Mediaboss Marketing

To everyones chagrin, negotiations drag on among Democrats on the Build Back Better Act, Joe Bidens signature social spending bill. While we dont yet know what the final bill will contain, the media has reported, blow-by-blow, as one progressive proposal after another has been cut, in a drawn out and seemingly futile effort to appease conservative Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

It didnt have to be this way.

The bill started as a $6 trillion social spending proposal from Bernie Sanders, what he called the most consequential piece of legislation for working families since the 1930s. Days later, Democrats announced they would spend no more than $3.5 trillion, but there was still a lot for progressives and working-class people to like: tuition-free community college; expanding Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision care; lowering Medicare eligibility to age sixty; paid family leave for new parents; and subsidies for childcare.

Now, virtually all of that is off the table, and the spending is down to $1.75 trillion. It seems all but certain that whatever new programs make it to Bidens desk for his signature will be minimal, temporary, means-tested, difficult to explain, and even harder to access and will still lag far behind every other highly developed country.

Because they had to appease two conservative senators, Democrats missed a critical chance to instead develop the kind of highly visible, popular programs that create deep-seated voter loyalty. More important, millions of people have been robbed of the sorely needed relief Biden campaigned on.

How progressive Democrats will respond to the gutted legislation remains to be seen. For his part, Sanderss messaging has toggled between acceptance and rejection. It is still possible for progressives to put up a fight, but theres a good chance theyll do what progressive Democrats often do: first, emphasize the improvements the bill makes (which, while not sufficient, are not imaginary), and second, repeat well-worn phrases about the necessity of compromise in the legislative process.

Neither of these points is wrong, exactly. But if the discussion ends there, without any critical reflection on the relationship between progressive politicians and their support bases, politicians like Bernie and the Squad will never translate their class-struggle rhetoric into significant material change.

Manchin and Sinema are the two people most responsible by far for gutting the bill. With a constant barrage of bad faith negotiating tactics and simple refusal to go along with Bidens agenda, Manchin and Sinema got the rest of the Democratic Party to negotiate against itself. Over the past several months, Biden has repeatedly cut social spending proposals from the bill, only to find that the two holdouts were still not satisfied. In these internal negotiations, it was always the progressives, never Manchin and Sinema, who gave something up.

There has been almost no discussion of the fact that Manchin and Sinema come from the two states where, only three years ago, the two largest political strikes against government austerity in a generation took place. How were Democrats from these states allowed to do so much damage to a bill whose original purpose was to begin to undo decades of federal austerity? Given recent events in their states, why were they entirely unafraid of any repercussions?

The short answer is that Sanders, the Squad, and progressives in general did not use their biggest strength. Specifically, they made no significant effort to mobilize their large, energetic base of supporters behind the legislation and against those trying to destroy it. Nor were they able to meaningfully rally to their side mass membership organizations like those unions that recently supported their campaigns. For that matter, beyond some rude press releases, they made little effort to get Manchin and Sinema to pay any price at all.

To be clear, Sanders and the Squad have fought harder than almost anyone to create new social benefits that millions of people desperately need. No one can doubt the sincerity of their commitment. But in this months negotiations, we have seen in stark relief the limits of a strategy one, ironically, for which Sanders has often criticized Barack Obama that demobilizes supporters and overemphasizes fitting in as good members of the broader Democratic congressional caucus. The defeat came not in the last few days but as a result of decisions made months and years ago.

Imagine for a moment a counterfactual world in which Sanders keeps significant pieces of his campaign organization intact after the 2020 elections. Perhaps this would have happened, were it not for the COVID-19 pandemic, or perhaps not. But lets pretend it did.

Sanders knows that the countrys most powerful industries are spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent us from doing what the American people want. He funds organizers either through a PAC, another independent political organization, or through his congressional office. Perhaps citing historical precedent, he convinces progressive unions and other grassroots groups, like Democratic Socialists of America, who heavily backed his campaign to invest some portion of their resources in this effort. Members of the Squad contribute resources to the organization or create parallel efforts of their own.

In our hypothetical spring of 2021, working with previously identified Sanders supporters which surely number in the hundreds of thousands in West Virginia and Arizona alone, in addition to plenty more whove already demonstrated theyre willing to cross state lines this campaign-tested organization of full-timers and volunteers begins to educate, agitate, and organize around the original $6 trillion proposal, perhaps tying it directly to the states recent anti-austerity movements. As the two senators intransigence comes into focus, they organize escalating, disruptive campaigns to make life hell for Manchin and Sinema and, just as important, their donors.

Bear in mind that this is all in line with Sanderss own vision for how to effectively handle stubborn opposition. For example, during his 2020 campaign, he vowed to hold rallies in the backyards of recalcitrant Republican politicians like [Mitch] McConnell, raising hell in their districts and exerting pressure on them from their own constituents and repeatedly said that as president he would be organizer in chief.

Its true that mobilizing supporters in a meaningful way would have been unorthodox and would have required a significant amount of time, resources, and advanced planning. In fact, creating an organization capable of doing these things would have required an entirely different approach to politics. But this was exactly the kind of organization Sanders had begun to build with his 2020 campaign, one focused on building grassroots organizers skills, one-to-one organizing, and uncompromising class struggle rhetoric. Why abandon an approach that had already taken Sanders and the Squad so far?

Building and maintaining an independent organization with real teeth would entail a degree of risk, since other politicians would rightly see it as a threat to their usual closed-doors way of doing business. But would such a risk not have been worth it, in order to pass what progressives were selling as generation-defining legislation? Especially if it meant creating a template for further organizing campaigns and scaring the hell out of intransigent conservatives in the process? Why shouldnt conservative politicians feel politically threatened, if the stakes are whether democracy can continue to function?

Well never know for sure if such a risky and resource-intensive strategy would have applied enough pressure to change either Manchins or Sinemas vote. Direct action and mobilization are certainly no panacea. For every successful West Virginia or Arizona strike, there is an Occupy Wall Street or a Wisconsin State Capitol occupation with no immediate tangible effect. But the pressure of direct action and mobilization are most effective when they (unlike, say, Occupy Wall Street) target specific actors whose mind needs to change when they are actually making a decision. Further, bringing more people into active political organizing is an inherently important thing for the Left, even when we lose a specific campaign.

Regardless of this counterfactual scenario, we know now, from direct evidence, that Sanderss and progressives strategy of trying to be good team players within the Democratic caucus has not worked when it comes to passing core elements of the progressive agenda. This is the case even for programs that Biden vocally supported on the campaign trail and throughout negotiations. Given Manchins, Sinemas, and other Democrats history, we could have anticipated this before negotiations started. There is no reason to think the same strategy will work in Congress in the future, nor, for the most part, to think it will go very far in other contexts.

Its reasonable to ask why all this should fall on elected officials. Isnt such organizing the task of grassroots organizations? Ideally, yes, and it isnt as if no one is trying. But the vast majority of grassroots organizations simply dont have the resources to run a campaign with sufficient size or, more important, speed. Nor do they have the hope of getting such resources anytime soon.

It is an uncomfortable fact of US politics that individual politicians have the resources supporter contact information, money, organizing staff, name recognition, personal connections, media attention to mobilize their supporters far more quickly and with greater precision than grassroots organizations do. This is especially true of politicians like Bernie and the Squad who come to power with the strong support of grassroots movements.

For this reason, grassroots organizers and organizations need to make organizing and mobilizing strategy an important demand of those politicians who work in close collaboration with us. Politicians who come to office through grassroots movements have a responsibility to help build those movements further, and the only way to truly build them is to engage continually in active struggle, not just around election time.

No politician, Sanders and the Squad included, can simply turn on a spigot labeled militancy and flood the streets with people. It is precisely because such work takes a long time and a lot of effort that we should reflect on its possibilities now and find a way to make such organizing feasible. The alternative is, at best, the constant repetition of the negotiations we just saw in which one or two conservative legislators backed by essentially infinite capital can undermine progressives most popular and transformative proposals with little effort and no negative consequences.

When conservatives within their own party are backed by the most powerful industries in the country, progressive Democrats come to the bargaining table at an extreme disadvantage if they do nothing to activate the source of their power: the people.

Read more:
Bernie and Progressive Dems Can't Succeed Without Mobilizing Their Supporters - Jacobin magazine

(JTA) Ive spent most of the last decade focused on grassroots organizing and capacity building inside the American progressive movement. From helping build the largest leadership development organization on the left, to launching a first-of-its-kind organization to mobilize male allies into the fight to protect and expand reproductive freedom, Ive proudly helped elect progressive change makers and pass landmark legislation.

Ive done all of that as a Jew who wears a kippah in public, as someone who, statistically speaking, shouldnt exist. My grandfather is one of the 10% of Polish-born Jews to survive World War II. Three million of his Jewish neighbors, and another 3 million across Europe, were packed into boxcars and sent to the slaughter, to gas chambers, to the ovens.

What I am is central to who I am. So when I saw the statement from the Washington, D.C., chapter of the Sunrise Movement explaining its refusal to march in a voting rights rally with Jewish groups because they are Zionists, I understood immediately that it was deeply problematic. Not only did the decision have the potential impact of spreading anti-Jewish bigotry, but it also weakened our movement more broadly at a time when democracy, which is necessary to ensure civil rights, is under assault in America.

I also understood right away that, for many people, the anti-Jewish nature of the statement wasnt so obvious. When moments like this arise, I get texts and calls from progressive peers across the country who ask: Is this antisemitic?

To answer the question, I begin by explaining what it means to be a Jew. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. But Jewish identity is so much bigger and more diverse than religion. Some of us are deeply religious. Some of us are totally secular. All of us are Jews. Were a people, not simply a religious community.Contrary to what most think, antisemitism is not anti-Judaism in its modern form (several hundred years). Its anti-Jew. Its not about how Jews pray, but rather about who they are and what they are accused of doing.

Jews get attacked for supposedly controlling the world (governments, banks, media), for being disloyal to our home countries, for killing Jesus, for making up the Holocaust, for being greedy, for undermining the white race and subverting people of color (among other things).

Weve been blamed for plagues, famine, economic hardship and war. Whatever major problem a society has, Jews have been blamed for it. None of those things has anything to do with religion.

Criticism of Israel or opposition to it isnt necessarily antisemitic. Harsh criticism of Israeli government policy may make us uncomfortable but isnt antisemitic. But the Sunrise DC statement wasnt about policy. By attacking Zionist organizations in a voting rights coalition, and saying that they cant participate in in a coalition that includes them, Sunrise DC basically said it wont work alongside Jewish organizations (or Jews) that believe the state of Israel has the right to exist.

For the average Jew, Zionism has become simply the idea that Israel has the right to exist, rather than an embrace of the policies of its government. The Zionist movement got its name in the late 19th century, but it really put a label on a 2,000-year-old yearning to return to the native land Jews were violently forced out of (in an act of colonization). That yearning grew over time as we failed to find sustained peace and security elsewhere, including in Europe, North Africa and the broader Middle East.

Thats why when people attack Zionists, we hear Jews. We hear them saying that the 80-90% of Jews who believe Israel has a right to exist are unacceptable, and that Israel, a country that came into existence with the vote of the international community and today is home to 7 million Jews, must be ended.

Why is that antisemitism? First, it singles out Jews when most people believe Israel has the right to exist. (In fact, 85% of the general public in America believes the statementIsrael does not have a right to exist is antisemitic, according to a survey released this week.) Second, it seeks to deny Jewish people the right to self-determination by erasing our peoplehood and connection to the land. Third, it declares that a national movement for Jews is uniquely unacceptable, while at the same time advocating in support of another national movement.

Fourth, it divides Jews into good and bad. Only those who oppose their own national movement can stay. Only Jews who reject Zionism are allowed. Replace Jew with any other group and ask if that would be acceptable.

Even if you forswear coalitions with anyone, Jewish or not, who thinks Israel is legitimate, that still denies the Jewish peoples right to self-determination. It says that Jews must be a perpetual minority on this earth subject to the whims and bigotries of the societies they live in. For thousands of years Jews tried that and failed to find permanent refuge which, fairly or not, is part of the reason most Jews believe in the right to, and need for, national self-determination in some portion of a contested land.

Sunrise DC wasnt interested in the nature of their shunned Jewish allies support for Israel even though each of the three groups, like most Jews in America, have advocated for a Palestinian state and for an end to policies by the government of Israel that harm the Palestinian people, including, but not limited to, the occupation of the West Bank.

Ultimately, only Jews get to define who and what we are and what antisemitism is. Too often in progressive spaces that right is denied to Jews. Instead, to justify their own positions, some rely on Jews whose voices, while relevant, are far from representative on the question of what constitutes antisemitism. If someone ignored the voices and lived realities of 80-90% of any other minority group, most progressives would quickly recognize that as an act of tokenization to shield biases (or worse).

Some who identify as progressive feel its OK to use the word Zionist to attack others, claiming that the word is not about Jews. I encourage everyone to go on far right-wing message boards on occasion. Once there, youll see how white supremacists typically call Jews Zionists. The prominence of the word, in connection with claims that they control the governments and are trying to replace white patriots with Black and Brown interlopers, will stun you.

While there is plenty of room for criticism of Israeli government policy, there should be no room for the exclusionary, reductionist and dehumanizing language of white nationalists in progressive discourse on the topic, or the denial of the right for Jewish self-determination on this earth.

I believe in standing up for those who are attacked for the crime of being who they are as much as I believe in standing up for Jewish life. For me, this work is personal. Not because every issue affects me directly. But because I feel like I owe it to my grandfather. To Jews who were murdered and never had a chance to live. To my peers here who face systemic racism and bigotry. And yes, because I believe Never Again isnt just a slogan to hope for, but rather a mission to fight for.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

See the original post here:
My fellow progressives are always asking me if anti-Zionism is antisemitic. Heres what I tell them. - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

House progressives are laying out their priorities in negotiations over Democrats' massive social-spending package, as lawmakers seek to trim its size to get more moderates on board.

"We have been told that we can either adequately fund a small number of investments or legislate broadly, but only make a shallow, short-term impact," leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) wrote in a letter Wednesday to Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSanders, Manchin escalate fight over .5T spending bill Sanders blames media for Americans not knowing details of Biden spending plan Photos of the Week: Climate protests, Blue Origin and a koala MORE (D-Calif.). "We would argue that this is a false choice."

Democrats are working to reduce the size of their spending package from the $3.5 trillion figure backed by progressives, sincekey centrists Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinMajor climate program likely to be nixed from spending package: reports Sanders, Manchin escalate fight over .5T spending bill Sanders blames media for Americans not knowing details of Biden spending plan MORE (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaSanders, Manchin escalate fight over .5T spending bill Biden gets personal while pitching agenda The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by The Conference of Presidents of Major Italian American Organizations - US opens to vaccinated visitors as FDA panel discusses boosters MORE (D-Ariz.) think that number is too high. In a meeting with House Democrats earlier this month, President BidenJoe BidenJill Biden campaigns for McAuliffe in Virginia Fill the Eastern District of Virginia Biden: Those who defy Jan. 6 subpoenas should be prosecuted MORE suggested lawmakers should consider a top-line number in the range of $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

Progressives in their letter reiterated their desire for the package to include five of their key agenda items: investments in the care economy, investments in affordable housing, Medicare reforms, addressing climate change and immigration reform. They also articulated their preferences for how to trim the top-line number.

CPC leaders said they would prefer the spending package to include "robust investments" over a shorter period of time. This contrasts with the position of some moderates, who would prefer that the legislation include fewer spending programs but over a longer period.

"We cannot pit childcare against housing, or paid leave against home- and community-based care," the progressive leaders wrote.

They also want the legislation to be designed "so that benefits flow to the American people as quickly as possible, both to assist the Biden Recovery and to demonstrate our commitment to tangibly improving the lives of the American people."

Progressives said they want programs in areas such as child care and education to be universal. In contrast, Manchin and some House moderates have said they would prefer spending programs be targeted to lower-income households.

"Universal programs are always the most politically durable and popular investments," CPC leaders wrote.

Additionally, the CPC leaders urged Pelosi to maintain provisions in the package that would make investments in communities of color, including proposals related to housing, home-based and elder care, and immigration.

"If we cut those programs, we reduce the broadly transformative power of this legislation, and we once again fall behind on our promises to ensure racial equity," the progressive lawmakers wrote.

The letter is part of progressives' aggressive strategyto shape the spending package that has yielded some early wins. Earlier this week, Pelosi walked back comments that suggested she preferred moderates' approach to reducing the size of the package over progressives'.

Visit link:
House progressives lay out priorities for spending negotiations | TheHill - The Hill

President Joe Biden has so far resisted calls for a blanket cancelation of student loan debt. But progressive Democrats have refused to relent on their top priority, ramping up the pressure this week on the administration for a sweeping order to fix broken parts of the federal student loan system.

Young adults have been drowning in student loan debtwhich has more than tripled since 2000for years after they graduate. With nearly 45 million individuals receiving a bill each month, Americans now owe about $1.7 trillion in student loans, more than the nation's total debt on auto loans and credit cards.

In April, the Biden administration instructed Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to produce a memo outlining the president's legal authority to eliminate student debt. Six months later, a group of 18 progressive lawmakers, led by Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, demanded the document to be released by October 22.

"Decades ago, Congress voted to authorize the executive branch to cancel federal student loans. Federal student debt can be canceled with the 'flick of your pen,'" the members wrote in a letter to Biden, adding that "this authority is already being put to use, as it is currently being used to cancel the interest owed on all federally-held student loans.

"Now it is time for you to honor your campaign pledge and use this authority to cancel all student debt."

In a tweet Thursday, Senator Elizabeth Warren renewed pressure on the president to "cancel" student debt.

"Student loan borrowers are teachers, health care workers & other essential workers. Many of them have been carrying the burden of student debt for decades. Helping these borrowers is popular and it's the right thing to do," the Massachusetts Democrat wrote.

"Student debt relief is good for people and good for the economy. [Biden] can and must lift the burden of student debt for 43 million Americans," said Washington Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, who is also the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, tweeted: "Today would be a great day for President Biden and Vice President Harris to #CancelStudentDebt."

Progressives have been pushing Biden to cancel at least $50,000 in debt with an executive order, which would wipe out the debt burden of 36 million individualsincluding about 10 million who have already defaultedaccording to data from the Education Department. Biden has previously said he's open to cancel up to $10,000 in student loan debt.

In July, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Biden lacks authority to unilaterally eliminate federal student loan debt.

"People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness," the California Democrat said. "He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

Supporters argue that forgiving student loan debt would help to alleviate racial and economic inequality. In recent years, proponents have also stressed that the cost of living has been rising at a much faster rate than college salaries.

Critics, however, say it's unfair to cancel student loan debt for wealthier borrowers who graduated from elite colleges, such as Harvard and Yale.

In 2019, 10 percent of student loan borrowers were in default, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. Black graduates with a bachelor's degree are more likely to default than white dropouts. About 32 percent of Black Americans who went to college 10 years ago have since gone into default.

Biden has already canceled $9.5 billion in student debt for borrowers with disabilities and individuals who were deceived into attending now-defunct colleges. In August, the Department of Education announced a final extension of the pandemic-related pause on student loan repayment, interest, and collections until January 31, 2022.

"It's not enough," Schumer said last month. "We need to do more."

Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.

Go here to see the original:
'Good for the Economy': Progressives Escalate Pressure on Biden to Cancel Student Debt - Newsweek

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) Democrats are going toe-to-toe to try and get their policies inside President Joe Bidens final Build Back Better plan.

Some Democrats say they are growing worried important climate initiatives could be scrapped in an effort to appease moderate Democrats who have voiced concerns of their own.

Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., says Congress cannot wait to address climate change.

Were going to need more than pretty words, Casten said. If you look at the west on fire, if you look at the floods, if you look at the hurricanes and say, you know what we should do, kick the can down the road. Then you dont belong in this line of work.

Casten is fighting to make sure robust climate policies remain inside the presidents Build Back Better plan.

We need binding action, Casten said.

He says the planned policies will reduce carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 by 45%.

Thats not enough but that would be the most transformative, most significant climate policy ever passed by the United States, he said.

On Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed to keep climate policies at the forefront of the presidents plan, days after she met with Pope Francis and global leaders about the issue of climate change.

We have a moral responsibility, Pelosi said.

But Casten says he is deeply concerned moderates representing fossil fuel states, like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., could sour that commitment.

We do have provisions in this bill to help out those parts of the country, Casten said. Weve tried to be thoughtful about it.

The White House says negotiations are still underway.

Were working with Sen. Manchin, were working with a range of Democrats, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.

But Republicans who oppose the package across the board say they hope moderates do not cave.

These bills are inaccurate, theyre wrong, Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., said. Now we know that wont work, largely because of Senators Manchin and Sinema.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., is in favor of potential tax incentives in the bill.

As the author of the expanded and improved 45Q carbon capture tax credit, of course Im in favor of encouraging carbon capture projects, and I have a bill with Senator Smith to make the tax credit more accessible. But it seems this potential 45Q increase comes only in exchange for more Democratic support of CEPPa program that would penalize energy producers much more than 45Q would reward them. Boosting the 45Q tax credit would not even come close to negating the devastating impact CEPP would have on coal and natural gas plants.

Democrats have until the end of the month to get moderates and progressives united behind one plan.

The White House announced Thursday that Biden will also be traveling to Europe at the end of the month to meet with the Pope and to attend the UN annual climate conference.

Here is the original post:
Progressives press for climate reforms to stay in spending package - KXAN.com