucky enough to run into Congresswoman Lee at an event in L.A. and get to know her enough so that I could say that, like very few politicians, she's even better than her legend.

With Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party feeling their oats more than ever and moving rapidly to consolidate whatever power they can on behalf of Wall Street and their corporate masters, House Dems need a trusted and respected progressive voice in the leadership more than ever. And that's Barbara. If Billie Joe admires her... yeah this is the woman who's going to save the congressional Democrats from slipping even further into the clutches of Big Business and the Military Industrial Complex. She's running to be chair of the House Democratic Caucus-- and members-- including your member-- vote next week. Out-going members don't get a vote but the new freshman class does.

That said, House Democrats have to avoid the fractious nature of the GOP during their time in the majority. Congresswoman Lee has successfully demonstrated that she knows how to ensure that progressive values are represented and that women and people of color have a voice in the direction of the Caucus. At the same time she has been a unifying figure with a strong reputation of working with more conservative Members among House Dems; she is widely seen as an honest broker.

She strikes me as a rare politician who always puts values first, not the kind of naked careerism that drives way too many American politicians. When her office reached out in a dear colleague letter a few months ago, they appealed by reminding Members that she is "a unifying figure that can most effectively help us put a check on Trump and show the country that Federal level Democrats have a governing agenda that they can support going into the 2020 Elections." These are the key points she made in a leadership battle where actual policy is rarely discussed:

The strength of House Democrats lie in their diversity of experiences and ideas. Whether it’s working across the aisle to enact HIV/AIDS laws, or bringing the Sanders and Clinton campaigns together behind a cohesive and progressive Democratic Platform, Rep. Lee's career has been dedicated to finding common ground and delivering results. Over the years, she has fought to lift families out of poverty and empower everyday people. As Caucus Chair, she will ensure that House Democrats hear every view, respect every member, and welcome every voice.

House Democrats are at their best when everyone has an opportunity to contribute and collaborate. Rep. Lee's top priority will be offering new ways to engage all members. She will provide robust member services to empower everyone in our caucus and develop more forums to showcase your innovative work. It is important to her to build on Chairman Crowley’s work equipping all offices with the cutting-edge, creative tools-- and especially digital resources-- to engage directly with constituents.

As the next Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Lee has the proven ability to work with all Democratic House members to achieve consensus on policy issues, help develop legislative and party priorities, and ensure every member has the tools necessary to be successful.

Rep. Lee is well prepared for the position, with her leadership roles in the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the LGBT Equality Caucus.

With the House returning to Democratic control, it’s more important now than ever before to elect a Democratic Caucus Chair with a strong authentic, progressive record-- someone who can help mentor freshman members, build consensus within the Caucus around progressive policies, and then have the strength and tenacity to turn those policies into law.

There's never any ambivalence about where Barbara Lee stands. That's what happens when someone-- even a politician-- has moral clarity. She'd be good for America. You should call your member of Congress and ask her or him to vote for Barbara Lee on November 28 (next Wednesday). Her opponent, Hakeem Jeffries, isn't terrible.