Do Conservative Democrats Believe In Unity And Solidarity? Of Course They Don't

Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico yesterday, wrote about how congressional Democrats-- most far to the right of Bernie-- are planning how to run with him at the top of the ticket. Some-- like way-to-the-right Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) have said they flat out will refuse to back him. Many others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party want to write their own less progressive platform to run on. Ferris and Caygle wrote that "even as some Democrats privately test-drive rhetoric for sharing a Sanders ticket-- like how to talk up expanded health care, rural broadband or new workforce programs-- there are others who say they could have to strongly distance themselves from the Vermont independent if he wins the party’s nod."

“I’ve been consistent from day one that the answers to the problems that we all agree that we face today, the answers are not socialist economic policies,” said Rep. Max Rose of New York, a Mike Bloomberg backer, whose district went for President Donald Trump by 10 points in 2016. “That’s just not the case. And I stand by that.”

Sanders’ biggest supporters on Capitol Hill say he plans to make a concerted push to appeal to more of his congressional colleagues after Super Tuesday’s high-stakes contests. Much of that outreach, they say, will go toward finding common ground on policy and calming jitters among endangered House Democrats that a Sanders nomination would mean a down-ballot bloodbath.

Sanders maintains a relatively small group of allies on Capitol Hill, with just nine Democrats endorsing him in both chambers. But his supporters say momentum could shift toward him this week, with Sanders expected to do well Tuesday in delegate-rich states like California and Texas, potentially putting him on a path to winning the nomination.

“Everyone in this building is very good at politics, and it doesn’t take a lot to see that Sanders has a very good chance,” Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a national co-chair of Sanders’ campaign.

Khanna said some Democrats have approached him with concerns about Sanders’ bid, and that in some cases, he has relayed them directly to Sanders as they look to build a Capitol Hill coalition.

“We want to make members realize that whatever wing of the party they’re on, they’re welcome in the coalition,” Khanna said, adding that some of Sanders’ proposals-- like building rural broadband and investing in infrastructure-- could appeal to more moderate Democrats who have otherwise stayed far away from a platform centered on “Medicare for All” and a “Green New Deal.”

“People are beginning to see there could be a strong upside to a Bernie nomination as well, even though I understand many of them might be a little nervous,” added Rep. Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.), who officially endorsed Sanders last week.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is acutely aware of the anxieties swirling inside her caucus. The speaker has even declared that while the party will unite around its nominee, House Democrats will run on their own agenda-- one that helps them hold the GOP-leaning seats that delivered her majority in 2018.

“My responsibility is to make sure that those we elected last time return to Congress, keep the majority and add to our numbers,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

“We have to win in certain, particular areas,” she added. “We’re not about a popular vote in the country or in particular states in terms of the Electoral College. We are district by district.”

...Democrats may disagree on whether to back Medicare for All or focus on strengthening the Affordable Care Act, for example. But the Trump administration and several GOP-led states are currently in court trying to completely dismantle the Obama-era health law.

“I think the campaign will be an opportunity to contrast where Republicans stand on all these issues,” Cicilline said.

Several moderate Democrats have said they would focus on Sanders’ health care message-- the biggest plank of his platform and a key driver of his base.

“I think health care is a good direction, I just don’t like how he wants to get there. Same with some of his other ideas,” said Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ), whose district barely went for Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, and who has not yet endorsed a candidate.

“There are certainly parts of his agenda that are attractive to some people,” said freshman Rep. Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, noting the idea of universal health coverage is popular in parts of her purple district. But she said Democrats would need to find a way to achieve that outcome that doesn’t “burn the house down in the process.”

“I’m seeing it kind of like the process of legislation,” Wild added. “There’s going to have to be compromise all the way around.”

But not every Democrat is so optimistic that they can run with-- or run away from-- Sanders’ message and the “socialist” sobriquet Republicans are already trying to pin on every Democrat.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), who offered a high-profile endorsement of Joe Biden ahead of the former vice president’s landslide South Carolina win, warned of “down-ballot carnage” if Sanders is the Democratic nominee.

“We want to see somebody on the ticket that will allow us to expand our numbers. Not having to run some kind of a rearguard campaign in order to keep from being tarnished with a label,” Clyburn said Friday on CNN.

The fears about keeping the House are most pronounced among the several dozen Democrats running in the most competitive seats, particularly freshmen, who have never run on the same ballot as Trump.

Freshman Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, whose district went narrowly for Clinton in 2016, said he would go into his race “with the same degree of confidence” regardless of who leads the ticket.

But he said Democrats would have a much simpler message-- and better odds of beating Trump-- if they have someone other than Sanders on the ballot.

“All we’ve got to do is to say, we’re not messing with the economy, we’re going to improve health care, and we’re going to give you a president who tells the truth, respects the law, and can be a good moral example for your kids,” Malinowski said.

“Why we would risk this extraordinary opportunity by nominating someone who has a tendency to divide our own side is beyond me,” he said, though he added that he would “absolutely” support Sanders if he is the nominee despite their differences.

Still, it’s not clear that Sanders will be welcome on the trail with the most vulnerable House Democrats.

“We don’t know who the nominee is going to be yet, so I think that’s kind of forward thinking,” said freshman Rep. Gil Cisneros, who flipped a GOP district in Southern California, after being asked multiple times whether he would campaign with Sanders. “But again, whoever the Democratic nominee is, Democrats in my district are going to rally around that individual.”

Cisneros, basically a waste of a seat, was a professional potato chip taster who won the lottery and self-funded $9,252,762 to win the primary and then the open-seat general. He quickly joined the New Dems, quickly started voting abysmally and now has an "F" rating from ProgressivePunch. This cycle-- despite immense PAC contributions-- he's being outraised by Republican Young Kim. Yesterday he endorsed Biden.

Does it feel odd to you that there are no progressive members of Congress saying they won't vote for Status Quo Joe if he-- not to mention Republican oligarch Michael Bloomberg-- manages to steal the election at the convention? And that there are no progressive congressional Democrats talking to the media about how they will have to run on a more progressive platform than the pile of status quo garbage either Biden or Bloomberg will put together?

Last week, Mehdi Hasan asked at The Intercept if we can all agree that everything we were told about Bernie by the press, the pundits, the politicians was wrong. "And not just wrong, but completely, utterly, demonstrably, embarrassingly, catastrophically wrong." Hasan's post was particularly looking at electability but also looked at the smear that Bernie's "policies are extreme and unpopular." Bernie, he wrote "is a socialist who backs radical policies too far to the left of not just the electorate as a whole, but even mainstream and moderate Democratic voters. Yet in Iowa and New Hampshire... a clear majority of caucus-goers and primary voters backed Medicare for All over the current private insurance system. In Nevada, too, 6 in 10 Democrats said they supported a Sanders-style single-payer health care system. At a national level, a (narrower) majority of Americans support Medicare for All, according to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, then, it is Sanders, and not Biden or Bloomberg, who is the real centrist candidate-- in terms of pushing policies popular with most Americans."

A few days later, Scott Lanman and Stephanie Flanders went further, reporting that world-renowned economist Thomas Piketty, has explained how Bernie's agenda will be good for the American economy than the no fundamental change agenda Biden and Bloomberg and the transpartisan elites have in mind.

At the start of the 20th century, Sweden-- now held up as an egalitarian country-- was entirely controlled by wealthy elites and voting rights were determined by property. Within a very short space of time, and with little economic disruption, it became the social democratic nation that we now know.

This precedent bodes well for Mr. Sanders' policy goals of reforming American capitalism, Piketty suggested.





In his new book Capital and Ideology, Piketty examines the relationship between inequality and ideology, and how they shape each other.

The Sanders campaign has promised systemic change through economic policy to tackle inequality-- higher taxes of the rich, a wealth tax, a minimum wage, and “workplace democracy.”

Piketty, like Mr Sanders, advocates a progressive tax on wealth. “Remember that the U.S. is actually the country that invented progressive taxation of income and wealth in the 20th century,” he said.

Citing 30 years of data showing that U.S. workers have not seen any real per capita growth in that period, Piketty also said no country has a national determinism about economics and the US is not necessarily wed to its current system. Things can change very quickly.

“Warren and Sanders are not radicals, they are moderate social democrats by European standards… and the ideology of the U.S. is changing,” he said.

Piketty’s first book, 2014’s best-selling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is said to have foreseen the Trump presidency-- predicting that voters who felt marginalised by globalisation would turn to radical solutions outside of the realms of traditional politics.

Could there be parallels in support for the Sanders campaign? A portion of the electorate that again feels left behind in a highly unequal society, who could turn away from "business as usual" solutions, and wants real structural change.

In a discussion with the Financial Times, Piketty described the two different policy reactions to this scenario-- the first wants to regulate the movement of goods and people, the other wants to regulate the movement of capital. One focuses on external factors (immigrants, unfair trade deals), the other on internal factors (inequality, education, health) advocating structural change at home.

At this early stage of the primary campaign it is still unclear whether the American voter will opt for the latter, and embrace Mr Sanders.

Trump's Destruction Of The Tax System Can Only Be Remedied By Progressives, Not By Less Toxic Conservatives

David Leonhardt's NY Times column yesterday about the wealthiest 400 Americans paying lower taxes than the rest of us, is just another indication-- as if we need one-- that Trump lied about everything he said when he ran for president... and continues to do so. Did you ever think this claim was anything other than pure bullshit?

He was laughing at you

Do you know what a progressive tax rate is? The idea goes all the way back to the Roman Republic since he was meant to mitigate some of the societal ills associated with out of control income and wealth inequality. Bernie's political career has always been about this mitigation. Republicans and conservative Democrats have always sought to defend the wealthy against progressive tax rates, which began when Lincoln replaced a flat tax in 1862. The idea of progressive taxation is that the RATE increases as your taxable income increases. One of the key ways conservatives have gotten around progressive taxation is by exempting certain income. Trump and his Republican cheerleaders have brought taxes on the rich down so precipitously that the country is in fiscal danger. "For the first time on record," wrote Leonhardt the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate-- spanning federal, state and local taxes-- than any other income group. This depressing milestone has two main causes: President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the long-term rise of tax avoidance by both companies and individuals."

The average tax rate on the richest 400 households last year was only 23%, down from 70% in 1950 and 47% in 1980. Why? In recent decades, the top income-tax rate and the estate tax have both fallen, and corporate taxes-- which are effectively paid by shareholders-- have plummeted. Middle-class and poor families, on the other hand, haven’t benefited much if at all from the falling corporate tax or estate tax, and they now pay more in payroll taxes than in the past. Overall, their taxes have remained fairly flat.

The combined result is that over the last 75 years the U.S. tax system has become radically less progressive.

The data here come from the most important book on government policy that I’ve read in a long time-- called The Triumph of Injustice, to be released next week. The authors are Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both of the University of California, Berkeley. Saez has won the award that goes to the top academic economist under age 40, and Zucman was recently profiled by Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine as “the wealth detective.”

They have constructed a historical database that tracks the tax payments up and down the income spectrum since 1913, when the federal income tax began. The story they tell is maddening-- and yet ultimately energizing.

“Many people have the view that nothing can be done,” Zucman told me. “Our case is, ‘No, that’s wrong. Look at history.’” When the United States has raised tax rates on the wealthy and made rigorous efforts to collect taxes, it has succeeded in doing so.

And it can succeed again.

Saez and Zucman portray tax history as a struggle between people who want to tax the rich and those who want to coddle the rich. The story starts in the 17th century, when Northern colonies created more progressive tax systems-- including wealth taxes-- than Europe had. The Southern colonies, by contrast, were hostile to taxation, out of a fear that taxes could undermine slavery, as historian Robin Einhorn has explained.

By the middle of the 20th century, the high-tax advocates had prevailed. The United States had arguably the world’s most progressive tax code, with a top income-tax rate of 91%. But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell mostly on the wealthy, with the justification that the economy would benefit.

The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. The American economy just doesn’t function very well when tax rates on the rich are low and inequality is sky high. It was true in the lead-up to the Great Depression, and it’s been true recently. Which means that raising high-end taxes isn’t about punishing the rich (who, by the way, will still be rich). It’s about creating an economy that works better for the vast majority of Americans.

In their book, Saez and Zucman sketch out a modern progressive tax code. The overall tax rate on the richest 1% would roughly double, to about 60%. The tax increases would bring in about $750 billion a year, enough to pay for universal pre-K, an infrastructure program and much more. Those are the kinds of policies that do lift economic growth.

One crucial proposal is a minimum global corporate tax of at least 25%. A company would have to pay the tax on its American profits even if it set up headquarters in Ireland or Bermuda. Saez and Zucman also favor a wealth tax; Elizabeth Warren’s version is based on their work. And they call for the creation of a Public Protection Bureau, to crack down on tax dodging.

I already know what some critics will say in response-- that the rich will always figure out a way to avoid taxes. That’s simply not the case. True, they will always be able to avoid some taxes. But history shows that serious attempts to collect more taxes usually succeed.

Ask yourself this: If efforts to tax the super-rich were really doomed to fail, why would so many of the super-rich be fighting so hard to defeat those efforts?

For the same reasons, no doubt, they are fighting to defeat Elizabeth Warren and, even more so, Bernie, the serious two candidates who actually want to deliver on fundamental change. It's also the reason why progressive candidates for Congress are always up against the forces of conservatism, whether in Democratic primaries-- where progressives have to battle the DCCC and their corrupt candidates for nominations-- or in general elections (when Republicans are always the greater evil).

Eva Putzova is the Blue America-endorsed candidate running against Republican-pretending-to-be-a-Democrat (Blue Dog) Tom O'Halleran, a consistent voter against everything even vaguely progressive. Eva-- who is adamantly opposed by both the Republicans and the conservative DCCC-- told us that "If we doubled the tax rate on the rich, closed corporate tax loopholes, and imposed a wealth tax, we could raise the money we need to invest in healthcare, education, and green infrastructure. It would produce millions of good paying jobs which would benefit people who have been neglected for decades. We built the greatest middle class in history after World War II by enacting a strong progressive tax system and we can do it again if we elect politicians with the guts to take on corporate interests."

Jason Butler, our progressive pastor in Wake County, North Carolina is running against a reactionary Republican, George Holding, whose record shows he doesn't think rich people should pay taxes, just working people. Jason could disagree more: "Let’s get this straight-- taxes pay for our national defense, our infrastructure, healthcare for the vulnerable, our public schools, they preserve our national parks and our national treasures, they provide a safety net for the suffering, assist those in need, help rebuild communities after disasters, fund pivotal programs for economic development, and so much more… and the rich are constantly trying to pay less. Why? Like it or not, paying taxes is one of the most patriotic ways we participate in a shared nation. And as the old saying goes, 'to those who have been given much, much is required'-- yes, the rich have benefited tremendously from America and much is required. I’d like to see more stop trying to hide from their responsibility and more embrace their potential role as leaders in our patriotic duty."

Kim Williams, a Central Valley progressive running for the 16th district seat held by Blue Dog-- quasi-Republican-- Jim Costa noted that "Nowhere in California are the failures of our current system more apparent than in the Central Valley. We are home to one of the most unequal regions in California with high-income households making 14 times as much as poor households. And since 2007, incomes at the bottom 10 percent have dropped by 26 percent, which means that the poor continue to get even poorer. The conversation around fair taxation tends to center itself on whether the rich will pay and how hard they will fight to hold onto their wealth. But for many people in this Valley, the conversation should be around life or death. Because while billionaires are complaining about taxes on their yachts and vacation homes, people here are choosing between medicine and food. I will absolutely support a millionaire wealth tax, and I will vigorously support efforts to enforce it."

Another broken promise-- this one just a few minutes ago

Rachel Ventura is running for a Chicagoland seat held by multimillionaire New Dem who is a conservative on all fiscal matters. She disagrees with him and the GOP on taxation. She told us that she likes "the idea of a universal corporate tax rate on companies that try to dodge taxes by setting up shop in foreign countries. One could argue that businesses use as much or more of our taxpayer infrastructure than citizens do. Businesses depend on roadways to get their goods to market. In Will County, where I serve as an elected official, the roads that are pounded by truck traffic are in constant need of repair, costing taxpayers. The oil and gas industry is the dominant benefactor of our taxpayer-funded military presence in the Middle East and pharmaceutical companies benefit from the millions of dollars that taxpayers invest into research and development."

Rachel also told us she agrees "that we need to restore the 1950’s era progressive tax rates on the wealthy and I am a supporter of closing tax loopholes that are written by the wealthy, for the wealthy. Not only is Trump’s tax cut destructive to our economy, looking at the Republicans and their 2020 tax messaging is also important. The anti-tax wing of the Republican Party is already trying to boil things like the Green New Deal down to a 'meat tax' coupled with fear-based messages about 'taking away your hamburger.' In addition to having to call out Trump’s lies about his tax cuts helping working people, we also have to counter their entire 2020 campaign about the Democrats wanting to 'tax everything.' If we allow weak Democrats to handle the messaging in 2020, they will no doubt get clobbered by the anti-tax message. It will be important to go into the 2020 election cycle with strong progressives who can inspire the working poor to go to the polls in large numbers. We need to be talking about wealth inequality, taxing the rich, strengthening the middle class, protecting and expanding social security, creating good paying jobs and investing in real fixes to the climate crisis."