No One Can Force A Presidential Candidate-- Let Alone A President-- To Read (Or Understand) The U.S. Constitution... Trump's Executive Orders

The big news Sunday was Trump's executive orders after he sabotaged the negotiations with Congress for a pandemic relief bill. No doubt, his zombie followers will eat it up. No one else will. Jim Tankersley did an analysis for NY Times readers-- Trump’s Go-It-Alone Stimulus Won’t Do Much to Lift the Recovery. He wrote that Señor Trumpanzee's executive actions "were pitched as a unilateral jolt for an ailing economy. But there is only one group of workers that seems guaranteed to benefit from them, at least right away: lawyers." The orders include an eviction moratorium, a new benefit to supplement unemployment assistance for workers and a temporary delay in payroll taxes-- although if re-elected he's planning to make it permanent, a way to fulfill nearly 9 decades of GOP dreams to end Social Security. "They could," wrote Tankersley, "give renters a break and ease payments for some student loan borrowers. But they are likely to do little to deliver cash any time soon to Americans hit hard by the recession. Even conservative groups have warned that suspending payroll tax collections is unlikely to translate into more money for workers. An executive action seeking to essentially create a new unemployment benefit out of thin air will almost certainly be challenged in court. And as Mr. Trump’s own aides concede, the orders will not provide any aid to small businesses, state and local governments or low- and middle-income workers. If the actions signal the death of a congressional deal to provide that aid, economists warn, the economy will limp toward November without the fiscal support that hastened its recovery after its quick dive into a pandemic-induced recession."

The federal government’s aid to small businesses through the Payroll Protection Program was set to expire on Saturday. Executives, trade groups and business lobbyists had pushed hard for a second round of lending-- along with new programs to get money to the businesses and industries hit hardest in the crisis-- to be included in any congressional stimulus deal. Mr. Trump’s actions do nothing to help those companies.

Low- and middle-income families’ spending power was bolstered in the spring by direct payments of $1,200 per adult that were included in a relief bill Mr. Trump signed into law in March. Lawmakers were pushing for a second round of those checks in a legislative deal. Mr. Trump’s measures will not provide them.

The orders will not provide aid to states and local governments, whose tax revenues have plunged as a direct result of the contraction in economic activity brought on by the virus. Without more money from the federal government, states and local governments will almost certainly have to cut their budgets and lay off workers, increasing the ranks of the unemployed.

Supplemental unemployment benefits of $600 per week, which expired at the end of July, had been supporting consumer spending at a time when about 30 million Americans are unemployed. Mr. Trump’s memo seeking to repurpose other money, including federal disaster aid, to essentially create a $400-a-week bonus payment is likely to be challenged in court and is unlikely to deliver additional cash to laid-off workers any time soon. It, too, raises questions even if it is deemed legal-- for instance, whether states that are already struggling with their budgets will be able to afford the 25 percent contribution that Mr. Trump’s memo says they will need to make toward the new benefit.

...But if negotiations falter now and aid remains scarce for people and businesses, Mr. Trump will be making a political bet: that it is better to tell voters he tried to help the economy than to have actually helped it. Mr. Trump is the president, and he has happily claimed credit for the economy’s performance.

If job growth slows further, and millions of unemployed Americans struggle to make ends meet, he will need to make the case for why the symbolism of acting alone won out over the farther-reaching effects of cutting a deal.

On State of the Union yesterday, Pelosi told Dana Bash that "whether they're legal or not takes time to figure out. I associate my remarks with what the Senator Sasse who says, they're 'unconstitutional slop.' Right now we want to address the needs of the American people. As my constitutional advisers tell me, they're absurdly unconstitutional." In case anyone doesn't understand what Pelosi was saying there, Alan Grayson, a bona fide genius, explained that "The Trump executive orders are not only illegal, but they’re unconstitutional. Anyone who tries to implement them will be facing criminal charges under the Antideficiency Act, 31 USC 1341. And, obviously, this is an impeachable offense, a “high crime” that abuses the power of the office. Trump is a Constitutional pyromaniac. As to the policies in the executive orders, the emperor has no clothes, so he’s trying to steal the Democrats’ clothes. It’s pathetic to watch the orangutan scratch his belly, screetch, and pretend that he gives a damn about anyone else."

Tom Suozzi (D-NY) represents the North Shore of Long Island, from the border of AOC's district in Queens (Whitestone and Beechhurst) straight thru Nassau and into Suffolk as far as Kings Park and the Nissequogue River. The former Nassau County Executive, Suozzi is now a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Understanding how tax dollars are raised and spent is his field of expertise. And this morning, discussing Trump's clownish executive orders, he told us that "It’s not about the merits of $400 unemployment (of which $100 is paid by the states), or a payroll tax cut (which will decimate Social Security) or any of his executive orders. It is about the fact that it’s ILLEGAL. It is why we have a Congress. The President can’t, other than in limited instances, just do what he wants, especially when it comes to spending money. It’s just more in a long list of gimmicks by a failing president trying to hold on to power."

The Washington Post assigned a team to work on figuring it out-- Jeff Stein, Erica Werner and Renae Merle. They saw it-- as did much of Congress-- through the parameters of Trump's challenge to the constitutional order. "The measures," they wrote, "would attempt to wrest away some of Congress’s most fundamental, constitutionally mandated powers-- tax and spending policy. Trump acknowledged that some of the actions could be challenged in court but indicated he would persevere. Trump bemoaned how Democrats had refused to accept his demands during the recent negotiations but attempted to brush it aside, saying four measures he signed Saturday 'will take care of pretty much this entire situation.' But there were instant questions about whether Trump’s actions were as ironclad as he made them out to be. A leading national expert on unemployment benefits said one of the actions would not increase federal unemployment benefits at all. Instead, the expert said it would instead create a new program that could take “months” to set up. And Trump’s directive to halt evictions primarily calls for federal agencies to 'consider' if they should be stopped. Trump also mischaracterized the legal stature of the measures, referring to them as 'bills.' Congress writes and votes on bills, not the White House. The documents Trump signed on Saturday were a combination of memorandums and an executive order."

McConnell cheered him on, although he didn't explain why Trump's executive actions didn't include a second $1,200/person stimulus check that Congress had already agreed to. As Forbes reported, Trump targeted a payroll tax, reduced unemployment benefits, a bogus eviction moratorium study that won't keep a single family from being evicted and some student loan relief that will do little to help anyone "as his four areas of focus for an executive order. He never mentioned including stimulus checks as part of his executive order plan."

Jack Balkin summed up the unemployment aide program part of Trump's made-for-TV ploy on his must-read blog as Inadequate, Unworkable, and Unlawful. He wrote that Trumpanzee's "effort to relieve the pressure he and Senate Republicans have been feeling over the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits is a failure on every level. It provides too little in aid. It will miss many families in need. It will expire very soon. It likely cannot be implemented in some states. And it is transparently unlawful."





How many lies can you count? As Alan Grayson put it the day after Trump's nationally televised half hour of gaslighting, "I would advise anyone who is still under the illusion that Trump is fit for office to listen to his speech yesterday. He is a babbling fool and a Constitutional pyromaniac, with a human applause track wired in the room to feed his infinite, insatiable ego."

Jim Himes (D-CT), like every congressional Democrat I've spoken to, is not satisfied with how the GOP is handling this, not even a little. "The so-called executive orders are way too little, way too late," he told me. "Americans are suffering badly and the Republican response has been to 'hit pause,' then to ask for F-35s and full expensing of business lunches, and now to offer weak presidential action. It is time for my Republican colleagues to summon even a fraction of the passion and enthusiasm with which they cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% to actually help the American people in a historic crisis."

The End Of The NRA?

Last night Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Tom Hamburger explained NY Attorney General Leticia James' decision to sue the NRA out of existence or, at least, out of New York, where they have been a chartered charity for over a century. James' case revolves around the $64 million top NRA officials drained out of the non-profit to enrich themselves, "a decades-long pattern of fraud to raid the coffers of the powerful gun rights group for personal gain," wrote Leonnig and Hamburger. "In her lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James called for the dissolution of the NRA and the removal of CEO Wayne LaPierre from the leadership post he has held for the past 39 years, saying he and others used the group’s funds to finance a luxury lifestyle. She also asked a New York court to force LaPierre and three key deputies to repay NRA members for the ill-gotten money and inflated salaries that her investigation found they took. James accused the NRA leaders of flouting state and federal laws and signing off on reports and statements they knew were fraudulent, while diverting millions of dollars away from the NRA’s charitable mission to benefit themselves and their allies... Her investigation, which began in February 2019, found a 'a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA that was illegal, oppressive, and fraudulent,' according to a statement by the attorney general’s office."

I asked Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi if James can actually do this. He was crystal clear: "One of the central jobs of the New York State Attorney General is to oversee the conduct of charities operating within the state. General James is using the tools in the tool kit of her Charities Bureau to perform the oversight she is sworn to do. Bravo General!"

Trump is going crazy because the NRA spent millions on backing him in 2016 and planned to do the same thing between now and November. I suspect that James' suit is going to tie up their funds, at the very least.

Meanwhile, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine announced Thursday that his office filed a separate lawsuit against the NRA Foundation, which is based in Washington. Racine accused the organization of being a puppet of the NRA, despite legal requirements that it independently pursue charitable purposes. Instead, Racine said his office found, the foundation repeatedly lent the NRA money to address its rising deficits.

James said at a news conference Thursday that she is seeking to dissolve the NRA because of the brazenness of the group’s violations of law.

“The corruption was so broad, and because they have basically destroyed all the assets of the NRA,” she said. “Enough was enough... No one is above the law, not even the NRA.”

Her office cited as a precedent its previous action against the Trump Foundation, which led Trump to shut down the charity in 2018 amid allegations he used it for his personal benefit.

The New York lawsuit against the NRA paints a picture of widespread wrongdoing at the influential gun rights group, and a freewheeling atmosphere in which top officials repeatedly took advantage of their positions for their personal benefit.

In one new revelation, the attorney general said her investigation uncovered that LaPierre recently arranged a post-employment contract for himself with the NRA worth $17 million. He never sought board approval for the deal, the suit claims.

The lawsuit also claims LaPierre failed to report large sums of personal income to the IRS. James’s office said it found that the NRA chief funneled personal expenses through an outside public relations firm, allowing him to avoid reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal income.

James said Thursday that she was referring those findings to the IRS. She also said that if her office uncovers criminal activity, it will be referred to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

In response, the NRA said Thursday that it was filing its own federal lawsuit against James, alleging that the attorney general has violated the group’s free speech rights and has been unfairly targeting the gun rights lobby since she began campaigning for the office.

“This was a baseless, premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend,” NRA President Carolyn Meadows said in a statement. “You could have set your watch by it: the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle.”

NRA officials said they believe James’s action was designed to disrupt the group’s momentum at a critical time in the 2020 election campaign. The NRA political action arm is planning to spend tens of millions of dollars this fall to mobilize its members to defeat Democratic candidates who seek gun restrictions, including putative Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, according to a person familiar with fundraising, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal strategy.

“It’s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda,” Meadows said. “This has been a power grab by a political opportunist-- a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta. Our members won’t be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.”

Trump also decried the legal action against the organization, which spent millions on his behalf in 2016, calling it a “terrible thing” as he spoke to reporters Thursday morning at the White House. He said the NRA had been “decimated” by legal expenses and suggested the group should move from New York to Texas.

Experts in tax law said the deep investigation into the NRA’s finances showed the potential for state officials to vigorously enforce nonprofit rules.

“It is a watershed moment in nonprofit regulation,” said Douglas Varley, who advises nonprofit organizations at the law firm of Caplin & Drysdale.

With a decline in IRS funding and enforcement, there has been a widespread belief that “the locus of nonprofit enforcement is shifting from IRS to the states,” Varley said. “Here is the clearest possible evidence of that reality. I think everyone who believes a strong regulator is needed would heartened by this.”

The dual suits filed by the attorneys general in New York and Washington punctuate nearly two years of infighting at the NRA over management of the group’s funds, a civil war that led to the exodus of many veteran members and top officials.

...The group’s bitter internal battle burst into public view in April 2019 at the NRA’s annual convention in Indianapolis, when then-NRA President Oliver North was forced out by LaPierre after pressing for an internal financial review.

The Washington Post and other news organizations subsequently revealed how the NRA directed funds to board members and how LaPierre racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges at a Beverly Hills clothing boutique and on foreign travel.

The Post also reported how, after a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., Pierre told close associates he was worried about how easily he could be targeted and needed a more secure place to live and sought to buy a $6 million, 10,000-square-foot French-style country estate in Westlake, Texas.

The suit expands on previous allegations that LaPierre improperly charged the NRA for private jet travel and luxury vacations that had no clear business purpose. The filing claims LaPierre billed the NRA more than $500,000 for private charter flights he and his family took to visit the Bahamas eight times over three years.

Last year, a spokesman for LaPierre told The Post his visits to the Bahamas were for NRA business. But the New York attorney general’s investigation found the trips were private vacations.

In four years, LaPierre was reimbursed by the NRA for $1.2 million in expenses that were personal trips, golf fees and gifts, the suit claims.

LaPierre also spent $3.6 million of NRA money for private travel consultants to arrange private jets and executive car service for his and his family’s use over just two years, the suit says. And he set aside several millions each year for private security for him and his family.

LaPierre also enjoyed the largesse of NRA vendors who hoped to keep their organization’s business, the suit said. One vendor gave LaPierre and his wife an all-expense paid trip to Africa for a safari adventure; another frequently loaned LaPierre and his family the use of his 107-foot yacht on his visits to the Caribbean.

Phillips, the former treasurer, is accused in the suit of arranging a NRA deal worth more than $1 million that benefited his girlfriend. The lawsuit also claims that shortly before he retired in 2018, Phillips obtained a contract for himself worth $1.8 million. On paper, Phillips’s contract called for him to provide advice and consulting services for the new treasurer; but the new treasurer said he knew nothing of the contract and never received any services from Phillips, the suit claims.

Powell, LaPierre’s former chief of staff, had his salary increased from $250,000 to $800,000 in just three years as a reward for his loyalty to LaPierre, the suit states, and allegedly pocketed an additional $100,000 he was not entitled to as a housing allowance. In addition, Powell also arranged for his wife and father to earn money through NRA contracts.

The lawsuit accuses Frazer, who was general counsel to the NRA, of failing to make sure the nonprofit was governed properly and followed state and federal laws, and it claims he certified false or misleading annual statements.

James said Frazer failed to comply with the rules on board governance, to make sure the board was aware of and voting on major financial transactions and to follow the NRA’s conflict of interest policy.

A central fraud embedded in NRA finances, James’s suit claims, was a secret agreement to pass questionable expenses through its Oklahoma-based advertising agency, Ackerman McQueen.

Under this agreement, the suit alleges, LaPierre and his inner circle of trusted deputies rerouted millions of dollars in lavish personal expenses for themselves, their families and allies through Ackerman McQueen. The goal was to avoid having the board or other members of the NRA know that the charitable organization was paying so much money for LaPierre’s membership fees at golf clubs, private jets and designer suits, the lawsuit said.

Ackerman McQueen then billed the NRA for these large, unexplained sums, calling them “out-of-pocket” expenses, suggesting they were related to the company’s advertising work for the NRA.

The attorney general’s office said it found that Ackerman McQueen billed the NRA $70 million in just 2017 and 2018 for its public relations work, including “out-of-pocket” expenses.

A very large portion of those hidden expenses were for personal trips and expenses for LaPierre. In a deposition in a separate lawsuit last year, LaPierre acknowledged he did not report any of the NRA-paid expenses as personal income to the IRS and claimed they were business expenses.

In its statement, the attorney general’s office said this practice “did not comply with IRS requirements, and, as a result, all such expenses should have been included by the NRA in taxable personal income for LaPierre.”

The partnership between the NRA and the public relations firm began to crack after James, then a candidate for New York attorney general, announced in summer of 2018 that she planned to launch an investigation of the NRA if she won. LaPierre hired a new law firm, led by Angus McQueen’s estranged son-in-law. That attorney, Bill Brewer, urged that the NRA to audit Ackerman McQueen’s bills in preparation for James’s probe.

At LaPierre’s direction and with Brewer’s help, the NRA ejected its in-house lawyer and sued Ackerman McQueen, accusing them of concealing details of the nearly $40 million the NRA paid the firm each year.

Last spring, North announced in Indianapolis he would not seek a second term as president, warning about exorbitant payments to Brewer’s firm and reports of financial mismanagement.

“There is a clear crisis,” North said in his letter announcing his departure.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) its considered Congress' most brilliant constitutional law expert. This morning he told me that "For many years, the NRA’s non-profit form has been nothing but cheap camouflage for rampant profiteering and straight-up ripoffs of NRA Members. When your political agenda is all about promoting the selfish desires of the few over the Interests of the many, the exploitation quickly comes home to roost."

Kathy Ellis is running for Congress against gun nut Jason Smith in southeast Missouri. She told me she is enthusiastic about James' decision to hold the NRA leadership accountable for their crooked activities. "As I heard the great news that the AG of NY was pursuing charges against the NRA president, board and others for running the 'charity' like it was their own bank," she told me this morning, 'I thought about my dad. He was an NRA member when it was an educational entity and as it became more of an advertiser for the gun manufacturers, he dropped his membership saying, 'Thus is becoming too political and will end up in trouble.' Well, they’re in trouble now. I hope that all the NRA endorsed candidates are 'sweating bullets.'" Marie Newman, who will be part of the class of 2020, seems to agree-- and wanted to make sure the voters in her Illinois district know it:

I Doubt Biden Has What It Takes To Defeat Trump, But I'm Certain Trump's Response To The Pandemic Will Defeat Him

A few days ago, Washington Post reporters Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey, Yasmeen Abutaleb and Lena Sun wrote an essay about how Trump punishes scientists for contradicting his dangerous, crackpot rantings and ravings about COVID-19. Since then, one scientist working on a vaccine, now former head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Rick Bright, who was removed from his job for pushing back against Trump's promotion of hydroxychloroquine, say he's filing a complaint over Trump's illegal retaliation with the HHS inspector general.

The Washington Post team reported that Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, issued a candid warning Tuesday in a Washington Post interview: A simultaneous flu and coronavirus outbreak next fall and winter 'will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through,' adding that calls and protests to 'liberate' states from stay-at-home orders-- as President Trump has tweeted-- were 'not helpful.' The next morning, Trump cracked down with a Twitter edict: Redfield had been totally misquoted in a cable news story summarizing the interview, he claimed, and would be putting out a statement shortly. By Wednesday evening, Redfield appeared at the daily White House briefing-- saying he had been accurately quoted after all, while also trying to soften his words as the president glowered next to him. 'I didn’t say that this was going to be worse,' Redfield said. 'I said it was going to be more difficult and potentially complicated because we’ll have flu and coronavirus circulating at the same time.'"

The remarkable spectacle provided another illustration of the president’s tenuous relationship with his own administration’s scientific and public health experts, where the unofficial message from the Oval Office is an unmistakable warning: Those who challenge the president’s erratic and often inaccurate coronavirus views will be punished-- or made to atone.

...The result is a culture in which public health officials find themselves scrambling to appease and placate Trump, a mercurial boss who is focused as much on political and economic considerations as scientific ones.

...In another instance, Nancy Messonnier, the CDC’s director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, was removed from her post as her agency’s coronavirus response head after sounding early alarms that Americans should begin preparing for “significant disruption” to their lives from a “severe illness.” The CDC held its last daily briefing on March 9-- a forum through which the nation would normally receive critical public health information-- in part out of a desire not to provoke the president.

...“We hope that science and the public health experts are leading the politicians, that their voices are in the foreground, and that the politicians follow their advice,” said Matt Seeger, who has researched crisis and emergency risk communication for the past 35 years at Wayne State University. “But in this case, the political agenda seems to be setting the agenda for the subject matter experts, which is exactly the opposite of the way we would expect to have this happen.”

Seeger, who has watched the daily White House briefings and said he has seen some of the administration’s health professionals speak in other forums, added that “it’s very clear the public health professionals have been self-censoring their statements.” They are, he added, “being very thoughtful and measured and probably adjusting their statements they don’t run the risk of running afoul of the political agenda. That’s very problematic.”

The White House dismissed the idea there was any undue pressure on public health officials from the president.

“Despite the media’s ridiculous efforts to somehow create distance between the president and his top health experts, it is simply fake news,” White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement. “President Trump has relied on and consulted with Dr. Adams, Dr. Birx, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Hahn, Dr. Redfield, and many others as he has confronted this unforeseen, unprecedented crisis and put the full power of the federal government to work to slow the spread, save lives, and place this great country on a data-driven path to opening up again.”

...On Wednesday, asked if health professionals are unable to speak freely in Trump’s administration, Fauci dismissed the suggestion, saying, “Here I am.”

Many public health experts, however, say they are frustrated at what they see happening during the daily briefings, with the scientists being sidelined. According to a Post analysis, since the federal guidelines were announced on March 16, Trump has spoken 63 percent of the time, compared with Birx at 10 percent and Fauci at 5 percent.

“For most of us in the field, there’s frustration with the dance that we’re seeing,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine. “Most of us in the field are incredibly frustrated that they are being put in that position, but also incredibly grateful that they are willing to do it.”

Trump also regularly tells visitors to the Oval Office that he is in touch with doctors in New York-- including his own-- and many others he knows personally.

Guidelines that were drafted by the CDC and Federal Emergency Management Agency for safely reopening the country were watered down by White House officials before they were published, officials say. A person involved in the White House revision of the guidelines, however, said the goal was simply to make them understandable to the public.

Thursday Congress was back in town, sane ones wearing masks and the Republican Party Death Cult refusing to. One top lunatic, Jim Jordan (R-OH) was seen by a reporter happily coughing at his colleagues. John Bresnahan and Sarah Ferris reported that the decision of whether or not to wear a mask is partisan. "A group of at least a dozen House Republicans," they wrote, "pointedly didn't wear masks during the House vote, even while hundreds of their colleagues-- and all but seemingly one Democrat-- were doing so. Their excuses for abstaining were flimsy. 'I didn’t want to take one from someone who needed it,' or 'I left mine in my office' were offered, if they didn’t run away from the question posed by reporters. The culture war happening throughout the United States over the coronavirus was also playing out on the House floor."

I spoke with Jamie Raskin (D-MD) this morning and he told me that "If Jim Jordan doesn’t want to wear a jacket in public, more power to him. That’s a personal fashion choice. But if he doesn’t wear a mask in public in the middle of this pandemic, that’s a dangerous public health decision he’s imposing on everyone else. And it’s a terrible example to set given that at least 25% of infected people are asymptomatic. Jordan’s decision to defy the recommendation of the Capitol physician is not a sign of personal bravery but of personal irresponsibility. If you want to show how brave and tough you are, go volunteer to work with the nurses and doctors. Go spend a week with the grocery clerks or drive a bus. If you have a mask at your disposal and you don’t wear it around other people, you’re just acting like a jerk and advertising it to the world. We wear masks to protect other people as well as ourselves, and that’s just a challenging concept for some right-wing Republicans who are acting like members of a deranged cult without any commitment to the national community. This little episode about masks is reflective of the general irresponsibility and malice which have infected the GOP’s response to the pandemic from the start. And now America has gone over 50,000 deaths and is rapidly approaching one million cases. And they throw a tantrum because they have to wear a mask in public settings. What a disgrace!"

I also spoke with Long Island Democrat Tom Suozzi, who also wore his mask both during the session and for the rest of the day. That's him pictured above on the LIRR on his way home from Washington. "I wore a mask all day yesterday," he told me, "traveling, walking around and in the chamber, but removed it when I spoke on House floor and was socially distant. I can’t fathom why some of my colleagues are refusing to wear a mask. Maybe they think they are being macho or independent. Maybe they are vain. Whatever the reason, it puts themselves and much more important, others, at risk. Bad call.

The Democratic Establishment Freak-Out

That depends on what you mean by "Democrats"

That there is a Stop Bernie movement among the Democratic Party leaders instead of a Stop Republican Oligarch Michael Bloomberg Movement tells you all you will ever need to know about the Democratic Establishment. As a cohort, they are less than worthless. Joe Biden was their anointed Jeb Bush for the 2020 election cycle. And now they are reduced to whining that Tom Steyer's money in South Carolina is obliterating a firewall among elderly rural African-American voters and putting the final nail into Biden's political coffin. Maybe they should have realized that, politically speaking, Biden has been a zombie/corpse for decades.

With Mayo Pete demonstrating the hollowness of his flimsy support outside of wine cellars, their new best hope is the free-spending-- on them-- Republican oligarch. This is the lowest the party establishment has ever sunk. Believe me, none of them were happy yesterday when they woke up to Matt Viser's Washington Post delineation of the massiveness of Bernie's win in Nevada the night before. Let's hope Bernie smashes the party establishment to smithereens on the day after the convention and breathes new life into a wearing, geriatric Democratic Party.

The next Stop Bernie attack will be that if he's on the top of the ticket, incumbents in red and purple districts could lose. The most Republican-voting assholes among Democrats in Congress, Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Ben McAdams (UT), have both said they won't vote for Bernie. Neither, however, votes for virtually anything that's important to Democratic voters. So why should anyone care if they lose their seats? It's arguable that the Democratic Party will be much better off without members in Congress like Brindisi and McAdams, especially if they can pick up actual Democrats in other GOP-held districts, like, for example, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Mike Siegel in Texas, Jon Hoadley in Michigan,  Jennifer Christie in Indiana, Tom Winter in Montana, Chris Armitage in Washington, Liam O'Mara in California, J.D. Scholten in Iowa...

Progressives in the House tell me that Brindisi is the worst Democrat in Congress and they all actually hope he's defeated just so that they won't gave to hear him constantly whining about how anything they try to do for the American people will cause him to lose his re-election battle. One senior Democrat told me he had never hoped for a colleague to lose before, but "I'd rather see a Republican in that seat than Brindisi. He's the worst lily-livered excuse for a Democrat I've ever seen." Meanwhile McAdams openly boasted that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district-- not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so... so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his constituents or his district, unless he's talking about the Republicans in his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. In 2016, they voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie was-- and still is-- the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats and independents in Utah.

OK, back to that report from Mike Debonis and Michael Scherer in The Post about the establishment's newest gambit to derail the working class champion. (If you don't want to read it, just approach Joy Reid if you dare; she's got a sickening version of it on infinite replay.) Debonis and Scherer wrote that "many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018."

The most obvious people to go to to bolster this talking point would be representatives of Team Hillary and-- where that differs at all-- to the Republican wing of the party, like Rahm Emanuel. They went to one of Rahm's would-be clones. "I can tell you that there are a lot of down-ballot jitters based on my conversations with my former colleagues," said Steve Israel," who led the DCCC through some of its biggest losses in contemporary party history. He was kind enough to validate some GOP propaganda for them: "Trump is going to offer the American people this choice: Do you want to continue building the economy or do you want to lurch toward socialism? And that is a real powerful argument in the Democratic districts that Trump won in 2016."

Internal polling and analytics completed last week by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg’s campaign projected that Sanders may be the only presidential candidate to win delegates in every state and district on March 3, delivering him a lead of 350 to 400 out of 1,357 delegates set to be awarded unless race dynamics change, according to a person familiar with the data who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.

If Democrats are awakening to a recognition that Sanders could pull away from the rest of the field, there is far less consensus about whether his nomination will help President Trump win reelection. Sanders’s power to turn out young and blue-collar voters or suburbanites is not fully tested, the ceiling of Trump’s support is poorly defined in a two-way race and the senator from Vermont has not yet been subjected to a negative paid advertising effort.

“Our data shows that all of our potential nominees, including Sanders, have a pathway to victory, but it isn’t guaranteed,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC that has polled heavily in the key presidential swing states. “This election will be close regardless of who we nominate.”

But there is far less flexibility for candidates in smaller districts. That has prompted Republicans to celebrate as they look to reclaim ground they lost in 2018 when largely affluent suburbs rebelled against the GOP in a protest of Trump.

“The Democrats’ embrace of socialism is going to cost them their majority-- I mean, it’s as simple as that,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Bernie is about as good a contrast as we could have ever hoped for.”

Bear in mind that Tom Emmer-- and the economic royalists inside the Democratic Party-- are repeating, virtually word for word, what the conservatives said about FDR, who they also-- unflinchingly and 4 two decades-- labeled a Socialist!!!!! I might remind you that, in every possible way, Michael Bloomberg is the perfect antithesis of Franklin Roosevelt. This is what happened when the conservatives, in some cases of both parties, went to the voters with the Socialism!!!! message against FDR and the Democratic Party:

1932

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%)
• electoral vote 472 to 59 (GOP carried 6 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (GOP lost 11 seats)
• House- 313-117 (GOP lost 101 seats)

1936

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,747,636 (60.8%) to 16,679,543 (36.5%)
• electoral vote 523 to 8 (GOP carried 2 states)
• Senate- 74-17 (GOP lost 5 seats)
• House- 334-88 (GOP lost 15 seats)

1940-- when the VP nominee was an actual Socialist

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,313,945 (54.7%) to 22,347,744 (44.8%)
• electoral vote 449 to 82 (GOP carried 10 states)
• Senate- 66-27 (Dems lost 2 seats)
• House- 267-162 (GOP lost 7 seats)

1944

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 25,612,916 (53.4%) to 22,017,929 (45.9%)
• electoral vote 432 to 99 (GOP carried 12 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (no net change)
• House- 242-191 (GOP lost 18 seats)

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is taking a time-out from Congress. I spoke with him yesterday and he told me that "In every election cycle for many years now, the GOP tries to play mind games with Democrats to turn them against their own leaders, whom the GOP says are never 'moderate' enough to win-- except when they do. And whenever those Democratic leaders actually are progressive, the GOP finds willing co-conspirators in that mind-game among right-wing Democrats. The term 'unelectable' is simply a weapon that right-wing Democrats deploy against progressives, time after time after time. You could make a good argument that Trump actually is further to the right than Bernie is to the left. Where, oh where, are the 'moderate' GOP politicos, wringing their hands over that? Why is it that when Bernie says something lefty, he’s called a socialist, and when Trump does something racist or crazy or just stupid, he’s 'motivating his base?'"





I asked a few members of Congress and some candidates for Congress how they see this dynamic themselves. I started with Los Angeles' liberal lion, Ted Lieu, who endorsed Kamala Harris with whom he had worked closely on several of his legislative priorities both in Sacramento and in Washington. He hasn't endorsed anyone since she withdrew and told me that he will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. He added that he also noted "that the conventional wisdom of Washington insiders was wrong about Obama, wrong about Trump and currently contradicted by the actual voter data when it comes to Sanders. For 5 years the polls have shown Sanders beats Trump in head to head matchups. And in a recent Emerson poll this month, it shows Sanders was the only Democratic candidate to beat Trump in a head to head matchup. The notion that in November a voter will turn out and vote for Sanders and then somehow vote for the down ballot GOP congressional candidate is simply not supported by the data."

Tom Suozzi is a New Dem from Long Island, a serious legislator with serious ideas about how to serve his constituents. We don't agree on issues as much as Ted Lieu and I do but we do agree about the whole party coming together after Bernie is the nominee. Tom endorsed one of the other presidential candidates but told me yesterday that "A big problem in America today is that too many people view their fellow Americans with contempt. It is ok to disagree and disagree strongly, but contempt will destroy us. Just because you don’t agree with someone in their choice of candidate or their position on a particular issue, it does not mean it is ok to view them with contempt. If we are to defeat Donald Trump, we need everyone from Bernie and AOC, all the way to Bloomberg and Biden and everyone in between. If we can’t hold that coalition together, we lose. Campaigns are tough, and candidates and their surrogates play to win, but everyone must recognize that when the dust settles, we need to unite behind the winner, even if it wasn’t your first choice. If we don’t, then Trump wins again." I have no doubt that Tom Suozzi will be enthusiastically introducing Bernie to his constituents when Bernie visits Huntington and Hicksville next fall.

Tomas Ramos, a Bronx-based Berniecrat who is campaigning for an open congressional seat on the same set of issues Bernie is campaigning on, told me last night that "The notion that if Bernie is at the top of the ticket we lose Congress is simply not true. Bernie created a movement the first time around and now the movement has only gotten bigger, with young and old people alike. When I’m out door knocking I ask my voters who are they supporting for president, the common answer is Bernie. People are more excited for Bernie than ever before. The voters in my district know that we need to beat Trump and they know that Bernie is the guy to do so."

Liam O'Mara, a history professor taking on Trumpist Rep. Ken Calvert in Riverside County, California, pointed out that "Democrats have struggled to hold onto congressional majorities, but one key reason for that is their tepid stances on the issues, their frequent preference for right-wing economics, and their refusal to push for policies which are broadly popular. Congress often has an approval rating in the single digits. The drift to the right since the late 1980s has been a demonstrable failure. We have lost most statehouses and most presidential elections, and struggled to hold onto either chamber of Congress. Something has to give. The way forward for Democrats is to embrace progressivism. This isn't the 1970s-- the country has caught up with the progressive agenda on a wide range of issues. Most Americans oppose corporate money's control of our elections. Most Americans support single-payer health care. Most Americans oppose our interventionist foreign policy and our many wars. Most Americans accept the consensus on global warming and want serious action. Most Americans distrust the bankers who keep crashing our economy, and the neoliberal trade deals that have undermined workers, and want better oversight. The list goes on and on. Sanders is doing well because people are tired of the same old message. He is bringing new people into the political process, talking about issues that affect most of our lives, and he's been winning over independents and even conservatives. If Democrats really want to control Congress and the White House, there is a path to both available. I can tell you that in my own race, running a respectful campaign which will talk to anyone and focusses on policy rather than partisanship has been resonating. It is something we should see more of in this country, not less.

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, running for the Oregon seat held by Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, who agrees with Republicans on crucial issues more than with Democrats. " Look, people get all caught up in a variety of complicated theories about what some candidate will or won't do to down ticket races," Gamba told me yesterday. "I think it's much more simple than that. The vast majority of the American people have been getting screwed by neo-liberal, profits first, policies enacted by both Republicans and 'centerist' Democrats for over 40 years. For simplicity's sake, let's call that the status-quo. In 2016 they were desperate for that to change. They still are. Trump has proven himself to be even more blatant about screwing everyone but the 1%. The way we bring out an excited electorate is to offer them real solutions to their problems-- Sanders offers that. So do about 100 people running tough races against incumbent members of the status-quo all over America. What the talking heads are truly frightened of, is Sanders AND an army of like-minded people getting elected and enacting real change that supports the 99%, taxes the bloody rich for a change, stops climate chaos and reduces the constant misery for a few hundred million Americans. So we will continue to see all kinds of half assed theories telling us why electing Sanders will doom us all. Never forget that the talking heads and the media conglomerates they work for are all part of the 1%.

Kim Williams is the Central Valley progressive running for the seat occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa. "Since last summer," she explained, "I’ve knocked on thousands of doors. I’ve heard people’s stories, shook their hands, and listened to their dreams for their children. None of these conversations align with the establishment’s understanding of America. One hundred and forty million Americans have been left behind. They don’t see themselves in the booming economy and they don’t see themselves in the national news. Sanders is the only candidate that acknowledges the very real challenges people face and actually offers solutions. It’s absurd to keep attacking him on his electability when he keeps winning, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that he’s never really been attacked when the media has been unrelenting in their negative coverage. But while pundits panic over the presidential election, we see something very different on the ground. Being a progressive candidate with a policy platform that aligns with Sanders has been a tremendous asset, not a burden. In fact, if someone wanted to coin a phrase for down-ballot races, I think referring to candidates as “Bernie Democrats” would actually be quite powerful. It immediately conveys policy positions and lets normally disenfranchised voters know you’re on their side. This might shake the establishment, but it energizes the majority. And they will ultimately decide who represents them."

Arizona workers rights champion and progressive candidate for Congress, Eva Putzova, was a Bernie delegate to last cycle's DNC. Today she's running on an Arizona version of that platform. "The assertion that a Sanders nomination wlll result in Democrats losing congressional seats is ridiculous. The opposite is the case," she said. "In my district, the momentum generated by Sanders campaign is already firing up the base of the party-- youth, people of color, women, workers and climate activists, and even moderates who are starting to realize that Sanders is fighting to make their lives better and more secure. From my perspective, and that of my campaign, if Sanders wins the nomination it increases my chances to win the primary in August and the general election in November. I share Rep. Lieu's assessment that voters who turn out for Sanders will not vote for GOP candidates down-ballot. All Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, will benefit if Sanders is at the top of the ticket."

"In NY-25, the issues that comprise Bernie Sanders’s platform are the ones that most enthuse our Democratic base," said Rochester progressive Robin Wilt. "As I go door-to-door, Bernie’s platform resonates with the voters whom I engage. I want to clarify that when I mention the Democratic base, I’m not talking about the elite Democratic establishment that comprise fewer than 1% of our Democratic electorate. We recently had occasion to histogram the age of the Democratic Committee in the jurisdiction of Brighton, NY, where I serve in town government. Both the mean and the average age were…wait for it… 62 years of age. The Democratic elite are not representative of the registered base of Democrats. They never have been, and they never will be. When we continue to ignore the voice of the overwhelming majority of the electorate, in favor of amplifying the voices of the establishment that increasingly does not resemble the registered base, we risk mistaking the will of party operatives with the will of the people. I was at the rally at Queensbridge Park. I have been canvassing my Congressional District. The masses believe in the future promised by Bernie Sanders, not the cynicism expressed by an increasingly detached party elite."

Andy Levin And AOC Are Working To Tear Down A Barrier For Consumers Interested In Buying An Electric Vehicle

When Trump first got to the White House, he saw infrastructure spending as a perfect way to transfer taxpayer dollars into his own pocket and the pockets of his campaign donors-- until Pelosi and Schumer told him that isn't the way it works. So he colored on his campaign promises of rebuilding American infrastructure. He now sees infrastructure as building his useless wall on the southern border.

Last week, two of Congress' best members, freshmen Andy Levin (D-MI) and AOC (D-NY) introduced the Electric Vehicles (EV) Freedom Act, H.R. 5770. The purpose is to create a comprehensive nationwide network of high-speed electric vehicle chargers along America’s highways within five years. Yesterday, Levin told his constituents that "When it comes to purchasing an electric vehicle, many consumers are worried about the lack of public charging stations, especially along the highway. But the EV Freedom Act will ensure that drivers along the National Highway System will have ready access to charging stations that can power up their EV in the shortest time technology allows. It’s time to bring our highway system into the 21st century."

He wrote that the bill offers the opportunity to eliminate barriers to consumers who ate interesting these cars and paving the way for rapid mass adoption of electric vehicles. "This transformational legislation will not only help reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change, but it will also create thousands of good-paying automotive and infrastructure jobs. Jobs that are created through the EV Freedom Act will adhere to Buy American and prevailing wage requirements to protect the hardworking people behind America’s new EV future. And, it will make sure our poor communities and communities of color are included in both the new green infrastructure and job opportunities."

On introducing the bill, AOC said that "Cars, above all else, have historically represented America's problem with dirty oil. Establishing a nation-wide network of electric vehicles charging stations helps us reduce emissions, creates good paying jobs, and will help transition the U.S. economy to a cleaner future."

Specifically, the EV Freedom Act:

• Establishes a comprehensive, nationwide network of high-speed EV chargers within 5 years;
• Helps secure the automotive and infrastructure jobs of the future and create thousands of good-paying jobs with robust Buy America and prevailing wage requirements to protect the hardworking Americans who will build an EV future;
• Ensures the chargers built along the National Highway System keep up with new technology to achieve a simple goal-- fully power up EVs in the time it takes to fill up gas and diesel tanks;
• Promotes interoperability so drivers don’t have to fear that chargers won’t be compatible with their cars; and
• Prioritizes accessibility by guaranteeing that payment methods are secure, convenient, and equal access, and that all charging stations are ADA compliant.

The EV Freedom Act directs the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy to devise a plan to create the network of EV chargers, submit the plan to Congress and create the network of EV chargers within five years.

The EV Freedom Act has the support of a diverse group of labor, environment and climate groups, including:

Blue Green Alliance, League of Conservation Voters, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Ecology Center, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), United Steelworkers (USW), United Automobile Workers (UAW) and the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE).

The immediate co-sponsors were Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). Yesterday I spoke with several members who I know are big boosters of electric vehicles, like Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who had written a similar bill when he was in the Maryland state legislature, Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), who all told me they are either going to sign on or are studying it and are likely to sign on. In fact, Tom Suozzi, many of whose Long Island constituents, are commuters, was the first to co-sponsor the bill yesterday... followed by Ro Khanna just moments later.

I also asked some of the top progressive candidates who are likely to be in Congress next year and will be the ones to get this passed, since McConnell is likely to block it from being debated in the Senate in 2020. I recall telephoning Mike Siegel once when he was on a picket line at a car factory supporting local strikers. So I asked him. "This is what the fight against climate change looks like: we must rebuild the American economy, piece by piece, to allow for a sustainable future. Representatives Levin and Ocasio-Cortez speak for all of us, by fighting for the infrastructure we need for electric vehicles. We know America can do this. 100 years ago we provided electricity to rural America. Under FDR we rebuilt our electric grid through the New Deal. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. And now, as we face climate change and massive wealth inequality, we need a new generation of federal programs that will create good new jobs and protect our planet. I look forward to pushing these types of efforts forward when I join the House in 2021."

Jon Hoadley represents Kalamazoo in the Michigan state legislature and he's likely to be the next member of Congress from the southwest corner of the state. He's very enthusiastic about Levin's and AOC's bill. "The Electric Vehicles Freedom Act is a common sense step in the right direction toward transitioning the U.S. away from fossil fuels and toward a cleaner future. Frankly, it should have been done years ago. By establishing a nation-wide network of electric vehicles charging stations, the EV Freedom Act will help us reduce emissions, create good paying jobs, and provide the much needed infrastructure to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels."

This legislation, if passed and signed, will be amazing news for Indiana's economy. We have two candidates running there, Jim Harper, the newest candidate endorsed by Blue America, is very excited about it. His district in northwest Indiana would benefit immensely. "The EV Freedom Act," he told me yesterday, "would be a boon to the working families of Northwest Indiana. The proposal will not only help us kick our addiction to dirty petroleum, but it will also help create good-paying, union jobs. Green infrastructure and technology are the future for our region, particularly in light of a history of industrial pollution that has fallen disproportionately hard on communities of color."

And Jennifer Christie, who is running in a more swingy district north of Indianapolis, is just as excited as Jim. "I love it!," she said when she read about the bill.  "In October, our campaign released a Climate Agenda calling exactly for this and other measures to decarbonize to zero emissions. Comprehensive Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure is essential to solving the transportation component of the climate crisis. What’s more, this will create jobs while we upgrade our highway infrastructure. We also have the opportunity to invest in rural communities and Tribal Nations as we install EV charging networks; There are opportunities to invest in solar projects around charging stations as well as local commerce that will surely develop along the EV grid. In addition to the boost EV infrastructure will give to electric car usage, it will also protect water quality. Gasoline is typically stored in underground storage tanks (USTs). Leaks, spills, and overfills from gasoline service stations are one of the most common sources of ground water pollution according to the EPA. Approximately half of the American population relies on ground water as their drinking source. With an eventual goal of replacing gasoline stations with EV charging stations, imagine the good that we can do for the environment and the economy. I am glad to see this bill introduced. We need more legislative action on climate that directly helps to reduce carbon pollution. Let’s support this bill by calling our current representatives. If I have the opportunity to vote on it, count me as a YES!"

Morgan Harper, the progressive running for the Columbus, Ohio congressional seat, realizes how important this bill will be for central Ohio. She told me this morning that she strongly supports the legislation. "Not only is it critical in our fight against climate change to invest in Electric Vehicle infrastructure, but it provides auto manufacturers, many of whom have a strong presence in Ohio, the clear incentive to invest more, sooner, in their Electric Vehicle programs."

The House Passed 2 Important Bills Before Leaving Town-- One Good One And One Bad One... And Only The Bad One Will Become Law

Before rushing home for Christmas on Thursday, the House voted to pass Trump's NAFTA 2.0-- H.R. 5430-- (385-41) and voted to pass Tom Suozzi's Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act--H.R. 5377-- 218-206. Let's start with NAFTA 2.0. Hoyer introduced it and it was supported by 193 Democrats and 192 Republicans. Trump is eager to sign it. 38 Democrats, 2 Republicans and Justin Amash (I-MI) had the sense to oppose it. It was tough for Democrats to vote against it even though they all knew it sucked because most of the unions had come out for it. Among the independent-minded Dems with the guts to say no were this outstanding baker's dozen:

• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Ted Lieu (D-CA)
• Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• AOC (D-NY)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)
• Nanette Barragán (D-CA)
• Jim McGovern (D-MA)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Chuy Garcia (D-IL)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)

The bill flew right in the face of the #1 reason Ted Lieu had decided to leave his family in beautiful southern California and go work in Congress in miserable DC: the Climate Crisis. He voted NO. Yesterday he told us that "Climate change is an existential threat to our nation and our planet. We simply cannot wait until the next trade deal to begin to take action. At the very moment when we should be taking bold action to address the climate crisis, this deal continues the same old 19th century policies that got us here. For this reason, every major environmental group opposed the USMCA, and I am proud to stand with them in opposing the status quo."

Here's why one of organized labor's best friends and closest allies in Congress, Andy Levin, voted against this deceitful, Trumpist bill. It's worth listening to the whole 78 seconds of what Levin had to say. He's telling the truth-- about something that is excruciatingly painful for him-- which is more than I can say for the party leadership.




Since the bill contained some good points negotiated by the Democrats, it was a tough one to decide on. Pramila Jayapal issued this statement to explain her thinking to her Seattle supporters:

“I have carefully considered the pros and cons of the USMCA over the past several days, engaging in multiple conversations with stakeholders in the business, tech, labor and environmental community in my district and at the national level. This has been a difficult decision to make. I am grateful to the many leaders who discussed their positions and the pros and cons of this agreement with me.

There is no question that we need a new model for a trade agreement that can support American jobs, climate preservation and global business all at the same time. NAFTA was the epitome of the opposite kind of trade agreement. Since the original NAFTA agreement went into effect in 1994, it has had a devastating impact on Washington and our workers-- killing 12,560 manufacturing jobs and leaving workers unemployed or forced to take significantly lower-paying jobs. Our state’s net agricultural exports have plummeted and our giant-- and growing-- agricultural trade deficit has squeezed farmers in Washington and put small farms out of business. And while rarely recognized, the disastrous effects of NAFTA have driven migration north from Mexico, as small Mexican farmers were driven out of business and forced to seek opportunities north of the border.

Thanks to the hard work of House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi, the AFL-CIO, and key communities allies, we were able to take what would have been a disastrous USMCA deal from the Trump Administration and negotiate a significantly better trade deal, so that standards and enforcement of labor rights are included in the agreement itself. In addition, thanks to extraordinary negotiating from Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we got a clean sweep of wins to remove provisions from the Trump Administration’s proposal that would have allowed Big Pharma to make prescription drugs even more expensive for Americans. We also forced the Administration to add stronger labor and environmental protections and eliminate a provision that would have allowed wealthy investors to attack and strike down environmental protections. Let me be clear: Left to his own devices, Donald Trump would have pushed through a much worse trade deal for American workers and our planet.

However, after examining the agreement from all sides, I do not believe that USMCA goes far enough. Specific to Washington state, I am deeply concerned that jobs in the aerospace industry-- critical to our state’s economy-- have received insufficient protections. Several other large labor unions in the state have also articulated some significant concerns that this deal does not do enough to protect vulnerable and exploited workers and prevent outsourcing of jobs to places with lower labor standards. USMCA also relies on the Mexican government to strictly enforce labor standards, ensure strong Mexican unions, and not undercut American workers-- without appropriate measures or assurances to make sure the Mexican government does the right thing.

USMCA also does not do nearly enough to address climate change or protect our precious natural resources. While there are some important provisions related to the environment, the Trump Administration’s failure to recognize the facts and scientific consensus on the urgency of addressing climate change prevented them from incorporating any real measures to protect our planet and people. Every leading environmental organization has opposed the USMCA with force because it fails in all environmental priority areas.  Climate change is the singular crisis of our time, and we cannot afford to kick the can down the road. Washington’s Seventh Congressional District has led on climate issues precisely because we have so many leading scientific and advocacy organizations that have prioritized climate change.

I want to be clear that there is no question that USMCA is better than NAFTA for workers and families across our country. In listening to leading business voices from Washington’s Seventh Congressional district, I also am deeply aware that there will likely be benefits to the Port of Seattle and so many Washington businesses. I have listened to these perspectives very carefully and with an open mind.

I had very much hoped to be able to vote yes on this trade deal. While I voted no on USMCA, I recognize how important trade is to my district, and I am grateful for the feedback and conversations I’ve had with constituents on this issue. I remain committed to pushing for trade policies that are fair and promote a healthy, safe and prosperous future for our communities.”

The Suozzi bill about taxes was a lot easier for progressives to get enthusiastically behind. It was almost a party-line vote-- 213 Democrats voting for it (with 16 nays) and 189 Republicans voting against it while 5 crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats. The bill will increase the tax deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) in 2019 to $20,000 for persons filing a joint tax return. It eliminates the current $10,000 cap on the deduction in 2020 and 2021. And it increases the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6% (from 37%) beginning in 2020, and reduces the dollar amount at which the increased tax rate begins-- so a middle class tax relief bill that McConnell won't allow a vote on and that Trump would veto if it passed the Senate.

This were the 16 Democrats who crossed the aisle:

• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX)
• Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)
• Jared Golden (D-ME)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• AOC (D-NY)
• Chris Pappas (New Dem-NH)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ)

CNBC reported that "New York, New Jersey and California are among the states where taxpayers are feeling the brunt from the $10,000 SALT cap. Among New Yorkers who itemized in 2017, the average SALT deduction claimed was $23,804, according to the Tax Policy Center. New Jersey itemizers wrote-off an average of $19,162 on state and local taxes that year, while Californians claimed $20,451, the Center found. These states are also home to some of the highest income and property taxes in the nation.

Controversy over the SALT cap also has spurred litigation by the affected states.

New York, Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey have filed suit against the Treasury Department and the IRS, asserting that the SALT deduction limit was unconstitutional.

Separately, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are also fighting the Treasury Department and the IRS in court over the agencies’ move to block workarounds established by the three states.

Those workarounds would allow municipalities to establish charitable funds to pay for local services and offer property tax credits to incentivize homeowners to give.

This way, taxpayers can write off the payment as a charitable deduction on their federal returns, which is still permitted if you exceed the standard deduction. In 2019, that is $12,200 for single filers and $24,400 for married filing jointly.

The IRS and Treasury blocked the workarounds in June, saying the receipt of a state or local tax credit in return for the contribution would be a “quid pro quo.”

Suozzi’s bill also calls for raising the highest marginal individual income tax rate.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act slashed individual income tax rates across the board, lowering the top rate for the highest earners to 37% from 39.6%.

The proposed legislation would raise the rates back up to 39.6% for the highest earners and reduce the income threshold at which the top rate would apply.

“It’s hard to see it happening as a standalone bill, even with the rate increase,” said Jared Walczak, director of state tax policy at the Tax Foundation.

“It’s hard to see it happening unless it’s part of a much larger tax bill,” he said.

After the bill passed Thursday, I spoke with Suozzi on his way back to Long Island from DC on the train. You could tell he was overjoyed, not just because he was getting out of Washington, but because the bill he had worked so hard on-- first in the House Ways and Means Committee and then on the floor-- had just passed. "Conservatives," he told me, have always been trying to get rid of state and local taxes... they don't want blue states, progressive states, to be able to fund good public education, good health care programs... They want it all privatized... This was a team effort, a lot of us from all different ideological persuasions got this over the finish line. Now I have to work with Schumer to see what he can do to get this done in the Senate." I reminded him about MoscowMitch, the Grim Reaper. He's undaunted. No one thought he would get his bill passed in the House this year either, he reminded me. But... well, there it is. And he's not giving up. This bill is not just the right thing to do; it's the write thing for his Long Island constituents.

Just as we were ending our conversation-- with a little discussion of Tim Buckley's music-- a California progressive candidate from Riverside County, Liam O'Mara, called. Liam is running to represent a district held by ultra-conservative Trumpist Ken Calvert. Calvert, of course, was not one of the Republicans who backed Suozzi's bill, even though it would have been very advantageous for his own constituents. "Calvert," O'Mara said to me, "wants you to pay higher taxes, simple as that. Yep, he wants more of your hard-earned money eaten up by Washington. He voted for that when he backed Trump's terrible tax bill, which removed write-offs that helped middle class families, causing many to see a sharp rise in their tax burden. And now, he voted against the Restoring Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act, which could restore some of the federal deductions for California taxes that we used to enjoy. The bill also includes a very small rise in the marginal rates paid by the super-rich, which addresses another problem with the last GOP tax cut-- its shifting more of the burden onto the middle. For the first time in American history, billionaires have a lower effective tax rate than the middle class families of the 42nd. In addition, the debt accumulated to pay for that tax break for the rich falls on the rest of us in the form of interest. It's like we all took a cash advance on our credit card in order to buy Tiffany jewelery for the richest couple in town. It makes no damned sense. By refusing to address either of these issues and voting against the Restoring Tax Fairness act, Calvert just flipped the bird to middle class families. He wants all of us to pay higher taxes so the super-rich can get even richer."