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.

Terrible Rumor: Donald Norcross, A Conservative Democrat From New Jersey's Most Corrupt Political Family Is Being Vetted As Biden's Labor Secretary

Neoliberal Democratic presidents do a little balancing dance when they pick their first cabinets. They give a grotesque Wall Street whore the Treasury job and they gave a real progressive the Labor Secretary job. JFK's first Secretary of Labor was Arthur Goldberg, a Steelworkers general counsel who was appointed to the Supreme Court. JFK didn't even pretend when it came to the Treasury Secretary; he gave the job to conservative Republican and Wall Street bankster Douglas Dillon. Bill Clinton gave the Labor job to Robert Reich and then appointed 3 for the most conservative assholes to Treasury imaginable: Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. Obama gave Labor to Hilda Solis-- another outstanding progressive-- and Treasury to Wall Street creep Tim Geithner.

There's no reason to imagine Biden isn't going to find a nightmarish conservative for the Treasury job. Bank on it. And I think he intends to pick a progressive for Labor-- but not a real progressive. A rumor has been circulating in New Jersey and DC that he has his mind on a crooked pro-labor conservative congressman, Donald Norcross. How can Norcross be called a progressive? Well, he can't-- except that Mark Pocan sold him a spot in the Progressive Caucus and made him vice chair for labor. Norcross doesn't have an "A" rating from Progressive Punch, nor even a "B" or a "C." He doesn't even have a "D." Nope-- pure "F." That's Pocan's idea of a progressive-able-to-write-a-check. And Biden's people honed right in on it.

Norcross' big brother, George-- who gave him the congressional seat in 2014-- is the party boss of South Jersey and widely considered one of the most corrupt and venal Democrats in America-- just the kind Biden loves. He was also a Chris Christie ally.

And the front man for the Norcross appointment is Douglas McCarron, president of one of America's most right-wing union-- the Republican-leaning Carpenters, a union George Norcross controls. (They even have another crooked Democrat owned by George as Norcross' replacement in Congress, New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney, another piece of crap.)

Markey vs Kennedy-- If You're A Progressive Voter, There Should Be No Hesitation

JFK, 1960 on Kings Highway in front of Dubrow's

Progressive Power Hour? Was there one for AOC or Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar when their reelections were challenged by big money reactionaries in the last couple of months? There may have been... but I never heard about them. But I did hear about tomorrow's Power Hour on behalf of Joe Kennedy's campaign to displace the far more progressive-- and effective-- Ed Markey in the Senate. This came as an e-mail over the weekend:

We're excited to share the updated panel for Wednesday's progressive power hour! This Wednesday, progressive leaders Mark Pocan, Raúl Grijalva, and Linda Sánchez will co-host a progressive power hour with Joe!

They’ll be talking about what’s at stake in this primary election, and what makes Joe the right leader to usher in the change Massachusetts needs. The discussion will also include ways you can get involved in these critical final weeks, and how to cast your ballot, whether it’s by mail or in person.

...Join us Wednesday night to hear from these progressive powerhouses about the change Joe will bring to the Senate, and about how you can get involved!

The national and the Massachusetts progressive grassroots has come out very strongly for Ed Markey-- and not just Blue America-- Our Revolution, Sunrise Movement, Peace Action, Progressive Massachusetts, MoveOn, PDA, Indivisible, the Working Families Party... So has Massachusetts' other senator, Elizabeth Warren, as well as AOC, Zephyr Teachout, Ady Barkan, and Cory Booker. Younger, issue oriented Democrats overwhelmingly want to see Markey, who is far more progressive than Kennedy, reelected. Older, fuzzily romantic Democrats seem excited about JKIII, although few seem to be able to explain why. Maybe Pocan, Grijalva and Sánchez will be able to tomorrow at their Power Hour. Alienating the progressive movement's grassroots does need to be explained, especially if Pocan is really serious about making a U.S. Senate run in 2022, something Chuck Schumer has already been making jokes about behind closed doors. He's going to be looking for allies-- allies who are very likely going to remember him stabbing Ed Markey in the back this year.





Meanwhile, some of the absolute worst Democrats in Congress are being touted by Kennedy as his supporters, Kyrsten Sinema, the closest thing to a right-wing Republican (and psychopath) among Senate Dems, coke freak New Dem, Pete Aguilar-- as well as plenty of other corrupt corporate New Dems, Blue Dogs and bought-and-paid for conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like Juan Vargas (CA), Filomen Vela (TX), Gil Cisneros (CA), Derek Kilmer (WA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Annie Kuster (NH), Conor Lamb (PA), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Colin Allred (TX), Ellisa Slotkin (MI), Angie Craig (MN)... odd there's no one from Massachusetts on the list. They're all either staying neutral or backing Markey. Oh, wait! He does have a high-profile Massachusetts endorsement: Republican former Governor Bill Weld.

The first big name politician I ever met was JFK-- two decades before Joe Kennedy III was born. I was 12 and my mom took me to see the charismatic somewhat conservative senator campaigning in Brooklyn, to show the Democratic establishment that he was popular in liberal bases. He was. But a police horse stepped on my foot in the tumult and I was brought inside Dubrow's where only local party big wigs were allowed. The soon-to-be-president came over and rubbed my foot and wished me well. That was nice. By the time he was assassinated I was no longer a fan. But when his brother, Robert Kennedy-- Robert Kennedy III's grandfather who was assassinated before he was born-- ran for New York senator I got a job at his campaign headquarters as an elevator operator. I wasn't a big fan of his either, although he seemed to gradually move away from his McCarthyite past and embrace progressive positions. The other brother, Teddy, was the most progressive of the trio. Never met the guy. And I never was a big fan of political dynasties.

Over the weekend, Politico published a piece by Stephanie Murray-- Markey throws shade at Kennedy family in Senate primary brawl-- that is still probably somewhat shocking for a Massachusetts Democrat to contemplate. "In an ever more contentious battle between a septuagenarian senator and the scion of one of the nation’s best-known dynasties," wrote Murray, "Markey is calling out specific Kennedy family members by name, needling the wealth and privilege that attaches to the family name, and even drawing from the Kennedy myth in his bid to fend off his youthful challenger. At one time, that approach might have been a career-killer in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Yet Markey has employed it successfully to help narrow a double-digit polling gap with the primary just over two weeks away."

When a Boston Globe columnist drove by Markey's modest house in June to see if he was there or out of state, the Malden Democrat happened to be standing in the driveway.

"Welcome to the compound!" he quipped, a sly reference to the famous Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port.

Markey often invokes his own father, who was a milk truck driver, to draw a contrast between his own working class roots and his opponent's upbringing. The senator recently posted a black-and-white childhood photo with his parents and two brothers.

"I'm the son of a milkman and a hardworking mother. I was a commuter student who paid my way through college selling ice cream. Where I come from, no one expects to become a U.S. senator," Markey captioned the photo on Instagram.

Markey has made subtle references to the Kennedy family throughout the summer, but has ramped up his messaging in recent days. The most pointed hit came at the end of a campaign video unveiled Thursday, where he drew on a famous line from the inauguration speech of his challenger’s great uncle, President John F. Kennedy.





..."He's taking the elephant in the room and just going right at it. He's using the most identifiable characteristic of Joe Kennedy, which is his name, and trying to use it against him. It's an interesting campaign tactic and one I wouldn't have anticipated," said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC polling group. "It puts Kennedy more on the spot to explain why he's running, and that's something he's struggled with throughout the campaign."

Markey is betting that much of the Kennedy mystique has worn off, 11 years after Ted Kennedy-- who held the state’s other Senate seat for nearly a half-century-- passed away. So far, the strategy appears to be working, particularly among younger voters who have responded to his support for the Green New Deal and his endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Koczela pointed to a MassINC poll from October 2019, which showed 70 percent of voters under age 30 had no opinion or had never heard of Markey. But a UMass Amherst poll released last week found Markey now leading that group over Kennedy with 71 percent of support.

...In their most recent debate, Markey took some of his toughest shots against Kennedy, seeking to use Kennedy's powerful family against him. Kennedy's father, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, may put his $2.8 million in leftover campaign funds into a pro-Kennedy super PAC as a last minute boost for his son's Senate bid, and Markey sought to shame him for it.

"I'm sure your father's watching right now. Tell your father right now that you don't want money to go into a super PAC that runs negative ads," Markey said in the debate. "Just tell your twin brother and tell your father you don't want any money."

In a matter of minutes, the senator's campaign turned the debate spat into a viral video. "Free advice for Joe Kennedy. Don't rely on the old man's money," Markey captioned the video, which begins with a shot of Kennedy standing on a yacht and is set to the Hall and Oates song "Rich Girl."

Is There Still Any Push For Progressivism-- Even Inside The Corporate Democratic Party?

Last night we noted that the Dems have a plan for another bailout. Former Congressman Alan Grayson, who likes Pelosi, waded through hundreds of pages and called me and said-- word for word: "This is a horrendous strategic mistake. People are suffering terribly-- far worse than in 2008-- and they deserve to have someone on their side." I feel pretty certain Grayson would have been on their side and voted against it-- but that New Dem Darren Soto, who represents his old Orlando district, certainly won't. Krystal Ball explained how it's just another useless messaging bill-- which is basically what all the Democratic staffer are saying as well-- that will never pass that but that shows Pelosi's contempt and disdain for progressives. You should listen to Krystal in the clip above... kind of sad, although it helps explain why there's so much talk on the left about the formation of a non-establishment third party lately.

How about the Working Families Party? Ah... yeah, how about them? A conservative Republican pretending to be a Democrat, Wlla Street shill Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, and her Democratic establishment attorney (Martin Connor, who was used by Melinda Katz last year to steal the Queens District Attorney race from Tiffany Cabán) succeeded in getting AOC kicked off the Working Families Party ballot line. The official GOP line (Caruso-Cabrera speaking): "The AOC campaign is in shock. She has hurt working people of the Bronx and Queens with her votes and creates disunity within our party. Her own campaign spokesman ran away from her in March. No wonder why pro-union forces don’t want her and neither do our neighborhoods."

The hapless Working Families Party State, through their NY Director Sochie Nnaemeka: "The Working Families Party is unwavering in our support for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and we believe the congresswoman is the leader her district and this country needs. Limits on petitioning due to coronavirus have led to numerous ballot challenges, including this one."

Back to the Pelosi proposal. She wouldn't go along with any of the progressive priorities, like temporary universal healthcare during the pandemic... nor recurring Universal Basic Income payments during the pandemic.. and, of course, no paycheck guarantee program to avoid further job losses, but she did give Hoyer what he most wanted most in the whole wide world: the lobbyist bailout. Lobbyists-- the most hated group in America by Democrats, Republicans and independents, but beloved by Stony Hoyer, the Representative of K Street! That's who Pelosi is bailing out? The thermometer on the right has candidates running in primaries against Pelosi's conservative incumbents. Please give them some support if you don't want to see the Democratic Party continue drifting ever rightward, ever more corporate and ever more corrupt.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has the leverage-- the numbers-- to force Pelosi's hand, right? The answer is yes, they have the numbers to make her rewrite it. But do they have the cohesiveness? Or the will? They seem reluctant to use their power (to put it mildly). If you didn't listen to Krystal... do it now.

Common Dreams ran a statement from the American Economic Liberties Project urging Democrats to get a spine and vote no.

"This bill delivers charity in place of justice, and Congress should vote it down," said Economic Liberties’ Executive Director Sarah Miller. "Without addressing corporate power, additional aid to the people will ultimately end up in the hands of banks, monopolies, and landlords. While the need for humanitarian assistance is urgent, fundamentally this bill is not a serious attempt to grapple with power. It includes important programs, such as aid to states and localities, unemployment insurance, nutrition assistance, and hazard pay, but doesn’t address the roll-up of power happening throughout the economy that results in systemic exploitation of workers, consumers, small businesses, taxpayers, and communities."

"The bill has no prohibition on corporate mergers. It bails out corporate lobbyists and corrupt mortgage servicers. It funnels money to monopolistic insurance company executives. And it has no constraints on private equity firms currently using public money from the Federal Reserve to cherry pick corporate assets on the cheap. Even some of the positive aspects, like a provision authorizing crackdowns on price gouging, are poorly conceived, for example allowing the corporate lobbyist-dominated Federal Trade Commission to block state officials from acting.

"We opposed the first CARES Act because it encouraged, rather than put the brakes on, the consolidation of corporate power. That bill was structured to support massive aid to the stock market, and a trickle of aid to the rest of us. Progressives should demand this bill address the injustices deriving from this consolidation of power in addition to humanitarian needs.

"Our economy is being restructured whether we like it or not, so we need structural solutions to our current predicament. At the very least, the House should pass a merger moratorium, which is supported by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of Americans. And we encourage the House to pick up Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Senator Josh Hawley’s idea to have the government directly support payrolls," added Miller. Problematic provisions in the bill include:

• A Corporate Lobbyist Bailout: The bill makes Paycheck Protection Program funds available to 501(c)6 trade associations, which is the institutional vehicle for corporate lobbying.
• A Dark Money Group Bailout: The bill extends Paycheck Protection Program funds available to 501(c)4 trade associations, which is the institutional vehicle for dark money political spending.
• No Merger Prohibition: This bill has no mechanism to block or slow pandemic-related corporate mergers. Already, Amazon is rumored to buy AMC theaters, and Uber is in talks to buy Grubhub.
• Tax Cut for the Wealthy: This bill includes a repeal of the State and Local Tax Deduction, which primarily benefits the wealthy.
• Bailout of Mortgage Servicers: This bill extends Federal aid to mortgage servicers, who were the thinly capitalized entities at fault for the foreclosure crisis. These servicers have fought attempts at reform of their industry to make their business safer and are now demanding a no-strings-attached bailout.
• Subsidies for Health Insurance Monopolies: Rather than extending Medicare or Medicaid to the unemployed, this bill would fund COBRA, subsidizing health insurance monopolies and offering nothing to millions of Americans whose jobs never offered health insurance to begin with.

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.

American Families Need Income During The Pandemic Trump Has Extended With His Early-- And Continuing-- Incompetence

Pramila Jayapal-- still moving the country forward

Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus let Pelosi know what they expect to be included in the next federal COVID-19 relief package. Although Pelosi was once a co-founder and active member of the caucus-- and although it's the biggest of the Democratic groupings in Congress-- Pelosi pays far more attention to what the Blue Dogs and New Dems want than what the mainstream of the Democratic Party wants. The letter, which was sent by CPC co-chairs Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan, identifies four key areas that should be prioritized in order to ensure a just, effective, and equitable response to the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Keeping people on payrolls
• Providing economic relief
• Protecting public health
• Safeguarding our elections

The letter also highlights three principles that should underpin all Democratic efforts on the COVID-19 crisis. Progressives want everyone, regardless of tax or immigration status, age or disability status, to be eligible for robust assistance. This including parity for tribal residents, U.S. territorial residents, and people living in the District of Columbia, all of whom conservatives always seen to disregard. Progressive also insist that financial assistance must last the duration of the crisis through automatic triggers that tie assistance to economic conditions. "Every action taken by Congress," wrote Jayapal and Pocan, "must address inequality and strengthens racial equity and economic equality."

J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat taking on Trumpist reactionary Steve King in Iowa feels strongly that the CPC is going in the right direction. "Our response," he told me yesterday, "should focus on what is essential and what is not. Our essential priorities must be the health and well-being of all people, especially our frontline workers; providing relief directly to people-- not CEOs; lifting up small businesses and nonprofits; and ensuring the safety of our elections. Steve King has been on the wrong side of this crisis since the beginning. He voted against the Families First Coronavirus Act that provides free coronavirus testing and paid leave, he consistently shares memes making light of this crisis, and he wants to publicly share the names, addresses, pre-existing conditions, and health status of every confirmed COVID-19 case. Sharing this personal information would endanger public safety and likely result in chaos, violence, and potentially, hate crimes."

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova still has a primary opponent, Blue Dog and "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran. She's In full agreement with the CPC COVID-19 relief proposals to Pelosi. She acknowledges "It is an effort to fully fund and support income, healthcare, housing, food, and other assistance to those millions of people who lost jobs, income, housing, food, and  health insurance from the pandemic shutdown. Naturally, my opponent, the incumbent, is not a signatory to this CPC appeal to the Speaker because he doesn't lead on anything. He sits back quietly and pursues small-bore reforms while the world is collapsing around us. We can no longer afford such a representative. We need bold, outspoken, and progressive leadership that fights for a future worth living in. When elected to Congress I will be that kind of leader."

Mike Siegel, the progressive candidate taking on Trump crony Michael McCaul inTexas' newly purple 10th district, has every intention of joining the CPC when he's elected. "Representatives Pocan and Jayapal," he told us, "are leading the way and articulating a progressive vision for how our government should take care of the people. Here in the Texas 10th we have a runoff July 14, and I'm the only candidate who supports this program including monthly cash assistance, student loan cancellation, an eviction and foreclosure moratorium, compassionate release of prisoners and detainees, and universal vote-by-mail. While my opponent has called programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal 'fools gold' and 'selling false hope,' I see these policies as an essential foundation for a more just, sustainable future. How we respond to this crisis could determine our collective future for decades to come. That's why it's so important that, in this moment, we keep fighting for a society that works for everyone."

Robin Wilt is a strong Berniecrat running for a congressional seat in the Rochester, NY area currently occupied by a hackish New Dem with nothing to offer. Robin told me she's grateful to the CPC "for assuming leadership in centering both the needs of people and equity as a guiding principle in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Quite the opposite of a first responder, my opponent has taken the sidelines, deferring to the local and state response to the pandemic and advising constituents to 'contact the New York State Department of Health and the Monroe County Department of Health with any questions or concerns.' In contrast, I believe these times demand true leadership in not only identifying and meeting constituent needs, but also in establishing the underlying principles that the governmental response to the crisis will follow. The CPC highlighted three guiding principles that I strongly support:

1 that everyone should be included in the relief package, regardless of immigration status
2 that people (not corporations) should be the primary beneficiaries of stimulus
3 that stimulus response must not exacerbate racial and economic disparities, but rather be grounded in equity

COVID-19 has exposed existing gaps in the country’s social safety net. An approach that fails to proactively address the disparities that rendered some of us more vulnerable to that system’s inadequacies, can only exacerbate those disparities. That my opponent has not stepped up to chart any course through the crisis, let alone an equitable, people-centered one, should disappoint us all as constituents. A public health crisis is no time to shy away from leadership. Members who have signed on to this letter have demonstrated the true leadership that Rochester and Monroe County deserve."

Tom Guild is also up against a conservative Democrat, in his case, an incumbent Blue Dog, Kendra Horn, one of the most Republican-allied Democrats in Congress. "My opponent," he said, "is very timid and incremental in her approach towards many issues. She tends to side with corporate Democrats in Congress and even worse, many times votes with the Republicans. Sometimes she is one of less than a handful of Democrats frequently voting with the GOP in the House. I fully support the proposal put forward by the Progressive Caucus. It is bold, comprehensive, and helps repair the safety net during the current national crisis. It puts people first and will help many families survive the current onslaught on their health, safety, and economic welfare. Since you can’t much improve on near perfection, I’m excited to endorse what our progressive congressional caucus has put forth. We are lucky to have dedicated and far sighted progressive leaders fighting for working people, economically disadvantaged Americans, and those who will have the most difficult time repairing the damage done to their lives and fortunes that were already hanging by a thread, and who now face devastation without quick and bold action to bring them the necessary assistance this progressive package provides."

You can read the whole CPC letter here. Right now I want to focus on just two very different goals-- ensuring safe elections and guaranteeing every America a paycheck during this Trump-created catastrophe. First off, people are worried about Trump's tendency towards authoritarianism and "winning" at all costs. That's why the CPC is insisting on including three ideas in the next relief bill that Pelosi should not disregard:

• Enact a vote-by-mail requirement for 2020 federal elections while maintaining access to in-person voting for those who do not have access to mail voting.
• Ensure the protection of voting rights through the passage of core pieces of the Voting Rights Advancement Act.
• Invest in state election integrity efforts by appropriating at least an additional $3.6 billion for state-administered elections.

Pramila Jayapal and Bernie introduced bicameral legislation guaranteeing paycheck continuity. Yesterday she told me that "We are in the middle of an unprecedented public health and economic crisis, and it is critical that Congress take bold action to prevent mass unemployment, provide immediate relief to those in need, protect public health and safeguard our elections. And in order to truly get through this pandemic, we have to ensure that relief lasts the duration of the crisis, that every single person has access to assistance and that every single action we takes strengthens-- not weakens-- racial equity and economic equality." Both her legislation and the CPC letter to Pelosi work to achieve exactly that.

The letter includes several clauses to prevent layoffs and protect paycheck continuity, including keeping small businesses (and nonprofits) alive:

• Improve the federal workshare program by allowing businesses in every state to fully participate, with no minimum employee limit, by reducing required work hours to allow small businesses to ramp back up and permitting additional hours to be covered by UI.
• Create a federal Paycheck Guarantee program for employers, including small businesses and nonprofits, to ensure all workers are protected and businesses can quickly return to normal after the emergency ends; with strong conditions for federal assistance.
• Ensure federal dollars flow to workers by strengthening industry bailout oversight through repealing waiver authority that override prohibitions on stock buybacks, dividends and compensation limits; providing subpoena power and independence for the newly-created Special Inspector General; respecting collective bargaining agreements, and ensuring strong reporting requirements on all funds; and by prohibiting the waiver of civil rights obligations on all funds.
• Provide expanded and monthly direct cash assistance of at least $2,000 per person to adults, plus $1,000 for children...
• Expand social safety net programs by expanding Earned Income Tax Credit & Child Tax Credit; waiving TANF work requirements; increasing maximum SNAP benefit by 15% and doubling the minimum monthly SNAP benefit to $30; and barring rules that would tighten eligibility for SNAP. Expand safe access to food by rapidly expanding the SNAP online purchasing program and allocating emergency funding for SNAP recipients to use for grocery delivery fees.
• Support small businesses by placing a moratorium on commercial evictions, limiting small business debt collection, and preventing predatory small business lending. Find more ways to address small business and nonprofit losses via grants and forgivable loans.

Pramila's PAYCHECK GUARANTEE ACT is meant to end mass layoffs, keep workers in their jobs and connected to their health care and other benefits, prevent employers of all sizes from being forced to close permanently, and ensure that the economy is ready to restart when the COVID-19 pandemic ends. Her initial House co-sponsors are Mark Pocan (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Andy Levin (D-MI). The bill is also endorsed by leading economists, labor unions, businesses and a diverse set of national and local organizations. Here's the thinking inside her office that went into the bill and here's a short summary of the legislation which is meant to create "a streamlined program to provide a three-month federal guarantee for 100 percent of worker salaries of up to $100,000 to ensure employers of all sizes keep workers on the payroll and continue to provide employer-sponsored benefits. This paycheck guarantee would automatically renew on a monthly basis until consumer demand rebounds to pre-crisis levels. The bill also includes strong worker protections and fraud prevention measures." Jayapal: "A federal paycheck guarantee is a real solution that matches the scale of the crisis. Mass unemployment is a policy choice. We can and should choose differently. A federal paycheck guarantee would stanch more layoffs and unemployment, and quickly and reliably deliver relief to workers. Workers would not be forced to apply for unemployment insurance, overwhelm that system and then have to once again find a job. Businesses of all sizes would be able to keep workers on payroll and benefits-- and be able to quickly re-open-- partially or fully-- without having to rehire and retrain their workforce."

One of America's top progressive economists, Gabriel Zucman, is fully behind Jayapal's legislation. "Congress needs a more forceful response to the job crisis. If nothing changes, the unemployment rate will soon exceed 20 percent. The federal government needs to guard against mass unemployment by guaranteeing paychecks, like many other countries are already doing. Rep. Jayapal’s Paycheck Guarantee Plan is a critically important step that would save millions of jobs and put the United States on track for a faster recovery."

Both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU are firmly behind the bill, which may help prevent Pelosi and Hoyer from burying it. Mary Kay Henry, president of the SEIU: "Congress must take action on the Paycheck Guarantee Act to help to end mass layoffs, keep working people paid and connected to their healthcare and other benefits. This type of bill is vital to ensuring that the economy is ready to restart when the pandemic ends by protecting the health, safety and long-term economic well-being of working people across America."

This is what Jayapal intends for the legislation-- if McConnell doesn't block it in the Senate-- to accomplish:

• Cover 100% of wages for workers earning salaries up to $100,000 to ensure that employers keep workers paid and out of the unemployment line
• Keep workers enrolled in employer-sponsored benefits, including health care
• Encourage employers to rehire recently laid-off or furloughed workers by covering payroll retroactively to the start of the crisis
• Cover essential business expenses like rent, to ensure that businesses don't shutter completely and can re-open when the pandemic ends
• Get support to workers and employers as quickly as possible, using existing payroll tax infrastructure to facilitate delivery of payments
• Keep workers attached to the labor market and businesses ready to reopen, speeding up the economic recovery.  

The best way to end Mitch McConnell's poisonous political career would be to elect Louisville state Rep. Charles Booker to replace him. Yesterday Booker told his supporters that McConnell blocked the newest pandemic relief bill and is now undermining Kentucky’s state and local leaders working to control the outbreak of the coronavirus. "Governor Beshear, Mayor Fischer, and local leaders are working around the clock to flatten the curve and save Kentuckians’ lives during this pandemic," said Rep. Booker, "and it is dangerous for Mitch McConnell to undermine their leadership. In an attempt to pander to religious conservatives, Mitch McConnell is willing to endanger the lives of thousands of Christians and people of faith across the Commonwealth on Easter weekend. Both of my parents are ministers, and I grew up in the church. It pains me to be away from my church this weekend as we celebrate the Resurrection. The decision to ask Kentuckians to stay home this weekend is not an infringement on faith; it comes as a necessity to save lives, and from the principles of our faith that tell us to care for one another."

Republicans Want You To Die Quickly-- Wouldn't It Be Nice If The Democratic Party United Firmly Behind An Alternative?

Yesterday, AOC sent her followers a note: Just months ago, the official campaign arm of House Democrats (the DCCC) announced that they would blacklist anyone who worked on a primary challenger’s campaign. That’s made it much harder for progressive challengers to get the resources, staff, and tools they need to win. It’s clear that we need our own support system on the progressive side of the party. That’s why we’ve worked so hard to raise nearly $300,000 for progressive candidates and causes this cycle. But we need to do a lot more, and in order to do so we need to grow this movement. The DCCC is enforcing their anti-incumbent rules by requiring a 'loyalty' pledge from the partners they work with. But what is that loyalty to? The values of the Democratic Party? Absolutely not. It is only loyalty to incumbents-- full stop. The DCCC has stamped down on progressive challengers while embracing partners and candidates that openly work with pro-gun, anti-choice, or corporate-friendly groups. We cannot allow the DCCC to slam the door on candidates who challenge the status quo."

Also yesterday, the uber-reactionary U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent out a "key vote alert," basically warning conservatives of both parties that if they vote for H.R. 3 it will be held against them-- and the Chamber happens to be one of the biggest institutional bribe-givers in American politics. "This legislation's government price controls on prescription drugs would threaten to cut critical medical research dollars essential for innovation and the development of new cures, and would endanger the livelihood of an estimated 1 million Americans. The Chamber will consider including votes on this legislation in our annual How They Voted scorecard."

Continuing to lie and using right-wing talking points, the Chamber warned that the proposals "would curb access to lifesaving medicines and eviscerate an estimated 1 million American jobs." I wonder if they just rolled out their opposition letters to Social Security and to Medicare to come up with this crap.

This is important because, as my grandfather, a Socialist who was enamored of FDR and the New Deal, always taught me, "there's only one thing worse than the Democratic Party-- the Republican Party." Trump's and MoscowMitch's strategy for dealing with runaway drug prices is, basically, "Giddyap"-- while blaming the whole mess on the Democrats, who are easy targets. Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett has a great way of bringing down the cost of drugs-- H.R. 1046-- which has 127 co-sponsors, most of the Democrats. The Republican Party, of course is opposed but it is Pelosi, Hoyer, Pallone and the criminal Big PhRMA bribe takers who are blocking it. What the conservatives and crooks object to in Doggett's bill is that if companies don't treat government drug price negotiations fairly, the government could enable HHS to issue licenses to competitors who would be able to produce the same drug as a generic, effectively eliminating a company’s monopoly on a particular drug. This approach would push companies to approach negotiations around drug pricing more seriously-- and make sure that patients could still access a particular drug even if the company manufacturing it opted out of negotiations. Conservatives light their hair on fire over this-- just the way the used to when Social Security and Medicare were first brought up, just the way they do when anything that helps working families is brought up. Conservatives are not and have never been the friends of the working class. Wendell Primus, the deranged anti-Medicare-for-All fanatic who Pelosi allows to set Democratic health policy has always insisted that Medicare not be allowed to negotiate drug prices at all, ever, the Republican Party position.

This week the Congressional Progressive Caucus threatened to block Pelosi's weak and ineffective drug pricing bill-- which will never get through the Senate anyway-- if it was at least a little better for working families. Although the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- wanted a floor fight over it, Pelosi backed down after she counted the numbers. Arch right-wing scumbag Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), one of Congress' most corrupt members hissed "Make my day."

Pelosi insisted on keeping her shit bill but allowed a few progressive tweaks in return for the CPC dropping a threat to upend the vote altogether. Pelosi's bill allows Medicare to negotiate the prices of a few commonly used over-priced drugs, but just a few. The CPC tweaks increase he number of drugs from 35 to 50. They also forced Pelosi and her anti-healthcare czar, Primus, to include a provision that will pave the path, but still not enact, to prevent predatory drug manufacturers-- who give both Republicans and Pelosi and her team millions of dollars in bribes annually-- from continuing to hike their prices beyond inflation.

AOC (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) led the fight against Pelosi and Primus. Today the House voted 230-192 in favor of the improved bill, every Democrat and two electorally super-vulnerable Republicans in favor. 191 Republicans + independent conservative Justin Amash voted against it. Earlier 3 right-wing Democrats voted with the Republicans to kill the bill with a failed motion to recommit-- Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT).

Trump said he will veto the bill if it passes, which means MoscowMitch will not allow a debate, let alone a Senate vote. Jayapal and her co-chair, for the Progressive Caucus: "Democrats won back the House promising to take on pharmaceutical greed and meaningfully lower drug prices for patients. We look forward to voting for the improved H.R. 3 this week, so Congress can fulfill that commitment."

The rule for the bill that had to pass yesterday for the vote today, passed 196-170, all the Democrats + Independent Justin Amash voting for it and all the Republicans voting against it. Interestingly 37 Democrats and 27 Republicans didn't vote at all. Among the Democrats boycotting the vote were many Blue Dogs and New Dems who were present-- Kurt Schrader (Blue-OR), Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Terry Sewell (New Dem-AL), Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ), Lou Correa (New Dem-CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO), Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA) and Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)-- but were pouting over the progressive improvements.

Doggett, who didn't vote on the rule either, pointed out that Pelosi's shady bill won’t even address cases of price gouging like that of Martin Shkreli. Finally Primus saw Pelosi partially raise the white flag Tuesday night increasing the the number of negotiated drugs to 50 and, agreeing to Jayapal's amendment directing the secretary of labor to implement a policy refunding money to employer-sponsored insurance plans when drug makers hike their prices more quickly than inflation.

Juliette Cubanski, an associate director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation: "The changes to H.R. 3 aren’t major in terms of dramatically moving the needle on expected savings, at least in the short term... In general for now, though, the move seems to be more about politics than policy."

The Progressive Caucus was glad to have gotten their tweaks out of Pelosi and wrote that "While we didn’t get everything we wanted, the changes we have negotiated over the past few months will bring relief to millions of Americans who would otherwise have been left out of this landmark legislation. This was a collective movement."

Shahid Buttar, the progressive Democrat challenging Pelosi in a primary noted that "Prescription drug prices today reflect a broad-based market failure and allow pharmaceutical firms to gouge patients forced to secure their medicines at any cost. Too many Americans  ultimately risk bankruptcy or homelessness simply because they fell ill. Arbitration is literally 'arbitrary,' and we need more powerful tools to ensure that medicines remain affordable. HR 1046 is a thoughtful and important proposal to subject companies enjoying regulated monopolies to consider the public interest when setting pharmaceutical prices. San Franciscans deserve a representative who will stand up for their right not to be preyed upon by drug companies instead of throwing us under the bus."

Heidi Sloan, one of the progressive Democrats running for the gerrymandered TX-25 seat occupied by anti-healthcare fanatic Roger Williams, told me right after today's vote that "I support any effort to lower out-of-control drug prices, but am disappointed HR-3 has been watered down. This is unfortunately a trend with Speaker Pelosi. We are proud to endorse and have been endorsed by Shahid Buttar, who will replace Pelosi with true progressive leadership, and help win Medicare for All, which is what we truly need to make prescription drugs available to all people."

Eva Putzova, former Flagstaff City council member and AZ-01 congressional candidate for the seat held by Republican turned Blue Dog (not much of a leap there) Tom O'Halleran, wasn't happy with the "improved" version. "Although the Pelosi bill was improved by pressure from the progressive caucus, it is far from what we need. Instead of the government having the authority to negotiate prices for just 50 drugs as now required in Pelosi’s bill, the federal government should have the authority to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies over the prices of all drugs. In the event the drug companies refuse to negotiate, then the government should be able to license competitors to sell generic drugs. It is about time that our elected representatives cared more about the health of their constituents than the profits of the drug companies."

Shaniyat Chowdhury is running for the southeast Queens congressional district held by one of Congress' most corrupt members, New Dem Greg Meeks. Like most of the New Dems, Meeks has done nothing to help solve the problem of over-priced prescription drugs. Chowdhury calls it a "tale of leadership vs lip service. Gregory Meeks will only sign onto most bills where the party will go. The only time he steps out of bounds is to help his billionaire friends. That’s more than enough to let the public know that politicians like Meeks only serve the wealthy and powerful regardless of political affiliation. Unlike him, our campaign and team will run on values like ethics and morals. It’s not enough to passively sign onto Medicare-for-All and then not negotiate the drug prices to take power away from pharmaceutical companies who are hurting the American people. I’d vote against this-- and then fight for Medicare for All which would 100% allow affordable drug prices to be negotiated.

Marie Newman, the Chicagoland progressive taking on anti-healthcare fanatic Dan Lipinski-- who even voted against Obamacare!-- said she is "so glad the Progressive Caucus worked hard and strengthened this bill. Next step: Medicare for All." Brianna Wu, the progressive Democrat running for the Boston area seat occupied by corporate New Dem Stephen Lynch, sees it much the same way Marie does. "I suppose HR-3 is a start," she said, "and I appreciate the determination of the Progressive Caucus to make the bill better. But the shortsightedness of limiting the scope of the bill to only 50 drugs concerns me. No American should be priced out of life saving prescription drugs, no matter which drug is required. This bill provides yet another argument for the need for a real Medicare For All program, where all prescription drugs are truly affordable for all Americans. Incrementalism should not be mistaken for a permanent fix. We need to get to the finish line, and when I’m in Congress, I’ll make sure we do."

Is EITHER National Political Party Worth Saving?

On CNN yesterday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that "The Republican party has got to get a grip on itself. Republican leaders and members of the Congress… are holding back because they’re terrified of what will happen [to] any one of them if they speak out." Trump appears to be overseeing the disintegration of the GOP. But before you start cheering, at least understand that the other party controlled by corporate interests, the Democratic Party, has been gradually shifting right to fill the ideologically conservative void. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has been an utter failure and has allowed the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- to increasingly take control. Mark Pocan, once a timid centrist in the Wisconsin legislature, has managed to put himself at the head of the CPC where he has offered to shelter New Dems from the activist grassroots by allowing them to pay dues and claim they are "progressives." Yes, progressives who are also New Dems, often voting with the New Dems against progressive priorities. Right now all these so-called "progressives" below are New Dems. (Their ProgressivePunch ratings are included)

• Don Beyer (VA)- C
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)- F
• Brendan Boyle (PA)- F
• André Carson (IN)- C
• Veronica Escobar (TX)- A
• Gil Cisneros (CA)- F
• Angie Craig (MN)- F
• Madeleine Dean (PA)- B
• Brenda Lawrence (MI)- B
• Katie Hill (CA)- F
• Stephen Horsford (NV)- F
• Debbie Mucarsell-Powell (FL)- C
• Donald Norcross (NJ)- F
• Darren Soto (FL)- D
• Lori Trahan (MA)- A

Last cycle, Pocan actually went down to Orlando to campaign in the LGBTQ community for reactionary New Dem Darren Soto against Alan Grayson, of whom Pocan has always been jealous.

Russ Cirincione is the progressive candidate running against a former-progressive in New Jersey's Middlesex and Monmouth counties (NJ-06). "What does it mean to be Progressive?" he asked. "Progressives are loyal to the people they represent," he responded to his own question. "The first standard is simple-- progressives put the people they represent first. Progressives have an ethical standard of loyalty-- to be loyal to the people, we must reject all lobbyist money and corporate PAC money. No one can serve two masters, it’s either the money or the People. I choose to represent the People and have pledged to never take a dime of corporate PAC money, because I'm a true progressive. The standard of loyalty to the People is one that Frank Pallone cannot meet any longer. In last year’s campaign cycle he took over $1,000,000 from the health insurance and pharma lobbies. They contributed nearly 40% of all the funds for his campaign re-election, and quite literally paid for a seat in the House of Representatives. They got one of the top three Democrats on their team who now chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee. And, not surprisingly, Pallone has actively prevented the Medicare for All Act of 2019 from being called for a vote, which has stalled in his committee since February 2019."

"Pallone will never support Medicare for All, Single Payer," Cirincione continued. "He’s been paid not to. He’s even afraid of the very people who have donated to his campaigns. At a recent event this year, he said that he was worried about attack ads calling him a socialist from the very industries whom financed his campaign in 2018. It’s time for a champion in the House that will be loyal to the People, reject big money, and stand up to the powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industry by demanding Medicare for All." Yep, Frank Pallone-- another proud member of the CPC-- making sure no progressive legislation gets to the floor of Congress until he's watered it down into uselessness, if even then. Notice that the Democrats control Congress and neither Medicare-For-All nor the Green New Deal has been voted on.

Anthony Fisher reporting for Business Insider yesterday, wrote that NeverTrump Republicans are trying to decide if the GOP is worth saving. The GOP grassroots approve of Trump-- and immensely so (90% in some polls). Trump's 3 primary opponents-- former governor Bill Weld (MA), former Rep. Joe Walsh (IL) and former governor and congressman Mark Sanford (SC)-- all agree with most Americans that Trump is unfit for office. But none have gained any traction with GOP voters.

The three GOP challengers also say Trump has betrayed the party's long-held principles of free market capitalism, maintenance of a robust foreign policy through international alliances, and an openness to immigrants as a vital part of America.

But most of Trump supporters don't seem to care about those principles. For them, the Republican Party was merely a vessel to get their man in power, where he would unapologetically savage their enemies (the liberal elites, the media, immigrants) and enact a right-wing populist agenda. If Trump started his own new political party tomorrow, his base would almost surely follow suit.

That begs the question: What exactly are Weld, Walsh, and Sanford fighting for? ... Walsh and Sanford both come from the Tea Party, the previous surge of right-wing populism that had its biggest moments in the 2010 and 2012 congressional elections. But Walsh only served one term before pivoting to a career as a conservative radio talk show host, and Sanford lost his House seat in 2018-- in no small part because of his opposition to Trump.

The lesson was not lost on Sanford's Republican congressional colleagues, and for good reason. Trump is far more popular than they are.

As for old Republican tentpole issues like fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets and cutting deficits, no less a conservative authority than Rush Limbaugh admitted on his show this past June that "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it's been around."

Trump's GOP challengers each represent a certain Republican archetype that barely exists anymore. But they find common cause in decrying Trump's rhetoric-- which now defines their party more than any economic policy.

...But the question is, do any of them truly see any remaining semblance of the party they once knew and loved? Do they believe the GOP will return to its former self once Trump leaves office?

Given the relative ease with which Trump took over the party in 2016, and the overwhelming and sturdy support of the his base, there's no reason to believe Republicans will reject Trump-- and the force of his personality is likely to be endemic to the conservative movement for years to come.

What the Never Trumpers also must reckon with is what comes next if Trump loses reelection in 2020. Because if anger is baked into the Trump brand, it's unlikely that such a visceral emotion simply dissolves from the Republican Party just because the boss has left the building.

That's why Republican anti-Trump dissidents would be better off forming their own party, one which represents the erstwhile Republican values that were so soundly rejected by the GOP electorate in 2016.

Really? Or just joining the Democratic Party-- which now supports many of those old "tentpole" Republican issues like fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets and cutting deficits, all cornerstones of the Blue Dogs' and News Dems' approach to governance. The progressive end of the Democratic Party-- not the phony Pocan end-- are actually what the Democratic Party is all about. Listen to Rebecca Parson, the progressive candidate running for Congress in a Washington seat held by the head of the New Dems. Do you think the Congressional Progressive Caucus is supporting her? Of course not.

Most Actual Democrats Are Progressives-- Though Not The Ones In Congress

According to a new poll from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey, 54% of Democrats describe themselves as liberals. In 1974, when GSS first asked that question, only 32% did, most of the rest describing themselves as moderates or conservatives. Harvard's Co-operative Congressional Election Study released this year, show that even Dems who identify as conservative, support progressive policies. In fact, more than 90% of Democratic voters-- if not careerist congressmembers, support Medicare-for-All, want to see the federal minimum wage increase to at least $12 per hour, and agree that the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide emissions. While Republican-controled legislatures around the country are passing very extreme and radical anti-Choice legislation, 80% of Democrats agree that governments should not restrict women’s access to abortion.

But even the grassroots of the party identifies as liberal and supports a progressive agenda, many, perhaps most, Democrats in the House are not liberal and do not support a progressive agenda. They are careerists and opportunists who support whatever it takes to advance their careers. Like most politicians, they follow; they do not lead. There are nearly two dozen men and women running for the Democratic presidential nomination. When it comes to policy, two-- Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren-- are leaders. The rest are, at best, followers or, at worst, reactionaries.

There are 235 Democrats serving in the House today. Only 108 are co-sponsors of Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All bill (H.R. 1384). Only 91 are co-sponsors of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's Green New Deal (H.R. 109). And, most shockingly of all, there is even resistance inside the Democratic caucus-- primarily led by the New Dems-- to Bobby Scott's $15 federal minimum wage legislation (H.R. 582). 205 Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors, although some are plotting behind the scenes to scupper it. And that still leaves 30 Democrats unwilling to co-sponsor a desperately needed livable minimum wage, primarily Blue Dogs, New Dems and cowards who are afraid of the wrong thing. (Cheri Bustos' new diktat about no primaries, helps make conservative DINO Democrats, like herself, feel less anxious about screwing their own base.

It's imperative that unaccountable Democrats in deep blue districts who never have to worry about facing a Republican opponent fear having to face a Democratic one. I've noticed that after Marie Newman almost defeated bigoted Blue Dog Dan Lipinski in 2018, he began voting slightly less frequently with the GOP. (Example, his Trump adhesion score for the 115th Congress was a ghastly 40.9%, one of the worst scores for a Democrat in Congress in terms of backing Trump. Newman is primarying him again and in the 116th Congress, his score is perfect-- zero... no Trump votes at all. ProgressivePunch still rates him an "F" but his lifetime crucial vote score is a 57.99, while this year his crucial vote score is 92.31, the same as progressives Chuy Garcia, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, David Cicilline and Steve Cohen.)

The CPC-- Congressional Progressive Caucus-- has done well on the policy front but has been largely ineffective as a political vehicle. The new co-chair, Pramila Jayapal, is working hard to remedy that. Last week, the CPC actually stood up against party leadership when it tried to rush through a budget that drastically overspent on the military and woefully underspent on domestic progressive priorities. Pelosi and Hoyer were forced to withdraw their plans to call a vote on the budget, caught between the Democratic wing of the party (basically the CPC) and the Republican wing of the party (Blue Dogs and New Dems). Jayapal: "This is a big victory in that it became clear that without real, strong progressive inclusion into the process of a bill, we're not going to be able to get there. We have to make sure our priorities are taken into account."

The budget bill Pelosi and Hoyer tried to ram through caps Pentagon spending at $664 billion in 2020 and $680 billion in 2021, while capping domestic spending at $631 billion in 2020 and $646 billion in 2021. The CPC position is that there has to be equity between domestic spending and defense spending. A much better strategy would be to flat out stop increasing the Pentagon budget until after an audit is successfully completed.

Results of the inspection-- conducted by some 1,200 auditors and examining financial accounting on a wide range of spending including on weapons systems, military personnel and property-- were expected to be completed later in the day.

“We failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told reporters, adding that the findings showed the need for greater discipline in financial matters within the Pentagon.

“It was an audit on a $2.7 trillion dollar organization, so the fact that we did the audit is substantial,” Shanahan added... Shanahan said areas the Pentagon must improve upon based on the audit results include compliance with cybersecurity policies and improving inventory accuracy. In a briefing with reporters, he did not provide a figure detailing how much money was unaccounted for in the audit.