Wednesday, May 13, 2020

DCCC Lost All The Races Yesterday-- But Progressives Did Well

>

DCCC chair Cheri Bustos should resign

Last night 3 important congressional races ended. Nancy Pelosi, Cheri Bustos and their DCCC need to think closely about what happened. One contest was a primary in Omaha and two were special elections to fill seats in Wisconsin and California where members had retired, respectively one Republican and one Democrat. In each special election, the victor will fill the seat until January, at which point the winner of the regular November election will take the seat.

Goal ThermometerLet's start, though, with the primary in Nebraska. Kara Eastman, a community activist and outspoken progressive, beat Ann Ashford the wife of the former (defeated) Blue Dog congressman, Brad Ashford, in a two-to-one landslide. The DCCC was less overt in their support for Ann Ashford than they had been in their over-the-top backing for Brad in the 2018 primary. In 2018, Kara beat Brad Ashford 21,357 (51.6%) to 19,998 (48.4%). The DCCC was so incensed that Kara beat their pet Blue Dog that they removed NE-02 from their priority list and refused to help Kara win. She only lost by a 2 point margin against GOP incumbent Don Bacon-- 126,715 (51.0%) to 121,770 (49.0%). Let's not allow that to happen again this coming November. Please write to Cheri Bustos and Nancy Pelosi and demand they support Kara Eastman this cycle-- and contribute to her here or by click on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Yesterday's primary showed Kara with a great deal or-- and much more-- support, despite the Ashfords pouring over $350,000 of their own money into her campaign.



The Omaha World-Herald reported that Kara "earned her chance for a rematch against the two-term Republican incumbent Tuesday night by topping two other rivals in her party’s primary. She immediately took aim at Bacon, saying his record of reliable votes for President Donald Trump and his party don’t fit in a swing district like the Omaha-area 2nd. 'People are looking for leadership and for representation that actually represents the district, and not just somebody who’s going to align himself with his party,' Eastman said."
Two years after a fired-up base of progressives helped upstart Eastman upset former congressman Brad Ashford in the Democratic primary, she easily outpolled his wife, Ann Ashford, and Omaha restaurateur Gladys Harrison in Tuesday’s vote.

That gave her a second chance against Bacon, who beat her by just fewer than 5,000 votes-- about 2% of all cast-- in the 2018 general election. She said she thinks it will be a different race this time.

“It’s already very different in the direction this country has moved,” she said.

...A centrist former Republican, Ashford echoed Bacon from two years earlier in arguing that Eastman’s policies are too extreme for most voters in a district that includes Douglas County and western Sarpy County.

The key example both Ashford and Bacon cite is Eastman’s support for “Medicare for All,” the single-player, universal health care system that would do away with private health insurance.

But the 48-year-old Eastman hasn’t backed down from her support for the health care plan championed by liberal firebrand Bernie Sanders, noting the coronavirus pandemic has exposed the pitfalls of a system that mostly relies on people getting their health insurance through their employer.

Eastman offered herself as “an authentic Democrat.” And much like two years ago, she benefited from an army of grassroots progressive volunteers, who shifted this spring from going door to door to making thousands of calls from phone banks.

...Eastman and Bacon now enter a fall campaign that will likely be heavily influenced by the top-of-ticket battle between Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden. While the two congressional candidates competed two years ago, the presidential race is sure to change the dynamics.

Bacon on Tuesday night said he wished the president were at times more diplomatic. But on issues from abortion to taxes to trade, he said, the president’s positions align well with the district.

“I want that conservative philosophy in the White House,” he said.

Bacon also believes Trump’s supporters will be highly motivated in November. The Republican wave that Trump created in 2016 helped Bacon to his 1-point victory over then-incumbent Brad Ashford.

...But Democrats are heavily motivated to oust Trump, which could drive Democratic turnout in the swing district. And this time Eastman will have the support of the national Democratic establishment, which failed to jump in with both feet to help her when she lost narrowly two years ago.

In charging she is too extreme, Eastman said, Bacon is just “following the Republican playbook” in a race he knows he’s in danger of losing.

“He’ll say that I’m too extreme when he has voted 95% of the time with Donald Trump, and even signed a pledge to not disagree with the president, which is crazy,” Eastman said. “He is the definition of extreme.”
No one expected the Wisconsin special election to switch the 7th district from red to blue. The PVI is R+8 and when Sean Duffy was reelected in 2018 against Democrat Margaret Engebretson, it was a 60.1% to 38.5% wipeout, Duffy winning 23 of the 26 counties, including the 3 big ones, Marathon, St. Croix and Oneida. Although Obama won the district in 2008, he lost to Romney in 2012 and Trump beat Hillary decisively-- 57.7% to 37.3%.

Last night Tom Tiffany was an easy winner over Democrat Tricia Zunker, 109,592 (57.22%) to 81,928 (42.78%). Zunker, president of the Wausau School Board and an associate justice for the Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court, did better than either Margaret Engebretson did in 2018 or then Hillary had done in 2016. But not better enough. They will face off again in November. Zunker addressed her supporters last night on Facebook Live, noting that "we laid the groundwork for a Democratic win in November. This isn’t the result we were hoping for, but we did something incredible here. We did something that no one thought a Democrat in this district could do, in spite of a global pandemic. We did something incredible despite the fact that legislators refused to switch to mail-in voting to protect the health and safety of Wisconsinites." Tiffany outraised her by over a million dollars. Their debates were about issues like abortion and gun control.

The other special election-- in CA-25 (Santa Clarita Valley, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley-- was more of a contest. Although the district has a Democratic registration advantage, Republican Mike Garcia, a Trump loyalist, beat Christy Smith, a centrist Democrat. As of this month, the voter registration numbers were very much favorable to the Democrats:
Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
No party preference- 98,717 (23.45%)
Although Christy Smith was offering nothing but another centrist nothing-- with lots of meaningless partisan endorsements and a meaningless platform-- I predicted she would win anyway, albeit narrowly (and she well may in November). At the time, I noted that her only chance to win would be to reach out to the 6.5% of primary voters who had cast primary ballots for progressive Cenk Uygur and consolidate the Democratic vote. She chose to reach out to Republicans instead and ignore progressives. That proved our "Anonymous Strategist" correct this past Sunday when he predicted she would lose, unable to inspire Democrats to vote.

This morning I reached out to Cenk and asked him why he thought she lost. He was kind:
Republicans vote more. It was a low turnout election and they almost always win those. Probably any Democratic candidate would have lost but the Democratic Party's insistence on picking the least dynamic or populist candidate doesn't help. Mike Garcia was more populist than Steve Knight and the whole Republican Party supported him and helped him win the primary. On the Democratic side, the party despises populism so they all went in very aggressively for the establishment candidate. In primaries, especially very short ones like this, party endorsements make a huge difference and the establishment rules the day. In general elections, undecided voters have the opposite motivation-- they don't like the establishment.

  The Republican Party gives their candidates the trappings of outsiders and the Democratic Party gives their candidates the appearance of being insiders. Independent voters don't like insiders. They're independents-- by definition they're outsiders. It also doesn't help that the Democratic Party leaders are lions against progressives in primaries and lambs against Republicans in the general. How much more vitriolic were they against me than Mike Garcia? If they fought him half as hard as they fought me, they might have had a chance.
This is what happens when the Democratic Party establishment backs candidates with nothing to offer but someone they imagine is the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time didn't. This one wasn't even close:


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Big Test Of The Anti-Red Wave Theory Comes In 2 Weeks-- In A California Special Election

>





Did you know there's a big special election on May 12, two weeks from yesterday? Remember when Katie Hill resigned after a sex scandal. This is the special election to replace her until the November election decides who represents CA-25 (the Santa Clarita Valley, most of the Antelope Valley and most of Simi Valley) for the next two years. The winner of the special win face the loser of the special again in November.

This is the perfect opportunity for the GOP to steal back a blue seat-- no incumbent and a dreadful Democratic candidate in what is expected to be a super-low turnout election. Or will it be?

158,849 people voted in the jungle primary. 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans were on the ballot. The combined Democratic vote was 80,387 (50.5%) and the combined Republican vote was 78,462 (49.4%)-- very, very close. The two top vote getters will be in the run-off in 2 weeks:
Christy Smith (D)- 57,423 (36.1%)
Mike Garcia (R)- 40,311 (25.4%)
As of March 31, Smith had spent $1,512,159 and had $357,257 in her warchest and Garcia had spent $1,426,856 and had $446,743 in his warchest. The DCCC has spent $1,687,850 to hold onto the seat, while the NRCC and McCarthy's Congressional Leadership PAC have spent $886,767 + $439,291 ($1,326,058).





The keys for Smith to win is to consolidate all the Democratic support in the district, to win over the huge independent vote and to turn out the base. A couple of years ago, Democrats finally became the plurality party in the district:
Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
Others (including decline-to state)- 95,090 (29.81%)
The key to consolidating Democratic votes are the 10,391 progressives (6.5%) who backed Cenk Uygur in the primary. Smith is a classic lesser of two evils candidate. It would be hard for any progressive who knows anything about her to vote for her. The Democrats couldn't have found a worse candidate to run. In trying to say something in favor of her, Uygur told me that "Primaries are the most important part of our election system. Once you get to the general election in a U.S. election you have only two choices an overwhelming percentage of the time. This is also true in CA-25. I only endorse candidates who I know will not take corporate money. In terms of who to vote for in CA-25, that's relatively easy. Mike Garcia has all of the downsides of Christy Smith without any of the upsides. Garcia claimed Steve Knight wasn't pro-Trump enough-- Knight voted with Trump 99% of the time. Anyone who proudly claims that being with Trump 99% of the time isn't enough isn't fit for office. I wouldn't vote for Mike Garcia under penalty of law." He told me his guess is that his supporters will vote for Smith but added that he's "really guessing. Voters generally vote. I don't know how many non-regular voters I got to come out for me in such a short election. If anyone who voted for me got the idea that Mike Garcia would be better, then they didn't listen to a word I said."

The Cook Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball both rate the race a toss-up, while Inside Elections rates it as "likely Democrat." Yesterday, Rachel Bitecofer took a look at how the race has developed and wrote that she is "hesitant to say the CA-25 special election... will be a bellwether, but it’s the best chance Republicans have at reclaiming one of these seats this cycle. Democrats have been hesitant to spend heavily on the race whereas Republicans, increasingly bearish about their fall prospects under Trump, badly need any positive optics they can rustle up, and unlike other 2020 races where fundraising and candidate recruitment have reflected a hostile political atmosphere that still favors Democrats, their recruitment effort in California’s 25th district produced a top-notch nominee."

Bitecofer, who I generally think is a great prognosticator finds it easy to say that Garcia, a dangerous sociopath and walking freakshow who wants to spend his time in office licking Trump's ass, is "a top-notch nominee." She can't find it in her to describe what an utterly worthless catastrophe of a candidate Christie Smith is.
Ironically, outside of gender, Democrats struggle to embrace the electoral power of descriptive representation (i.e., identity politics) when it comes to candidate recruitment; however, Republicans have long understood the benefits of recruiting and running minority candidates in diverse districts. It is a strategy that has worked well for them in both Florida and Texas, and one they’re hoping might mitigate a massive demographic advantage for Democrats on the 25th. Their candidate, Mike Garcia, has an impressive background as a Navy fighter pilot, and perhaps more relevant for the GOP’s electoral purposes, Garcia’s Ballotpedia entry provided by his campaign notes he is a “first-generation American citizen whose family came to the United States legally.” Republicans hope he may be able to pull over some voters from the district’s 37-percent Latino population and potentially erode some of the Democrats’ advantage among this core voting bloc.

As my 2018 voter file analysis of the district reveals, a surge in turnout among Latino voters played a pivotal role in the district’s transition from red to blue. They doubled their 2014 turnout rate of 25 percent to 54 percent despite a massive uptick in registrations. As such, a strategy that offsets Democrats’ advantages among Latinos is critical for Republican efforts to reclaim these, and similarly situated, seats. So, CA-25 may be a beta test for the more expansive strategy the GOP plans to deploy in 2020 in similar districts and states such as Arizona, where the party is poised to lose a second Senate seat and see the longtime Republican stronghold flip to the Democrats in the Electoral College.

But it’s hard to predict what will happen because, although a special election normally has lower participation, and one that occurs during a pandemic may have even lower-than-normal turnout due to the inability of campaigns to engage in critical get-out-the-vote activities, as the pandemic emerged, the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, issued an executive order switching the election to an entirely vote-by-mail system, which could cause a turnout increase. Unlike most of the other California districts from 2018, the 25th has a modest registration advantage for Democrats and every voter in the district received a ballot. For now, I remain bullish on Democrats holding onto this seat.

As I discussed in my presidential forecast, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, I was anticipating something approaching-- perhaps even reaching-- 70 percent turnout in the 2020 general election, which is about 10 points higher than the 2016 turnout and would be history-making. This prediction was driven by the fact that 2018 midterm turnout increased just over 13 points over its 2014 levels (I was expecting about 10 points) and that based on my own calculation, in contests and cycles since Trump’s 2016 election, the average turnout increase has been about 10 points. The 2018 election overperformed my bold estimates because, unlike with Democrats during Obama’s tenure, turnout of Republicans in 2018 did not decline, it increased.

The image of a disaffected Republican Party, embarrassed by their “chaos” president, so far runs into an irrefutable data-reality that Republican voter turnout, even in the 40 suburban districts Democrats flipped, was robust — and it did not break in favor of Democrats in rates any higher than normal for the polarized era. Instead, the blue wave that washed through America’s suburbs in 2018 was powered by a massive turnout of Democrats and independents, who showed up in droves to toss Republican House incumbents out of office and send a message to Donald Trump. 
Personally, I will never cast a vote for an evil candidate-- even if it's a much lesser evil-- and Christie Smith has every intention of going to Congress and being one of the worst Democrats in the House. She's a corporate shill who will always disappoint, just as she has in her short, putrid time in Sacramento. But if I had to guess, I'd say she'll probably win in two weeks and again in November. I think she'll win for the same reason Biden will-- because most people are happy enough to vote against someone rather than for someone.

Party hack

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Solidarity-- 2020

>

In Poland, solidarity overthrow a tyrannical occupation

In 2014, there were over a dozen Democrats running for the West Side of L.A. congressional district Henry Waxman was retiring from. The DCCC/EMILY's List conservatives had some awful status quo candidate, Wendy Greuel, they were funneling immense support to. EMILY's List spent $158,516 on one of their typical smear campaigns against progressives and Greuel spent $1.3 on the primary. Blue America did our first-ever dual endorsement, for the two most progressive candidates in the race, Ted Lieu and Marianne Williamson. As you know, Ted was elected to Congress and Marianne has continued advocating for her love-based political agenda. She is also working with Blue America on helping to elect congressional candidates who back the progressive ideas she has been espousing both on and off the campaign trail.

This week both Ted and Marianne, each of whom has endorsed Mike Siegel's campaign for Congress in Texas, sent out letters to their own followers ask them to contribute to Mike's primary, which is on March 3.

Marianne urged her supporters not to forget that "it's not just the White House that’s hotly contested this year. All seats in the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats are in play as well!" She went on to explain that she's backing Mike and why.
Mike’s congressional race means a lot to me because I was born and raised in Houston. I remember a Texas that was rich in the values that make America great, and it has saddened me to see my home state represented at times by people who do not express those ideals.

Goal ThermometerMike is running to replace a Republican congressman named Michael McCaul. McCaul designed the House versions of Trump's Muslim Ban and family separation policy, two acts egregiously in opposition to what America is supposed to stand for. Those of us wishing to see the U.S. government reflect the angels of our better nature have no interest in seeing someone like McCaul return to office.

Mike Siegel, on the other hand, stands for human rights, humanitarian values and common decency. He's a Texas civil rights attorney, a married man with two children, and a great congressional candidate. Most importantly, he has the best chance to replace McCaul-- but he needs our help in order to do it.

Having run for office myself, I know what it means when Mike says he needs help building his field campaign. A congressman doesn’t just represent his district; he represents America. I’m writing to you now so that all of us can help him.

Mike’s campaign is running hard on labor issues and the Green New Deal. This has not only earned him the support of folks like the Sunrise Movement and 350 Action, but also the Texas AFL-CIO, even though many of the workers in the Texas 10th are a part of the fossil fuel industry. He has taken a strong stand on climate change and voting rights, on justice for Rodney Reed (a Texas death row prisoner who grew up in TX-10), and on providing a living wage with a dignified retirement.

March 3rd isn't just Super Tuesday for the presidential candidates, it is also the big day for many congressional candidates all over the country. Early voting in Texas starts on February 18th. The money we raise for Mike today will help his campaign bring voters to the polls and keep getting his message out.

You and I both know how much this matters. Please help create a wave of enthusiasm that will return our government to the best of who we are.
Ted also emphasized to his supporters what a big day March 3rd is. "Californians," he wrote, will go to the polls and cast their ballots in the primary elections-- but we’re not the only ones who’ll be making our voices heard on Super Tuesday. In states across the country, from Colorado to Virginia, voters will decide which Democrats are going to be taking on Republican challengers in November, including one of the most vulnerable members of Congress, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas." 


I’m proud to back Democrat Mike Siegel in his bid to unseat Rep. McCaul, and today I’m calling on all of my supporters to participate in a contest to ensure that Mike’s team has the resources they need to win big on Primary Day... Mike’s taking a strong stand on issues ranging from climate change to healthcare to justice reform, and the money we’re able to bring in for him will help his campaign reach as many voters as possible in the final stretch of this race... [L]et’s replace a reactionary Republican with a progressive Democrat.
The other day, I was at a fundraiser for Mike up on Bunker Hill and Cenk Uygur was one of the inspiring speakers. His message was all about solidarity and how important it is for progressives to work together and bring more progressives into Congress-- real progressives. The next day, Cenk released his first TV ad. Watch it; it's really good:





Yesterday, I was very impressed with a Chicago Sun Times editorial endorsing progressive Marie Newman for Congress against the reactionary Blue Dog incumbent backed by Cheri Bustos and the DCCC, Dan Lipinski. They hit it out of the park, not just for Marie, but for all the progressives taking on Republican-lite primary challengers this cycle.

This editorial could, more or less, be in favor of Shaniyat Chowdhury's campaign to replace Gregory Meeks in Queens; Kim Williams' campaign to replace Jim Costa in the Central Valley; Jessica Cisneros' campaign to replace Henry Cuellar in south Texas; Rebecca Parson's campaign to replace Derek Kilmer in Washington state; Mark Gamba's campaign to replace Kurt Schrader in Oregon; Eva Putzova's campaign to replace Michael O'Halleran in Arizona; Brianna Wu's campaign to replace Stephen Lynch in Boston; Michael Owens' campaign to replace David Scott in the Atlanta suburbs; Robin Wilt's campaign to replace Joe Morelle in Rochester; Rachel Ventura's and Robert Emmons' campaigns, both also in Chicagoland, to replace, respectively Bill Foster and Bobby Rush; and Mckayla Wilkes' campaign root replace Steny Hoyer out of K Street so that she can represent the people who live in southern Maryland.
The incumbent congressman, Daniel Lipinski, is a reluctant Democrat. He voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 before coming around and doing so later on.

Lipinski, we should add, also has voted against key legislation on immigration-- measures widely favored by his own party-- before coming around. And he’s been slow to support full rights and equality for LGBTQ folks, though of late he’s been coming around.

And why does Lipinski, who has never distinguished himself in Washington, finally keep coming around?

To keep winning elections. He has the great political misfortune to be a closet Republican, at least on social issues, in a strongly Democratic district.

Our endorsement goes to Newman. Nobody will have to give her a push to champion the values and policies of her own party.
Goal ThermometerBlue America has endorsed many candidates since we were founded in 2006. And many of them are now serving in Congress. I love the fact that I never have to call members like Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, AOC, Judy Chu, Rashida Tlaib, Jimmy Gomez, Ilhan Omar, Alan Lowenthal, Raúl Grijalva, Jamie Raskin, Nanette Barragan... to argue with them about policy. They are leaders to whom progressive policies are second nature. They are not political cowards and they are not closet Republicans. Remember any blue will NOT do!

You will never see us endorsing the DCCC garbage candidates who go on to become the kinds of wretched Blue Dogs and New Dems, like Lipinski, who need to be primaried and replaced just like Republicans. How do you know? You can check Blue America's endorsements on this page and this page. You can check who PCCC, Justice Democrats, DSA, PDA, DFA and Brand New Congress are endorsing. Another way to do it-- see who the bad guys are backing. If someone is being supported by the Blue Dogs or the New Dems, they cannot be good candidates and, if they are elected, they will not vote for progressive initiatives. Virtually every Blue Dog and New Dem scores at "F" from ProgressivePunch. Jeff Van Drew, now a Republican, was both a Blue Dog and New Dem until last month. The Democrats with the 5 worst voting records in the House are all Blue Dogs and New Dems (not or, AND): Anthony Brindisi (NY), Joe Cunningham (SC), Kendra Horn (OK), Abigail Spanberger (VA) and Ben McAdams (UT). The Blue Dogs, who know they are toxic, hide their candidates from voters and just reveal them to corporate donors. As for the New Dems, these are their candidates so far this year. You may decide they are the lesser of two evils, but don't kid yourself, if you support progressive policy solutions, they are the enemy. Note that the conservative opponents of both Mike Siegel and Cenk Uygur have been endorsed by the Wall Street-owned-and-operated New Dems.

Next year's congressional bad guys if they are elected



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

How's Your Buying Power Lately?

>


The stock market continues to soar. My financial advisor ignores me when I wring my hands and tell her to change my asset allocation so that I have less stock. By ignoring me, she's brought me a lot more money. But I would just feel so much safer in more bonds and real estate and less sticks. Because, everyone knows this asshole is going to crash the market at some point. And that comes fast and hard and it's too late when that death spiral begins. Every time I can get her to put even a small amount more into bonds, I feel a sense of accomplishment. I'm having dinner with her in a week or two and I'll tell her to lighten up on the stocks some more. Meanwhile, though, I'm certain she's not as big a Bernie fan as I am. Although she loathes Trump.

This morning, the Financial Times reported that 56% of all equities (in terms of value) in this country are owned by just 1% of Americans... and yet Trump's whole campaign is going to eventually come down to "the economy, the economy, the economy." Without a doubt Bernie is best equipped to go toe to toe him on that, not Steyer and not the more venal billionaire Bloomberg, let alone clowns and empty suits like Mayo, Status Quo Joe or Klobuchar. Presidents don't react jobs by Trump's policies and administration created 1.5 million fewer jobs in his first three years in office than predecessor Barack Obama did in his final three. Newly revised figures from Trump’s own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trump’s tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obama’s-- a decline of 19% under Trump. During the SOTU address, when Trump said "If we hadn’t reversed the failed economic policies of the previous administration, the world would not now be witnessing this great economic success," he was-- as he does constantly-- lying and gaslighting.

Last week, writing for The Atlantic, Annie Lowrey noted that "in one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry: The Great Affordability Crisis Breaking America. "In the 2010s," she wrote, "the national unemployment rate dropped from a high of 9.9 percent to its current rate of just 3.5 percent. The economy expanded each and every year. Wages picked up for high-income workers as soon as the Great Recession ended, and picked up for lower-income workers in the second half of the decade. Americans’ confidence in the economy hit its highest point since 2000, right before the dot-com bubble burst. The headline economic numbers looked good, if not great. But beyond the headline economic numbers, a multifarious and strangely invisible economic crisis metastasized: Let’s call it the Great Affordability Crisis. This crisis involved not just what families earned but the other half of the ledger, too-- how they spent their earnings. In one of the best decades the American economy has ever recorded, families were bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars, and child-care centers. For millions, a roaring economy felt precarious or downright terrible."
Viewing the economy through a cost-of-living paradigm helps explain why roughly two in five American adults would struggle to come up with $400 in an emergency so many years after the Great Recession ended. It helps explain why one in five adults is unable to pay the current month’s bills in full. It demonstrates why a surprise furnace-repair bill, parking ticket, court fee, or medical expense remains ruinous for so many American families, despite all the wealth this country has generated. Fully one in three households is classified as “financially fragile.”

Along with the rise of inequality, the slowdown in productivity growth, and the shrinking of the middle class, the spiraling cost of living has become a central facet of American economic life. It is a crisis amenable to policy solutions at the state, local, and federal levels-- with all of the 2020 candidates, President Donald Trump included, teasing or pushing sweeping solutions for the problem. But absent those solutions, it looks certain to get worse for the foreseeable future-- leaving households fragile, exacerbating the country’s inequality, slowing down growth, smothering productivity, and putting families’ dreams of security out of reach.

The price of housing represents the most acute part of this crisis. In metro areas such as the Bay Area, Seattle, and Boston, severe supply shortages have led to soaring prices—millions of low- and middle-income families are no longer able to purchase centrally located homes. The median asking price for a single-family home in San Francisco has reached $1.6 million; even with today’s low interest rates, that would require a monthly mortgage payment of roughly $6,000, assuming that a family puts down the standard 20 percent. In Manhattan, listings for sale now ask an average of nearly $1,800 per square foot.




The housing cost crises in the Bay Area and New York might be the country’s most obscene. But the problem is national, driven by a combination of stagnant wages, restrictive building codes, and underinvestment in construction, among other trends. Home prices are rising faster than wages in roughly 80 percent of American metro regions. In 2018, housing affordability declined in every one of the 160-some urban areas analyzed by the National Association of Realtors, save for Decatur, Illinois. Rising prices and housing shortages are squeezing families in Reno, Minneapolis, and Phoenix.

The problem now even extends to rural areas, where income growth has lagged in the post-recession period. A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts found “sizable” increases in the number of households spending half or more of their income on housing in rural counties across the country. The housing crisis is hitting Bertie County, North Carolina, and Irion County, Texas, too.

One central effect of the housing-cost crisis has been to turn the United States into a country of renters. The homeownership rate has fallen from a peak of nearly 70 percent in the mid-aughts to under 65 percent today; the numbers are more acute for Millennials, whose homeownership rate is 8 percentage points lower than that of their parents at the same age. Unable to buy, roughly 3.5 million younger families have kept renting-- delaying the Millennial and Gen X cohorts’ wealth accumulation, thus consigning them to worse net-worth trajectories for the rest of their lives. And renting, for many families, is not affordable, either: Nearly half of renters are facing uncomfortable monthly bills, and the cost of renting has risen faster than renters’ incomes for a full 20 years now.

The cost-of-living crisis extends beyond housing. Health-care costs are exorbitant, too: Americans pay roughly twice as much for insurance and medical services as do citizens of other wealthy countries, but they don’t have better outcomes. In the post-recession period, premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs in general just kept rising, eating away at families’ budgets, casting millions into debt, and consigning millions more to bankruptcy.
Shan Chowdhury, the progressive candidate running in southeast Queens has made affordable housing his top campaign issue, along with affordable healthcare. "The cost of living is way too high and wages have remained stagnant," he told us today. "We have to ask ourselves who this country is changing for? The wealth disparities are greater today than it was 50 years ago. With crumbling student debt, low wages, inaccessible healthcare, jobs and opportunities-- we have to tip the power back to working families and out of the hands of billionaires who profit off our backs."



Spokane area progressive Chris Armitage is running hard on Medicare-for-All. "Here in eastern Washington, folks share plenty of stories about their healthcare situations," he told me. "While in a local farming community, a woman told me about how her family of five. Three have diabetes, but they share a single insulin prescription each month. I wish this horrible situation was unique, or even uncommon, but the truth is many families in our rural communities lack the basic healthcare all humans need to live a full, productive life. Inaction in DC is killing people in our district. Our rural families deserve better. We are ready for Medicare for All because, as my former Commander said 'the best answer is the right answer, the second best answer is the wrong answer, and the worst answer is no answer."

Rachel Ventura, a progressive candidate for Congress in the Chicagoland suburbs sits on the modern housing solutions committee in Will County and she told me they too have a housing crisis. "We just don’t have enough housing period. Affordable housing, transitional housing, starter homes, mid size, or high market homes are all on high demand. As our area grows the incomes are definitely not keeping up which is pushing more Chicago residents to move to our area furthering the problem. Our committee is looking at cargo homes, tiny homes, vertical building, and other solutions outside the box. Unfortunately the trade war and the race to the bottom labor practices have complicated the issue even more. It is no longer profitable to build homes in our area because they can’t buy quality products or hire qualified labor for the price people can afford. Instead our area builds more warehouses. Creating millions of living wage jobs is just the beginning. Just one more reason why we must pass the Green New Deal. I look forward to applying my knowledge from the local level to the federal level to create policies that help communities build and retrofit homes for the future."

Young Turks founder and host Cenk Uygur is a first-time congressional candidate in the suburbs north of Los Angeles. "This current barbaric system," he told us this morning, "is crushing us on a daily basis. In some ways, I view my election as a rescue mission-- 45,000 people a year die because they don't have health insurance. We have to save their lives! We also have to save families from being financially ruined and out on the streets even if they have insurance. Every other developed country covers everyone and pays less!"

Montana state Rep. Tom Winter is running for the Montana open congressional seat this year. There are both a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat who believe in Austerity. Tom backs single payer Medicare-for-All and is campaigning on it. "The whole reason I'm running for Congress," he told me "is because our broken political system is failing working Montanans. Working families all across this state are struggling to afford to live in an economy that seems to be rigged against them every step of the way. Healthcare is unaffordable. Housing is unaffordable. Childcare is unaffordable. 'Full employment' used to mean everyone had a job-- now it means many of us have two. Montanans shouldn't be priced out of being able to live in the state they built simply because they don't have the power to buy politicians and pay lobbyists to cater each and every law towards their best interest. We must rebuild an American economy that rewards work rather than wealth, and doesn't make living unaffordable. He was just getting warmed up:
Montana's hospitals charge patients nearly three times more than what the federal government sets as a 'fair' cost for care under Medicare. Prescriptions are being left unfilled. Life-saving drugs are being rationed. Working families are being saddled with medical debt, and in some cases across the country they are being imprisoned for it. People are being charged hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars a month for insulin costs-- while it costs $39 just 15 minutes north of Eureka, MT over the border. Montana's critical access and rural hospitals are at constant risk of closure.

Montana’s cities rank as some of the most unaffordable in the nation. The rest of the country thinks this is only a problem in cities like Seattle and San Francisco. But ask anyone working a 9-to-5 in Bozeman or Missoula if they have a realistic chance of owning a home. For the same price you would have paid 5 years ago you get half the square footage, bedrooms, and bathrooms for a median house now.

Every day, families across Montana wake up to our ongoing childcare crisis. Over 45,000 children under the age of 6 need childcare in Montana while childcare facilities in the state only have capacity for 20,000. Childcare costs ($34k for 4 years) families more than in-state college tuition ($29,900 for 4 years) in Montana. Over 42% of single mothers with children under the age of 5 are living in poverty. Single Parents earning minimum wage pay 54% of their income towards childcare.


"If I'm painting a dire picture," Winter concluded, "it's because this is how the other half of the country lives. Politicians always claim to support families, but when it comes right down to it working families are left in the lurch. Montana is running out of time. We could care less how well the Dow is doing or how low the unemployment rate is. We need healthcare. We need housing. We need childcare. We need to be able to afford to live."
The “cost burden” of health coverage climbed through the 2010s; just from 2010 to 2016, family private-insurance premiums jumped 28 percent to $17,710, while median household incomes rose less than 20 percent. That meant less take-home pay for workers. Deductibles-- what a family has to fork over before insurance kicks in-- also soared. From 2010 to 2016, the share of employees in health plans with a deductible jumped from 78 percent to 85 percent. And the average annual deductible went from less than $2,000 to more than $3,000.

The country’s insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health-cost burdens are just very, very high-- including for people with publicly subsidized or public coverage. The average person on Medicare spends $5,460 on health care beyond what they pay for insurance every year. The average person with Medicaid forks over nearly half that. No wonder two in three bankruptcies are related to medical issues, and nearly 140 million American adults report “medical financial hardship” each and every year.

Next up is student-loan debt, a trillion-dollar stone placed on young adults’ backs. Or, to be more accurate, the $1.4 trillion stone, up 6 percent year over year and 116 percent in a decade; student-loan debt is now a bigger burden for households than car loans or credit-card debt. Half of students now take on loans of one kind or another to try for a higher-ed degree, and outstanding debts typically total $20,000 to $25,000, requiring monthly payments of $200 to $300-- though of course many students owe much more. Now nearly 50 million adults are stuck working off their educational debt loads, including one in three adults in their 20s, erasing the college wealth premium for younger Americans and eroding the college earnings premium.
The Rochester, NY congressional district is safely blue but with a useless middle-of-the road backbencher as their Representative. Robin Wilt is running for that seat on a full-bore progressive platform. "The sharp increase in student loan debt is negatively impacting the U.S. economy by delaying the timeline for young people to buy houses and start families. Simply speaking, Boomers are less likely to be able to sell their homes because Millennials aren't in a financial position to buy them. We see this stagnation across the board, but this burden disproportionately affects borrowers of marginalized racial, gender and socioeconomic groups." She had a lot more to say about it:

"More and more, student borrowers have to dedicate ever-increasing portions of their income to student loan repayment, rather than spending on goods or services, traveling, getting married or buying a house. Moreover, many within marginalized communities are paying student loans with additional financial challenges stacked against them. This is particularly true in Rochester and Monroe County, which is plagued by the highest rates of segregation in the country. Not only are students of color more likely to borrow more for a degree and borrow in higher amounts for the same degree, but they’re more likely to struggle to repay student loans than their white counterparts. Meanwhile, the wage gap exacerbates the burden of student debt for women borrowers, since at all levels of educational attainment, women earn, on average, 25% less than men. Not only is the crushing burden of student debt weighing down potential growth in the U.S. economy, it is fundamentally altering our culture-- with people getting married and starting families later in life, and some questioning the value of higher education. Debt forgiveness is a positive way forward, with estimates that over the course of 10 years, student debt cancellation would create $943 billion in GDP, adjusted for inflation. Student debt cancellation results in economic growth by increasing the average households’ net worth and disposable income. This net increase in wealth drives consumption and investment spending. I wholeheartedly support student debt cancellation from a social justice standpoint, as well as from an economic sustainability standpoint."
 
Finally, child care. Spending on daycare, nannies, and other direct-care services for kids has increased by 2,000 percent in the past four decades, and families now commonly spend $15,000 to $26,000 a year to have someone watch their kid. Such care is grossly unaffordable for low-income parents in metro areas across the country, causing many people to drop out of the labor force. But one in four American mothers returns to work within two weeks of giving birth, so heavy are the other cost burdens of living in this country. The whole system is broken.
I spoke to three experienced candidates, Audrey Denney (CA), Brianna Wu and Marie Newman (IL) who came close in 2018 and plan to finish the job against their reactionary opponents, respectively Trumpist Doug LaMalfa, New Dem Stephen Lynch, and Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, this year. Audrey has watched her "friends struggle to afford to deliver their babies, miss work to care for their newborns, and provide childcare when they go back to work. I’ve watched as my close friends drop out of the workforce once they’ve had a second child-- not because they wanted to-- but because they could afford it. These are women who are teachers, manage restaurant chains, and who had management roles at non-profits. Celebrating our mothers on Mother’s Day is not enough, we must pass legislation to support maternity leave, women’s health, and affordable childcare options. Not only do we have the highest maternal mortality in the developed world, we are the only developed country that is seeing increases in maternal mortality. We are also experiencing shocking rates of postpartum depression (as high as 1 in 5 in some states!). We have to be better at creating conditions where new moms can care for their physical and mental well-being and that starts with paid maternity leave."

Everything that motivates and propels Brianna Wu's campaign has been about greater equality. And when it comes to the high cost of educational loans, she told us that "Higher education has become big business in this country, and the burden is placed on the backs of nearly 50 million Americans who just want an education for a chance of success at life. I know people in their 40s who are still paying off student loans 20 years after they graduated from college. Higher education, whether it's a college or university or a trade school, should not have the potential to bankrupt any American, or place an incredible burden on students right out of the gate. I fully support tuition-free public college for all.  It's the right thing to do, and it can be done. We need leaders in our government with the political will to do it. My opponent, Rep. Stephen Lynch, is silent on it, as he is most every initiative that will better the lives of Americans. When I get to Congress, tuition-free public college will be a priority for me."

Marie Newman had similar experiences and told me "The cost and lack of affordabilty of our daily lives, Is why I have an affordable solutions set in platform. Among these solutions in this platform is universal childcare where we would leverage existing assets like schools, libraries and community centers to offer 12 hr care to our kids. We cannot expect parents to continue to work 2 and three jobs round the clock."
The federal government has set as a benchmark that low-income families should not spend more than 7 percent of their income on child care. But child care is generally the single biggest line item on young families’ budgets, bigger even than rent or mortgage payments: Putting a kid in daycare costs 18 percent of annual income in California; home-based options equal 14 percent of family income in Nebraska; having an infant in professional care in the District of Columbia costs more than most poor families earn.

It all adds up, and it all subtracts from families’ well-being. The price tags for tuition and fees at colleges and universities have risen twice as fast as wages, if not more, in recent years. Rental costs are outpacing wage gains by a percentage point or more a year. Health-care costs have grown twice as fast as workers’ wages. And child-care costs have exploded. These cost pressures are particularly acute on young Americans who have seen worse employment prospects and smaller raises than their older counterparts.

The effects are wide-ranging. High costs are preventing workers from moving to high-productivity cities, thus smothering the country’s economic vibrancy and putting a drag on its GDP; economists have estimated that GDP would be as much as 10 percent bigger if more workers could afford to live in places like San Jose and Boston. High costs are forcing families to delay getting married and to have fewer children, and putting the dream of owning a home out of reach.

What is perhaps most frustrating is that the Great Affordability Crisis is amenable to policy solutions-- ones most other rich countries adopted decades ago. In other developed economies, child care, early education, and higher education are public goods, and do not require high-interest-rate debts or endless scrambling by exhausted young parents to procure. Other wealthy countries have public-health systems that cover everybody at far lower cost, whether through socialized or private models. And numerous proposals would transform residential construction in this country, including one that just failed in California’s legislature.

But the Great Affordability Crisis hides in plain sight, obvious to households but unmentioned in the country’s headline economic numbers. It persists even as President Donald Trump rightly praises the country’s growth, low unemployment rate, and rising household incomes. And though there are many nationwide policies that could end the crisis, they all seem unlikely to pass through the country’s broken Congress; the brightest glimmer of hope lies in housing and health-care policy by individual states. But it is still a dim glimmer. This crisis looks sure to stay with us for the coming decade, whatever recessions or expansions it may hold.
Jennifer Christie is a first time candidate, running for a seat north of Indianapolis. She knows quite a bit about the costs of child care. "I left a 'good job' when we adopted four children," she told me today. "In three years, we tripled our family size and had four children under four years old. My job required travel several times per month and often overseas. Childcare was not only complicated, but it was expensive. It would have cost well over 30,000 per year with so many littles. It just didn’t seem worth it to be away from my children so much and to give that much of my paycheck away.  So I started a home-based business and began teaching. My business was very successful; we were profitable, I had several employees, and was able to have a flexible schedule. I was so passionate about giving families freedom and a living wage that I mentored hundreds of other women entrepreneurs on starting their own business too. What I found was that childcare was the biggest challenge that women faced to start a business or to work at all, especially single moms who are some of the hardest working people on the planet. Childcare needs to be safe and affordable while paying childcare workers a living wage too (most childcare workers are also moms). We need the skills that moms bring to the table. I have worked in the sciences most of my career, but the toughest job around is Mom: it requires patience and strength, compassion and determination, selflessness and grit and so much more. Now more than ever we need a mom’s voice in Congress. I am running to be that voice to lift up families by guaranteeing universal healthcare, a livable planet, a living wage, education for all and universal childcare."

Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus went over the Trump budget and told her Seattle constituents that his "budget proposal leaves no question: His Administration does not care one bit about poor, middle-class and working Americans, nor about the future of our country, global relationships or planet. On every level, this budget neglects the health of our people, planet and democracy. Trump’s budget slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving our water, air and communities vulnerable to pollution, toxins and climate change. It recklessly destroys infrastructure investments that our communities badly need, completely zeroing out federal funds that the 7th congressional district relies on to make our highways and bridges safer, maintain and expand our port and public transit systems and build more affordable housing."
Trump’s budget also destroys critical programs that have supported vulnerable Americans and helped lift millions out of poverty. It cuts $6.2 billion in federal funding for education programs, jeopardizing our children and their future, and proposes changes to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security that will hurt millions of Americans. It also slashes funding for important programs that help workers stay safe on the job and protect seniors in the workforce.

Instead of investing in education, health care, affordable housing, public health and other important priorities, the Trump budget floods money into more cruel attacks on immigrants and people of color. Trump wants to steal money from vital programs to fund his vanity wall and flood billions in immigration enforcement activities that promote racial profiling and mistreatment of communities of color. President Trump does not understand the values and investments that have made America and our people strong-- and it is no surprise his budget fails to reflect them as well.

President Trump’s national security budget is completely out of touch with reality. For the fourth year in a row, Trump’s budget also cuts funding for the State Department and international development-- the deep and disproportionate 22% cut to these programs will undermine our diplomatic efforts around the world. Meanwhile the budget includes $740.5 billion in defense spending for an unaccountable Pentagon plagued with corruption. Funneling more and more money to the Pentagon, which has been unable to even pass an audit, does not make us more secure.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Will Medicare-for-All Be An Electoral Winner?

>





This morning, Business Insider reported that "Nearly half of all US health spending is tied to admin management and the cost burdens associated with private insurance are being passed along to US consumers, making treatment an unmanageable expense. Patients are coughing up large portions of their budget on health, with the average non-elderly US family spending $8,200 per year on healthcare — or 11% of their income." That's $817 billion a year completely and utterly wasted-- $2,479 per patient.
And when we consider that 67% of all US bankruptcies are due to exorbitant healthcare costs, according to a 2019 study from the American Journal of Public Health, it's critical to recognize that the admin burden from private insurers-- contributing to a rise in overall healthcare spending by US patients-- is at least partially to blame for why health costs have become so unmanageable for so many people.

And anxieties around the possibility of medically induced poverty are driving poor health habits among US consumers. In a recent Gallup poll, 25% of US consumers said they or a family member had delayed treatment for a serious illness because of the high cost of care.

Such risky behavior could easily result in a negative feedback loop, whereby patients with otherwise treatable conditions develop worse, more complicated ailments simply due to a lack of financial resources.
Virtually all of the candidates congressional candidates on this page agree that adopting a single-payer Medicare For All system would solve the country's unsustainable admin cost crisis. That, basically, is Bernie's program and a big reason why he has been doing so well in the run-up to the primaries. But before we talk about the real winner in Iowa-- hopefully for the last time-- I want to run the final votes by, pending, of course, any corrections after whatever kind of a re-canvas they do, if they do. The first number shows how many votes each candidate got on the first ballot and the second number shows what each candidate got on the final ballot.

Bernie- 43,671 ---> 45,826
Mayo Pete- 37,557 ---> 43,195
Elizabeth- 32,533 ---> 34,771
Status Quo Joe- 26,384 ---> 23,691
Klobuchar- 22,469 ---> 21,181
Yang- 8,821---> 1,780
Steyer- 3,083 ---> 413
Bloomberg- 217 ---> 20
Tulsi- 334 ---> 17
Bennet- 164 ---> 4
Deval Patrick- 50 ---> 0
The DNC and their establishment allies can spin it any way they want, but 45,826 votes is more than 43,195 votes, and this, according to Matt Taibbi "after four years of being shat upon by party officials and media allies alike (CNN and MSNBC are seen in Sanders crowds as Goebbelsian arms of the Democratic National Committee), Vermont’s anti-corporate crusader has defied odds and soared... After a vote in Iowa that reeked of third-world treachery-- from monolithic TV propaganda against the challenger to rumors of foreign intrusion to, finally, a 'botched' vote count that felt as legitimate as a Supreme Soviet election-- the Democrats have become the reactionaries they once replaced... DNC chair Tom Perez-- a triple-talking neurotic who is fast becoming the poster child for everything progressives hate about modern Dems-- called for an 'immediate recanvass.' He changed his mind after ten hours and said he only wanted 'surgical' reanalysis of problematic districts." On Saturday, Taibbi also summarized the 10 things that went wrong in Iowa from Deval Patrick Sweeps Des Moines! to Impossible Math.

So... the winner is... Medicare-for-All.





Iowa voters were bombarded by ads from candidates-- but also by the Sickness-Industrial Complex relentlessly pushing an anti-Medicare-for-All message. The transpartisan anti-healthcare coalition spent significantly over a million dollars on TV ads alone and over the summer, their shady PAC was on the air as much as all the candidates combined.

The pro- and anti-healthcare debate is playing out not just in Iowa and not just in the presidential race, but all over the country and in the congressional races as well. Medicare-for-All proponents, like Mike Siegel in Texas, are asking the voters to compare and contrast what the various candidates are offering. Mike is up against two anti-Medicare-for-All candidates in theTX-10 primary next week. He's asking voters to look at this:



I asked some of the other congressional candidates how Medicare-for-All is looking as an issue in their campaigns. Eva Putzova is running for Congress in a huge Arizona district that is currently represented by a very conservative "ex"-Republican, Tom O'Halleran, who now calls himself a Blue Dog. He opposes public healthcare in general and Medicare-for-All in particular. "Medicare for All," Eva told us, "is popular in my district and here is why: I was told by a mother that she can't afford insulin for her child because their insurance plan doesn't cover it. One person I know took an uber to the hospital instead of an ambulance, to avoid paying an exorbitant bill. Another told me that he can't afford to go to the doctor because he is in between jobs and has no insurance at all. This is the disgraceful private healthcare system we currently have in place which my opponent, the incumbent, seems to think is just fine and can be improved with a few tweaks. We need to completely overhaul this heartless system, eliminate the private insurance industry, strictly regulate the pharmaceutical industry and enact Medicare for All. This is what I will fight for when I am elected to Congress."

Cenk Uygur is running for Congress in the very northern tip of Los Angeles County (CA-25) and his top four jungle primary rivals are bought and paid for anti-healthcare reactionaries, Steve Knight (R), Christy Smith (D), Mike Garcia (R) and George Papadopolous (R). "Once I explain that Medicare for All is the only proposal that is universal healthcare 100% of Democratic voters are on my side," he told me this morning. "Once I explain that all other proposals, like the public option, maintain a system where you still have co-pays, premiums and deductibles 100% of Democratic voters are on my side. All of the media propaganda did was create a need to add a one sentence explanation. Now in politics that could be a significant handicap but even so, our ideas are wildly popular even with people lying about them and universally accepted when they know the truth."

Liam O'Mara is the progressive Democrat, campaigning strongly on single payer Medicare-for-All, taking on Trumpist Republican Ken Calvert in Riverside County. He told us that "Last week Ken Calvert sent a mailer to the entire district, Democratic as well as Republican households. In it he listed three policies-- impeachment, Medicare for all, and the Green New Deal. There was a green column under my name and 'supports' in each box, and a red column under his name with 'opposes' in each box. Quite a few people hopped onto my social media after that and said they were happy Calvert had introduced them to me, and many of those who knew me already thought it was my mailer. Republicans continue to run on having no ideas and simply opposing improvements in our quality of life. And in the end, how long will voters tolerate the negative-nancy routine? I, for one, look forward to the opportunity he has given me to make my pitch to his voters-- namely, that Medicare will lower their effective taxation, and let them keep much more of their own money."

Nabilah Islam is running for the open congressional seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta (GA-07) and is likely to face off against an anti-healthcare conservative extolling Austerity. She has a clear vision of what the problem is and told me that "40 million Americans don't have healthcare, an estimated 87 million Americans are underinsured and 135,000 people in my district alone don't have healthcare. Mothers are sitting in the parking lots of Emergency rooms hoping their children's fevers don't spike while others are rationing their insulin supplies and other life-saving drugs. Why? Because for-profit healthcare systems don't work. There isn't a single instance around the world of it working. That's why almost three-quarters of Georgia Democrats support Medicare for All. I believe healthcare is a fundamental human right and while I sit in a field of Democrats who disagree, It matters not to me because I will always fight for regular people. For everyday Americans, for the 67% percent of people who are forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills."

Goal ThermometerBriana Wu, on the other side of the country, in Boston, is as dedicated to Medicare-for-All as Liam is. "For some time now," she said, "Democrats across the country have been calling for Medicare For All. Studies have been released showing the growing cost of health care for all age groups and demographics. On the campaign trail, health care is consistently one of the top issues I hear about from voters. It’s clear to me that Medicare For All is the solution we need to provide universal coverage and keep costs down for working class Americans. Try telling that to my opponent, Stephen Lynch. He constantly dodges the issue of healthcare because his donors tell him to through their campaign contributions. We need to take back the Senate, win the presidency, and increase our progressive caucus in the House. When we do, we will have the political will to finally get Medicare For All passed and enacted into law."

Marie Newman's race for the Chicagoland seat held by Blue Dog Dan Lipinski is a classic struggle between someone invested in a more equitable economic system and the Blue Dog approach to pay-for-play, where only the donor class gets their interests represented. This morning, Newman told me that her "opponent is so afraid of expanding a tried and true program, like Medicare For All, he calls it 'socialism' and will require our taxes to 'double or triple.' He has not even read the bill. To which I say, debating policy on its content is fine, making up lies about it just tells me, you know it will work and it will affect your ability to get insurance and pharma companies to fund you."

Robin Wilt is running for Congress in a district that is represented by a mediocre, garden variety Democrat who sits up in the back benches and does whatever her's told by the leadership. Robin is anything but that. "Prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)," she told me, "at a health care Town Hall that I helped organize in Rochester, NY in 2008, more than 500 people packed into a crowded auditorium to listen to two sitting members of Congress, a historian and a physician discuss the potential for implementing Medicare for All. As I connect with voters in our community today, access to health care and Medicare for All remain among the issues that most often arise. Despite the Affordable Care Act, nearly one million New Yorkers remains uninsured, and people with ever-more-ubiquitous high-deductible plans are struggling to access care, despite having health insurance. It’s no wonder that support for Medicare for All drove people to the polls in Iowa and continues to fuel an army of voters seeking change. 75% of Democratic voters support Medicare for All, and the New York Assembly has passed a statewide single payer plan four years in a row. Despite the widespread support, my opponent has steadfastly refused to support single payer at either the state or federal level. Medicare for All is at the centerpiece of my platform for people-centered policies for NY’s 25th Congressional District, and from the enthusiasm that I experience as I go door-to-door connecting with voters, it will be a winning issue as voters make their choices in our primaries. If voters in Monroe County want Medicare for All, there is only one choice among candidates, and that’s Robin Wilt."

Rachel Ventura, who is running for a seat mostly in Will County west of Chicago is far more progressive on healthcare-- and everything else, than the New Dem running against her, Bill Foster. "Passing Medicare for All won’t only give individuals healthcare," she told me, "it will also give them so many more freedoms. Freedom to choose their employer or their doctor for example. There are constituents in my district who can’t make above $2,000 a month or they will lose their access to Medicaid which is the only insurance they currently have. They can’t afford to buy insurance from the open market because it’s too expensive even if they’re in a better paying job. Unless the family is making more than $80,000 a year they just can’t afford healthcare if any member of their family is sick. Medicare for all will allow individuals to choose better employment, change employers, and more importantly select doctors that give them the best healthcare. Our healthcare system is not only keeping people sick, but it’s also keeping them broke."



As Daniel Strauss pointed out at Politico this past October, Mayo Pete pledged-- in no uncertain terms-- to support Medicare for All. The Question was "Can you affirmatively say that we need Medicare For All now and that insurance does not belong in healthcare? #SinglePayer" The response was "I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered." Later, liking the taste of the money the 40 billionaires who are funding his campaign have sent his way, he found a way to worm out of that "unto the ages" pledge. Because he's a scumbag lying piece of shit politician. He calls his sleazy plan to kill Medicare-for-All, "Medicare for All Who Want It," the plan the anti-healthcare forces are pushing. Elizabeth Warren: "Whenever someone hears the term ‘Medicare for All Who Want It,’ understand what that really means. It's Medicare for all who can afford it."


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,