Mediaboss Marketing

The Federal Reserve chair is liberal on employment and has cred on inflation. The left would be crazy to risk this quasi ally for the unlikely chance that theyd get someone more to their liking on banking regulation.

| 1:00 PM

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell arrives to speak at a news conference in Washington, Wednesday, December 19, 2018. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

On Monday, five progressive House members called on President Joe Biden not to reappoint Jerome Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve. Their concern is that Powell has taken very little action to mitigate the risk climate change poses to our financial system and has substantially weakened many of the reforms enacted in the wake of the Great Recession regulating the largest banks.

Even if these are fair criticisms, they are the wrong grounds on which to remove Powell from the helm of the central bank. With the already enacted American Rescue Plan and the forthcoming Build Back Better social spending bill, Biden is making a multi-trillion-dollar bet on progressivism. But if the enactment of the presidents agenda is followed by an extended period of inflation, the entire progressive project will be discredited for a generation. Last Friday, the Biden administration more than doubled its estimate for this years degree of inflation, and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released data showing that a key inflation measure had risen to its highest level in 30 years.

What progressives need at the Fed is someone they can count on to make a tough call on interest rates if necessary, so inflation doesnt get out of handeven if a rate hike is hard for progressives to swallow.

Progressives are actually divided over Powell precisely because he has been an inflation dove while taking a moderate-to-conservative tack on other matters.

The progressive groups Americans for Financial Reform and the Revolving Door Project recently published harsh critiques of Powell, who was appointed Fed chair by Donald Trump after being selected as a Fed board member by Barack Obama. As the AFR put it, The Powell Fed contributed mightily to the overall assault by Trump-appointed regulators on bank regulations designed to prevent financial crises.

The progressive economist Dean Baker delivered an able defense of the Fed leader, crediting Powell for moving the Fed away from its obsession with inflation, which often meant raising rates and throwing people out of work. Instead, Baker continued, Powell wants the Fed to target full employment and only raise rates once we see the sort of unemployment rates we had before the pandemic. Baker further argued that the Fed chair position is not critical to the pursuit of stronger financial regulation: Firing Powell because he has not been good on regulation would be like dumping the great pitcher Bob Gibson from the team because he wasnt a good base runner. Mike Konczal of the progressive Roosevelt Institute praised Powell for executing a Revolution in Macroeconomic Policy and counseled activists that one of the crucial battles this year . . . is ensuring that the changes Powell put into motion over the past several years become embedded in the everyday policy and practices of the Federal Reserve.

Powell is no inflation hawk. Just last week, he maintained that recent price increases appear temporary and do not warrant monetary tightening. But he also laid out criteria for determining when inflation would require a policy shift. For example, Powell and his team at the Fed are now monitoring a range of measures meant to capture whether price increases for particular items are spilling over into broad-based inflation. They are watching whether wages move materially and persistently above the levels of productivity gains and inflation to the point where businesses would likely pass those increases on to customers, creating a wage-price spiral. And they are looking out for common patterns across [inflationary] measures, because measures of inflation expectations are individually noisy.

If sustained higher inflation were to become a serious concern, Powell concluded, the Fed would certainly respond and use our tools to assure that inflation runs at levels that are consistent with our goal.

Knowing exactly when it is time to pivot toward fighting inflation is hardly an exact science, as Powell is all too aware. He noted that central banks have always faced the problem of distinguishing transitory inflation spikes from more troublesome developments. Reappointing Powell doesnt guarantee inoculation from inflation. Inflation hawks, mostly conservative, would probably ditch him as fast, if not faster, than Powells progressive critics.

But progressives, to protect progressivism, should want someone leading the Fed who, unencumbered by ideological blinders, is willing to raise interest rates. Without someone minding the monetary store, robust social spending and an activist government risk being tagged as incongruous with economic stability, dooming any hope for aggressive action on climate change, bank regulation, and just about everything else progressives consider essential.

Powell isnt infallible. But there isnt anyone else out there who has a bipartisan background, is easily confirmable, holds a progressive view on full employment, and retains the capacity to take inflation seriously should the need arise.

Progressives are already on the verge of a major breakthrough with the likelihood that Biden signs into law a massive bill expanding government support of preschool education, community colleges, elder care, renewable energy, and health coveragealong with an extension of the poverty-busting expanded child tax credit. Making sure those reforms stick should be progressives number one priority. Biden has already made one very big bet. Theres no need to roll the dice on a new Fed chief.

Go here to read the rest:
Why Progressives Should Want Powell to Stay at the Fed - Washington Monthly

Progressive groups are ramping up pressure on Senate Democrats to nix the legislative filibuster ahead of a voting rights fight set to come to a head in a matter of weeks.

More than 100 progressive groups, led by Fix Our Senate, are poised to send a letter to Senate Democrats on Thursday painting the fight over the legislative filibuster as a decision between siding with democracy or defending a "'Jim Crow relic.'"

"We understand that the Senate plans to address voting rights and democracy protection as soon as it returns from recess. To meet the urgency of the moment and scale of the threat, we call on the Senate to return to Washington as quickly as possible to address the filibuster and deliver the federal voting and democracy protections we need," the groups wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill.

"There is not a moment to waste. Every day that passes with the filibuster still standing, as it does today, threatens the health of our democracy and the voting rights of our fellow Americans. The choice is crystal clear: stand with us and your constituents and protect our democracy, or protect the abused and outdated 'Jim Crow relic.' There is no third option," the groups add in the letter.

In addition to the letter, Fix Our Senate announced on Wednesday that it is extending an ad campaign, previously announced in June, to include an additional five-figure buy targeting Democrats in key states.

The Fix Our Senate coalition has grown to over 80 organizations representing millions of people delivering one clear message: protect our democracy, not the Jim Crow filibuster," Eli Zupnick, a spokesperson for Fix Our Senate, said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerProgressives launch campaign to exclude gas from Congress's clean electricity program The major emitter that's missing from climate negotiations Polluters would help foot the bill for conservation under Democratic spending proposal MORE (D-N.Y.) has teed up a fight over voting rights once the chamber returns to Washington, D.C., in mid-September.

Schumer, at the end of an all-night session last month, teed up the vote, for which he'll need the support of at least 10 Republicans to help start debate. Absent a significant, unexpected, shift either by Republicans on voting legislation or moderate Democrats on changing the chamber's rules the effort is expected to fall short.

Democrats have been working behind-the-scenes for weeks to try to figure out a scaled-down version of the For the People Act, a sweeping bill to overhaul federal elections, that could win over the support of all 50 Democrats.If they are able to reach a deal by the time the Senate returns they could then swap text of it into the bill that Schumer has teed up if they are able to start debate.

"Voting rights, voting rights, will be the first matter of legislative business when the Senate returns to session in September. Our democracy demands no less. ...It is my intention that the first amendment to the bill would be the text of a compromise bill that a group of senators are working on," Schumer said at the time.

But a push to get election-related legislation through the Senate faces a familiar roadblock: The 60-vote legislative filibuster.

Senate Republicans previously blocked debate on the For the People Act, and are expected to block the Senate's debate in roughly two weeks.

To pass voting rights through the Senate without GOP votes Democrats would need all 50 members of their caucus to agree to get rid of or pare down the legislative filibuster.

But Sens. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaProgressives push Senate Democrats to nix filibuster ahead of voting rights fight AFL-CIO chief warns of election consequences for pro-filibuster Democrats Business groups aim to divide Democrats on .5T spending bill MORE (D-Ariz.) and Joe ManchinJoe ManchinProgressives push Senate Democrats to nix filibuster ahead of voting rights fight Progressives launch campaign to exclude gas from Congress's clean electricity program AFL-CIO chief warns of election consequences for pro-filibuster Democrats MORE (D-W.Va.) oppose getting rid of the filibuster, and Manchin has specifically come out against creating a carve out for voting rights legislation. Other Democrats are viewed as wary of nixing the filibuster, though advocates believe they would support doing so if Republicans repeatedly block voting legislation.

Democrats had pointed to August as a crucial self-imposed deadline for passing voting rights legislation because the Census Bureaureleases redistricting data that advocates worry will be used to muscle Democrats out of key districts heading into the midterm elections.

Senate Democrats missed the August deadline amid an entrenched stalemate on how to get a bill to Biden's desk, sparking worry from progressives that they are running out of time.

"Unless the Senate joins the House in passing strong federal legislation in response - and quickly - it will be too late to protect voting rights in the 2022 midterm elections and draw fair districts in the decennial redistricting process," the progressive groups warned in their letter to Senate Democrats.

Read the original post:
Progressives push Senate Democrats to nix filibuster ahead of voting rights fight | TheHill - The Hill

In recent decades, progressives have largely been confined to the pious margins of American politics. One prime example was the fight over the Affordable Care Act under President Obama, when left-wing members of Congress demanded the inclusion of apublic option, only to be rolled over by more conservative members of the DemocraticParty.

But this week it was aclique of recalcitrant moderates, not progressives, who were made to cave under pressure from Democratic leadership. Nine of the most conservative Democrats in the House had threatened to vote down President Joe Bidens $3.5 trillion budget proposal unless the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was passed first, contrary to both Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosis stated strategy. On Tuesday, the nine holdouts agreed to pass the budget after securing apromise from Pelosi that the IIJA would be passed by September27.

The group, which included Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Jim Costa of California, Ed Case of Hawaii, and Kurt Schrader of Oregon, was acollection of some of the most corporate-friendly House Democrats. The group received more than $3 million in campaign donations from the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical industries, both industries which stand to lose from the budget plan, which would represent the largest expansion of the social safety net since President Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society in the1960s.

Gottheimer and Schrader, in particular, are two of Big Pharmas favorite Democrats, and have vociferously criticized Democrats attempt to lower prescription drug prices. Six of the groups members are among the top 15 recipients of oil and gas money in the Democratic caucus. Another priorityof the nine was removing the limit on the state and local tax deduction, colloquially known as the SALT deduction, which functioned mostly as atax break for wealthyhomeowners.

The budget would, over 10years, fund universal preschool, provide students two free years of community college, expand Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, institute federally-funded family leave, and fight climate change through investments in clean energy and low-emission vehicles, all paid for by raising taxes on the rich and large corporations. The blueprint also provides apath to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and would strengthen labor lawenforcement.

While the September 27 deadline puts pressure on congressional committees to iron out the details of the budget plan quickly, it doesnt change the underlying dynamic, in which progressives hold the leverage in the House over how the bills are moved through Congress. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have held firm in their goal of passing the budget bill before approving the bipartisan plan, and can still withhold their votes from the latter to get their way. While conservative Democrats may hope that enough Republicans will get on board with the IIJA to outnumber progressive holdouts in the House, that plan will likely go nowhere, as large number of House GOP members are unlikely to defy former President Donald Trump, who has called the bipartisan plan a terribledeal.

That centrists were made to hew to the party line shows how far the political ground has shifted in recent years. In 2009, members of the CPC said they would refuse to vote for an Affordable Care Act without apublic option. This outraged then-Senator Joe Lieberman, who threatenedto torpedo the ACA if progressives got their way. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders placated Lieberman and cut the progressive priority out of the bill. The CPC went along with it, allowing centrists to set the partysagenda.

But today, things are different. President Biden, one of the most conservative Democrats to contend for the partys nomination in 2020, and Speaker Pelosi, whose contentiousrelationship with House progressives is no secret, are working alongside the CPC to pass apair of historically-generous spending bills. Biden reportedly personally called the moderate holdouts to persuade them of the spending bills importance, and accordingto the New York Post, Democratic leadership even threatened to break up amoderates district through redistricting, and fire another members relative who worked at the WhiteHouse.

Rep. Ro Khanna of California, aCPC member, took atone traditionally used by moderates to scold progressives, saying, Look, everyone has to compromise in Congress. Iwant Medicare for All; thats not in the bill. Iwant free public college; thats not in the bill. Iwant student-loan forgiveness for working families; thats not in the bill. Guess what? You know whose bill it is? President Joe Biden. Last Iunderstood, he won election as president. The Democratic Party needs to unify around his agenda to help people, and anyone who votes no on this is sabotaging Joe Biden and sabotaging the Democratic Partysagenda.

Part of the reason for the sea change is that progressives now hold more political power than they have in decades. Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, played an essential role in developing the $3.5 trillion spending plan. The CPC has added 24 members since 2008 for atotal of 95in the House, and it stands as the largest ideological coalition in the Democratic Party. Plus, thanks to new rules passed late last year, the caucus now functions as akind of party-within-a-party: members must, two-thirds of the time, vote for legislation supported by two-thirds of the membership or risk expulsion. And more authority has been vested in the CPC whip, Rep. Ilhan Omar (DMinn.), caucus meetings are mandatory, and the co-chair structure has been abolished in favor of asingle leader, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWash.).

Despite the resolution of this fight, another intraparty standoff seems likely. Conservative Senate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have already voiced concern over the price tag and size of the $3.5 trillion budget bill, and will no doubt demand some changes to the legislation. But Sanders, the bills primary author, remains confident that the package will ultimately be approved, tellingPolitico on Thursday, at the end of the day, every Democrat understands that it is terribly important that we support the presidents agenda. And most of these ideas came from the WhiteHouse.

Our position remains unchanged: we will work to first pass the Build Back Better reconciliation bill so we can deliver these once-in-a-generation, popular, and urgently needed investments to poor and working families, and then pass the infrastructure bill to invest in our roads, bridges, and waterways, aCPC statementreleased after the budget passed the House said. As our members have made clear for three months, the two are integrally tied together, and we will only vote for the infrastructure bill after passing the reconciliationbill.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.) echoed the statement, tellingNBC News that the September 27 deadline is a bit arbitrary and that she is not committing to anydate.

For now, progressives, so often outsiders, are on theinside.

Read the original:
Progressives Now Hold the Cards in Congress - In These Times

A group of progressive House Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, on Monday called for President Joe Biden to replace Fed Chairman Jerome Powell when his term expires in February.

In a joint statement first reported by Politico, the lawmakers urged Biden to re-imagine a Federal Reserve focused on eliminating climate risk and advancing racial and economic justice.

Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.; Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y.; and Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., joined Ocasio-Cortez in calling for a change. All five lawmakers serve on the House Financial Services Committee.

While acknowledging positive changes under Powell on efforts to reach full employment, the legislators said: To move forward with a whole-of-government approach that eliminates climate risk while making our financial system safer, we need a chair who is committed to these objectives. We urge the Biden administration to use this opportunity to appoint a new Federal Reserve chair.

Under his leadership, the Federal Reserve has taken very little action to mitigate the risk climate change poses to our financial system,they said of Powell. At a time when theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeis warning of the potential catastrophic and irreversible damage inflicted by a changing climate, we need a leader at the helm that will take bold and decisive action to eliminate climate risk.

The Democrats also decried moves by the Fed, under Powell, to reduce banking regulations put into place after the financial crisis. Weakening financial regulations that were specifically created to prevent such a disaster from happening again risks the livelihoods of Americans across the country, they said.

Powell is seen as having broad support from the White House and is expected to be nominated for another term. But a growing number of more liberal Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, have publicly criticized Powell recently.

Biden is expected to make a decision about Powells future this fall. The leading contender to replace him, if it comes to that, appears to be Fed governor Lael Brainard, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month.

Read more:
AOC and other progressives call for Biden to replace Powell as Fed chair - MarketWatch

Progressives are breathing a sigh of relief over the end of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, praising President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel advances 8B defense bill Democrats defeat GOP effort to declare 'lost confidence' in Biden after Afghanistan withdrawal House committee moves to block private funds for National Guard deployments MORE's commitment to halting the forever war even as the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul comes under heavy criticism.

After the White House declared the war over on Monday and Biden defended his decisions Tuesday, liberal lawmakers, strategists and movement-aligned activists offered words of support for what they considered to be a tough but moral decision.

The messaging from progressive thought leaders and organizations has been consistently critical of the War on Terror' and the war in Afghanistan more specifically, said Adam Weinstein, a research fellow at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft who helped organize a coalition of groups around anti-war efforts.

With regard to America's involvement in longstanding battles, Weinstein sees two only options.

You can either continue them to try to avoid the aftermath, and in doing so you incrementally make things worse and worse, or you can end them and you will have to deal with the aftermath, but you break the cycle, he said. What President Biden did was he made the decision to break the cycle.

I think we all expected the can to be kicked down the road. If you look at history, that was the bet to make, Weinstein added. The reason for that is precisely what were seeing right now: There was going to be a political backlash.

While anti-Afghan invasion sentiment was scarce in Washington in 2001 when then-President George W. Bush unseated the Taliban, progressives became more fervent throughout the Bush years and subsequent administrations in their calls for a withdrawal, urging both former Presidents Obama and Trump to put a stop to what many perceived to be a misguided mission by the United States that had run its course.

On Tuesday, in an impassioned defense of his decision, Biden made clear he was sympathetic to that view.

Leaving August the 31st is not due to an arbitrary deadline. It was designed to save American lives, the president said from the State Dining Room late in the afternoon. I was not going to extend this forever war. And I was not extending a forever exit."

The speech was intended to give Americans a sober look at Biden's international agenda, one that puts a premium on stopping overseas combateven when politically inconvenient.

Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason, said Cullen Tiernan, a Marine Corps veteran and former campaign aide to former Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardProgressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Hillicon Valley: US has made progress on cyber but more needed, report says | Democrat urges changes for 'problematic' crypto language in infrastructure bill | Facebook may be forced to unwind Giphy acquisition YouTube rival Rumble strikes deals with Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald MORE (D-Hawaii), who ran on a presidential platform of ending foreign wars.

We have been there for 20 years, investing our lives, treasure and future into a corrupt Afghan government that clearly did not have the confidence or support of the Afghan people, Tiernan added.

After operations erupted into a disorderly scene in Kabul over the past two weeks, many expressed renewed frustration that the United States was involved in Afghanistan to begin with. That sentiment was bolstered by images and news reports of evacuation delays and the tragic killing of 13 American troops by ISIS militants.

Among progressives, many view the entire war as a wasteful act.

"Ending wars is good actually, tweeted Rep. Ilhan OmarIlhan OmarProgressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Ominous warnings from Afghanistan's last men standing Photos of the Week: Afghanistan evacuees, Paralympics and the French fire MORE (D-Minn.), a crusader against a hawkish approach to military intervention.

We never should have begun America's longest war in the first place a war of endless suffering and needless death, added Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). A top priority right now must be raising the refugee cap and assisting as many Afghans as possible with resettlement. My office stands ready to help.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOcasio-Cortez calls on Senate to reject Rahm Emanuel as Japan ambassador Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal On The Money Companies consider making unvaccinated workers pay MORE (D-N.Y.) hosted a town hall on Friday after the fatal bombing at the Kabul airport. Earlier in the week, she and Rep. Barbara LeeBarbara Jean LeeProgressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Overnight Defense & National Security America's longest war ends Juan Williams: Biden is right on Afghanistan MORE (D-Calif) the only member of Congress to vote against the Bush-era war act sent a joint letter to Biden asking him to allow more individuals into the country through the Refugee Admissions Program.

While the decision to withdraw early into Bidens administration was applauded by the left, there is also a sizable contingent speaking out about the way the exit was handled.

Trump and other Republicans strongly condemned the presidents end-game strategy and sought to portray him as incapable of skillfully handling a tough military decision other presidents didnt want to touch. Multiple GOP senators and the Republican National Committee called for his resignation. Sen. Ben SasseBen SasseRomney blasts Biden over those left in Afghanistan: 'Bring them home' Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Biden: 'No deadline' for Americans still in Afghanistan who want to leave MORE (R-Neb.) said Biden was displaying cowardice and incompetence.

And Bidens approval rating took a hit. In a Morning Consult survey released on Monday, 49 percent of voters polled said they disapprove of the presidents job performance.

Still, some progressives discount critiques of ill preparation as disingenuous, claiming things were never going to be easy towards the very end. Biden appeared to agree with that assessment in his remarks.

I take responsibility for the decision, he reiterated, a line hes used in previous national addresses. Now some say we should have started mass evacuations sooner and couldn't this have been done in a more orderly manner? I respectfully disagree.

Theres also talk among Democrats and Republicans about the optics of praising the effort that has left somewhere between 100 and 200 Americans still in the country, according to the latest estimate by Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenAlmost 24,000 Afghans have entered US since Kabul airlift began Advocates 'demoralized' as 100K allies remain stranded in Afghanistan Rice, McMaster call for help removing orphans from Afghanistan: report MORE. Biden also tried to assuage those concerns.

The bottom line: 90 percent of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave, he said during his nearly 30-minute remarks. And for those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to get them out if they want to come out.

The focus on evacuating more people from Kabul is likely to escalate as the federal government juggles several top priorities heading into September. The degree to which Democrats will be united around a refugee strategy remains to be seen, some said.

So far, the party has sustained differences in opinion over policy versus process during the withdrawal stages, with progressives stressing the importance of the former and moderates taking issue with the latter.

The Democratic Party needs to be valuing both positions equally at the same time, said Emily Amick, a lawyer and former senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerProgressives launch campaign to exclude gas from Congress's clean electricity program The major emitter that's missing from climate negotiations Polluters would help foot the bill for conservation under Democratic spending proposal MORE (D-N.Y.) I dont think the party can choose one or the other. They have to choose both.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal | TheHill - The Hill