Mediaboss Marketing

President Joe 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 California 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 Barack 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 promised a pandemic plan, a health care 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 Bill 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.

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 Donald Trump, approved more than $3.8 trillion in coronavirus 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.

The rest is here:
MCMANUS: Yes, Biden is governing as a progressive. But that shouldn't surprise you - shorelinemedia.net

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Rather than trivializing COVID, they tend to catastrophize it

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

After over a year of uncertainty and sacrifice, the pandemic is finally coming to an end. Most people are hopeful, but there is a sizable contingent of progressives who see lockdowns as an expression of their political identity and continue to advocate for harsh restrictions, even when theyre not necessary. As Canada completes its vaccination campaign and reopens its economy, it will be important to curtail this groups influence.

Excessive partisanship has been one of this pandemics great tragedies, consistently undermining evidence-based policy-making to everyones detriment. Attention has been focused on how conservatives tend to underestimate the risks of COVID-19, but data shows that progressives are subject to their own biases, as well. Rather than trivializing COVID, they tend to catastrophize it.

If you want a concrete example of progressive bias, consider that progressives tend to grossly overestimate how often COVID-19 infections result in hospitalization. In the United States, a recent Gallup survey showed that only 10 per cent of Democrats correctly guessed the hospitalization rate, compared to 26 per cent of Republicans.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

To be fair, most people overestimated the hospitalization rate, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum, with a majority thinking that the virus hospitalizes at least 20 per cent of its victims (the actual number is between one and five per cent). However, after accounting for this, Democrats still have a noticeable habit of exaggerating the dangers. Similarly, Democrats were more likely to overestimate the risk to young people.

Though most people tend to overestimate risks, these numbers suggest that Americans on the left are more likely to overestimate the risks posed by the pandemic, and this can be clearly seen in their policy preferences. Research that specifically examines progressive biases in Canada is lacking, but its possible to make extrapolations.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A study published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science last May suggested that Canadians are less divided about COVID-19, owing to the consensus among our political leaders about the virus dangers, but that partisanship still affects political assessments related to COVID. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the progressive bias we see south of the border has at least some impact on left-leaning Canadians.

The existence of this progressive bias can be partially attributed to Trumpian politics. Presiding over a national emergency that he lacked the leadership skills to manage, U.S. President Donald Trump politicized the pandemic, minimizing its dangers and pulling it into the muck of Americas culture wars.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Taking the bait, Americans pulled back into their partisan camps, reflexively supporting or opposing pandemic restrictions based on how they felt about Trump. For many progressives, supporting public health restrictions became a partisan necessity.

This is a legacy that has continued post-Trump, as the pandemic is still a useful wedge issue for many politicians. In Florida, for example, Republican state senators blocked legislation that would have prohibited schools from banning vaccinated teachers from working. Pandering to the worst of their base, the senators legitimized dangerous conspiracy theories insinuating that vaccinated individuals pose a health risk to those around them.

In this context, its no surprise that some progressives have been committed to seeing the worst in things, despite evidence to the contrary. Research has shown that, with appropriate precautions, in-school learning may be safe. Though returning kids to school is contentious, it is at least worth discussing, especially given that 70 per cent of youth have reported deteriorating mental health due to remote learning and isolation.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Instead, parents who support reopening schools report being ridiculed and silenced; teachers unions in Massachusetts and Washington state have even gone as far as to accuse those who want to reopen schools of being white supremacists. Instead of allowing constructive debate, some progressive school administrators preoccupy themselves with hygiene theatre: reopening schools is off-limits, but investment in extravagant sanitation infrastructure, such as UV disinfection units, is seen as perfectly reasonable.

Other examples of bad policies include restricting outdoor activities (such as closing beaches and playgrounds) and pushing for outdoor mask usage, despite overwhelming evidence showing that outdoor transmission is incredibly rare. While the rise of more dangerous variants has complicated risk calculations, their impact seems overblown. Outdoor activities remain safe, continue to account for a small minority of new cases and ought to be exempt from onerous public health restrictions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Progressive hygiene theatre also includes extending lockdowns beyond their shelf life and stigmatizing jurisdictions that carefully open up early. Just look at the widespread condemnation, including accusations of neanderthal thinking by President Joe Biden, after Texas lifted its pandemic restrictions. Despite all the progressive rhetoric, cases have continued to drop in the Lone Star State.

This type of hyper-vigilance was useful earlier in the pandemic. When health-care systems were buckling and the virus wasnt well understood, being overly cautious was the prudent thing to do. In retrospect, we know that it was silly to Lysol our groceries, but when in doubt, its sometimes better to be safe than sorry.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Conservative misconceptions about mask efficacy, vaccine safety, asymptomatic transmission, fatality rates and so on were the danger at that time, as they undermined public health compliance when it was needed the most. But now, the situation has changed.

As things return to normal, it will be important to ensure that reopening plans are governed by science, rather than fear. It will be crucial to find ways to communicate with people who feel the need, consciously or not, to cultivate the pessimism that has provided so many doomers with easy moral, social and political capital.

Thankfully, relative to Americans, Canadians arent as bitterly divided by political tribe. And in Canada, there is not such a clear divide between the restrictions imposed by provincial governments of different political stripes.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ontario and Manitoba, which are both run by Conservative governments, have tried to impose unscientific, overreaching restrictions on outdoor activities: Ontario temporarily closed playgrounds, while Manitoba continues to push for more outdoor mask usage. Meanwhile, British Columbias NDP government has been notably laissez-faire about outdoor dining. Compared to the United States, its the opposite of what youd expect.

Were also not as far down the road with vaccinations as the Americans are, with many parts of the country still in the tail end of a third wave. Relative to the U.S., our experiences are behind schedule. Progressive over-vigilance is not a major problem for us yet, but its likely something well have to start grappling with in the coming weeks and months. Maybe a successful American reopening will nip that in the bud, but, if not, its better to start thinking about solutions now rather than later.

National Post

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter,NP Platformed the cure for cancel culture.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Here is the original post:
Adam Zivo: Progressives are now the ones ignoring pandemic science - National Post

Pushing back on the right-wing narrative about the reason for real or perceived labor shortages in some markets nationwide, progressives on Friday told corporations that if they want to hire more people, theyll need to start paying better wages.

Soon after the Labor Department released its April jobs report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blamed last months weak employment growth on the existence of a $300 weekly supplemental jobless benefit and began urging lawmakers to eliminate the federally enhanced unemployment payments that were extended through early September when congressional Democrats passed President Joe Bidens American Rescue Plan.

No. We dont need to end [the additional] $300 a week in emergency unemployment benefits that workers desperately need, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to the grumbles of the nations largest business lobbying group. We need to end starvation wages in America.

If $300 a week is preventing employers from hiring low-wage workers theres a simple solution, Sanders added. Raise your wages. Pay decent benefits.

According to the Chambers analysis, the extra $300 unemployment insurance (UI) benefit results in roughly one in four recipients taking home more pay than they earned working.

In response to that claim, Sanders staff director Warren Gunnels said: If one in four recipients are making more off unemployment than they did working, thats not an indictment of $300 a week in UI benefits. Its an indictment of corporations paying starvation wages.

Raise your wages and benefits or flip your own damn burgers and sweep your own damn floors, Gunnels added.

Other progressives like former labor secretary Robert Reich and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also chimed in.

We do not have a shortage of willing workers in this country, Morris Pearl of the Patriotic Millionaires said in a Friday afternoon statement responding to the Chamber. We have a shortage of employers who are willing to pay workers enough to live.

Claiming that todays disappointing jobs report is a result of expanded unemployment insurance is nothing more than a cruel tactic to pressure the administration into helping companies that they represent to continue to underpay and exploit their workforce, Pearl continued. Our leaders are supposed to be helping to increase wages for low paid workers, not helping employers to keep wages down.

Instead of blaming struggling workers, Pearl continued, large corporations that do not pay their employees a liveable wage should take this moment to self-reflect. Maybe just maybe paying their workers more than starvation wages would incentivize workers to reenter the workforce.

Writing for Jacobin earlier this week, Sandy Barnard noted that another overlooked factor is the increased morbidity rates among food and agricultural workers, which increased more than any other occupation during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a recent study from the University of CaliforniaSan Francisco.

Living, breathing people have decided they do not want to risk their lives for $7.25 per hour and no health benefits, Barnard wrote.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) responded to the Chambers call for an end to enhanced unemployment benefits by arguing that the interests of big business are at war with the interests of the working class.

They will spend millions of dollars to take $300 a [week] away from you and your family, to force you to work for them for pennies, she added. Their greed has no bounds.

Read the original post:
Progressives to Corporations: If You Want to Keep Workers, Pay Living Wages - Truthout

While the last iteration of the Senate bill did not have any co-sponsors, the effort has recently picked up steam. Sanders now has nine co-sponsors including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The House bill, sponsored by Omar, has also garnered support from Democrats in the House. Neither bill has any Republican backers.

It's one of those things that's been really surprising to me, as a child who's known real hunger, to see that there are folks here in the United States who are experiencing it, Omar told POLITICO.

The lefts pitch for universal free meals comes after a year of relaxed rules that have allowed schools to serve free meals to all students, regardless of whether they normally qualify for help. It was one way the Agriculture Department responded to the crisis last spring.

At the end of April, the Biden administration announced that schools across the country will be able to keep serving free meals to all students through June 2022 a major expansion of access.

School leaders and some anti-hunger advocates are increasingly making the case that the policy should continue after the pandemic because it is easier to administer, increases revenue for school nutrition programs and reduces stigma for children from low-income households who need help. School nutrition programs have been hammered by school closures and hybrid schedules during the pandemic.

Whats in the bill: The bill, named the Universal School Meals Program Act, is the same as the measure introduced in the last session and would remove reduced-price meals. It would make all meals given in schools free to all students regardless of income or whether their families participate in other safety net programs. It would also increase reimbursement rates to schools for each free meal.

The measure would also provide an incentive of up to 30 cents per meal to schools that get 25 percent of their food from local sources. The bill would define that as food produced within state lines or within 250 miles of the school or school district.

Such an incentive would provide local farmers with up to $3.3 billion in additional income per year and increase local food sales by up to 28 percent, proponents of the bill predict.

The bill would also mandate that schools stop collecting and assigning school meal debt and would have the Agriculture secretary establish a program to reimburse outstanding debt. The goal is to stop lunch shaming, where schools try to collect owed debt like withholding grades, canceling school dance privileges or marking students with an I Need Lunch Money stamp tactics that have sparked broad public outrage.

The bill would also increase the payments of Summer EBT and expand the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

Is the price right? Omars bill does not allocate any specific funding and has not received a score from the Congressional Budget Office. The potential high price tag of a universal free meals program has received criticism from Republicans, including Senate Agriculture ranking member Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas.

School meals programs cost nearly $14 billion in fiscal year 2020, down nearly $19 billion in 2019, largely because fewer meals were served when schools were closed.

But Omar said the need for providing meals is too great to be concerned about the cost, though she expects it wont break the bank.

When you make programs universal, you get rid of a lot of administrative costs, Omar said

Comparing Biden's plan: Biden recently announced his American Families Plan as the second half of his suite of infrastructure proposals. In the package, he urges Congress to expand some nutritional assistance programs.

However, Bidens proposal, which would need congressional approval, is more limited in scale. Biden suggests investing $17 billion to expand free meals for students by increasing the reimbursement rates for schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision, which allows high-poverty schools to provide meals free of charge to all of their students. It would also make far more elementary schools eligible for universal free meals.

Bidens plan also proposes making the summer Pandemic EBT program permanent. But it would remain only available to those already receiving free and reduced-price meals.

Whats next: Proponents of the bill say the goal is to introduce the measure now to push efforts to go further in the next reconciliation package. But they are not ruling out other options, such with a stand-alone bill or child nutrition reauthorization.

See the original post:
Progressives want to go bigger than Biden on free school meals - POLITICO

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee is expected to have a contentious hearing Tuesday as it begins work on the Democrat-backed For The People Act, the new bill designed to counter Republican vote suppression.

Democrats lack the votes to beat back an expected Republican filibuster when the bill reaches the Senate floor, so progressives have mounted a multi-million-dollar push for the bill. End Citizens United and Let America Vote are running ads in West Virginia and elsewhere to pressure Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to support ending the filibuster.

If passed, the bill would mandate new standards of voting access -- such as allowing same-day registration. It would also block some voter-suppression methods at the state level, impose new limits on dark money, and create new ethical standards for lobbying.

What Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) described in March as a bill to stand up to voter suppression, to end dark money in politics, and re-invigorate American democracy in the 21st Century, is also what Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called a federal takeover of the way we conduct elections."

Many of the bill's measures have had Democratic support for years. But the issue has new urgency in light of Republican-passed state-level voter suppression around the country. The Brennan Centers latest research shows state legislators have introduced 361 bills with restrictive provisions in 47 states, as of March 24.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has told reporters that the For The people Act, is a priority to the president, something hell be working with members of Congress to move up move forward on.

Activists around the country continue to rally and raise awareness against voter suppression laws. Saturday's nationwide demonstration honored John Lewis and his commitment to expanding voting rights. Ads using his likeness, such as Your Vote Is Precious from Just Democracy, are pushing the Senate to pass the For The People Act. With Republicans on record opposing it, that pressure is being focused on Democrats.

Manchin has been vocal about his belief that the bill can pass the Senate, pledging to work with Republicans on it. If that effort fails, however, Manchin has said he will under no circumstance [vote to] eliminate or weaken the filibuster.

But progressives are pushing to change that. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Roll Call that the PCCC is working with local leaders in West Virginia to [incentivize] Manchin. Green called the bill "a high-water mark of coordination among progressive groups and political allies.

Green went on to note that When [the For the People Act] was written, it was a beautiful thing, but the authors could not imagine all of the evil weve since seen in Georgia, Texas and elsewhere, so some fixes around the edges will likely need to be made."

The House's version of the act passed with all Republicans and one Democrat voting against it. Although the Senate Rules Committee is evenly split, with nine members from each party, a tie could still bring the proposed legislation to the floor.

Schumer took to Twitter on Monday night to vow that the For The People Act is not dead, writing, I am committed to bringing this bill to the floor of the United States Senate.

Visit link:
Progressives Push as Historic Voting Rights Battle Begins in the Senate - The Young Turks