Mediaboss Marketing

Left: Rep. Pramila Jayapal; Right: Sen. Joe Manchin(Mandel Ngan/Pool; Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

After Senator Joe Manchin delivered the likely death blow to Build Back Better, House progressives responded alternately by declaring him a liar, proceeding as if negotiations were ongoing, and calling on President Biden to enact an unspecified series of executive actions.

The call for executive action is seen as a Plan B to achieve the same results by bypassing the normal legislative process. In reality, its a way to try to put pressure on Manchin and keep the legislative path alive.

If you read Representative Pramila Jayapals Washington Post op-ed closely, however, its pretty clear this is a big bluff by progressives. In her piece, Jayapal makes the standard pitch for the radical spending package (laughably, she now tries to argue that the spread of Omicron brings a renewed urgency to pass the bill).

She eventually writes, We are calling on the president to use executive action to immediately improve peoples lives. Taking executive action will also make clear to those who hinder Build Back Better that the White House and Democrats will deliver for Americans. The [Congressional Progressive Caucus] will soon release a plan for these actions, including lowering costs, protecting the health of every family, and showing the world that the United States is serious about our leadership on climate action.

Reading the fine print, its pretty clear that there are no executive actions available that would be the equivalent of Congresss authorizing trillions of dollars in spending and new government programs. Progressives could call for various actions related to green energy or drug costs. But the reality is that if the action is legal, it is not likely to come anywhere near what Build Back Better was trying to do. And if it actually approximates Build Back Better, it can in no way be constitutional.

If it were simple for Biden to somehow enact his entire agenda with the stroke of a pen, Democrats would not have wasted months trying to pass something into law.

It is ironic, however, that as much as progressives like to talk about the need to protect democracy, they are awfully quick to jump toward doing things unilaterally when they dont have the votes to pass their agenda.

Read the original:
Progressives Are Bluffing on Build Back Better via Executive Action - National Review

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of theCongressional Progressive Caucus, has introducedlegislationthat would game the nations regulatory system. Under her bill, regulations primarily would be based on studies that support expanding the regulatory power of government agencies.

Amongmany other troubling things, Jayapals bill would require agencies to publicly label studies and research submitted and developed by regulated entitiesincluding property owners, farmers, truckers, and local governmentsas having a conflict of interest.

Its not clear how ones own research reflects any conflicts of interest. Apparently, its a conflict when research conflicts with the agencys interest.

Of course, theres no such conflict-of-interest label for research from organizations that likely would support regulations, such as environmental pressure groups and researchers who receive grants from agencies.

This conflict-of-interest label, along with other aspects of Jayapals legislation, would discourage those who are regulated by federal agencies from even submitting comments on proposed rules.

The process of public comment is Americans chance to provide feedback to government agencies so they can educate officials on the impact of their regulations. Its a chance for regulators to hear from people who have real-world experience and an on-the-ground perspective of how the regulations will affect Americans.

If there were less public participation, agencies wouldnt get the benefits of important analysis and perspective that could improve their regulatory decisions.

For years, conservatives have been trying to give the public a greater voice in the regulatory process. This includestransparencyefforts to ensure the public can have a say on the science and data informing regulatory decisions.

The Trump administrations Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that would have helped ensure that the public could access underlying science and data informing regulatory decisions. It wouldnt have mattered who developed the studies; the rule required transparency, and the public would have been better able to evaluate how agencies make regulatory decisions.

Did the left support this effort? Of course not.

Itfoughtthe rule, and the rule no longer exists. Instead, as seen in Jayapals bill, the left apparently wants agencies to be able to use whatever science they can, so long as the sciencesupports their cause. The left is willing to limit the ability of those who oppose their objectives from providing regulatory comments and having a meaningful voice.

But chilling the voice of the people is a major aspect of the administrative state in the first place. Progressives have long pushed for technocrats to dictate the lives of Americans, as Congress sits on the sidelines having given up its legislative power.

This needs to change.

Concern over the administrative state, for good reason, is often focused on the number and scope of regulations. But this is a symptom of a much bigger problem. Through the growing administrative state, the American people have significantly lost and are further losing their voice in policies that affect their lives.

Many on the left may want to make this nation a technocracy with their experts running the show, as in a socialist nation.

But this is the United States, a representative system of government, and conservatives should fight for ambitious changes to bring back representative government where legislators, not bureaucrats, make the policy decisions.

Conservatives should be outraged at the existing administrative state and the rules of the game that have allowed it to become the behemoth it is today. The rules of the game must change back so that representative government is restored.

Progressives want government bureaucrats, not elected representatives of the people, to make the policy decisions that affect the lives of Americans.They dont appear to want anything or anyone, especially those who dare disagree with them, to get in the way of their extreme leftist policies and ideological objectives.

Policymakers should ensure that Congress, not bureaucrats, are the lawmakers.

Further, when agencies issue regulations, there should be clear statutory authority and transparency. And anyoneregardless of view or ideologyshould have the same opportunity to have his voice heard in the rulemaking process.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Go here to read the rest:
We Shouldn't Allow Progressives to Limit Participation in Regulatory Process - Heritage.org

To the Editor:

I have wondered why very progressive areas like Silicon Valley/SF Bay do far better economically than very conservative areas like the lower south.I thought it was because places like MIT and Stanford were in progressive areas. After chatting with some very conservative people in this area, I have drastically changed my opinion. They do not recognize how much of a factor luck and being in the right place at the right time is. They feel business success is all based on smarts and skill. They believe that companies are benign entities engaged in perfect competition. Every company I ever worked for always took advantage of any situation that presented itself. They find it hard to accept that private health insurers distort the healthcare market. For providers, healthcare insurers are pots of money to have the stuff sucked out of. I always had the image of conservatives as hard nose business types. But it is now clear that they have rose colored glasses on when it comes to business. Progressives have a far better idea of how businesses actually work.

Herbert LovelessChester, Va.

Excerpt from:
Progressives have a far better idea of how businesses actually work - Villages-News

In a defiant ChristmasEvepress rally, the Poor People's Campaign and other progressive leaders vowed to continue to fight for the Build Back Better Act, despite opposition from West Virginia Sen.Joe Manchin.

"Sen.Manchin is playing a Caesar or at least a King Herod in today's Christmas story," said the Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, a co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign. "He's saying there's no room in this democracy for the 140 million poor and low-income Americans, including the 700,000 West Virginians who've been locked into poverty and low wages under his watch. He wants to limit poor children's lives just so he can hold on to his power and wealth. On Christmas Eve, doesn't this indeed sound like Herod?"

The Poor People's Campaign has held numerous rallies and acts of civil disobedience over the past year in support of the Build Back Better Act, while acknowledging that the legislation would be just a first step towards a moral economy.

RELATED:Biden doesn't need Manchin: 5 executive actions he can take right now to build back better

Campaign co-chair Rev. Dr. William Barber II zoomed into the Christmas Eve press event from a church in Charleston, the capital of Manchin's state. He introduced several local affected people and community leaders who lambasted their senator and others who've stood in the way of the landmark public investment bill.

"We don't have a scarcity of resources," said Alexandra Gallo, a community activist from Charleston. "We have a scarcity of will to address inequality."

Barber also introduced two members of Congress, Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.,and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who were instrumental in getting the Build Back Better Act through the House. Jayapal took particularly intense heat over the past several months as she used her caucus's power toprevent her own party's leadershipfrom holding scheduled votes on the bill until progressives won certain concessions.

With support from every Democrat in the Senate needed for passage, Manchin's recent announcement that he won't vote for the bill is a major setback. But Jayapal, who has a history in the immigrant rights movement, remains positive.

"If the things we're fighting for were easy," she said at the press event, "we would've gotten them a long time ago. And because we're organizers, we don't give up. Our strength comes in these moments. Our job as progressives is to push on the borders of what others think is possible."

Barber, who hasrelentlessly criticized Manchin for blocking the bill, brought uprecent news reportsthat the senator has privately told colleagues that parents would spend Child Tax Credit money on drugs. "Doesn't he understand that opioid use is connected to poverty?" he asked.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

A year-long extension of this tax credit, which has slashed U.S. child poverty byan estimated 40 percent, is a key component of the legislation, along with other major investments in child care, home care for the elderly, public housing, universal pre-K, expansion of Medicare to cover dental services, clean energy jobsand more.

Rep. Lee shared that she finds a lot of hope in Christmas. "It reminds me that Jesus Christ was born homeless, born in a manger. But it also reminds me that his life was about fighting for the most vulnerable, fighting for justice."

"Sen.Manchin's comments in opposition to Build Back Better were incredibly disappointing," she continued. "But we're not giving up. Because when we fight, we win."

The Poor People's Campaign is planning to mobilize a surge of calls to Manchin's office in early January and, while not giving details, Barber hinted that the day after the country marks theanniversary of the Jan.6 "insurrection," the Campaign will be organizing a "resurrection."

"We would've loved to have gotten Build Back Better and voting rights passed earlier this year," Barber said. "But our deadline is victory."

Read more on the battle for Build Back Better:

Original post:
Poor People's Campaign, progressive members of Congress vow to fight on for BBB - Salon

Evidence over the last seven years supports the assertion that entitlements work well only when those who are entitled are also empowered

File image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. ANI

The evolution of Indian society post-pandemic has been analysed by many authors over the last several decades. Many of them have also expressed concerns regarding several social ills that have plagued our society.

In 2013, during a discussion, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen talked about the problem of open defecation. Fast forward to 2021 and the problem has been largely resolved. The same discussion also talked about lack of electricity or modern cooking fuel each of which has been addressed since 2014.

These achievements are not small as they are ensuring a minimum standard of living for all where necessities which were deemed as for the urban elites are now reaching even the remotest of villages.

While distributive justice has been a feature of our public policy, there is also a silent push towards a more progressive legislative agenda. This has been supported by the judiciary with its decision to strike down Section 377 in what was a historic judgment.

The legislative agenda has indeed been progressive given its focus in strengthening the rights of various stakeholders. Let us begin with the banning of triple talaq, a practice which was prevalent across the country even though most Islamic countries had banned the same. By overturning the Shah Bano judgment, the legislative aided by the executive effectively denied a proper procedural divorce to Muslim women in India.

There was a demand by several stakeholders to correct this historic injustice and eventually, a law banning the practice was passed by both the houses of Parliament.

Another progressive legislation is the 2020 amendment to the 1971 Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The amendment raises the upper limit of MTP from 20 to 24 weeks for women, including rape survivors, minors victims of incest, etc. Moreover, now any woman or her partner can medically terminate a pregnancy, which is a departure from the erstwhile law with the provision only for a married woman or her husband. The amendments in many ways are forward looking as they address issues such as failure of contraceptives, issues regarding maternal mortality, and also ensure that women dont need to seek any permission from courts in order to terminate a pregnancy.

The progressive drift is not just with regards to the legislative or the judicial agenda, but is also very much a part of the executive branch in India. Menstruation, a topic that was a taboo and often avoided, was mentioned by no less than the prime minister himself in one of his Independence Day speeches. The speech was geared towards ensuring greater acceptance of a natural biological phenomenon and spreading greater awareness regarding hygienic practices.

As a matter of fact, the progressive outlook is not just restricted to social issues but is also manifested in the economic policy decisions of the government. Take, for example, Jan-Dhan Yojana which is the worlds largest financial inclusion programme till date. Jan-Dhan enabled what is the worlds largest accidental insurance programme and the largest voluntary pension programme. That it was subsequently combined with Direct Benefit Transfers for subsidy and income support further makes it an enabler of what is the worlds largest poverty alleviation or subsidy support mechanism. The government has already made gains of Rs 2.22 lakh crore by reducing leakages due to implementation of the DBT.

The worlds largest health insurance programme Ayushman Bharat is also another example of progressive policy interventions. The programme allows patients to pick a public or a private healthcare facility and provides them with insurance cover up to Rs 5 lakh for in-patient treatment. Then there is the worlds biggest affordable housing programme the PM Awas Yojana under which over 2 crore houses have already been constructed and handed over to beneficiaries.

A lot of these interventions find their parallels with the progressive discussion on affordable housing in key urban metropolises in advanced economies. Similarly, the liberal discourse on expansion of public healthcare insurance essentially would lead to something of the form of Ayushman Bharat in their respective country.

Despite such interesting parallels, many who champion such progressive causes have failed to acknowledge the developments in India since 2014. Their reluctance to acknowledge, however, does not change the fact that for the first time more than 40 percent of Indian households in rural areas have received a tapped water connection or that women now spend less time gathering wood to cook food thanks to the Ujjwala scheme.

Each of these interventions have meant real tangible empowerment of the forgotten, more so for women, which partly also explains their increased participation in the political process.

The progressive drift in Indias social discourse also gives us much food for thought as far as the debate on entitlements versus empowerments is concerned. Evidence over the last seven years supports the assertion that entitlements work well only when those who are entitled are also empowered. Indias experience, therefore, provides a good template for many other less developed countries that are looking for good policy interventions to aid their development.

Karan Bhasin is a New York-based economist. Somya Luthra is a student of law. Views expressed are personal.

Visit link:
How past seven years of Narendra Modis regime show who the real progressives are - Firstpost