Will The Climate Crisis Be A Factor In November?

On Tuesday, Pew released a new poll on the climate crisis which shows that "a majority of Americans continue to say they see the effects of climate change in their own communities and believe that the federal government falls short in its efforts to reduce the impacts of climate change. At a time when partisanship colors most views of policy, broad majorities of the public-- including more than half of Republicans and overwhelming shares of Democrats-- say they would favor a range of initiatives to reduce the impacts of climate change, including large-scale tree planting efforts, tax credits for businesses that capture carbon emissions and tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles... Public concern over climate change has been growing in recent years, particularly among Democrats."

From the moment it seized control of the executive branch, the Trump Regime has been throwing out regulations on the fossil fuel industry, pushing for more drilling and coal mining and weakening vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. Meanwhile 65% of Americans say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change and majorities also feel the Regime isn't doing enough to protect air and water quality.

Consistent with public concerns over climate and the environment, 79% of Americans say the priority for the country’s energy supply should be developing alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar; far fewer (20%) give priority to expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas. To shift consumption patterns toward renewables, a majority of the public (58%) says government regulations will be necessary to encourage businesses and individuals to rely more on renewable energy; fewer (39%) think the private marketplace will ensure this change in habits.

Partisans remain far apart on several overarching questions about climate change. Much larger shares of Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party than Republicans and Republican leaners say human activity is contributing a great deal to climate change (72% vs. 22%), that it is impacting their own local community (83% to 37%) and that the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change (89% to 35%).

Despite these differences, there is bipartisan support for several policy options to reduce the effects of climate change. This is especially true when it comes to proposals put forth earlier this year by Republican members of Congress, such as large scale tree-plantings to help absorb carbon emissions and offering tax credits to businesses that capture carbon emissions.

...84% of U.S. adults support providing a business tax credit for carbon capture technology that can store carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere. Large majorities of Democrats (90%) and Republicans (78%) back this proposal, which House Republicans rolled out earlier this year.

Most Americans also support tougher restrictions on power plant emissions (80%), taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce (73%) and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks (71%). Partisan divides are wider on these three policies, with Democrats much more supportive than Republicans. Still, about half or more of Republicans say they would favor each of these policies, including 64% who back tougher emission standards for power plants.

While partisanship remains the predominant dividing line in many views of climate and the environment, there are meaningful differences within party coalitions.

In particular, Republicans and Republican leaners who describe their political views as moderate or liberal (roughly a third of all Republicans and leaners) are much more likely than conservative Republicans to see local impacts of climate change, support policies to address it and say the federal government is doing too little in areas of environmental protection. Further, younger generations and women in the GOP tend to be more critical of government action on the environment than their older and male counterparts. Republican women also are more supportive of polices aimed at reducing the impacts of climate change than GOP men.

Differences among Democrats and Democratic leaners are more modest. Strong majorities of both moderate or conservative and liberal Democrats believe the federal government is doing too little to reduce climate change and support a range of policies to address its effects on the environment. There are not meaningful differences in these views among Democrats by either gender or generation.

...Majorities of U.S. adults favor each of the five proposals to reduce the effects of climate change included in the survey. The most popular, favored by 90% of Americans, is to plant about a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions. President Trump announced in this year’s State of the Union that the U.S. would join the World Economic Forum’s One Trillion Trees Initiative.

Widespread public support extends to proposals to provide a tax credit to businesses for development of carbon capture and storage capacity (84%) and tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions (80%).

About seven-in-ten also favor taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions (73%) and adopting tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks (71%).

The Trump administration has taken steps over the past year to roll back regulations on carbon emissions in areas such as fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and power plants emissions.

Support for these policies aligns with how effective the public thinks they would be. A 2018 survey found majorities of Americans believed restrictions on power plant emissions, tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce carbon emissions and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars would all make a difference at reducing climate change.

Most U.S. adults think human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, contributes a great deal (49%) or some (32%) to climate change. About two-in-ten (19%) say human activity contributes not too much or not at all to climate change. Views on this question are about the same as they were last fall.

Americans continue to be deeply politically divided over how much human activity contributes to climate change. About seven-in-ten Democrats (72%) say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change, compared with roughly two-in-ten Republicans (22%), a difference of 50 percentage points.

The difference is even wider among those at the ends of the ideological spectrum. A large majority of liberal Democrats (85%) say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. Only 14% of conservative Republicans say the same-- 45% of this group says human activity contributes not too much or not at all to climate change.

Views about the role of human activity in climate change also vary by education among Democrats, but not among Republicans. Democrats who have graduated from college are more likely to say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change than Democrats without a college degree. For example, 86% of Democrats with a postgraduate degree say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change, compared with a smaller majority (58%) of Democrats with no college experience. Among Republicans, comparably small shares across level of education see human activity as contributing a great deal to climate change.

Previous Pew Research Center analyses have found a similar dynamic in views of climate change by level of science knowledge, based on an 11-item index. Among Democrats, those with higher levels of science knowledge are more likely to say human activity influences climate change a great deal than those with lower levels of science knowledge. By contrast, there is no such relationship among Republicans.

There also are significant differences in these views among Democrats by race and ethnicity. Overall, 80% of white Democrats and 70% of Hispanic Democrats say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change. By contrast, black Democrats are much less likely to take this view: 49% believe human activity contributes a great deal to climate change.

Reducing reliance on carbon-based fuels is viewed by climate advocates as a critical step to preventing the worst impacts of climate change. The survey finds a broad majority of Americans (79%) say the more important priority for the country is to develop alternative sources, such as wind and solar; far fewer (20%) say the more important energy priority is to expand the production of oil, coal and natural gas...

An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (91%) say that developing alternative sources should be the nation’s energy priority. A smaller majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (65%) also takes this view.

Among moderate and liberal Republicans, a large share (81%) say developing alternative sources should be the nation’s energy priority. The views of moderate and liberal Republicans are relatively close to those of Democrats: 88% of moderate and conservative Democrats and a near-unanimous 97% of liberal Democrats say the more important energy priority is developing alternative sources. By contrast, conservative Republicans are much more divided in their views: A narrow majority (54%) gives greater priority to developing alternative energy sources, while 45% say the priority should be expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

On balance, a majority of U.S. adults see a role for government in shifting usage patterns toward renewables.

Climate Change Denier-in-Chief by Nancy Ohanian

About six-in-ten Americans (58%) say that government regulations are necessary to encourage businesses and consumers to rely more on renewable energy sources. Fewer (39%) think the private marketplace will encourage the use of renewable energy, without the need for government intervention.

Partisans hold opposing views on this question: 77% of Democrats, including those who lean to the Democratic Party, believe that government regulations are necessary to shift the country toward reliance on renewable energy, while 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the private marketplace will be enough.

Views on this question, and opinion dynamics among partisans, are comparable to what they were when the question was last asked in 2018.

Americans’ overall preference to prioritize alternative energy is reflected in views of specific energy source development.

Large shares say they would favor developing more solar panel farms (90%) and more wind turbine farms (83%).

There is far less support for expanding fossil fuel energy sources. Majorities oppose expanding coal mining (65%), hydraulic fracturing (60%) and offshore oil and gas drilling (58%).

A narrow majority of the public (55%) opposes more nuclear power plants in the country, while 43% are in favor.

...There is bipartisan support for expanding solar and wind power, though somewhat smaller majorities of conservative Republicans back these two policies.

By contrast, Republicans-- especially conservative Republicans-- are more supportive than Democrats of expanding fossil fuel energy sources and nuclear power.

Majorities of conservative Republicans favor expanding offshore drilling (72%), hydraulic fracturing (65%) and coal mining (63%). By contrast, about half or fewer of moderate and liberal Republicans favor expanding these forms of energy development. Democrats broadly oppose these methods, and opposition is particularly widespread among liberal Democrats... [Y]ounger Republicans give more priority to alternative energy development-- and are less supportive of expanding fossil fuel sources-- than older Republicans.

...Majorities of Americans continue to say the federal government is doing too little to protect key aspects of the environment. About two-thirds of Americans say the federal government is doing too little to protect water quality of rivers, lakes and streams (67%), protect air quality (65%) and reduce the effects of climate change (65%). About six-in-ten think the federal government is doing too little to protect animals and their habitats (62%), and a slightly smaller majority say the federal government is doing too little to protect open lands in national parks (54%).

These findings come amid a changing federal regulatory landscape. The Trump administration is reversing or seeking to change more than 100 rules and regulations related to carbon dioxide emissions, clean air, water or toxic chemicals.

...Democrats remain far more likely than Republicans to say the government is doing too little to address aspects of the environment. For instance, about nine-in-ten liberal Democrats say the federal government is doing too little to protect air quality (93%) or water quality (91%). By comparison, among conservative Republicans, just 36% say the federal government is doing too little to protect water quality and only 28% say this about air quality. Majorities of conservative Republicans say the federal government is doing the right amount in these areas.

Puerto Rico by Nancy Ohanian

Moderate and liberal Republicans are more critical of government action on the environment than conservative Republicans. Narrow majorities say the government is doing too little to protect water and air quality, wildlife and their habit and to reduce the effects of climate change. Ideological gaps among Democrats are more modest than among Republicans.

One problem with that: the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. The members of Congress from that wing-- corporate Democrats, Blue Dogs, New Dems-- they think like Republicans. I spoke to two candidates who are running for seats occupied by virulent Blue Dogs, both of whom (Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Tom O'Halleran of Arizona) oppose meaningful climate action. Eva Putzova noted that "In four years, my opponent, Rep. Tom O'Halleran, has done nothing meaningful to address the climate crisis. He is fine with sweeping one of the largest crises that humanity faces under the rug. When I'm in Congress, I'll be the exact opposite. I'll push with other progressives for a Green New Deal to save our planet and retool our economy to be 100% green. We need bold action, not timid baby steps."

Tom Guild is also a Green New Deal advocate, one of the reasons for his candidacy. He told me he favors "bold action on climate change, including using the Green New Deal as a roadmap for future action. Kendra Horn, my primary opponent, does not. I favor planting a trillion trees to absorb carbon emissions; providing tax credits to businesses for developing carbon capture/storage; tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions; taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions; and tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars. I have never heard or read anything coming from Horn discussing all these great ideas or any strategy to reverse climate change. Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and humans, according to a consensus of the scientific community. America needs to develop renewable energy sources and transition to a green energy economy very soon. Scientists say that we have as a little as a decade and maybe as much as several decades to seriously deal with climate change before an irreversible decline in our environment leads to the end of planet earth as we have known it. Urgency is the key. Quick action is needed. We cannot fiddle while Rome, Georgia and Rome, Italy and everything in between burns. Of all the issues on the political and economic radar today, climate change is one of the most important, and one we must take very seriously and engage in bold action to quickly address.

Reporting on the poll and a similar one released by Kaiser, the Washington Post's Brady Dennis noted that "while Americans are increasingly worried about climate change, fewer than 4 in 10 said they believe that tackling the problem will require them to make 'major sacrifices,' ... and most are unwilling to pay for it on a personal level. For example, while nearly half of adults said they would be willing to pay a $2 monthly tax on their electricity bills to help combat climate change, just over a quarter said they are willing to pay $10 extra each month. And while two-thirds support stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, increases in the gas tax remained deeply unpopular. Instead, clear majorities say they would prefer that climate initiatives be funded by increasing the taxes on wealthy households and on companies that burn fossil fuels. Whether rising concerns over climate change and its impacts on everyday life will translate to the ballot box this fall remains a question mark. Climate and the environment have emerged as a central issue for Democrats, particularly over the past decade... But for Republicans, it’s just the opposite. Concerns over climate remain among their lower priorities."

Progressive Democrat Cathy Kunkel is running for a West Virginia seat occupied by Climate Change denier and Trumpist Republican Alex Mooney. She told me today that "Impacts of the climate crisis are being felt in West Virginia, from recent deadly flooding to impacts on small farms and agriculture. West Virginia needs real political leadership that will fight for federal resources to help revitalize our economy and make sure that no worker is left behind as our country transitions away from fossil fuels and tackles the climate crisis." Needless to say Mooney has failed to provide any kind of constructive leadership, instead just spitting out lies and bullshit about "bringing back" the coal industry.

Audrey Denney is the progressive Democrat running for the largely rural district in northeast California against Climate Change Denier Doug LaMalfa. This morning, she reiterated to me that he "doesn’t believe in climate change. By profession he is a rice farmer. The Growing Climate Solutions Act will help farmers gain access to carbon markets with the carbon they sequester on their farms. That bill is in the Senate now and has broad, bi-partisan support as well as support from large ag companies (i.e. Cargill) and very traditional farming organizations (i.e. the American Farm Bureau). Other than Rep. LaMalfa the rest of the traditional agricultural industry has not only accepted that climate change is real-- but it understands our industry’s role in mitigating it. It is incomprehensible and appauling to me that we have leaders who do not believe in science. Science is not like Santa Claus. Something you can choose to believe in or not. Science is fact. If we want to have a habitable planet, climate change is far and away the most important issue the global community must be confronting."

Trump Says DC Will Never Be A State-- A Majority Of Congress Disagrees With Him

Moscow Mitch and Putin's Bitch say "Nyet" to DC statehood

As of last July, the population of Washington DC was 705,749, about the same as Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont. The population of Wyoming was 578,759. Each of those states has 2 senators-- just like California (pop- 39,512,223), Texas (pop- 28,995,881), Florida (pop- 21,477,737) and New York (pop- 19,453,561). Each of those states also has a member of the House (as do Montana, Delaware and South Dakota). The citizens of Washington, DC have no senators and no member of the House representing their interests in Congress. Next Friday, June 26, the House will vote to grant DC statehood. I do I know? A majority of the House is co-sponsoring it.

It will be the first time that either House has voted to grant Washington, which is still a majority black city, statehood. But no one expects Mitch McConnell-- a notorious racist with a well-known and rarely disguised animus towards black people-- to even allow a vote on the Senate floor. McConnell would never allow any such thing and, according to the Washington Post "the legislation would not get a vote in the Senate as long as he’s in charge." McConnell, always the deceitful cynic who nicknamed himself "the Grim Reaper," called statehood for DC "full-bore socialism."

Not a single Republican has co-sponsored the bill. In fact, ultra-conservative New Jersey Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew signed on as a cosponsor on June 24, the last member to do so, when he was still pretending to be a Democrat. He formally withdrew his sponsorship on February 10 once he was officially a Trumpist Republican. Señor Trumpanzee backs up McConnell and the congressional Republicans in this latest demonstration of their institutionalized racism, saying Republicans would be "very, very stupid" to grant D.C. statehood because the voters there are overwhelmingly Democrats. "District of Columbia, a state? Why? So we can have two more Democratic-- Democrat senators and five more congressmen? No thank you. That’ll never happen." He's right about how there will never be 5 more congressmen. DC is entitled to one congressman, just like Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Delaware, Vermont and Wyoming.

Riverside County's Ken Calvert is one of the lockstep Trump enablers refusing to back statehood for DC. I asked his Democratic opponent, history professor Liam O'Mara, why Calvert is opposing a solution that embraces such a fundamental idea like "no taxation without representation." He told me that "The reason is simple: GOP 'conservatives' do not care about democracy or such founding principles as the one you cite. What they care about is power and serving our neofeudal overlords.Calvert has no problem with systematic disenfranchisement of Americans-- I reckon he would strip the vote from a lot of us if he could. Stopping more people from exercising basic constitutional rights has been a part of GOP orthodoxy for decades. I can think of no better way to respond to BS like this than to challenge Calvert's patriotism, and remind people that he serves the wealthy, not us. 98% of his campaign funds come from corporations and PACs tied to the oligarchy, and they are his only constituents. As far as the taxpayers of DC are concerned-- and those of Puerto Rico, the Marianas, and American Samoa-- Calvert just doesn't give a fuck. He only cares if you can pay him to care. And for myself? I signed the DC statehood pledge last month, and have supported extending it to all territories for decades. Why? Principle matters... at least, it does for those of us who can't be bought."

Like Calvert, Fred Upton now always puts his party before any kind of moral compass he may have once had. So, of course, he is refusing to back fair representation for the hundreds of thousands of Americans living in Washington, DC. The progressive Democrat running for his southwest Michigan seat this cycle, state Rep Jon Hoadley, has a different way of looking at it. This morning, Hoadley told me that "The residents of the District of Columbia are American taxpayers, and deserve to have equal representation on our national stage like the rest of our states. The only reason to vote against statehood for D.C. is if you're more interested in pushing a partisan agenda than fair representation. The population of D.C. is 700,000-- larger than states that already have Congressional representation. It’s past time to end this disenfranchisement and make D.C. our 51st state."

Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), a super-conservative Democrat from Oklahoma City with no guts at all, is one of the only Dems refusing to co-sponsor the bill. Her progressive opponent, Tom Guild, backs statehood for DC. I asked him what's up with Kendra.

"Washingtonians are people, too," he said. "They pay taxes. They are U.S. citizens. They are disenfranchised by not having voting members to represent them in the U.S. House and Senate. It is past time to stop treating the long suffering Americans who live in the District of Columbia like second class citizens. I favor statehood for Washington, DC which automatically would qualify them for at least one voting member in the house and two senators. As Thomas Jefferson said, 'All men are created equal.' Were Jefferson still alive he would certainly add women to his powerful and moving statement. I would vote for statehood and it would be a simple stroke of the pen to add my name as a co-sponsor for a statehood bill. We do not always do the right thing, but this is a chance to correct centuries of discrimination against our brothers and sisters who live in the district. Since they live so close to so many politicians, you might even be able to make a plausible case for Washingtonians being deserving of extra members in Congress representing DC. Jefferson eloquently stated that Americans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is past time to deliver happiness to more than 700,000 Washingtonians. Come on Kendra! Your brothers and sisters in the nation’s capital are people and American citizens, too. My fellow Okie, do not forget that it is far better to give to others than to receive!"

I like the way Eva Putzova, the reform candidate in Arizona, summed this up today-- since her opponent Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran is one of the few Democrats who has refused to co-sponsor the bill. "You know what kind of Democrat would vote for voter suppression and against having more representation in Congress? Someone who is a Democrat in name only. Tom O'Halleran was a Republican all his life. When it comes down to important issues, he is still loyal to the Republican Party." BINGO! Please help Eva, Tom, Jon and Liam replace their reactionary opponents in Congress by clicking on the 2020 congressional thermometer above and contributing what you can.

Republicans Oppose The Green New Deal-- But So Does My Blue Dog Opponent

by Tom Guild
Democratic candidate, OK-05

A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that humans can still prevent the worst effects of climate change, but that we have less time than previously thought to undertake a dramatic and speedy transformation of the global economy. Every day, there is more concerning news about rising sea levels and climate-fueled disasters. The task ahead of us is urgent. We must fight for the ecological well-being of the planet we call home. The climate change crisis is an existential threat to humans and to the animals and plants with which we share planet Earth. We must redouble our efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses and to institute sustainable energy practices.

My June 30 primary opponent Kendra Horn has refused to sign onto the Green New Deal proposal. There is scant evidence that she considers climate change important enough to take the steps needed to protect our environmental future. One of my goals when elected to the U.S. House is to support bold action to fight climate change. The principles of the GND will be a good guidepost to help us reverse the damage done by excessive use of and dependence on fossil fuels. We will create tens of millions of good paying green jobs as we transition to an environmentally friendly renewable energy policy. According to a consensus of the scientific community, time is running short to effectively deal with climate change. We must not fail to act and thereby help create an irreversible situation that leads to the destruction of our environment that scientists say may in the foreseeable future render planet earth unsustainable for human life.
   
Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) is a current Democratic member of Congress. He is fighting to make sure the Trump administration does not destroy our environment in the name of saving our health when it is primarily concerned with saving the investments of the top 1%. Lowenthal recently said, "The Trump Administration has spent years rolling back decades of hard-fought environmental progress. The White House has worked to undermine science, accelerate climate change, undo decades of work to protect our air, water, and health, and compromise the health of our planet." Lowenthal is doing the hard work it takes to protect the environment by working to stop Trump and protect the future of our planet--something Trump does not spend any time thinking about, while claiming the climate crisis is a "Chinese hoax."

The Paris Climate Accord was negotiated by representatives of 196 nations in Le Bourget, France, and adopted by consensus on December 12, 2015. The previous U.S. Administration of President Barack Obama took a leading role in pushing for the climate treaty. As of February 2020, 189 countries had become party to the agreement. The Paris Agreement's goal is to pursue efforts to limit and substantially reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. This is to be achieved by reducing emissions as soon as possible, to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases" in the second half of the 21st century. The accord also aims to increase the ability of parties to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and make "finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."


 Under the Paris Agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate climate change. No mechanism forces a country to set specific emissions targets by a specific date, but each target should go beyond previously set targets. In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement. Under the compact, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020, shortly before the end of President Trump's current presidential term. The American threat to withdraw from the treaty is a giant setback for the global effort to reduce climate change and to protect our planet.

We need to break down the corrupt corporate and establishment walls that are holding back progress on the environment and climate change. If you agree that we need bold action to effectively address the crisis, we invite you to join our campaign. If you would like to donate you can do that by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Be safe. Love Your Neighbor. Engage in Random Acts of Kindness. Peace.

Striving for A Future We Can All Believe In.

Dems Have A Plan-- Republicans Refuse To Read It And Reject It Out Of Hand

L.A. County announced that stay at home orders would remain in place 'til at least August 1. I don't see much enforcement in L.A. and everything I read indicates that outside the Bay Area there's no real enforcement anywhere. For example, Elon Musk, the selfish white South African billionaire-- and asshole-- still hasn't been arrested for reopening his factory. And California wonders why the numbers just keep climbing and climbing. A few weeks ago, California only had 880 or so cases per million. Those days are gone. With 72,905 confirmed cases (including 1,967 new ones today) California's caseload per million is now 1,845-- worse than Russia and Turkey, two countries with very serious spiking. and worse than several states headed for a grim Wave II, like South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, Arizona, and Texas.

But not as bad as Florida, which now has 1,974 confirmed cases per million, over 2,500 new cases since reopening on Monday. ABC News reported that. The whole state, minus Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, is now open. (Yesterday Lee, Jackson, Collier and the whole Orlando area were all spiking.)

Yesterday Dr. Fauci testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, sparking a fight between crackpot Republicans and borderline normal Republicans. Fauci warned them that reopen the US economy too fast-- which is what Trump is demanding-- is very dangerous and could "trigger an outbreak that you might not be able to control." Nuts like Rand Paul say Fauci is an alarmist and just one voice of many.

Meanwhile, as Republicans stew over that controversy, they started another one by rejecting the House Democrats' rescue bill without even reading it! Pelosi and her team "unveiled a sprawling coronavirus rescue bill Tuesday that would direct more than $3 trillion to state and local governments, health systems, and a range of other initiatives, setting up a huge clash with Senate Republicans and the White House over how to deal with the sputtering economy. The bill would also send a second round of stimulus checks to millions of Americans and include more funding for the Postal Service. Not every component of the bill would include more government spending. Some parts would aim to address the coronavirus pandemic in other ways, such as by requiring passengers to wear masks on airplanes and public transit."

Republicans rejected the legislation even before they saw it, describing it as a liberal wish list that would go nowhere in the Republican-led Senate. For example, the bill would suspend a tax provision for two years that limits tax breaks for upper-income households in high-tax states, something Democrats have tried to change for several years. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he was at work on crafting liability protections for businesses instead. “This is not a time for aspirational legislation,” McConnell said.

The massive new Democratic bill was assembled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her top lieutenants without input from Republicans or the Trump administration. It’s less an opening bid in a bipartisan negotiation than an expression of House Democrats’ priorities that they hope will resonate with the public as the nation suffers through the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.

As health officials and economic advisers warn that the pandemic and economic fallout will likely drag through the summer and at least into the fall, lawmakers from both parties are eyeing how the government’s response to the virus could impact the November elections.

...“We must think big for the people now, because if we don’t it will cost more in lives and livelihood later,” Pelosi said at a press conference. “Not acting is the most expensive course.”

The 1,800-page legislation, which the House is expected to vote on Friday, would devote nearly $1 trillion to state, local, territorial and tribal governments and establish a $200 billion “Heroes Fund” to extend hazard pay to essential workers. It would also send a second-- and larger-- round of direct payments to individual Americans, up to $6,000 per household.

Other parts of the bill would increase nutrition assistance benefits by 15 percent and provide $175 billion in housing assistance, among other things. A $600 weekly increase in unemployment insurance would be extended through January, and the bill directs another $75 billion for coronavirus testing and contact tracing.

Other provisions include $25 billion for the U.S. Postal Service-- a frequent target of attacks from President Trump-- and a new requirement for passengers and employees on airlines, public transit systems and Amtrak trains to wear masks. Protections are included for legitimate cannabis-related businesses, and there is $3 billion to increase mental health support, and $400 million to help the Census Bureau deal with coronavirus-related delays in the 2020 census.

The Democrats’ legislation also includes provisions to ensure that all voters can vote by mail in the November election and all subsequent federal elections, an idea that Trump and many Republicans have rejected because they say it invites fraud.

It would be Congress’ fifth coronavirus relief bill, building on the $2 trillion Cares Act passed in late March. But while the first four bills were the result of urgent bipartisan compromise in the early days of the pandemic, now the two sides aren’t even talking and are moving in radically different directions. It’s unclear when they will come together to produce another bipartisan response, but some Republicans suggested it might not be anytime soon.

Asked Tuesday if the Senate needs to pass a bill before Memorial Day, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “Oh God no.” Many Republicans argue that having spent around $3 trillion already in the laws passed thus far, they need to pause and see how those programs are working before doing anything further.

...Trump himself has sounded more open to additional legislation. Asked on Monday about a second round of direct payments to individuals that’s part of the House Democrats’ bill, Trump said, "Well, we’re talking about that with a lot of different people. I want to see a payroll tax cut. I want to see various things that we want. I want the workers to be taken care of. But we are talking about that. We’re negotiating with the Democrats. We’ll see what happens."

Democrats say that the White House is not, in fact, negotiating with them. And the payroll tax cut that Trump has repeatedly talked about is probably a non-starter on Capitol Hill, with even Senate Republicans rejecting it.

However, there are some programs now in effect that Republicans are eyeing changes to, which could help force congressional action in June if not before. Two-month loans issued under the small business Paycheck Protection Program, created as part of the Cares Act in late March, will begin to expire, and some Republicans would like to see their time period extended. The $600 billion program itself, which already ran out of money once, forcing Congress to step in and add more in its most recent coronavirus bill last month, could also run short of funding again.

Cathy Kunkel is the Blue America-endorsed congressional candidate in central West Virginia. "Relief for state and local governments is critical," she noted. "Here in West Virginia we are facing a state budget shortfall of $500 million by the end of June. Without federal relief, we will be looking at another attempt by our state legislature to cut funding for public education and public employee health insurance-- services already so poorly funded that they inspired West Virginia's historic school employee strike in 2018. And we are not the only state where public services have already been cut to the bone."

Lisa Ring has also been endorsed by Blue America. She's running for Congress in Georgia's coastal district, currently occupied by Trumpist tool Buddy Carter. This morning she told us that "As we face yet another attempt to promote the well-being of all our nation's citizens thwarted by GOP ignorance and greed, let us commit to replacing every legislator responsible for promoting an agenda of self interest over providing leadership and assistance to the people they were elected to represent."

Jon Hoadley is a progressive state Rep in Kalamazoo and he's taking on Trumpist pawn Fred Upton for the southwest Michigan congressional seat. Today he released a statement that said, in part, "We need funding for our state and local units of government. The fact that Sen. Mitch McConnell would let states go bankrupt rather than make sure we have appropriate funding for our students and teachers, make college attainable when so many people need to re-skill, or ensure firefighters and first responders aren't laid off right when we need them to keep us safe tells you everything about the state of disfunction in DC right now. As a current State Representative, I see how Republican inaction on this funding will cost lives."

Jayapal & Pocan asked Pelosi to postpone the vote for a week

One senior progressive, who would rather remain anonymous, told me this afternoon that the package is "an embarrassment. This is beyond feckless. At this point it's minus-feck. Classic Richie Neal-- short-order cook for K Street." Some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates agree with him-- and not anonymously.

Robin Wilt, for example, is in a primary battle against a do-nothing New Dem whose sympathies lie with corporations and CEOs more than with his own Monroe County constituents. "In a letter dated March 23, 2020, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined more than 40 priorities in 12 issues areas to give families and workers the financial resources to stay healthy and ensure that our health system is equipped to provide life-saving, universal care to everyone in our country during the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. While it’s not known how many of those priorities are specifically addressed in the most recently proposed 1,800 page omnibus relief package put forth by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, one thing that we can be sure of is that the entirety of the conversation about how to help everyday Americans in light of the gravity of this moment, and provide economic security and peace of mind to families at this critical time, is occurring on the left side of the aisle. Meanwhile, the GOP stubbornly rejects science and risks millions more deaths by flouting the social distancing restrictions called for by the medical community on the front lines.

"Concerns about the legislation being drafted without direct input from the rank and file aside, Pelosi and Hoyer are correct that this is the time to think big, and re-envision the areas of our economic and social policies that have left so many behind during this healthcare crisis; but Jayapal and Pocan also are correct to examine the bill to ensure that it focuses on the three arenas in which people are struggling amid the crisis: help for the unemployed to safely get them back to work; access to healthcare; and support for small business.

"As we move forward, we must be wary of reassurances from the establishment that a safe, equitable economic recovery is achievable without prioritizing the immediate needs of those most impacted by the crisis."

Not all Democratic allied groups are happy about the proposal but in response this supportive statement was issued by American Federation of Teachers, Demos, Greenpeace, Indivisible, MoveOn, SEIU, United We Dream Action, the Working Families Party and several other organizations:


“This is a historic, once-in-a-generation crisis. It requires a historic response. This proposal is an important step.

“We urgently need the relief measures that Speaker Pelosi introduced today. More than 80,000 people have died, more than 1.3 million have been infected, more than 33 million have filed for unemployment, and millions more are struggling to pay bills, hold on to housing and put food on the table. And predictably, generations of racist, anti-immigrant and anti-worker policies that created inequality in work, health, wealth and education are now allowing the coronavirus to attack Black, Latinx, AAPI, undocumented and Native American people at far greater rates, and are deeply disrupting life for communities of color.

Suicide is Painless

“We have suffered for months as President Trump has downplayed the coronavirus threat, pointed fingers, shirked responsibility and made reckless decisions intended to improve his reelection chances. Republicans have done nothing but push ‘relief’ that bails out corporations but gives too little, too late to essential workers, small businesses and everyday people.

 “In the face of this vacuum of leadership and complete failure to govern, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have proposed legislation that is responsive to the needs of the people, regardless of immigration status. No matter their party affiliation, people support responses to the pandemic that put people first and actually meet the scale of the crisis and protect workers, families and the economy.

“Our millions of members know we cannot safely roll back distancing measures without protecting people first, and that premature rollbacks will cause chaos and fear that harm the economy. Measures like those in this legislation are vital to getting through this pandemic because they ensure working people have the support they need to feed their families while following public health guidelines. We are ready to mobilize to make sure that Republicans in both houses of Congress, especially the Senate, know their constituents expect them to stop playing politics and act now. We expect them to pass Speaker Pelosi’s proposal, which includes provisions critical to provide real relief and avoid further economic catastrophe.”

Eva Putzova, the progressive candidate in for AZ-01 saw it differently. "This bill," she said, "has no chance of passing Congress, but it exists as a values statement by the Democratic leadership. It reminds us that corporations, special interests, and wealthy donors are still their number one priority, not working people. It reminds us that they are not only willing, but are comfortable with offering crumbs to families that are deeply suffering. And it reminds us just how out of touch they truly are with regular people in this country. In a bill that won't see the light of day, they still chose to center the wants of the wealthy few over the needs of the many. That’s telling.

Oklahoma City progressive Tom Guild is on a similar page: "Cares 1 was a windfall and giveaway to big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy. I heard Nancy Pelosi use the phrase trickle down as she was explaining the Cares 1 legislation during a recent TV interview. Now three emergency pandemic bills later, we keep waiting for real people to take top priority in the proposed new and improved fifth bill put forth by Pelosi (who lobbied her members hard to vote for the first Cares Act) herself. Will the fifth proposed coronavirus fixit Pelosi bill be the charm? Still no hint that systemic change is in the air that would permanently benefit working people and those who are economically disadvantaged. Corporate mergers will remain unrestrained. Corporate lobbyists will redecorate with new cash on hand while feathering their nests. Dark money groups will benefit. The very groups that are running hundreds of dark money ads for my DCCC created and supported primary opponent will be living high on the blind hog. Even more tax cuts for the wealthy, benefitting primarily corporate Democratic campaigns, will exacerbate and grow the giant chasm between the .1% and the other 99.9%. Wealth and income inequality will segue into a veritable grand canyon between us (the great unwashed) and them. Instead of reforming health care by moving toward a universal single payer system, the Pelosi bill will throw more money at COBRA and make health insurers even richer. The rest of us in the famous and dramatic words of Marie Antoinette will just have to eat cake, if no bread is available. It makes me want to say in Alta voce Off With Her Head! Wait the French already took care of that for us. It is worth noting that some in the Democratic congressional ranks can do some good things occasionally for those of us who constitute the great unwashed. Why the hell do they more than take it back by pursuing a corporatist agenda and ultimately doing more harm than good? Neil Young summarized the dilemma for those of us who have not been invited to join the permanent ruling class at the local country club. The Needle and the Damage Done. Sing it Neil. Louder my friend. ENCORE! If you need a good book (it is short) to read while you are stewing over the new reality-- that seems a lot like the old reality-- let me recommend The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison by Jeffrey Reiman. Give Reiman his props. He has this charade pretty much figured out.

Liam O'Mara, having handily won his primary, is the progressive Democrat taking on egregiously corrupt Trump enabler Ken Calvert in California's Riverside County. "It's hard to know where to start on the GOP response to this legislation," Liam told me this evening. "While Congressmember Calvert described it as a 'radically left agenda,' the bill is actually more conservative in its aims than policies already taken by right-wing governments across Europe. That should tell you rather a lot about the Orwellian approach Republicans take to voter outreach-- nothing but lies, doublespeak, and the grade-school game of opposite-day.

"We did not need to have unemployment reaching levels not seen since the 1930s. We have that because Republicans don't care about workers or economics, only protecting their owners. Instead of wage-subsidies to keep people working, they let millions lose their jobs, and now balk at providing the financial support that would keep people from losing their homes as well.

"It seems there's never a national crisis that Republicans can't make worse through a combination of sheer incompetence and deliberate malice. We should go much farther than this initial House bill, and instead it seems they want to stick us with much less. The losers in all of it will be the American people, as the economy shrinks and more of the middle class disappears.

"The GOP, of course, will still blame Democrats, and respond with more of the same authoritarian nonsense they have been after all along. If the lies keep working, we'll be lucky not to end up looking like a tin-pot dictatorship."

Do You Trust Washington With Your Family's Well-Being?

Nabilah Islam, pictured above, is the most progressive candidate running for the open seat in the GA-07 seat in the suburbs and small towns north of Atlanta. This morning she shared an observation with us: "The House and Senate have had four opportunities to do what is right by the American people. At this point, I have faith in very few members in either chamber to put the American people first. We are on the brink of another great depression. We have 33 million Americans out of work. 90 million Americans uninsured or underinsured and those in the halls of Congress are debating on whether or not to expand COBRA. I've been saying for some time now that we need to be looking at policy proposals like FDR's New Deal. More immediately, we need emergency UBI, rent and mortgage cancellation, student debt cancellation, etc. Long term this is a great opportunity to implement a Green New Deal. It would create jobs with a federal jobs guarantee. Allow us to invest in ourselves and create an opportunity for working people to thrive not just survive. My biggest fear is ushering in the 117th Congress with people who would rather make austerity cuts that take on corporate special interests. That is why we need to fight to elect people like myself and other progressive candidates around the country who are committed to putting Americans first."

If he was a reader, I bet Catherine Rampell would trigger Trump every time the Washington Post published one of her columns. I'm sure that's already the case with Mitch McConnell. Yesterday's, Washington Shows Just Why The Country Shouldn’t Depend On It For Stimulus would have sent him into a screaming tirade. "Washington’s very Washingtonian behavior," she wrote, "has just underscored why a stimulus should not depend on Washington." Like many members of Congress, she thinks automatic economic triggers should determine aid to citizens, not DC finagling.

Last week, on the day the unemployment rate hot 14.7%, Don Beyer (D-VA), vice chair of Congress' Joint Economic Committee, issued a statement:

We have not seen horrible, history-making numbers like these since the Great Depression.

“In two months, almost a decade’s worth of job growth has been wiped out, the unemployment rate has more than quadrupled, and more than 75,000 Americans have died because President Trump did not take seriously multiple early warnings about the global threat of the coronavirus and failed to lead a competent fight against it. This is President Trump’s economic legacy-- cracks in the economy as a result of his trade wars and tax cuts have now split wide open as a result of his ignorance and incompetence.

It could be months before the tens of millions of Americans who have lost their jobs are able to return to work. If we expect them to stay home to stop the spread of the virus, then we need to make sure they can take care of themselves and their loved ones for as long as the public health and economic crises last.

A legislative proposal I introduced this week with Senators Reed and Bennet would extend unemployment benefits until states’ unemployment rates drop to acceptable levels. We should not penalize people for not having a job when there are no jobs to be had. I hope the legislation is included in the next coronavirus relief package.


In her column, Rampell went right to another statement on that same day, one from the White House-- "that those hoping for more help from the feds shouldn’t hold their breath. 'We're in no rush, we're in no rush,' President Trump said Friday. His economic advisers and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) echoed this message. In other words, don’t plan on more aid to states, which are already so strapped for cash that they’re cutting Medicaid during a pandemic. Don’t expect extensions of financial lifelines for jobless workers."



She's speculated that "this is a negotiating ploy to extract concessions from Democrats-- even though red states would suffer from delaying federal aid, too. Whatever the reason, GOP dawdling is the latest reminder that Congress should stop leaving the fate of the economy to the whims of callous, dithering, dilettantish, hostage-taking charlatans, who see every crisis as an opportunity for a shakedown. Instead, build a stimulus system that triggers on (and off) automatically-- based on whatever the economy actually needs, using metrics agreed to in advance."



Economists are generally fans of policies known as “automatic stabilizers,” or programs that ramp up automatically when the economy tanks. For example, as people lose jobs, they become eligible for food stamps or unemployment benefits.



These forms of stimulus kick in without politicians having to debate, and they have huge bang for their buck. Both are useful features in a dysfunctional political system, especially when the country is struck by an unusually bad shock in which a speedy fiscal response is critical.



Unfortunately, our automatic stabilizers were never robust enough. Worse, the Trump administration and state governments have made automatic stabilizers much less automatic and stabilizing by adding red tape and reducing programs’ generosity in recent years.



This has left the country unusually reliant on Washington to devise a rescue program ad hoc during the worst economic crisis in nearly a century.



Congress has passed several rounds of relief, but more is undoubtedly necessary. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that without further stimulus, unemployment will be 9.5 percent at the end of 2021. Goldman Sachs estimates that even with another half-trillion dollars in yet-to-be-proposed fiscal stimulus, unemployment will average “only” 7.2 percent next year.



For now, most of Congress's existing measures are poised to sunset based on somewhat arbitrary deadlines unrelated to economic conditions. Enhanced unemployment benefits, for example, are set to expire July 31, even though the CBO expects the unemployment rate to average 16 percent that quarter.



Of course, nothing would stop Congress from renewing these emergency programs-- except, that is, Congress.

Each time measures come up for renewal, prolonged negotiation is more likely, with politicians exploiting “must-pass” legislation to make crazy, controversial demands. This already happens during debt-ceiling showdowns, the more common congressionally created opportunity for unnecessary crises.



If Trump’s “no rush” comments weren’t sufficient evidence of this risk now, recall that in the aftermath of the Great Recession, authorization for extended unemployment benefits lapsed five times. More recently, the small-business loan program ran out of funds for more than a week. And that was for a program virtually everyone supports, almost immediately after it began.



The next round of stimulus negotiations will be difficult and high-stakes. But it must include relief measures automatically linking stimulus to economic conditions, so that further rounds of negotiations can have lower stakes. Some Democratic lawmakers have proposed plans that would do this. Rep. Don Beyer (VA) and Senators Michael Bennet (CO) and Jack Reed (RI) recently offered a framework for linking enhanced jobless benefits to (duh) the joblessness rate. So did Sen. Ron Wyden (OR).

In these proposals, benefit extensions would automatically turn on while the economy is bad, and-- perhaps as important, at least to budget hawks-- automatically trigger “off” as the economy heals. Lawmakers, of course, can override their “autopilot” settings if they later change their minds.



Fair warning: Trigger-based programs are likely to have big up-front price tags. But they are no more expensive than the cumulative cost of multiple program extensions, such as those enacted after the Great Recession.


They could actually be less expensive, because they’d prevent costly program lapses and restarts. And they’d give states greater certainty around budgeting, and households greater confidence in their ability to pay bills. (Remember when Republicans used to complain about policy uncertainty?)



Most important, we need to minimize the number of desperate American families either party might take hostage. Especially when at least one party appears more than willing to actually destroy those hostages.

One senior Democratic congressman told me that he thinks Rampell's got it wrong. "If the GOP is going to act like callous jackasses," he said, "then you make them pay the price for it, just as Trump/McConnell tried to do with the Payroll Protection Program funding. Also, the trigger concept doesn’t really work here, because this may well be a once-in-a-century depression, not an unpleasant point in the business cycle. It also assumes that the Government has a limitless supply of funds, and in fact it doesn’t. Last month’s federal deficit is more than the annual GDP of Switzerland. Triggers make sense when you have only a demand problem; this is both a demand and a supply problem. Wendy’s is not running out of hamburgers because of a lack of demand, I assure you. At this point, even Keynes would not be a Keynesian. I’m not saying that I would vote against it, but I certainly don’t think that it’s a great idea."

Tom Guild is running for the Oklahoma City district, currently held by GOP-lite Blue Dog Kendra Horn. "No rush is the operative phrase with too many members of the permanent political class in Washington, DC. It took a month for me to receive my stimulus check. If my rent or house payment or my need to buy food had been dependent on receipt of that money, I would have been a prime candidate for eviction or foreclosure and a casualty of nutrition deprivation syndrome. Many people I visit with on social media and otherwise are still waiting for their stimulus payment. They needed their money to survive and keep their financial heads above water. No rush. How asinine. Oklahoma’s unemployment compensation system has been fairly roasted for having an unduly complicated filing system and many intentional roadblocks to delay or deny claims for desperate Sooners. They may soon seek shelter with other homeless Okies or stand on the side of the road pleading for money to help themselves and their desperate loved ones. As Marie Antoinette coldly proclaimed before being beheaded by French revolutionaries, 'Let them (the hungry and desperate if bread was unavailable to them) eat cake!' No hurry. How barbaric. The national government has been an epic failure in addressing the desperation in America during these terrible dark days. The Reed/Bennet/Beyer proposal to extend unemployment benefits until states’ unemployment rates drop to acceptable levels is a sensible idea. As they indicate, 'We should not penalize people for not having a job when there are no jobs to be had.' This practical idea should be considered and included in the next coronavirus relief package. The Trump tax cuts for the wealthy, Wall Street, and big corporations moved through Congress and was signed into law in short order. Bailing out the wealthy and the big corporations among the political ruling class always takes priority over the lives of ordinary hard working and beautiful yet beleaguered Americans. The greed of some very BIG small businesses in snapping up forgivable loans authorized and funded by Congress, before the real small businesses, who lacked connections with the well-heeled and the big banks, had a chance to participate before the money set aside for them was gone, is despicable. When I taught a course called Contemporary Workplace Issues that I pioneered at the University of Central Oklahoma, I used a book to enhance discussion of white collar crime in the business world. The book is entitled The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. Graft, corporate welfare, and grifting has become a way of life for some privileged and entitled corporate citizens here in our country. Wealth and income inequality have reached critical mass and become one of the most serious systemic problems facing our country. The failure of the national government and many state governments to put the least among us first makes a tragic situation that much more horrific and intractable. No rush indeed. We better start addressing issues of poverty, privilege, inequality, and government incompetence now. The future viability and health of our republic hang in the balance."

Eva Putzova is the progressive running in AZ-01. The incumbent, a lifelong conservative Republican pretending to be an equally conservative Blue Dog, guarantees that voters have to real choice. Eva is ending that. "The failure of Congress and the White House to address the deteriorating conditions faced by American families," she told us this morning, "is disgraceful. I agree that there should be automatic triggers that guarantee increased unemployment benefits, food stamps and healthcoverage, until the economy recovers to full employment. However, that is not enough. With or without this current economic/public health crisis, we need universal healthcare, i.e, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal to completely retool the economy and invest in underserved areas, strong labor law reform and protections for workers rights to organize unions, a jobs guarantee, and much, much more. The Republican Party and its President are criminally negligent in failing to address the Covid-19 crisis as well the coming economic depression. But too many Democrats are willing to accept half-measures that don't address the social and economic problems that have gotten worse over the past 50 years-- well before Donald Trump became President."

Robin Wilt is a fully dedicated progressive running against a garden variety New Dem in Rochester, New York. She'll make a much better representative of Monroe County's working families, although not as much of a fighter to put corporate interests first, the way her opponent is! "Throughout March and April 2020, the U.S. government passed three main relief packages, and one supplemental one, totaling nearly $2.8 trillion. The overwhelming majority of that money-- over $2 trillion-- went directly to Wall Street. I want that to sink in. In the middle of a pandemic, the main spending priority of the Federal government was not to ramp up infectious disease testing, increase manufacturing of needed medical goods and PPE, or to provide health care coverage or a basic income for the tens of millions of people who would eventually be unemployed as a result of the health crisis. Once again, the first priority of those in Washington was to bail out Wall Street, not Main Street.

"The first COVID-19 relief bill passed on March 6, 2020, and rightfully went to response efforts to fund research for a vaccine and provide money to help with efforts to fight the spread of the virus. It totaled only $8.3 billion. On March 12, 2020, however, the Fed enormously expanded its repo operations to banks by a whopping $1.5 trillion dollars, then adding another $500 billion on March 16, 'to ensure there was enough liquidity in the money markets.' Yes, you read that correctly. That’s $2 trillion to banks within ten days of the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, while only some $8 billion went to fighting the health crisis.

"Meanwhile, the second relief package for people-- the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (which, ironically, came after the Wall Street bail out packages)-- passed on March 18, and again, in comparison to the spending on the financial sector, allocated a paltry $3.4 Billion to: 1) provide money for families who rely on free school lunches in light of widespread school closures; 2) mandate companies with fewer than 500 employees provide paid sick leave for these suffering from COVID-19, as well as providing a tax credit to help employers cover those costs; 3) nearly $1 billion in additional unemployment insurance money for states, as well as loans to states to fund unemployment insurance; 4) Funding and cost waivers to make COVID-19 testing free for all.

"It was not until almost a month later, on April 9, 2020, that the Federal government got around to passing any direct aid to families in the form of cash payments through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

"I am fond of the saying: Don’t tell me what your priorities are. Show me your budget. Our representatives who demonstrate that their priorities and loyalties are first and foremost to the financial sector-- as opposed to the people who are the engines of it-- should be voted out. We need new, bold, representatives who are not afraid to truly put people first in their spending priorities."

Trump's Veto Stands-- He Is Free To Attack Iran At Will

Blood On Their Hands by Nancy Ohanian

On Thursday, the Senate attempted to override Trump's veto of the joint resolution that directed him to remove American armed forced from hostilities against Iran that hadn't been authorized by Congress. There was never any chance an override was in the cards-- not with 44 Republicans firmly committed to backing anything and everything Trump does. Every Senate Democrat voted to override but only 6 Republicans had the guts (or sense) to join them:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)

After the vote, Al Gross, the independent running on the Democratic line in Alaska, noted that "Yet again, party-line Dan Sullivan put National Republicans first, and left Alaska behind. Alaskans don’t believe in party run politics especially when it means putting our military members at risk without oversight and careful consideration. Considering our needs or interests has never been something Dan Sullivan takes to heart so it’s not surprising he voted this way. Dan’s like lap dog for the national Republicans, and Alaskans deserve a real, independent leader to put Alaskans first, whether the president likes it or not."

Had Gross been in the Senate, both Alaska senators would have voted to override. Something tells me Murkowski is hoping that's the outcome in November anyway.

There was no vote in the House, but it's worth remembering that when it passed the House on March 11, there were just 6 no good, dirty, fake Democrats who sided with Trump and the GOP:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

The only one of these war-monger fake Dems with a primary os Kendra Horn, where she is being challenged by progressive Democrat Tom Guild. Yesterday, he told OK-05 voters that "Under no circumstances should America become engaged in military action in Iran without prior congressional approval. I am deeply disappointed that my June 30 primary opponent Rep. Horn gave the current president or any president carte blanche to start another costly war in the Middle East. During this widespread and destructive pandemic and unprecedented meltdown in the American economy, we should be rebuilding and investing in America, not engaging in more unauthorized international military actions. The American people are tired to the point of exhaustion with America’s endless wars."

Blue America's most recently endorsed candidate, West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel, noted that the Republican in the seat she's running for, Alex Mooney, "the hypocritical Republican Congressman from WV-02, was the only Republican to cosponsor legislation (HR 1274) repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force, yet to vote against this resolution. When push came to shove, support for Trump in an election year was more important than his previous belief in restoring Congressional authority to make war. H.R. 1274 cosponsor list show that Thomas Massie (KY) and Justin Amash (MI) were the only other Republican co-sponsors, and both were consistent in supporting the resolution to remove U.S. troops from hostilities with Iran)."

Please consider contributing to Tom's and Cathy's campaigns by clicking on the Blue America 2020 congressional primary thermometer above and giving what you can.