Mediaboss Marketing

Last week, the United Nations warned of all-out war as the conflict between Israel and Palestine intensified. Its all playing out in real time, as videos and photos shared across social media are bring people all over the world into the conflict.

Here in Massachusetts, local politicians are weighing in, including Sen. Ed Markey, who is facing backlash from young campaign volunteers and donors from his 2020 campaign who criticized his use of the all sides message. To discuss what it all means, The Scrum podcast co-hosts Peter Kadzis, GBH news politics editor, and Adam Reilly, GBH news politics reporter, joined Joe Mathieu today on Morning Edition.

The thing most Americans don't realize is the roots of this are in a local political dispute, Kadzis said about the conflict, explaining that in April, the Palestinian Authority had postponed parliamentary elections. This whole dispute, which we are hearing is about land grabs, has its roots in the dispute between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. And Hamas has raised the stakes by its rocket attacks on Israel.

In a series of tweets, Markey said that all sides must protect innocent civilians and that Israel has the right to defend itself from indiscriminate rocket attacks and no one should fear being forcefully evicted from their homes. Reilly said that, at the root of Markeys backlash, is the critique of framing the issue as two sides with equal power.

Reilly said the criticism echoes back to Markeys re-election campaign in 2020, in which he tapped into energized young people who rallied around him as a progressive leader. Reilly pointed to the popular Green New Dealmaker ad in which Markey invoked John F. Kennedys call to invite younger people into the political process.

The theme of that ad was: There is a movement, led by young people, sweeping the country. Ed Markey is a representative of that movement, Reilly said. And those young people have a right to demand change from the political establishment that represents them that was an argument that worked for Markey in the primary. Now, the people who are criticizing him are basically saying, 'Hey, you made us this promise. We want you to lead in a way that you told us you were going to.'"

WATCH: Adam Reilly on Senator Markey's young supporters

Kadzis said that Markey is taking cues from the White House with his cautiousness. What Markey is doing is following the White House lead. President Biden is treading very carefully, said Kadzis, who also said the debate is an indication of the growing power of progressives in the political landscape locally.

Its also a reminder to all of us who follow politics that there is a huge swath of the Massachusetts Democratic Party that is very that that is decidedly to the left, much more so than the rest of the nation, Kadzis said.

Visit link:
By Weighing In On Middle East Conflict, Markey Faces Backlash From Young Progressive Supporters - wgbh.org

President Bidens Republican critics charge that he has foisted a bait and switch on voters that he campaigned as a moderate but veered abruptly to the left after he arrived at the White House.

The bait was he was going to govern as bipartisan, but the switch is hes governed as a socialist, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield complained last month.

He talks like a moderate but is governing to satisfy the far left, Senate Republican chief Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chimed in.

Theyre right on one count: Biden is pushing an ambitious progressive program while making it sound, well, moderate.

But their charge of false advertising is bogus. Biden never concealed his big-government goals; they were all in plain sight in his platform.

Its still on the campaign website for anyone who wants to check. Candidate Biden called for more than $4 trillion in new federal spending, beginning with an immediate stimulus to help the economy recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. It included massive proposals to combat climate change, rebuild infrastructure, reduce poverty, subsidize child care and provide universal pre-K education.

Sound familiar? All those planks resurfaced in Bidens proposals this year: his $1.9-trillion COVID-19 relief bill, his $2-trillion-plus jobs plan and his $1.8-trillion family-policy plan.

To be fair, McCarthy and McConnell may have been too busy to read up on their opponents long and detailed program. Their party saved time by not having a platform at all.

But surely they noticed when former President Obama released a video last year praising Biden for the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history. Or when Biden, in his last big campaign speech, compared his program to Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal and prom-ised a pandemic plan, a healthcare plan, a climate plan and an economic plan to give working people a fair shot again.

None of this should have come as a surprise, Greg Schultz, Bidens campaign manager during last years primary season, told me. My only surprise is that people werent listening.

McCarthy and McConnell werent the only ones who underestimated Bidens commitments. Plenty of progressives didnt quite believe it, either.

After all, during the primaries Biden had presented himself as a moderate, pragmatic alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Bidens Democratic rivals chastised him for centrist positions he took decades ago: his 1970s opposition to mandatory busing to desegregate schools, his 1994 vote for then-President Clintons punitive crime bill. Those ancient controversies made him sound like an out-of-touch relic.

But they were forgetting one of Bidens most striking features: his adaptability. He is as critics used to say about FDR something of a political chameleon.

Over 51 years in politics, Biden has always positioned himself at his partys center which has required a steady evolution toward the left.

The Biden of 2008 who ran as Obamas running mate was more progressive than the Biden of 1994 who voted for Clintons crime bill. The Biden of 2012 who declared himself a fan of same-sex marriage was more progressive than the Biden of 2008.

When he pondered entering the 2016 presidential race, he intended to run to Hillary Clintons left and Bernie Sanders right a classic Biden gambit to seek his partys center point.

Biden for President was going to go big, Biden wrote of the plans for that never-launched campaign in his 2017 memoir. A $15 minimum wage. Free tuition at our public colleges and universities. Real job training. On-site affordable child care. Equal pay for women. Strengthening the Affordable Care Act. A job creation program built on investing in and modernizing our roads and bridges. We needed what I called an American Renewal Project.

Sound familiar?

By the time Biden ran in 2020, two things happened to push him even further.

One was the COVID-19 pandemic, which made it clear to both parties that big spending would be needed to rescue the economy. After Republican leaders, including then-President Trump, approved more than $3.8 trillion in COVID relief last year, GOP complaints about big-money requests from the new president sounded hollow.

The second was Democrats unexpected capture of 50 seats in the Senate, which meant the new president could pass much of his program without Republican votes. Yes, Biden had promised to seek bipartisan compromises but now he no longer had to worry about obstructionist Republicans whose only goal was to stop his program in its tracks.

And that not spurious charges of a bait and switch on policy is probably what makes Mitch McConnell so grouchy.

Continued here:
Yes, Biden is governing as a progressive. Are you surprised? - Los Angeles Times

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

When President Joe Biden told reporters last week that Israel, in the midst of a brutal conflict with Palestinians in Gaza, had a right to defend itself, the sharpest criticism came from members of his own party.

On Twitter, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Biden was reinforcing the false idea that Palestinians instigated this cycle of violence and taking the side of occupation.

Her remarks condemned the militant Palestinian group Hamas, but went further than Democratic leadership in blaming Israel for the regions vicious circle of violence. Like Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Israel has the right to defend itself.

That common refrain, which privileges the Israeli governments image of the conflict as a nation-state defending itself from terrorism, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over Bidens foreign policy and the views of Democrats writ large.

To antiwar progressiveswho have become more of a vocal force in Democratic debates about foreign policythe line is a rhetorical crutch that avoids centering the experience of Palestinians. No one is arguing that Israel, or any government, does not have the right to self-defense or to protect its people, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a New York Timesop-ed on Friday. So why are these words repeated year after year, war after war? And why is the question almost never asked: What are the rights of the Palestinian people?'

Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders represent a small but growing portion of the Democratic caucus that no longer considers reflexive support of Israelis right-wing government a necessary part of US foreign policy. In the Middle East, where we provide nearly $4 billion a year in aid to Israel, we can no longer be apologists for the right-wing Netanyahu government and its undemocratic and racist behavior, Sanders wrote.

More Democrats are getting comfortable making that case directly to the Biden administration. Earlier this week, 25 House Democrats, including Ocasio-Cortez, called on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to condemn Israels planned eviction of nearly 2,000 Palestinians from East Jerusalem. I dont think that Netanyahu or US politicians realize how acutely focused the world is on whats happening in Gaza right now, and how much damage is being done to Israels standing, former Obama national security official Tommy Vietor tweeted on Saturday, adding, the politics are moving beneath our feet.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from the firstor onlyissue that has progressives at odds with Bidens more traditional foreign policy. His promise to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by September and decision to stop some support for Saudi Arabias war in Yemen pleased progressives. But on other issues, Biden has been out of step with his partys left flank.

In February, human rights activists were outraged when the Biden administration approved a weapons sale to Egypt only days after President Abdel Fattah el-Sisis government arrested relatives of an Egyptian American activist, part of a systemic campaign of intimidation against critics of el-Sisis repressive regime. Two months later, the Biden administration announced plans for $715 billion in defense spending that snubbed progressive hopes for a slimmer Pentagon budget.

Even on Iran, a topic where Democrats had been nearly unanimous in opposition to Donald Trumps hawkish policy, Biden has angered progressives by proceeding slowly in negotiations with the country over a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, andby not offering upfront sanctions relief.

The backlash from progressives is only expected to continue as Congress readies a bipartisan China policy bill that antiwar groups have criticized as unnecessarily hawkish. The Biden administration has made no secret of its desire to pivot the US national security focus away from the Middle East and toward China, which Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the biggest geopolitical test for the United States.

These issues threaten to destroy the tentative consensus Biden has held together among Democrats since taking office, with his party clinging to narrow control of Congress. The violence in Gaza might be Bidens first major test of how Democrats can manage a divided caucusbut it certainly wont be the last.

More here:
The Progressive Backlash to Biden's Foreign Policy Has Only Just Begun Mother Jones - Mother Jones

The first budget in decades from a Labour majority government will be unveiled on Thursday and all signs point to restrained spending. Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney dreams big and considers what a transformative budget would look like. Luckily, one already exists.

Picture this.

The finance minister (and deputy prime minister) stands up in the house and delivers a budget that truly seizes on growing international calls to build back better. Its a budget aimed at long-standing issues facing the country and squarely addresses them.

The minister acknowledges that the Covid-19 recovery runs the risk of leaving some groups of people behind and provides funding to address their problems. The opposition is left flat-footed and focuses on the amount of spending, rather than the people who need it and who will benefit.

The minister, standing in the house, is in command of their portfolio and in command of the real issues.

Using wellbeing analysis, the budget doesnt force groups to compete with one another for funding. Instead, it highlights the needs of the community and provides mechanisms to tackle their problems.

The budget provides significant support for programmes to address the historically unmet needs of some vulnerable communities, especially women. Life-changing amounts of money are invested to prevent family and sexual violence.

The government also extends income support, particularly to those who have recently lost their job. And the budget ensures unprecedented investments in delivering the greener economy that we all need. That includes targeted support to significantly boost social housing construction and to insulate properties for those on the lowest incomes.

To write that budget, the government agrees to work closely with unions to ensure that working people have better retirement savings. There is additional assistance for students who have had to study during some of the most difficult circumstances that anyone can remember. The minister also commits the government to better protect those working in the gig economy.

To pay for all this, the minister of finance says those who are the most able should contribute a little more. There will be an additional surcharge on luxury cars, boats and private aircraft. Overseas owners who leave their properties vacant will pay an annual 1% levy on the value of that property.

Digital service companies will now need to pay a small tax on their overall revenue until a multinational approach can be delivered.

Tax inspectors will be given additional resources to properly tackle tax avoidance and evasion, so that everyone is paying their fair share. Changes to transparency rules will help, so that the true owners of assets can be identified and complex tax avoidance schemes are cut through.

You dont need to be day-dreaming to make this vision a reality. Instead, just pick up a copy of the 2021 Canadian budget, recently tabled by deputy prime minister and finance minister Chrystia Freeland.

The Canadian budget shows why these changes in spending are needed. It reveals that those with the lowest income in Canada have faced the highest rates of job loss during Covid-19.

The clearest demonstration of need is the $30 billion (all figures in Canadian dollars) being provided to make childcare more affordable. By 2026, childcare in Canada will cost $10 a day. It currently costs $1,500 a month in Toronto about $70 a day. That number will be cut in half next year.

Back here in New Zealand, the debate surrounding budget 2021 has instead been about the governments decision to balance spending needs with the need to maintain fiscal control. Deputy prime minister and finance minister Grant Robertson has vowed to tackle a non-existent debt crisis. That was used to justify a decision to restrain pay rises for much of the public workforce while property prices go through the roof and the banks make record profits.

The budget provides an opportunity for setting out a credible long-term plan for the Covid-19 recovery. Its focus should be on how to create a more productive, sustainable and inclusive economy.

Theres much to applaud in Robertsons recent statement on the budget: In our view, an investment-focused recovery that supports all New Zealanders is the way to ensure that our finances remain sustainable. It is also the way in which the government will continue to tackle the long-standing issues that we were elected to address. Well said.

New Zealands budget will be released tomorrow and with it, the government risks falling behind other progressive governments around the world. The US is re-equipping its economy and has a task force led by vice president Kamala Harris to increase union membership. Even Australias government has chosen not to follow the path of austerity, prioritising getting people into jobs rather than chasing a surplus.

Budgets are about choices.

We made choices during Covid that saw the country come together and defeat the virus. We made choices at the election to spend money so that we could continue that fight. Thanks to our efforts we now have choices about what to do with the resources that victory has freed-up. Do we choose a K-shaped recovery where there is an increasing disparity in who is benefitting from growth? Or do we grasp that now is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do the right thing and support all New Zealanders to live better lives?

Subscribe to The Bulletin to get all the days key news stories in five minutes delivered every weekday at 7.30am.

See original here:
The dream budget for NZ progressives already exists across the Pacific - The Spinoff

On this edition of Your Call, were discussing the massive Pentagon budget. As the Biden administration announces plans for big dollar projects like improving the crumbling US infrastructure and funding desperately needed social services, the question is: How are we going to pay for it? But that question is never asked about military spending.

Fifty Democratic politicians and a wide range of progressive groups recently sent a letter to the administration urging President Biden to reevaluate our spending priorities, starting with the Department of Defense. Hundreds of billions of dollars now directed to the military would have greater return if invested in diplomacy, humanitarian aid, global public health, sustainability initiatives, and basic research. We could cut the Pentagon budget by more than 10 percent and still spend more than the next 10 largest militaries combined.

Guest:Lindsay Koshgarian, program director with the National Priorities Project

Web Resources:

MarketWatch: Biden Is Thinking Big on Jobs. On the Pentagon, He Should Think Smaller.

Institute for Policy Studies: Bidens Pentagon is Still Trumps Pentagon

Truthout: Pentagon and Tax Cheats Already Cost Taxpayers Far More Than Bidens Job Plan

Institute for Policy Studies: 18 Years of Invasion in Iraq

The rest is here:
Progressives Call On The Biden Administration To Cut The Massive Pentagon Budget - KALW