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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats Can Pile On About What A Nightmare Trump's Budget Is-- But Can't Come Up With One Of Their Own?

If the budget is a statement of values, the Democrats' presumed inability to unite behind one, speaks volumes about a party whose tent is too big to be functional. Trump's DOA budget will never get a vote but his intention of a high increase for the Pentagon and paying for his vanity wall by cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is all anyone needs to know about his values and his party's values. Trump's obscene $4.7 trillion budget would cut $845 billion from Medicare-- didn't he say he was the only Republican who would never cut that?-- $241 billion from Medicaid and slash Social Security by $25 billion over 10 years-- not to mention drastic cuts to food stamps and a $207 billion cut to student loans including the outright elimination of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Democrats will have a field day demonizing his budget-- and rightly so. But what about their own?

Yesterday Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico, wrote that though the Democrats have finally gained back control of the House "they’re likely to skip one of their most fundamental responsibilities: passing a budget. Eager to steer clear of another public intraparty battle, House Democrats are expected to avoid a vote on a budget this year."

House Democrats are still drafting a budget, which would offer their first chance as a new majority to formally outline their broader agenda. But the resolution-- which is purely a political messaging document and is not signed into law-- would also stoke major ideological clashes within the caucus over “Medicare for All,” the “Green New Deal” and defense spending.

“We’re still proceeding as if we’re going to do one, but we’re also considering other options because we don’t know if we can get 218 votes for anything,” House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth (D-KY) said in an interview Monday.

Indeed, in a worst-case scenario for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party, the budget could be an embarrassing flop on the House floor.

Most Democrats say publicly they want a chance to vote on their party’s fiscal blueprint after eight years of rejecting GOP budgets.

Privately, however, lawmakers and aides say that a budget is unlikely to come for a final vote. It’s an acknowledgment of the divisions within the caucus even on key principles, and a sign of how difficult it will be to craft actual legislation in the months to come.

Democratic leaders have made no formal decision, though Yarmuth met Monday with Pelosi and other top Democratic leaders, including House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY), as they discussed skipping a floor vote. That meeting comes after Yarmuth has spent weeks huddling with dozens of committee and caucus leaders as he strives to bring it to the floor despite the daunting odds.

Several senior Democratic aides said it makes little political sense to spend weeks perfecting a messaging document when there are other items with far greater partywide appeal on their to-do list, like an upcoming vote to address the gender pay gap.

That’s particularly true, they added, after the caucus’ factions openly warred last week over how to handle Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments criticizing pro-Israel advocates.

“I hope we can work through a budget process, but it will not be easy, and I get the idea that it may be impossible to arrive at consensus on that document,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

“It’s ultimately a political decision whether to bring a budget to the floor,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) added. “And so a pragmatic decision often gets made: Where do you want to put your political capital?”

Yarmuth said his budget won’t include some of the most iconic ideas championed by progressives, like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, which have been panned by moderates.

But he acknowledged in a separate interview last week that the decision could cost him votes from the party’s progressives: “The complicating factor is that there are members who probably would have a hard time voting for a budget that didn’t in some way anticipate the Green New Deal. Same thing with Medicare for All.”

House Democrats still plan to release their budget draft this month, which will be their counteroffer to the newly unveiled White House budget. Unlike spending bills to fund the government, Congress doesn’t need to pass a budget on the floor. The House and Senate rarely find agreement during divided government.

With a tricky electoral map for Republicans in 2020, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unlikely to put his members through a budget vote on the floor, though his budget chairman, Mike Enzi (R-WY), has said he plans to draft one.

But failing to pass a budget would be an embarrassment for Democratic leaders, who hammered Republicans when they were in power for consistently struggling to unite over a party blueprint-- and failing to put one on the floor at all last year. House Republicans skipped a floor vote amid an ugly intraparty fight over how deeply to cut assistance programs for the poor.

It also wouldn’t be the first time Pelosi punted; her previous majority skipped a budget in 2010, even when Democrats controlled both chambers.

Still, Democrats had been expected to pass a budget this year after their decisive win in November, with their members eager to define their political brand and show progress to their base after two years in a GOP-controlled Washington.

This year’s historic freshman class, however, heightens the challenges for Democratic budget writers. Forty-three of the party’s new members come from previously Republican-held districts, and GOP operatives are watching closely for controversial votes.

Even with the rise of progressive lawmakers like high-profile freshman Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, there are more Democrats in the centrist Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions than in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Every major caucus and committee is in talks with Yarmuth and other top Democrats to craft this year’s blueprint. And every corner of the caucus will need to back the budget, because Democrats can afford to lose few votes on the floor.

Some moderates [Note: when Politico uses the term "moderate" to describe the far right of the Democratic Party, they are doing so help make the Republican-lite policies that wing espouses seem attractive to the casual reader] say they have little interest in squabbling over the fine print of a budget this year. Instead, they say Democrats should focus on the looming threat of another budget sequester, which would impose billions of dollars in cuts if Congress can’t reach a deal this fall.

“What matters is the numbers. A lot of the budget resolution ends up being sort of a messaging document, which I think most people here have less interest in,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer (New Dem-WA), co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition. “My hope is that we can thread that needle in a careful way.”

Rep. Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, said his group has only occasionally voted to support Democratic budgets on the floor in the past. This year, the group has worked behind the scenes to push for a budget proposal that wouldn’t add to the deficit, along with other demands, but hasn’t committed to supporting it.

“Maybe there’s an opportunity to have a paid-for budget that makes sense and we can get behind,” Schrader told reporters when asked about the budget’s prospects.

A deficit-neutral proposal, however, would force Democrats to make tough sacrifices when writing the budget. The outcome could anger defense hawks who want to see massive Pentagon budgets or progressives who want bigger investments in education and anti-poverty programs.

“The job he has to do, I wouldn’t want to do it,” Rep. Tom O’Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), another co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, said of Yarmuth. “The American people expect us to do a budget, that’s our job. It’s one of the core responsibilities of Congress, especially the House.”

Democrats say they fear drafting a budget resolution would harden battle lines among the various factions, particularly defense hawks and doves as they’re forced to settle on a total dollar amount for the Pentagon.

“Obviously, we would love to be able to have a Democratic Caucus unity budget, but it’s going to be a line to walk to get there,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in an interview. One of their group’s key requests involves more accountability for Pentagon spending.

Yesterday, in an e-mail, Bernie told his supporters that "It was not long ago that the idea of Medicare for All was dismissed and ridiculed by the corporate media and political establishment of this country. Too radical, they said. Fringe. Crazy. Pie in the sky. Well, they are not saying that anymore. Because today, not only do a strong majority of Americans believe health care should be a right in this country, but it is also a mainstream Democratic Party position... How can we call this a civilized society when some Americans have access to the best medical care in the world and others are unable to walk into a doctor’s office because they lack money? How can we tolerate a situation where the children or parents of the rich get the medical attention they need in order to stay alive, while members of working-class families, who lack health insurance, have to die or needlessly suffer or go hopelessly into debt to get the care they need?"

I hope he asks Pelosi and the reactionary Blue Dogs and New Dems she's coddling. And particularly Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, the DCCC Chair who is busy recruiting more Blue Dogs and more New Dems to further pollute the Democratic Party's values and turn it into another neo-liberal institution owned and operated by the plutocracy.

In the context of a battle over fundamental economic theory, William K. Black noted on Monday that "polls showing enormous public support for the key progressive initiatives terrify the neoliberals. Sanders’ 2016 policy initiatives have transformed the Democratic Party candidates’ policy proposals for 2020. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Warren’s policy proposals are having a similar effect. Polls show broad support for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a jobs guaranty program, a tax system that would reverse the current race to plutocracy, a campaign to reduce gun slaughter and massacres, the restoration of the rule of law (including antitrust laws) to business (particularly banking and Silicon Valley), and a meaningful minimum wage."

The massive, coordinated assault on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) scholars by the most elite forces of orthodoxy represents a watershed moment in economics, but we must not lose sight that the real attack is actually on progressives, particularly the newly elected progressive members of Congress plus Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. Even that statement is incomplete, for it is the combination of the rise of these progressive elected officials, the 2020 presidential election (and nomination battle), and the exceptional embrace of progressive policies by the general public and Democratic Party candidates for the presidential nomination that prompted the coordinated and personalized assault of overwhelmingly neoliberal economists on MMT scholars. This first column in a series provides an overview of why the progressives’ embrace of MMT spurred the terrified assault on MMT by orthodox economists.

...The emerging progressive policy core enjoys far stronger public support than do the neoliberal policies of the self-described Democratic Party ‘moderates.’ That professed ‘moderation,’ has become code for extreme opposition to the policies that the public overwhelmingly supports. The progressive policy core is centrist in terms of the electorate’s preferences. The progressive policy core is not “socialist,” “extreme,” or “left.”

The Democratic Party “moderates,” on two key economic issues, their embrace of austerity and willingness to cut the safety net, are to the right of Republican conservatives. Republicans only pretend to embrace austerity when there is a Democratic president. The New Democrats, Blue Dogs, and “Problem Solver” Democrats actually believe in inflicting self-destructive austerity and cuts to the safety net regardless of the President’s party. Neoliberal Democrats’ big club to bash progressive policies is the typically mythical catastrophic effects of federal budget deficits. MMT scholarship disarms neoliberals, removing the legitimacy of their deficit hysteria ‘club’ in the vast bulk of circumstances where federal deficits do not cause significant shortages of real resources.

Fox News, President Trump, and neoliberal economists mounted a desperate attack on the progressive policy core precisely because the public overwhelmingly supports it. Their attack makes three claims. First, the policy core represents bad economics. Second, the policy core represents ‘socialism.’ Third, even if the policies are desirable, the world cannot afford to adopt them. These three points form the all-encompassing neoliberal meme that the government cannot and should not act to protect the public. They think the government should serve and fund the plutocrats, kleptocrats, and the “chicken hawks’” massive military expenditures and wars.  Neoliberals try desperately to convince the public to adopt their ideology that democratic government is fundamentally illegitimate while the reality of a rigged kleptocracy represents the fiction of ‘capitalism.’

Since the Blue Dog Eva Putzova is competing with for the AZ-01 seat, Tom O'Halleran, is a member of the Budget Committee who is so very fond of austerity-- and since he quoted above-- I asked Eva where she comes down on these budgetary questions. She told us she supports "the request of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to include more accountability for Pentagon spending that would include a rigorous audit. Money that is wasted in defense spending can be reallocated to needed investments in veteran care, healthcare, green energy, education, and other areas without harming our national security. In fact, if we are serious about national security and defense we turn our attention to the real vulnerabilities of our communities: electrical grid, clean water supply, and digital security."

The virulent attacks by conservatives against the progressive agenda are not swaying candidates like Mike Siegel in Texas. In fact-- just the opposite. Last night he told us that "The 2020 election will be the moment when Americans can decide, once and for all, that we want universal healthcare. The public sentiment is there. It is up to candidates and elected officials to honor the will of the people. Here in Central and Gulf Coast Texas, we have at least four national battleground Congressional districts for the 2020 election, in TX-10, TX-21, TX-22, and TX-31, and several more contested races. In TX-10, I will be running strong on Medicare for All, not only because it is the right thing to do, not only because this legislation will save thousands upon thousands of lives, but also because we must draw a line in the sand for every Democratic candidate, and push every candidate to support universal healthcare. We only have these opportunities once every 20 or 40 years, to reform the national healthcare system. If we don't push for Medicare for All now, we might lose our chance for a generation or more. The people are counting us to show a little courage; to resist the moneyed interests; and to fight for their health and lives."

Will Blue Dogs And New Dems Push Through Ryan's And Trump's Tax Agenda? Yes

I had lunch with an old friend today, a wealthy old friend who is very progressive but was interested if I thought Congress is going to cut taxes. He's kind of looking forward to that prospect from a personal perspective but not looking forward to it on a political perspective. Complicated. Yesterday Russell Berman explained to Atlantic readers why it's complicated for everyone and why Republicans can't just pivot to tax reform. That big complication driving McConnell and Ryan insane is the budget. Republicans say-- swear-- the tax reform effort "will be different than health care. Why? The party is united around a broad set of principles, rank-and-file lawmakers are desperate for a legislative win, and congressional committees have spent years laying the groundwork for precisely this moment. Allied conservative groups have committed millions to ads promoting the effort, and President Trump will sell it to the country-- something he did not do on health care. According to the grand plan, legislation will be introduced in the House in September, votes will be held in October and November, and Trump will triumphantly sign this once-in-a-generation reform into law by the end of the year. Easy peasy. “This is a pass/fail exercise, and we will pass tax reform,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declared last week. “It’s going to get done this year.”

There are many reasons to be skeptical of these confident assertions, not the least of which is that the Trump administration made these exact same claims about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act six months ago. To name just a few hurdles: Tax policy is even more complicated than health care. The failure of an Obamacare repeal made tax reform more difficult both in terms of policy and politics. Congress will face even more pressing deadlines in September to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. And Republican lawmakers are not nearly as unified around the details of taxes as their leaders would suggest.

But the biggest immediate obstacle in the way of quick action on tax reform is a fundamental one: Republicans have been unable to pass a budget for 2018, and without that, they can’t unlock the fast-track reconciliation process that would allow them to enact tax reform without Democratic votes in the Senate. It’s that same mechanism the GOP used to advance health-care legislation that would have passed the Senate last month with just one more Republican vote. Ordinarily, the annual budget is a non-binding document that sets spending levels for the government, which only take effect once Congress passes appropriations bills. But a budget is a prerequisite for the reconciliation process: It contains formal instructions for the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate to draft legislation.

Passing budgets used to be a point of pride for House Republicans. The party approved the fiscal blueprints written by then-Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for four consecutive years beginning when the GOP assumed the House majority in 2011. Each of them called for steep reductions in domestic spending, tax reform, and an overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid. But in recent years, the divisions between moderates and conservatives that have plagued the GOP on so many issues have stymied the budget process as well. The House failed to pass a budget last year and only approved a shell of a resolution in January to set in motion the reconciliation process for health care.

This year, Republicans have been more united in their opposition to some of the deep discretionary spending cuts proposed by Trump than in agreeing to a fiscal vision of their own. Under the leadership of Chairwoman Diane Black of Tennessee, the House Budget Committee approved a budget on a party-line vote in mid-July, months later than usual. But it did not come to the floor before the House left for a five-week recess, and lawmakers and aides acknowledged it lacked the votes to pass. Unwilling to wait any longer, the House actually passed a package of appropriations bills covering defense and security spending despite the lack of action on the budget. “The only reason we need a budget now is reconciliation,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a leader in the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Once it gets through the House, the budget would still have to go through the Senate, where Republicans have learned the hard way that their majority is quite fragile.

Black’s proposal calls for a spending level of $621.5 billion for defense in fiscal 2018 and $511 billion for non-defense programs. Like previous Republican proposals, it would eliminate the federal deficit in 10 years under the party’s projections. But rank-and-file lawmakers are divided over an extra $200 billion in cuts to mandatory spending accounts-- which include Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps-- that would help accommodate the tax cuts Republicans want to enact. Moderates in the Tuesday Group protested the cuts on the grounds that regardless of the budget proposal, Republicans would ultimately need to strike a deal with Democrats in the Senate to fund the government for the next year. “Absent such a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, we are reticent to support any budget resolution on the House floor,” a group of 20 moderates wrote in a letter to the leadership in late June.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus, meanwhile, want even deeper mandatory spending cuts and a commitment that they will go toward trimming back welfare programs. With moderates already balking, however, Republican leaders are unlikely to go much further. “That number is not changing,” a senior GOP aide told me. “The choice is not between $200 billion and $500 billion. It’s between $200 billion and zero.”

Another demand from the Freedom Caucus points to a bigger potential problem for Ryan and his lieutenants—a lingering mistrust between conservatives and the leadership that was exacerbated by the contentious debate over repealing Obamacare. They want to see the tax-reform proposal before voting for the budget that would allow it to move forward. “At a minimum, we’ve got to know more than we know now,” Jordan told me in a phone interview. “Once you open up the door, you can’t close it. So you’d kind of like to know what’s on the other side before you open it.

“We tried this with health-care reform,” he continued. “The plan that we thought we were going to do was not the plan that was undertaken, and look what's happened.”

“We just don’t want some surprise popping in there,” added Representative Dave Brat, a Virginia conservative.

Jordan and other conservatives scored a victory last month when Ryan agreed, in a joint statement with Senate and White House negotiators, to set aside his push for a border-adjustment tax that would help pay for cuts to the individual and corporate rates. But Jordan is worried that GOP leaders will propose other taxes as a means of offsetting rate cuts that they don’t believe are necessary.

“All we’re saying is: Show us the bill,” he said.

Right now, the bill doesn’t exist. Negotiators released only a five-paragraph statement of principles before the congressional recess and are working on writing legislative language this month. But while the White House wants the House to begin marking up a bill right after Labor Day, there is little expectation it’ll be ready that quickly, and leaders on the House Ways and Means Committee have notably set no timetable for finishing their work beyond saying it’ll get done this year. Another option for House leaders is to abandon the full budget altogether and do what they did on health care: pass a stripped-down “shell” budget that merely contains instructions for tax reform and sets aside other policy issues. “Everyone wants to get a real budget. We're not entertaining that option yet,” a senior GOP aide told me.

The irony is that among Republicans, conservatives are the most invested in the reconciliation process that they are, for the time being, holding up. GOP leaders could skip right to tax reform without a budget, but then they’d need 60 votes in the Senate and Democratic support. That would move the bill further to the left, meaning conservatives would not get nearly the level of tax cuts they want, and certainly no spending cuts. In the Senate, a vast majority of Democrats have told Trump and Republican leaders that, unlike on their drive to repeal Obamacare, they would be willing to collaborate on tax reform as long as the bill benefits the middle class more than the wealthy and does not add to the deficit. But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly rejected their entreaty, saying Republicans would pursue the party-line reconciliation process instead. “I don’t think this is going to be 1986, when you had a bipartisan effort to scrub the code,” McConnell told reporters.

For moderates who blame the failure of health-care legislation on the GOP’s partisan approach, those words were already a worrisome sign. “I've always thought that going down the path of Republican-only type of tax reform, to me, is not the wisest course to take nor is it the best course to take for America,” Representative Tom Reed of New York said in an interview. “I’ve expressed that opinion. Obviously my opinion has not won out.”

An early endorser and ally of Trump, Reed said he’d nonetheless support the House budget despite his concerns both about the reconciliation process and its $200 billion in mandatory spending cuts. But he did not sound confident that his party’s next major legislative push would be any more successful than its last. “We have an eternal conflict within ourselves,” Reed told me. “I think that’s going to be very difficult to get done.”

And if that doesn't work... there are more than a few conservative Democrats-- including, of course, the ones from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who already have high Trump adhesion scores-- eager to help the Republicans pass conservative tax reform. Jim Himes (New Dem-CT) signaled to Trump and Ryan right after Trump was elected that they could count on the New Dems, which he chairs, to work with the GOP it cut corporate taxes and cut taxes on the rich.

And then there's the Blue Dog sell-out from New Jersey, Josh Gottheimer and his so-called Problem Solvers Caucus made up of vaguely mainstream conservative Republicans and the most far right Democrats in Congress. Gottheimer and Tom Reed (R-NY) are the co-chairs. These are the Democrats who joined-- along with their Progressive Punch crucial vote scores for 2017. Every one of them, other than Rick Nolan, Jared Polis and Peter Welch, has earned an "F" grade.

• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 47.06
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- 42.86
• Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT)- 61.11
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)- 52.78
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 30.56
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- 33.33
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 40.00
• Richard Nolan (MN)- 62.86
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 30.56
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- 44.44
• Jared Polis (New Dem-CO)- 82.86
• Jacky Rosen (NV)- 44.44
• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)- 50.00
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 54.29
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)- 69.44
• Tom Suozzi (NY)- 42.86
• Peter Welch (VT)- 96.97

One more thing about Gottheimer, who was one of only 5 "Democrats" who voted to fund the Great Wall of Trumpanzee:

“We expected more from the congressional representative who replaced former Rep. Scott Garrett, vowing to uphold the values of the voters in his district. This vote fails to represent our values,” New Jersey Working Families Executive Director Analilia Mejia said in a statement. “Thursday’s vote is a preview of the upcoming budget process. We will be watching Josh Gottheimer and advocating that he support a fair budget that puts the needs of the working families of his district first, instead of gimmicks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Republicans Can't Pass A Budget Now-- Imagine How Much Worse It Will Get If Trump Or Cruz Is The Nominee!

In theory, when Miss McConnell and Senate Budget Committee chair Mike Enzi (R-WY) get bogged down trying to get a budget through the Senate, they can blame Bernie, at least in the Budget Committee-- he's the Ranking Democrat-- and Democratic Senate leaders Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer. Budget Committee members, like ritually obstructionist Chuck Grassley, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Kelly Ayotte whine about the Democrats blocking their crackpot schemes for cutting Social Security and Medicare in the guise of "a budget." That's how the Senate works... or doesn't. So both sides can point fingers at each other... or work out a compromise, which is, in fact, what happens.

In the House, however, blame for a stalled budget has nothing to do with the Democrats. Speaker Ryan (the former Budget Committee Chair) and Tom Price (the current chair) can't blame Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat, because he's being paid off by the same Wall Street evil-doers who are paying them off and rarely stands in their way. Besides, the Democrats don't have the power to meaningfully and effectively stand in their way. There are no filibusters in the House and Ryan can do whatever he wants... as long as he has his party unified behind him. The Senate Dems can still filibuster it when gets across the Capitol (or Obama could veto it, if it ever gets that far), but none of that is what's keeping Ryan and his Republican-controlled House from passing a budget. Like conservative parties everywhere, they're incapable of governing.

Now that it's finally starting to dawn on even the most clueless Beltway media organizations that Ryan actually is running for president, Budget negotiations are about to get even more impossible-- or, perhaps, the way for the establishment to stop Trump (and Cruz) while bolstering Ryan. Ryan doesn't plan to push his toxicity but what the Beltway media imbeciles call "his youth and sunny, Reaganesque message," his faux-reluctance to run and his ability to "sound presidential," or at least relatively presidential in comparison to the sandbox circus currently taking the place of a GOP primary.

Yesterday, Fox News termed Ryan and the GOP's inability to pass a budget a little astonishing. Other conservatives find it a lot astonishing. Price has some radical right ideologues on his committee-- bitter, angry sociopaths obsessed with shutting down the government, like Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Diane Black (R-TN), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), Dave Brat (R-VA), Frank Guinta (R-NH), Rod Blum (R-IA) and Glenn Grothman (R-WI), a fringe lunatic who's looking for a way to use the budget to end weekends for working men and women. The only Democrat besides Van Hollen who Price has backing him up is New Jersey machine politician Donald Norcross.

“The leadership has been on a listening tour for three months,” said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va. “We have to go back to constituents and say we made up for the crap sandwich. Made up for the barn cleaning.”

What Brat refers to is a plan President Obama forged last fall with then-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to “clean the barn” for the next speaker.

Both houses of Congress approved the package, and Obama signed it into law. Only 79 House GOPers voted in favor of the measure in late October-- including new House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The deal established what’s called “discretionary” spending numbers for this fiscal year and fiscal 2017, which begins in October 1.

...[H]ere’s the issue: Congressional conservatives are pushing for $30 billion in reforms to mandatory spending programs. That could reduce the discretionary number to $1.047 trillion. That would make it challenging for the House to approve annual spending bills to fund the government after October 1.

Conservatives have pushed for deep cuts and reductions since Republicans claimed the House in 2010. They made minimal progress in the debt-ceiling agreement of 2011 that resulted in sequestration-- deep, required spending limitations on the discretionary side of the ledger.

But the mandatory spending side is much larger than the discretionary side. That’s why reforms to entitlements make more impact. And conservatives want proof that savings aren’t fiscal fairy dust.

“It needs to be real,” Jordan said.

What counts as “real?” A plan Obama would in fact sign into law.

“That would be pretty real,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said when asked about moving a measure that would earn the president’s signature.

“It’s got to be this year,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas. “Real cuts that actually get signed into law.”

Conservatives think the GOP-led House has never made good on promises lawmakers made to constituents to reduce overall federal spending. Hence, that’s why they want to show they’re making amends for Boehner’s barn cleaning.

That’s why Republicans can’t cobble together the votes to approve a budget. The Republican brass needs the help of at least some of the 40-plus members who comprise the House Freedom Caucus. But there will be no budget if party divisions remain this deep.

...The House Budget Committee last week approved a budget that balances the books in a decade and slashes spending by $6.5 trillion.

Included in that budget is a repeal of ObamaCare. But keep in mind that congressional budgets aren’t binding and not signed into law. They’re aspirational.

The panel passed the budget. However, Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., knew there were several GOPers who voted yes in committee who would vote no on the budget on the floor. Dave Brat and Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., voted no in committee.

There’s a problem with not doing a budget. Failing to agree to an overall topline for mandatory and discretionary spending makes it virtually impossible for lawmakers to begin approving annual appropriations bills that fund the government.

..[I]f the House can’t OK a budget at all-- or even deem a budget-- it’s likely Congress is stuck and must approve a gigantic interim spending bill in September to avoid a government shutdown.

Only some Republicans would be likely to vote for it. The GOP leaders would probably again turn to Democrats to bail them out.

And this is precisely what got Boehner in trouble with House Republicans: leaning on Democrats all the time to do the tough stuff.

A stopgap spending bill means the military construction/VA measure gets less money-- as do all of the other appropriations bills in the big, catchall bill.

That’s because not doing a budget and relying on old spending figure kicks the total discretionary figure back to what the government is spending this year: $1.067 trillion-- a cut of $3 billion.

As former House Budget Committee chairman, Ryan is the high priest of budgets. He authored multiple fiscal blueprints that Republicans embraced. He chastised Democrats when they failed to produce budgets.

This is why Ryan and Republicans know why it’s so important to produce a budget and adopt it on the floor. This is all on them. But as speaker, Ryan can only attest to the virtues of budgeting. This fight is internal, Republicans on Republicans.

Or, more accurately, a fight between the conservatives Ryan leads and the reactionaries and anarchists who follow Cruz. Can you imagine how toxic a battle over the budget with a government shutdown looming will be if either Trump or Cruz is the Republican Party nominee? Can you imagine the low the level of debate will sink-- and how rapidly? It underlines how crucial it is for progressives to gain clout in the Senate. Schumer is going to be looking for opportunities to make deals with the Republicans that benefit his financiers on Wall Street. The Senate Democrats don't have the guts or the will to stand up to him. Schumer is as much a threat to working families as Mitch McConnell is-- in some ways more! Blue America hasn't endorsed many candidates for the Senate this year-- just Alan Grayson (FL), Donna Edwards (MD) and Russ Feingold (WI) so far. And we're in the process of vetting progressives running against Pat Toomey (PA), Rand Paul (KY) and Chuck Grassley (IA). Meanwhile...

Budget Battle-- The Losers Are America's Working Families, Of Course

Yesterday the House defeated the Progressive Caucus's People's Budget... again. It was a budget put together as a roadmap to do the job of uplifting ordinary American working families-- and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. Conservatives easily beat it back without breaking a sweat, 96 to 244. More than half (51.5%) of the Democrats in Congress voted for it and it was the most votes the CPC budget ever got (even though the Democratic caucus is smaller). 

It certainly is not the kind of budget that would please the paymasters of the American political system. The big losers: the 1% and the special interest parasites who thrive on the life's blood of working people. By ending unfair tax cuts to the very rich, the People's Budget was meant to finance a robust program of public investment that would create as many as 8.4 million sustainable jobs. Among the 86 Democrats who voted against it were the slimy bribe-taking characters we have been warning you about: worthless garbage like Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Jim Himes (New Dem-CT), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL), Steve Israel (New Dem-NY), Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Lois Frankel (FL), Donald Norcross (NJ), Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH), Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and-- look what the cat dragged in-- Chris Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, eagerly running as the Establishment candidate for the open Maryland Senate seat against Donna Edwards, who, of course, did vote for the People's Budget.

Had the budget passed and been signed into law it would have addressed education by funding debt-free college and universal Pre-K. It allocated $820 billion for desperately needed transportation and infrastructure improvements and would have ended the draconian cuts to food stamps. So how would all this spending be paid down?

• Taking the ax to corporate welfare, especially for fossil fuel conglomerates and their unconscionable subsidies

• Taxing polluters

• Taxes on families earning over a quarter million annually would have risen slightly to Clinton-era rates

• Finally ending the mortgage interest tax deduction for yachts and vacation homes

• Closing the “trust fund loophole” for the children of billionaires

• Taxing (0.07%) the Too Big to Fail banks on assets exceeding $50 billion

Just before yesterday's debate, The Hill published an OpEd by Jan Schakowsky contrasting the sharp choices Congress is looking between the Republican proposals and the People's Budget.

The GOP budgets proposed in Congress would cut about $5 trillion over the next decade. The overwhelming burden would fall on programs that boost working families: education, Medicare and Medicaid, college aid, job training, medical research and rebuilding roads and bridges. Tens of millions of Americans would lose health insurance and millions more would lose food stamps or be priced out of college.

Republicans push these devastating cuts as a path to a balanced budget. But their budgets have been widely panned by experts as being based on “magic asterisks.” While they’re comfortable putting the squeeze on working families who will be most affected by these cuts in benefits and services, they refuse to ask corporations and the wealthy to contribute one thin dime to the effort. In fact, not one tax loophole is closed by their budgets.

Instead, the House GOP’s proposed budget would give bigger tax cuts to the wealthy, blowing a $1 trillion-plus hole in the budget over the next decade, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Not surprisingly, neither Republican budget details their top priority: tax reform that would result in an even bigger giveaway. That’s because the public doesn’t support their wish list and because their numbers don’t add up.

Their goal of reducing the top tax rates paid by the rich and corporations by about one- third will cost another $3 trillion, based on the plan they offered last year. Republicans have proposed no credible plan to pay for those tax breaks. The average millionaire would cut his tax bill by $200,000. And it would do nothing to end the scandal that hugely profitable corporations-- General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and scores of other companies-- paid no federal income taxes over a recent five-year period.

In stark contrast, the “People’s Budget: A Raise for America”-- authored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus with assistance from the Economic Policy Institute Policy Center-- invests in our nation in a robust, straightforward way. It would create millions of- jobs, repair our crumbling roads and bridges, make college affordable, improve our schools and other community services, and get us to full employment in two years.

Where does the money come from? No “magic asterisks” here-- wealthy households and big corporations are finally asked to pay their fair share.

Corporations would no longer get a tax break when they shift jobs and hide profits offshore. Income generated from investments primarily owned by the wealthy would no longer be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from weekly paychecks. Wall Street gamblers would pay a tiny tax on all their wheeler-dealer trading. Millionaires and billionaires would pay somewhat higher tax rates (but still lower than they did during most of the Reagan administration).

Average Americans are hungry for this kind of responsible reform. They know the tax code is stacked against them in favor of the well-off and well-connected. In a recent Pew Research Center poll, over 60 percent of respondents said their top complaint about the tax system was that corporations and the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, while only 27 percent were most concerned about their own tax bill.

Budgets are about choices. Republicans have chosen in their budgets to further enrich the wealthy and corporations at the expense of workers, children, veterans, seniors-- the whole broad American family. In contrast, the People’s Budget gives all of us a reason to mobilize around a vision for our future that will expand opportunities for everyday Americans.

Alex Law, the progressive running against corrupt South Jersey Machine congressman Donald Norcross, was disappointed-- if not surprised. This morning he told us that Norcross, "yet again has shown his commitment to protecting special interests over protecting real people. Yesterday, he voted with Republicans against the CPC People's Budget despite the fact that it included important pieces such as raising wages, better child care programs, significant investment in our decaying infrastructure, comprehensive corporate tax reform, student loan reform, environmental protection, and campaign finance reform measures. These are all central tenants of my progressive campaign, and I would have proudly voted to support this legislation if I were in Washington."

Ted Lieu (D-CA) called the budget a "powerful, profound statement of American values and vision... [that] charts a bold course of economic growth for America. [It] recognizes that the middle class is the true engine of our nation’s economy by giving working Americans a well-earned and long overdue raise with paid overtime and guaranteed sick and parental leave...The CPC Budget is aptly named; it is an economic plan that creates jobs, expands health security and guarantees a dignified retirement for everyone in America. I am proud to support the CPC People’s Budget.”

If you think it was bad enough that 86 conservative and corrupt Democrats voted against the CPC People's Budget yesterday, there were also 22 Democrats who voted against the official Democratic budget Van Hollen put forward, primarily New Dems, Blue Dogs and other cowardly fake Democrats who home to GOP positions. Perfect example: Patrick Murphy of Florida, a lifelong Republican opportunist disguised-- vaguely-- as a Democrat and eager to get into the Senate.