Neoliberalism Is Not Your Friend-- But What Can You Do About It?

 

When it comes to discussing the dangers of neoliberalism to the Democratic Party, Adolph Reed is amazing. (Politico should have asked him to interview neoliberal Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) instead of Tim Alberta.) Look, I hate and avoid zoom, but please watch this enlightening video of Katie Halper's show above (or you may never understand what "McWokeyism" is). "A famous organizer," Reed said in reference to Jane McAlevey (also on the show), "once made a distinction between mobilizing, which is going to your standing constituency and getting them to do stuff, and organizing, which is building a constituency that you don't have." Do you think anyone at the DCCC has ever had a thought like that cross their mind? Or is it always just about raising money? I hope you're been reading DWT enough to know the answer to that already. And that the Democrats who lost their races-- both incumbents and challengers-- raised and spent far more-- in some cases two, three and four times more-- than the Republicans who beat them.

Just focusing in on Blue Dog losers from the class of 2018, defeated after one Republican-lite term:

• Joe Cunningham (SC) raised $6,278,942 and was defeated by Nancy Mace who raised $4,891,696.
• Xochitl Torres Small (NM) raised $7,509,987 and was defeated by Yvette Herrell who raised $2,498,130.
• Max Rose (NY) raised $8,350,467 and was defeated by Nicole Malliotakis who raised $3,052,007.
• Anthony Brindisi (NY) raised $5,359,636 and appears to have been defeated by psychopath Claudia Tenney who raised $2,053,931.
• Kendra Horn (OK) raised $5,465,349 and was defeated by Stephanie Bice, who raised $3,089,972.
• Ben McAdams (UT) raised $5,137,258 and appears to have been defeated by Burgess Owens, who raised $4,021,248.

Remember, in theory, every congressional district-- Montana has more and is about to be split into 2 districts-- has the same number of voters. But they don't really. Some districts have a culture oof participation and are filled with civic-minded citizens who make a point of voting. Other districts have really small turn-outs. Although ballots are still being counted, only 15 candidates for Congress (in contested races) had over 300,000 votes:

• Barbara Lee (D-CA-13)- 327,278
• Diane DeGette (D-CO-01)- 331,453
• Joe Neguse (D-CO-02)- 316,916
• Neal Dunn (R-FL-02)- 303,879
• John Rutherford (R-FL-04)- 308,447
• Daniel Webster (R-FL-11)- 316,958
• Nikema Williams (D-GA-05)- 301,847
• Matt Rosendale (R-MT-AL)- 335,214
• Deborah Ross (D-NC-02)- 310,979
• David Price (D-NC-04)- 329,679
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-04) 342,458
• Dusty Johnson (R-SD-AL)- 321,984
• Don Beyer (D-VA-08)- 301,454
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-07)- 386,321
• Mark Pocan (D-WI-02)- 318,492

Who had the most votes of anyone standing for a congressional seat anywhere in America this cycle? Pramila Jayapal, who didn't even have a series opponent, is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and very much one of Congress' top organizers. That's her background, something she brought with her to the Washington state legislature, honed there and then brought it to Congress. She once asked me if I knew which members of Congress run anything other than a fundraising effort on their campaign side. Jamie Raskin sort of does, although not the way Pramila goes about it. Her campaign efforts on that front are mammoth and should be studied closely and emulated by the DCCC. The idea of her replacing Pelosi as Speaker is mind-boggling but-- with the power of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the New Dems and Blue Dogs)-- almost unimaginable.

This morning, Pramila told me that from the minute she got into Congress 4 years ago, "I was committed to running a year-round organizing effort through my campaign. What does that mean? It means instead of just having a fundraiser (or many of them) on the campaign side, I hired an organizer-- and depending on the time of year, several. We kept our thousands of volunteers engaged, not just on our race but on critical issues in the country, on ballot initiatives and on other critical races. I believe that is a big part of why we have such huge turnout here in the district-- because people stay engaged, they see me fighting for them all the time, and they have come to believe they can make a difference through their votes and their volunteering. That’s how we turned out the largest crowd for our healthcare rally in early 2017 when Republicans were gutting healthcare. Our volunteers played an important part in turnout for statewide ballot initiative on climate change and police accountability. They worked on Stacey Abrams' race in Georgia and on other swing district races across the country, like Katie Porter’s. And this year, in just 6 weeks, we trained over 600 volunteers who made over 140,000 phone calls into Pennsylvania and here in Washington state to turn out voters for Biden-Harris and other progressive candidates. When people donate to my campaign, they don’t just donate to keeping me in office-- they donate to the organizing we do all year to build leadership, to keep people engaged and to help drive the movement for progressive policies and candidates across the country."  

Pramila and AOC by Nancy Ohanian

Changes At The Congressional Progressive Caucus-- Good Ones

 

Starting To Lose My Temper by Nancy Ohanian

Mark Pocan (D-WI), largely responsible for accelerating the growth in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announc3d a couple of weeks ago that he's retiring as co-chair when his term is up at the end of the year. He didn't announce, at least not publicly, that he's trying to find support for a run for the U.S. Senate seat held by one of the worst members of either house of Congress, Ron Johnson. (Johnson has announced he isn't running again but he's an inveterate liar so that announcement doesn't mean anything at all.) But Pocan's departure probably heralds some long-overdue changes at the CPC.

One would be abolishing the whole dysfunctional idea of having 2 people running the organization. It just comes from a moronic PC space that has seen the ability of the caucus to be an effective player inside the Democratic caucus diminish. The current co-chair, Pramila Jayapal would make an excellent chair on her own and although I'd rather see her replace Pelosi as speaker, I know that isn't going to happen in the 117th Congress. Jayapal is one of Congress' most skilled politicians, and I use "politician" in the best sense of the word. There's some grumbling within the caucus, as usual.

But my biggest bone of contention with the caucus is that it is watered down because almost anyone willing to pay the dues can join, no matter how not progressive they are. This I blame on Pocan, who has disputed it, pointing to a joke of a completely silly questionnaire-- without one long-form question. Whatever the case, let me just say that there are currently 11 members of the caucus with "F" ProgressivePunch scores. "F," not "A"s like most prominent progressives (Jayapal, Pocan, AOC, Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, Andy Levin, Jan Schakowsky, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, Judy Chu, Rashida Tlaib, Joe Neguse, Jerry Nadler...) Even Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries have "A" scores! And not even "B"s, "C"s and "D"s. I'm talking about big fat "F"s, just like a Blue Dog or New Dem-- some of whom, looking for virtual insurance policies, Pocan has allowed to join the CPC.

Let's start with one of the worst CPC members of all-- a vice chair no less, New Jersey crooked pol Donald Norcross (a New Dem). Here's the list of the "F"-rated members of the caucus in alphabetical order:

• Brendan Boyle (New Dem-PA)
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)
• Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)
• Andy Kim (NJ)
• Dave Loebsack (IA)
• Joe Morelle (New Dem-NY)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)
• Donald Norcross (New Dem-NJ)
• Jimmy Panetta (New Dem-CA)
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)

Ryan Grimm had a good explanation of what the CPC changes are all about, noting that they are meant to make it into more of a "cohesive fighting force come 2021." OK, that's needed. For one thing, there will now be meaningful membership requirements and participation requirements. I wonder if Pocan flipped out when he read this: "Under the current CPC rules, essentially any Democrat willing to write a small dues check-- $4,000 per year-- to the group can become an official member, regardless of their politics, their source of campaign financing, their voting record, or even their attendance at CPC meetings. The benefit for moderate Democrats who fear facing primary challengers from the left is that they can tout their membership as evidence of progressive bona fides without delivering anything substantive."

The proposed changes to the CPC are intended to move it in a tighter direction. “The point of the reform is to shed free riding members that claim CPC membership but aren’t actually progressive,” said one CPC member.

Jayapal said that the caucus may indeed shrink if the reforms are implemented. “It may. We’re ready for that to happen,” she said. “I just would rather have people who are really committed to the progressive caucus in the caucus and participating rather than sort of just having it as a label.”

...Pushing CPC members to vote as a bloc is an effort to find enough strength in solidarity to make credible threats to leadership or to a potential Biden administration. On the GOP side, the Freedom Caucus has exercised its power by voting as a bloc. The difference, of course, is that the right-wing’s default posture toward government programs is one of destruction, so withholding votes is less difficult, said Pocan. It’s more difficult for progressive Democrats to say no to legislation that will benefit even a small number of people, and therein lies their negotiating handicap.

...The task force set up to write the new rules included Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Jamie Raskin, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, Judy Chu, Lloyd Doggett, Chuy Garcia, David Cicilline, Jayapal, and Pocan. The new rules, if approved, won’t go into effect until the next Congress.

ACB-- Another Terrible Idea Of Trump's And His Circle

 

I dissent by Nancy Ohanian

Dan Balz wrote scorching column for the Washington Post yesterday even before Trump announced Amy Coney Barrett, Facing possible defeat, Trump threatens the integrity of the election. "Each week has brough evidence," he began, "of the damage [The Donald] has done during his nearly four years in office. According to his own words, he is not finished. This past week brought a renewed warning of a harm he could yet inflict on the integrity of elections. [Donald] did more than simply refuse to pledge that he would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power if he loses to former vice president Joe Biden, though that in itself was a step no previous president has taken. In doing so, he escalated his ongoing attack on mail-in ballots, seeding the ground to contest the election as rigged or fraudulent if he is not the winner and to propel the country into chaos."

Balz speculated that all this carp from The Donald may "merely reflected the mind-set of a president who knows he is running behind in his bid for a second term, one more rhetorical flailing to somehow throw the opposition off balance and to distract from the real reasons for Biden’s lead in the polls. But this close to the election, anything Trump does to question the validity of the count should be regarded as serious and treated as such. Republicans who normally stand by idle when the president says or does something outrageous pushed back against his words-- though, notably, nearly all were careful neither to rebuke nor condemn the president personally. They simply pointed to a long history of peaceful transfers from one presidency to the next and stood up for the Constitution, which is the minimum expected of elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend that document."

As you know, almost all of these Republicans-- who were fanatics that "the voters must weigh in" when Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court-- almost a year before before the election-- are now saying that Donald's nominee must get a vote. Democrats see it differently. Reaction against his nomination yesterday was swift and overwhelming. Mondaire Jones is Blue America's candidate of the week and a court expert, so I was talking with him about about the nomination. His take, like many progressives, is that Barrett "thinks the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. She thinks abortion is 'always immoral.' She is hostile to LGBTQ+ civil rights, & would vote to undo marriage equality. Her nomination would be a direct attack on millions of Americans. We won't stand for it. A generation ago, the GOP replaced Thurgood Marshall, the founder of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, with someone who has cast decisive votes to undermine racial justice. Now they want to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who promises to undo her legacy of reproductive justice. Not on our watch." Jones will try to find support among his new colleagues to expand the Supreme Court by 4 members next year. [You can contribute to his campaign here.]

Current members were concerned about the same things Jones is concerned about. Pramila Jayapal, right after the announcement:

Any individual nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court must believe in equal justice under law and opportunity for all. That means being fully committed to protecting civil rights and voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights, reproductive rights and disability rights, LGBTQ+ rights and Indigenous rights. It also means standing on the side of people over profits and communities over corporations when it comes to health care, protections for those with pre-existing conditions, immigration, the environment, consumer protections, ending gun violence and getting money out of politics.

Not only does Amy Coney Barrett fail to meet that standard, but she has spent years consistently and dangerously arguing against it from the federal bench. It is no wonder that conservative, right-wing groups had her on their recommendation list as they continue their coordinated attacks on health care, abortion rights, voting rights and the right of workers to organize. I strongly oppose this lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land, and I urge President Trump to withdraw his nomination as quickly as he made it.

With less than 40 days until the election, and as voters across America are already casting their ballots, we need to let their voices be heard. They know that everything is on the line. We must allow them to choose the next president and then allow that president to choose the next nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. This is the same standard that Republicans implemented at the end of President Obama’s term when Merrick Garland was nominated with more than seven months remaining before the election. This is how we must proceed with the future of the court, this country and our democracy hanging in the balance.

AOC weighed in quickly as well: "If confirmed before the election, Barrett will have the opportunity to cast the deciding vote to strike down the ACA on November 10th when the Court hears California v. Texas. Millions of Americans would be thrown off their health insurance in the middle of the pandemic, and health insurers could refuse to cover individuals who have or have had COVID-19... And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Barrett holds radical positions when it comes to the right to choose. She is on record saying that abortion is 'always immoral.' On the 7th Circuit, she has repeatedly handed down decisions that would have limited abortion. With her on the Court, the conservative goal of repealing Roe v. Wade is within reach."

Bernie urged his supporters across the country to tell their senators "to do everything possible to slow down the nomination process... He called her nomination "a disaster for our country and our movement. If confirmed, she poses a threat to health care, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, voting rights, workers' rights, environmental protections, and so much more. Now Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are going to try to rush through Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings and have the Senate vote on her nomination before the end of this year." He continued:

It is not a radical idea to suggest that the winner of this year's presidential election should be the one to select Justice Ginsburg's replacement. In fact, that is what the clear majority of the American people want.

But now that Trump has announced his nominee, Mitch McConnell is planning to rush a vote during this election year-- a complete contradiction from his position just a few years ago.

You may recall that in 2016 Mitch McConnell refused to have the Senate vote on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Scalia. McConnell's view at that time was that the nomination should be the job of the next president.

Here is what McConnell told Fox News in 2016:

"The Senate has a role to play here. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision."

And it's not just Mitch McConnell-- many other Republican senators are on the record saying the same thing.

Well, today I say to my colleagues in the Senate: We must let the next president name Justice Ginsburg's replacement. Respect the will of the American people and delay Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Barbara Lee (D-CA) noted that "Senate Republicans have no shame in pushing a right-wing judge just weeks before the election despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe Mitch McConnell should wait to replace the judge until after the election. This lifetime appointment will reshape the court to a 6-3 conservative majority and have far-reaching impacts on our nation for generations to come. Amy Coney Barrett has a record of being hostile to reproductive rights, immigrants’ rights, gun control policies, and the Affordable Care Act. With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear a case on the Affordable Care Act coming up a week after the election, the stakes have never been higher. Right now our fundamental rights are on the line, and we need to do everything we can to honor Justice Ginsburg’s last wish and prevent Mitch McConnell from stealing this seat."

Back to Balz's pre-announcement column. He wrote that Señor Trumpanzee's "Republican allies in Congress... are they the people whose views he cares about most. Instead, his attempt to discredit mail-in ballots as a way to challenge a possible Biden victory is aimed at rallying his own army of supporters, prepping them to respond, if necessary, with protests or perhaps worse if he challenges vote tabulations-- and therefore the results-- in the days after the election. If any people believed that the president was just letting off steam when he declined to pledge a peaceful transfer of power, they can look to something White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said after FBI Director Christopher A. Wray had testified before a Senate committee that he knows of no evidence of 'any kind of national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.' Wray’s comments were the latest in a string of statements from all kinds of election and security experts debunking Trump’s claims about mail-in ballots being rife with fraud. Meadows, however, chose to challenge the FBI director during an interview Friday on CBS’s This Morning. 'With all due respect to Director Wray,' he said, 'he has a hard time finding emails in his own FBI, let alone figuring out whether there’s any kind of voter fraud.' That was not a chief of staff trying to retract a president’s words or clean up after a mistake. What he said in attacking Wray was meant to reinforce the message the president continues to deliver."

Attorney General William P. Barr has added his voice to the campaign against mail-in ballots, saying they mean an end to the sanctity of the secret ballot-- and ignoring the steps states take to protect the secrecy of votes cast that way. This past week, Barr told the president about discarded mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, which the president claimed was evidence of fraud.

Voting-law experts have sharply criticized a Justice Department investigation into the matter.

People do want to know who wins the presidency as soon as possible, and generally that’s been on the night of the election or by early next day. But that was in years when nearly everyone voted in person on Election Day. In recent years, more Americans have chosen to vote ahead of the election at designated early-voting sites.

This year, because of the coronavirus pandemic, millions of Americans are reluctant to vote in person, whether on the day of the election or during specified early-voting windows. They prefer to mark their ballots without having to be in places with other people. As a result, there has been a surge in requests for mail-in ballots. Trump appears to fear that the more people who vote, and the easier it is for people who fear the virus to do so safely, the less chance he has to win the election.

The processing of those mail-in ballots will take longer than ballots cast on Election Day. Some states require that mail-in ballots arrive by Election Day, others that they simply be postmarked by Election Day. Ballots may legally arrive for days after Election Day, and processing and counting can and will be slow in some places, as the primary elections showed. There will also be challenges to some of these ballots, and some will be discarded because they were filled out improperly.

No matter the exact system, the processing and counting of these ballots is more laborious and therefore slower. California is a case in point, a state where the counting can go on for days and possibly weeks. In 2016, Hillary Clinton saw her vote totals rise steadily after the week of the election, eventually amassing a popular vote margin of nearly 5 million votes in the state. In 2018, California Democrats captured House seats with the votes that were tabulated days after the election, including two in which Republicans were leading the day after the election.

The scenario that could play out on the night of the election is simple. In the hours after the polls close, Trump could appear to be winning in some of the states that will decide the election, even though tens upon tens of thousands of ballots will not have been counted.

At that point, as he did with a tweet during the 2018 U.S. Senate race in Arizona, Trump could attempt to call a rhetorical halt and claim that whatever happens next is a sign of fraud or evidence of a rigged count. The tabulating will continue, but how will his loyalists react if he cries foul?

To suggest this is all just mischief-making by the president is to understate the potential maliciousness of what he is attempting to do. He seeks to disqualify voting in states where all voters are being sent mail-in ballots, which he claimed, without evidence, in a recent tweet means they are open to “ELECTION INTERFERENCE by foreign countries” that will lead to “massive chaos and confusion.”

Facing possible defeat in November, the president also recently tweeted that this year’s election “may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED” because of mail-in ballots. In another tweet he claimed, “RIGGED ELECTION in waiting.” At a rally in Wisconsin last month, he said, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” On Friday night in Virginia, he said, “We’re not going to lose this except if they cheat.”

If Trump loses the election and then moves to discredit the results in the face of no evidence of widespread fraud, the country will be confronted with one more crisis of his presidency-- one that will have been unfolding in plain view.

Donald’s announcement of his Supreme Court nominee drew about 150 guests to the White House and, appropriately enough, according to Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim "most of [them] declined to wear masks or social distance because of the coronavirus pandemic. Notable in the Rose Garden crowd were former campaign aide Corey Lewandowski, Faith & Freedom Coalition Founder Ralph Reed and Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Folding chairs were set close together for the event. Among the lawmakers in attendance were Republican senators who will be voting on the nominee-- Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Deb Fischer (NE), Ben Sasse (NE), Kelly Loeffler (GA), Mike Lee (UT) and Marsha Blackburn (TN)." If you could pick one of them to not die, who would it be?

I caught up with New Jersey congresswoman and progressive icon Bonnie Watson Coleman at church this morning. After the services, she told me that she had two problems with what was happening here, first "The hypocrisy of nominating a replacement of this ilk, or any person to the Supreme Court at this time, and second This particular nominee, Amy Barrett Coney. First, we are at the end of the election season when an important decision about the direction of this country is being considered. Trump has made a mockery of our values, made our citizens less safe and divided this country with his inciting and racist words and deeds. McConnell refused to consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court with 400 days left in his administration, yet he promises to force this upon us in less than 40 days left before an election and at a time when some states are already voting. Sheer hypocrisy and evil and it pisses me off. Regarding the second point, this candidate does not deserve to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She represents a direct threat to access to health care, a woman’s autonomy over her body, protection of civil rights, LGTBQ+ rights and voting rights. She’s wrong for the job."

Adam Christensen, the progressive Democrat aiming to replace Ted Yoho in north-central Florida by beating some shady character from Yoho's orbit, noted that "Amy Coney Barrett stands against everything we fight for: Medicare, civil rights, climate legislation, LGBTQ+ rights and women’s rights to choose. Mrs. Barrett would be on the bench for decades and would prevent any meaningful change from occurring. If she is nominated before this election we must expand the Supreme Court to allow for fair justices who will stand for the issues that matter to all Americans, not just the few." It'll be great seeing him and Mondaire Jones working on this together.


Nate McMurray is running for Congress in western New York, a rural/suburban district between Buffalo and Rochester that is the reddest district in New York and a district McMurray, running as a progressive with no help-- to put it mildly-- from the DCCC came within a third of a percentage point (1,087 votes) of winning in 2018. Presumably because he did so well, the vile, progressive-hating Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, who heads the DCCC, is again actively sabotaging McMurray's campaign. Meanwhile, the DCCC and it's corporate candidates can take a lesson from McMurray in how to talk with their voters about Trump's Supreme Court power-grab. McMurray to NY-27 voters today:

A mere week after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, the Trump administration speeds forward with its plan to install another extremist ideologue on the Supreme Court by Election Day in November, flouting the Constitution yet again in the process.

All this so the Republican party can cruelly do away with protections for preexisting conditions and go after women's health and protections for minority communities. Over 204,000 Americans are dead, seven million more infected and at risk of long-term effects of COVID-19. Over 40 million Americans are out of work and 12 million lost their health insurance since March. It is unconscionable that President Trump would choose a nominee who will deliver the death blow to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and rip health care away from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.

After Justice Ginsburg’s passing, I said that Trump’s choice for nomination would unravel Justice Ginsburg’s legacy of protecting choice and equality. Sadly, I was correct. And the hyper-political nature of this moment puts on full display his utter contempt for the American judicial system and the confirmation process.

There is no doubt that Trump will, if allowed to stack the highest court in the United States, ask them to overturn the ACA, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, on top of conditions like cancer, diabetes, and pregnancy, will become pre-existing conditions that allow families to be denied healthcare coverage.

My opponent, who has only known a life of wealth and privilege, including lifelong access to excellent healthcare, has already signaled his support of Trump’s nominee. Chris Jacobs has no idea what it is like to be unemployed or struggling, without health insurance, in a health crisis. I do. The voters do. God help us.

New Blue America Endorsement: Beth Doglio (WA-10)

Republicans aren't competitive in Washington's 10th district-- basically most of Thurston County (Olympia) and part of Pierce County (Tacoma area). With incumbent Denny Heck retiring, the jungle primary attracted 19 candidates, including 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The PVI is D+5 but the three top vote-getters in the high turnout election were all Democrats. In November, progressive Democrat Beth Doglio will face off against corporate conservative Marilyn Strickland. Although Strickland is the establishment candidate, Doglio out-raised her-- $616,683 to $595,105-- despite Strickland's substantial self-funding. Predictably, the Wall Street-funded New Dems-- basically the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- has endorsed Strickland and the Congressional Progressive Caucus has endorsed Doglio. This week, Blue America has also endorsed Doglio.

Our endorsement process started with an outreach from the Progressive Caucus. Pramila Jayapal, one of the co-chairs told me that Doglio "is willing to take on power, willing to do the work, willing to push for bold ideas like Medicare for All-- even before they are popular. As a legislator, organizer and climate champion, Beth has a proven track record of standing up for working people against special interests, and delivering on policies that matter. She is not taking corporate PAC money and is directly confronting the abysmal state of for-profit health care in this country that has been only illuminated with COVID-19. Washingtonians need to send Beth to Congress to join me in moving forward bold solutions like Medicare for All and humane immigration reform, and fighting for working families, environmental justice, women and underserved communities. Beth will be a fantastic progressive partner for me in the state delegation and I cannot wait to have her strong voice in Congress." That was good enough to begin the vetting process. Basically, everything I could discover since showed that Pramila was right about her.

On top of that, the conservative running against her is exactly the kind of Democrat that has turned Congress into a cesspool that doesn't serve the interests of working families. As mayor of Tacoma, Strickland stood in the way of the $15 minimum wage campaign as well as the paid sick days campaign, which has a lot to do with why labor is backing Doglio-- and why the Chamber of Commerce is backing Strickland, who helped kill an employee hours tax on large employers that was meant to fund affordable housing.

When I asked Beth about it she told me that "If we take our talking points and marching orders from corporate special interests, we’ll constrain change to 'impossible aspiration' and never accomplish the progress this country desperately needs. Not all Democrats approach this challenge the same way. While I’m fighting for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and other bold policies to move this country forward, my opponent rejects these ideas. She even worked side-by-side with Amazon in a blatant attempt to buy the Seattle City Council and halt any possibility of progressive taxes where large, profitable corporations would pay their fair share. That’s simply not the progressive and principled leadership this moment calls for."

Today, as a candidate, Strickland apologizes for her support for building the world's largest methane plant in Tacoma. She-- and the special interests who she backed-- were eventually defeated by Tacoma activists. She has always been an enemy of environmental activists and told them to focus their energy on "recruiting 1,000 volunteer summer reading tutors for children from underserved neighborhoods" instead. Last year, as chair of the Chamber of Commerce, Strickland spent millions of corporate dollars in an attempt to unseat the Seattle City Council’s progressive majority.

Both candidates have records. We know exactly who Marilyn Strickland is and who Beth Doglio is. The former is unfit for office and the latter would make a great, and sorely-needed, addition to Congress. I asked Beth to introduce herself to DWT readers with a guest post. Please take a look and if, like I was, you're impressed, consider contributing to Beth's campaign by clicking on the thermometer above.


Why Taking on Special Interests (and Winning) Is More Important than Ever
by Rep. Beth Doglio

A pandemic badly mismanaged by Trump threatening the lives and livelihoods of the people in this country. The rightful racial tension and uprising triggered by the murder of George Floyd and so many others. Fires, hurricanes, storms raging across this country as we grapple with the increasing impacts of climate change and climate injustice. Lost jobs for 30 million people and many of them losing their healthcare as well.

Unprecedented turmoil. Unprecedented challenges.

I am a working mom, a climate activist, a longtime community organizer and state legislator running to be the next Member of Congress in Washington’s 10th Congressional District. I’m running because I am worried for my kids and their generation. What kind of jobs will exist to provide for their families? What kind of planet will we leave them? Will they have access to healthcare? Will justice for all be a reality, not just a tagline?

We’ve got a lot of work to do. And the time for incrementalism has long past-- we have to get it done now.

Bringing our country together, creating a future that makes good on the hope I see in my children’s generation, finally breaking down the systemic racism and inequality that has been in the very fibers of this country, will require solutions that weave together uplifting the working class with better wages and working conditions as well as universal access to healthcare, just and equitable solutions to climate change, and ensuring that all of these things are done with racial and social justice centered within the solutions.

I’ve spent my life fighting for local communities and taking on special interests. I’ve faced off against the fossil fuel and chemical industries-- and won. And to be clear, I’ve also lost. But with each loss, I came back ultimately prevailing by putting people and community first.

In 2018, fossil fuel giants spent record amounts-- over $30 million-- to mislead voters and defeat Initiative 1631, a ballot measure that would have implemented a modest fee on their pollution and helped move us to a clean energy future.

This is where resilient leadership, coalition-building, and the ability to craft real, transformative policy comes into play. After that loss at the ballot box, we reorganized, and I helped lead efforts to work on a suite of legislative climate solutions.

We developed Washington’s best-in-the-nation 100% clean electricity bill. This bill passed in the legislature and helped chart a course to a clean energy future. And even while corporate special interests continue to stymie progress in the fight against climate change, we in the legislature haven’t taken no for an answer, continuing to pass bold and innovative climate legislation.

Now I want to go to Congress to fight for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a $15 per hour minimum wage and other ambitious-- and necessary-- policies to move this country forward.

Families can no longer afford a "business as usual" approach, kowtowing to the demands of giant, obscenely profitable corporations. I’m not taking corporate PAC or fossil fuel contributions because they have enough advocates in Congress, and enough is enough.

I will fight the same fights as I have as a community organizer and a member of the Washington state legislature on behalf of people and our planet. I have no doubt the same bad actors will work overtime to prevent reform on climate, healthcare, guns, and so much more. We need to elect leaders who have shown they will stand up to special interests, not work hand-in-hand to water down legislation and erode progress.

Activists and community leaders have shown how the fight can be won-- now, we just need more of them in office.

A Country With Two Pro-War Parties Passes An Obscene War Budget-- Biggest Ever

Tuesday evening Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus was one of 43 Democrats with the guts to vote against the bloated $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act. She was one of the champions of the bicameral amendment that would have cut the budget by 10 percent-- reinvesting the $74 billion into communities across the country-- but the amendment, which garnered 93 votes, failed.

"We are simply spending far too much on the Pentagon," she told her Seattle constituents, "and have been for far too long-- while at the same time, cutting the budgets of the State Department, EPA, Department of Education and Department of Housing. This is completely upside down. Instead of investing in going to war all around the world, we should be investing in strengthening communities all around this country. We are in the midst of a global pandemic with more than 3.8 million Americans falling ill to COVID-19 and 141,000 losing their lives-- more American lives lost than during World War I or the Vietnam War, and in just a short five months. More than 48 million Americans have filed for unemployment. At least 27 million people have lost health care during the pandemic, joining the 87 million who were already uninsured or underinsured. And this is all happening as the Administration refuses to acknowledge the scale of the crisis, and continues to cut funding for education, housing, transportation, infrastructure and public health. We must redefine and reimagine what it means to be strong. Being strong is not funding a bloated Pentagon budget that is larger than the military budgets of the next 11 countries combined. Being strong means an end to endless wars. It means investing in diplomacy, international development and coalition building. It means guaranteeing health care for everyone in this country. It means investing in our communities-- putting more resources towards public health, affordable housing, universal child care, renewable energy, public transit, infrastructure, public education and giving educators a raise. I was proud to champion an effort to cut the Pentagon’s budget by 10 percent because there are so many ways we could invest that $74 billion, which is greater than the budgets of the CDC, EPA, Department of Housing, and National Parks Services combined. But what we should not do is give it away to corrupt defense contractors who relentlessly lobby for and profit off of our country’s excessive military budget. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what this legislation would do. I won’t support it."

The amendment failed in the House 93-324, all the Republicans and the Democratic Party's immensely dominant Military Industrial Complex wing-- led by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer-- firmly behind the Pentagon waste and bloat... and the immense bribes that flow to members of Congress who back it. It was no surprise to see most of the members of the most disappointing freshmen class in history-- your Joe Cunninghams, Anthony Brindisis, Jared Goldens, Mikie Sherrills, David Trones, Max Roses, Kendra Horns, Harley Roudas, Cindy Axnes, Abigail Spanbergers, Gil Cisneroses-- join with the corrupt Democrats like Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA), Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Senate wannabe-IL), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Val Demings (New Dem-FL), Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL), Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY) and the GOP to vote down the amendment.

The only freshmen with the courage and conviction to back the amendment were AOC D-NY), Andy Levin (D-MI), Katie Porter (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Chuy García (D-IL), Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Kweisi Mfume (D-MD), Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Joe Neguse (D-CO). And only one of them-- Katie Porter-- was among the freshmen dubbed a "majority maker" by the corrupted Pelosi-Hoyer-DCCC fraction of the Democratic Party. Many people were shocked to see establishment conservatives Richie Neal (MA), Lacy Clay (MO), Stephen Lynch (MA), and Emanuel Cleaver (MO) vote with progressives for the 10% reduction... but each has a primary coming up in the next few weeks, and it was a cheap ploy to make.

When it came to approving the Pentagon budget itself-- without the 10% reduction-- 43 Democrats, 81 Republicans and independent Justin Amash voted no. Watching which Dems who voted for the amendment then voted for the budget anyway, tells you a lot about those members and their motivations, among them... Richie Neal, Lacy Clay, Stephen Lynch and Emanuel Cleaver. Oh, that's a familiar little list!

Liam O'Mara, progressive Democrat running for a congressional seat held by Trump puppet Ken Calvert in Riverside County, wasn't surprised that Calvert voted against the 10% cut and for the bloated Pentagon budget. "As usual," he told me after the vote, "Crooked Ken Calvert is all too happy to put the needs of his donors in the defense industry above the needs of the American people. That anyone tolerates this level of corruption in a so-called 'Representative' is unfortunate. Calvert couldn't care less that people are losing their income, losing their homes, losing their healthcare, or even that we have veterans sleeping outdoors-- all he cares about is shoveling taxpayer dollars into Lockheed Martin's waiting cash-bag."

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova favored the amendment and told me that her opponent, Blue Dog "Tom O'Halleran tweeted about his vote to pass the NDAA, saying he did so to 'strengthen our national defense' and 'protect the A-10 Warthog & the KC-135.' Meanwhile,  he takes thousands from the top five profiteers of the War in Yemen-- Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and General Electric. He profits by protecting the military industrial complex, all while staying quiet on bold legislation to solve the many crises within our borders, including COVID-19. I will do what he chooses not to-- put people first. I will fight to end all wars of choice and cut the bloated Pentagon budget to reinvest in our communities.

The next day, the Senate took up the same amendment, which had been written by Bernie. It failed-- dismally, 77-23, every single Republican voting against it-- as well as Kamala Harris, probably to please the Biden VP search team, and all the conservative fake Dems like Joe Manchin (WV), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Mark Warner (VA), Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Carper (DE), Doug Jones (AL), Jackie Rosen (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL)... all the usual suspects + Sherrod Brown (who, no doubt will eventually apologize to his progressive supporters).

Trump, McConnell And Pelosi Are Not Leading America Through This Well At All-- They Should All Retire

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) stood up for ordinary working families, most of Congress didn't

Talking to me about the impending vote on the bailout Thursday, a former Member of Congress noted that "This is one of those rare occasions when I would say that any progressive in a safe district-- and there are plenty of them-- should have no trouble voting against this bill. It’s just doesn’t do enough, period. A proper bill would:

• Forbid all utility cutoffs,
• Forbid all foreclosures,
• Extend food stamps to everyone with an unemployed person in the household,
• Provide federally funded hospitalization to anyone who isn’t covered by insurance, and
• Extend federal unemployment benefits until unemployment drops below 8%.

"Food, shelter, money, heat and light, medical care. Not that complicated. Cuba has been doing it for 50+ years. And if Neal wanted to add in all his lobbyist paybacks to that, fine.

"This is so crazy. The votes of 35 million unemployed Americans are up for grabs, and the party can’t even feign some clear path to help for them."

Yesterday, only 9 progressive members of Congress stood up to try to stop Pelosi's latest bailout bill:

• Chuy García (D-IL)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• Ro Khanna (D-CA)
• AOC (D-NY)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Katie Porter (D-CA)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

For entirely different reasons than those motivating the progressives, all 184 Republicans, conservative Independent Justin Amash and 4 right-of-center Democrats who often vote with the GOP also voted against the bill. The Democrats joining with the Republicans to try to stop it were Cindy Axne (IA), Abby Finkenauer (IA), Connor Lamb (PA), Haley Stevens (MI) and Abigail Spanberger (VA). This was on the rule to allow the bill to move forward and it passed 207-199.

Before the vote, Rep. Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- most of whose members went along with Pelosi and Hoyer on a bill that puts lobbyists ahead of working families-- explained why she was opposing it:

“The historic public health and economic crisis Americans are facing will not end on its own. We must beat the virus. To beat the virus, we must keep people home. To keep people home, we must make sure they get their paycheck, can access their health care and don’t feel pressured to return to work before it’s safe. That’s the only way that we can give the American people real relief and certainty before this crisis gets worse—because if we fail to do so, it will. While this legislation has some good elements, it ultimately fails to match the scale of this crisis. I believe we can and must do better. This is urgent and the American people cannot wait. We must choose differently.”

...“People across every part of the United States are facing an unprecedented crisis-- one that directly impacts their jobs, their health and their daily lives. We have now lost more than 86,000 Americans, almost 30,000 more than we lost during two decades of the Vietnam War. For weeks, I have been clearly and consistently ringing the alarm bells that the next COVID-19 package must deliver real relief and certainty to people and businesses across the country so that they know how they will survive this crisis-- both from health and economic perspectives, which are deeply intertwined.

“At the core, our response from Congress must match the true scale of this devastating crisis. The Heroes Act-- while it contains many important provisions-- simply fails to do that.

“This legislation does not keep workers in their jobs and guarantee the certainty of paychecks. More than 36 million people have filed for unemployment in only eight weeks and a full 40% of households earning less than $40,000 lost a job in March alone. Mass unemployment is a choice and we cannot wait to let the rate of unemployment rise to 40% or 50%, which it will do if we do not act boldly. This is the highest level of unemployment we have seen since the Great Depression and we cannot sit idly by and only offer half measures or let it rise.

“This legislation does not guarantee affordable and accessible health care for everyone. More than 27 million people have lost their health care simply because they lost their job, joining the 87 million people who were already uninsured or underinsured. We are in the midst of a health pandemic that has already taken more than 86,000 lives, with tens of thousands more deaths projected. Now, more than ever, people need to know their access to health care is guaranteed.

“This legislation does not provide enough relief to businesses-- including small, medium and minority-owned businesses-- which are the backbone of our economy. Every day, employers are watching in horror as the businesses they built over years fall by the wayside and shutter permanently. Our businesses and our workers are proud of the work they do and we should be supporting this critical and productive relationship as a first order of business by helping businesses to survive, not pouring more money into things that don’t work. Nor does this legislation do enough to tie funding for states to public health guidelines so that businesses do not have to worry about putting their workers in harm's way and re-opening before it is safe to do so.

“I am also disappointed that, in a last minute change, this legislation includes language that threatens the pensions of regular working people and harms collective bargaining, undermining existing pension plans and exposing retirees to greater risks. At a time when we should be strengthening collective bargaining and worker power, this legislation does the opposite.

“I believe we can and must choose differently. That is why I will vote against this legislation.

“I believe we can and must put forward a legislative package that meets the real needs of my constituents and people across the country who are desperate for Congress to have their backs, to help them get money back in their pockets and give them some certainty about being able to pay their bills and put food on the table. A package that ensures everyone has health care, that helps businesses to survive this crisis and that protects the rights of workers to get the pensions they already earned and were counting on.

“As I was deciding how to vote, I went back and looked at the hundreds of calls and letters that have come in from my constituents. I wanted to know if I could honestly tell them that this bill would help them with the devastation they are facing. I cannot say that it does and so I will vote no and choose differently.

“I choose differently for Adrienne, who lost her paycheck when the pandemic struck and instead of receiving unemployment checks in the mail, receives letters informing her that rent and bills are due. I choose differently for the family of six who lost their paychecks and have yet to receive their stimulus checks. I choose differently for the hair stylist who said they haven’t received unemployment benefits in 13 weeks and the event venue staffer who hasn’t received any in eight.

“I choose differently for so many who not only tell me they lost their jobs and lost their employer-sponsored health care too, but they can’t afford COBRA and have decided to “risk it” instead, while insurance companies scoop up additional subsidies from this package.

“I choose differently for Ellen and Aran, business owners in my district who have written to me about their frustrations with a PPP program that picks winners and losers as they’re forced to lay off workers. I choose differently for those who have called because they are worried about having to return to work before it is safe, and those like Xan who tell me they already have.

“Congress must be honest with ourselves and with our constituents: The historic public health and economic crisis Americans are facing will not end on its own. We must beat the virus. To beat the virus, we must keep people home. To keep people home, we must make sure they get their paycheck, can access their health care and don’t feel pressured to return to work before it’s safe. That’s the only way that we can give the American people real relief and certainty before this crisis gets worse-- because if we fail to do so, it will.

“While this legislation has some good elements, it ultimately fails to match the scale of this crisis. I believe we can and must do better. This is urgent and the American people cannot wait. We must choose differently.”

There underlying legislation itself, H R 6800, the Heroes Act, passed 208-199. One Republican, Peter King (NY) voted for it. All the Democrats who voted against-- other than Pramila, the congresswoman with guts-- it were mostly the bad guys: Dems who always vote with Republicans against working families:

• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Conor Lamb (PA)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)

Right after the first vote, Mike Siegel, the progressive running for Congress in the Austin area, called me to talk about it. He said we're lucky to have "strong progressive voices in Congress, including Rep. Jayapal, who continue to fight for a federal response that meets the scale of the COVID-19 crisis. This is a terrible moment for our democracy, when a tiny group of individuals-- who seem out of touch with the real pain and tragedy that millions of Americans are experiencing-- are crafting the legislative agenda, without much substantive input, even from members of their own caucus. Rep. Jayapal and 8 others today took a courageous vote, under tremendous pressure, to delay the House process and allow for improvements to the bill. We don't get many chances to take action, given how infrequently Congress is meeting. Let's put forward a bill we can be proud of-- that speaks to the families struggling to pay rent, to the people who don't have medical care, to the workers in places like Texas who have been ordered back to work, without any guarantee of safe working conditions, under threat of losing whatever meager income they have. If this is a "message bill" as Democratic leadership has indicated, let's send the right message-- that we as Democrats will truly fight for everyone."

Liam O'Mara-- the Riverside County, California-- progressive had an ironic way of looking at it: "It is rare for Congressmember Calvert and I to agree on a vote, but this might be one of them... albeit, for entirely different reasons. The incumbent will surely make the usual noise about hand-outs, and the 'radical left,' and talk about the debt or whatever-- just random noise to cloak his profound ignorance of basic economics and defective moral compass. I would probably have to vote 'no' because the bill does not go nearly far enough. It fails to introduce the wage-subsidies we needed two months ago to prevent catastrophic job-loss. Falling back on unemployment insurance not only plays into Republican rhetoric about Democrats wanting voters 'dependent' on 'hand-outs,' but it also allows massive ripple effects through the economy which will also likely be blamed (incorrectly) on us. It also fails to introduce a basic income, as Ro Khanna, for example, has been advocating. We needed that before the crisis, due to several decades' worth of damage to the real economy and our living standards. But in a pandemic, and with spiraling job losses, it is the difference between security and homelessness, life and death. This bill is a mish-mash of previously attempted legislation, sometimes with little relevance to the pandemic, and Trump's meme army still haven't gotten over the pork in the earlier pandemic bills. Remember-- they don't care about their own hypocrisy, but our voting coalition does care about ours. We don't need more corporate bail-outs, protection for lobbyists, or any of that other junk. What we need is a bill that protects housing, expands health care, stops the job losses, and bails out the American worker and consumer. A bill like this is a dream for right-wing propagandists. It won't pass, but it will be used against us in November."

J.D. Scholten is taking on the worst of the GOP extremists, Steve King (IA-04) and he leveled with us about the bill last night. "Frankly," he said, "this bill is a wish list that will never become law. Even so, these are unprecedented times-- where over 88,000 Americans have died, over 36 million are unemployed, and 27 million may lose their health insurance-- that deserve full-scale relief to those who really need it. This bill doesn’t go far enough to help working, underserved, and rural communities by failing to guarantee paychecks, access to healthcare, protections for frontline workers, a freeze or assistance with rent and mortgage payments, and more. Yet, it does manage to provide tax breaks and carve-outs for the wealthy and those who profit off the suffering of others. Congress shouldn’t pull punches or put corporations and lobbyists first especially when we’re in the middle of an unprecedented, historic public health and economic crisis."

Tom Guild, a progressive candidate in Oklahoma running for a seat held by Kendra Horn, one of the furthest right of all the Blue Dogs. Horn was happy to vote for rule and then against the bill the same day. Tom saw more eye to eye with Pramila and Ro, concerned that "the HEROES ACT fails to protect the paychecks of workers, guarantee families affordable healthcare, provide sufficient relief to all business, and safeguard pensions of working people. As I indicated recently at DWT, CARES 1 was a windfall giveaway to big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy. We are still waiting for real people to be the top priority in the proposed HEROES ACT put forth by Speaker Pelosi. The part of the bill that helps the U.S. Postal Service remain financially viable is badly needed, as is the additional funding for state and local governments. There are other good parts of the proposal. But badly needed systemic change that would permanently benefit working people and those who are economically disadvantaged is sorely lacking. Corporate mergers will remain unrestrained. Corporate lobbyists will be unchecked and given favorable consideration. Dark money political groups will be in tall cotton. The dark money groups running dark money ads for my primary opponent will be riding high. More tax cuts for the wealthy to benefit primarily corporate Democratic congressional campaigns, will exacerbate the giant canyon between the wealthy, big corporations, Wall Street, and the rest of us. Wealth and income inequality are already at crisis levels and this legislation will make the problem even more pronounced. There is no progress if we do not take this opportunity to reform health care by moving toward a universal single payer system. Employer based health care is not a right and can be at a moment’s notice taken away by the employer or lost if someone is fired, furloughed or decides to change jobs. Pelosi’s HEROES ACT will waste more money propping up COBRA with giant health insurance corporations and conglomerate pharmaceutical companies laughing all the way to the bank. Congressional Democrats sometimes represent progress for those of us who make up the overwhelming majority of Americans. However, they too often poison the well by unabashedly pursuing a corporatist and elitist agenda that ultimately does more harm than good. What was it that the late Nancy Reagan used to say-- JUST SAY NO!"

Like many progressive candidatess-- since the bill already passed and is now making its way to a Senate debate and vote-- Lisa Ring (GA-01) made a good case about why it should pass there: "The people of my district and across the country are suffering. They are without paychecks, without healthcare, and some, now without jobs. Economic disparity was fully exposed during this pandemic as those with wealth sheltered at home, while those without continued to work at risk, or counted on our government to assist so they too could shelter at home. Considering many folks in GA-01 were living in poverty, or just above it before the virus, COVID-19 exacerbated an already unfair system. Our political leaders fell short of caring for their constituents instead of forcing them to risk the health of themselves and those around them, we must now try to assist in any way possible to repair some of the damage done. This $3 trillion dollar aid package may not have gone far enough, but it was a start. Legislators voting no have now given Senate Republicans even more reinforcement to vote the aid package down instead of providing a force fighting to help people survive this crisis. Millions are currently unemployed and we don't have the luxury of holding out for a bill that gives everyone everything they want. Let's at least give them something and keep pushing on for more."

The Situation Room by Nancy Ohanian

On Paper, A Threat To Moneyed Interests, But...

-by Brad Johnson
@ClimateBrad

A thought in response to David Dayen's response to a Pramila Jayapal interview, in which Rep. Jayapal-- the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a top endorser of Bernie Sanders for president-- told Ezra Klein that Democrats "are not getting rolled at all" on the coronavirus stimulus bills.

That is, quite frankly, either delusional or a bald lie, and offensive to the millions of American now in deadly peril from the Great Trump Depression while the 0.0001% has been given literal trillions of dollars.

Dayen is "tiring of what amounts to a bunch of excuses for how progressives have been functionally locked out of policymaking during this crisis," noting that House Speaker "Nancy Pelosi has run the House of Representatives by fiat for close to two months, and there hasn’t been a single word of protest as she locks every other member of the Democratic caucus out of policymaking and hands them take-it-or-leave-it legislation to rubber stamp."

Dayen continues: "[I]nstead of organizing around one thing, progressives supply 100-item wish lists that everyone knows won’t be fulfilled. This has two consequences: the wish lists show progressives are not completely serious about governing, and the leadership can always pick like 2 of the 100 out of the list and give members something to justify voting for a bad bill."

So how is that progressive Democrats in Congress can be so feckless? Here's one thought I had a while ago that may be applicable.

When the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms, I began following the Hill proceedings obsessively, trying to understand the process by which they debated and developed policy on climate change.

I noticed a strange pattern: the Democrats in Congress with effective communications and policy coordination were corruptly aligned with business interests and the principled Democrats were strangely incompetent, seemingly unable to coordinate or align with activists or the news cycle, and poor at the game of politics.

It took me a while to understand that this divide was a natural result of the institutional pressures. There are many competent, progressive Democrats out there. But if they somehow manage to get elected (the first major hurdle), they are under a total barrage. They are a threat to moneyed interests-- as well as to other Democrats, who they make look "bad" (they make it obvious that the corrupt Democrats are corrupt and that the incompetent Democrats are incompetent). Their enemies-- i.e., most of Washington-- will spend whatever it takes to defeat, subvert, or overwhelm them. It's that institutional response which makes many good Democrats one-termers or disappointments or fatalistic back-benchers.

One interesting corollary is that this phenomenon isn't simply true of individuals-- it was issue-specific. That is, many of the Democrats were progressive champions on practically every issue except for the one for which they hold a position of power. I remember, for example, that Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank was far left except on finance and banking-- not coincidentally, he was chair of the House Financial Services committee.

And all of the institutional pressures have gotten radically worse in the past 14 years.

So what is to be done? The situation can be one that leads to despair, but I also think it helps to be understanding of how crushingly difficult it is to be an effective progressive legislator in Congress, and why the only possible answer is for greater engagement in the political process from those of us who support the common good-- and a continued commitment to solidarity, despite the drumbeat of disappointment.

Biden's And Trump's Shortcomings Aside, Why Still Bernie? Part I

I have every intention of writing in Bernie's name in November. Why? He's the best man to be president. I don't vote against people; I vote for people. Bernie and his platform were right for 2016 and he and his platform are right for 2020. Watch the video above and maybe you will decide to write him in too.

Last week, HarrisX did a Medicare-for-All poll for The Hill. They found that 69% of registered voters support Medicare-for-All. That breaks down to 88% of Democrats, 68% of independent voters and 46% of Republicans. Gabriela Schulte wrote that "Progressive lawmakers have been pointing to the coronavirus crisis to make a case for the need for Medicare for All as millions of Americans are kicked off their employee-based health insurance due to the economic fallout of the pandemic. 'Crises are moments of opportunity for policy change,' Robert Griffin, Research Director of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, told Hill.TV... President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, Felicia Wong, believes support for Medicare for All will only grow amid the coronavirus crisis. 'These progressive policies have been popular for a long time. I think COVID-19 will make them more popular as it becomes clear just how fragile our American political economy really is,' Wong told Hill.TV."

Yesterday, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- with 33 co-sponsors-- proposed the Medicare Crisis Program Act, which is meant to ensure that everyone has guaranteed access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the millions of Americans who have been thrown out of work and off their employer-related health insurance. The legislation would expand Medicare and Medicaid eligibility during the crisis, cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare enrollees, and eliminate co-pays, coinsurance or deductibles for COVID-19 testing and related care. Pramila's office explained that "More than 26 million Americans have filed for unemployment in the last five weeks, and as a result many have lost their income and seen their health coverage disappear in the middle of a public health emergency. As COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on our economy, it is estimated that up to 35 million Americans will lose their health coverage-- joining the roughly 30 million who were previously uninsured. By dramatically expanding the number of Americans eligible for Medicare and Medicaid-- two effective and efficient health insurance programs-- the Medicare Crisis Program Act would guarantee Americans have health care when it is needed the most."

In a written statement, Pramila noted that "Our nation’s for-profit, employment-based health care system did not make sense before COVID-19 struck, and it is proving dangerous and deadly during the crisis. Millions of Americans are losing their job and their health insurance at precisely the moment when we need everyone to be able to access care and treatment for illness. The Medicare Crisis Program Act would guarantee health care for millions of people struggling with the health and economic realities of the COVID-19 pandemic and protect Americans from outrageous out-of-pocket costs."

Her chief co-sponsor is Joe Kennedy (D-MA) and other members of Congress who have signed on are Earl Blumenauer (F-OR), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Grace Meng (D-NY), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Darren Soto (D-FL), Mark Takano (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Peter Welch (D-VT). Not one Republican or Blue Dog is behind the bill.

Doctors Justin Lowenthal and Meenakshi Bewtra, co-chairs of the COVID-19 response taskforce and members of the national board of directors of Doctors for America, issued a statement on the proposed legislation yesterday: "Doctors for America and its 20,000 members nationwide have been on the frontlines of this pandemic and we commend Representatives Jayapal and Kennedy for including critical health and life-saving measures that aim to ensure increased availability and equitable distribution of PPE and other medical equipment for all frontline workers. We also know firsthand that COVID-19 has not merely caused-- but rather, exposed-- the deep and critical problems that our patients face in affordability, equity, and accessibility of their health care. We applaud this proposal for ensuring coverage, affordability, and access to health care for all of our patients during the COVID crisis, while illustrating one of several viable approaches for moving toward universal health care in the future. This crisis shows us that, as a nation, we are all in this together: We should all have access to PPE when caring for and serving others, and we should all have insurance coverage that does not disappear when you need it nor depend on your employment status during a pandemic."

I have no idea who Dr. William Haseltine favors for president. It's probably not Trump, though, as you might guess from the Fox News interview below. Haseltine is a scientist, biotech entrepreneur, author and current chair and president of the global health think tank ACCESS Health International. He is also the chair of the U.S.-China Health Summit and was in Wuhan last November just before the outbreak there emerged. This is an OpEd about healthcare for all in The Hill yesterday.

Each day a new story of crowded hospital corridors and exhausted health care workers appears in our newspapers. But another story, equally tragic, is unfolding in the privacy of our homes. Countless Americans with chronic conditions and other serious illnesses languish in isolation without access to care. While hospitals have of course remained open for urgent care, patients with less critical needs have been relegated almost entirely to virtual visits.

Many without illness are able to cope, but countless families have been permanently broken by the hospital closures. Take, for example, the blood cancer patient in Philadelphia who was desperately in need of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, blood supplies had been rationed for COVID-19 patients and the patient couldn’t get enough transfusions to allow his chemotherapy to begin. His clinic visits were cancelled, his condition worsened and by the middle of April, he had passed away, a death expedited by COVID-19.

Stories like this are just the tip of the iceberg. Doctors across the country have been reporting concerning trends among patients, with many delaying much-needed care because of concerns about contracting COVID-19 during an emergency room visit. A survey of nine major hospitals published earlier this month in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that the number of patients presenting with severe heart attacks had dropped by nearly 40 percent since March. Vaccinations and well-child visits have seen a similar deterioration, with millions of children now at greater risk of infection of other preventable diseases due to the stark decline.

All of this reinforces the undeniable fact that the first facilities to reopen in our communities must be our hospitals. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released guidance for reopening health care facilities for non-emergent cases, but the advice included is vague at best. While it has recommendations for testing and screening of both patients and providers, it gives no concrete advice on how often to screen each group or what to do if a health care provider tests positive.

Guidance from state departments of health is equally inadequate and, in some cases, downright dangerous. Some in the hardest hit areas suggest that health care professionals can return to work after testing positive for COVID-19, assuming they have been symptom free for just three days and seven days have passed since their symptoms first developed. This despite the fact that studies have shown that some people may be infectious for up to ten days after obvious symptoms have resolved.

In the absence of more careful guidance, many medical centers have developed their own more stringent guidelines. In addition to designing their own strategies to protect health care workers, hospitals are also crafting their own plans to protect patients. Some hospital systems have created broad networks of ambulatory care centers that operate as outpatient facilities. Many hospital administrators think their best bet may be to funnel patients suspected of COVID-19 to the hospitals while maintaining a steady supply of high-quality services for non COVID-19 patients through the ambulatory care centers. This would keep hospital beds free for the worst COVID-19 patients and still provide high-quality care to other patients in need.

All of this extra effort will require additional resources, something that is becoming a pivotal challenge for all hospitals. Ever since facilities were forced to cancel these procedures to ramp up COVID-19 care, they have been hemorrhaging cash in extraordinary amounts. In New York State alone, one of the Buffalo region’s smallest hospitals has said it is losing roughly $1 million each month. In New York City, some of the major medical centers are losing as much as $450 million.

The only way these hospitals can survive is with an immediate infusion of money. True, there are some large hospitals with generous endowment funds that may be able to make it through the crisis without outside support. But smaller hospitals in rural communities and many safety net hospitals in larger cities are running out of cash already. We cannot charge patients more for the care they are receiving. A recent poll suggests that one in seven Americans avoid seeking care because of the financial burden and potential cost.

The onus is on our government to step in and support our hospitals as they reopen fully. It is quite simply a matter of life and death, not convenience or economic recovery.