Mediaboss Marketing

Many progressives have been pleasantly surprised by President Joe Bidens sweeping proposals to repair the United States failing infrastructure, expand health care coverage and address the climate crisis. Some have suggested that one way to pay for such things would be to cut the military budget, especially since Biden has announced that he is ending U.S. involvement in the Afghan war.

Were dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget. Dont increase defense spending. Cut it and invest that money into our communities.

But hopes for a peace dividend were dashed when Biden came out in April with a proposed military budget of $753 billion a $13 billion increase to Trumps already gargantuan sum and one that includes more than $30 billion for new nuclear weapons.

Congressional progressives have long complained about runaway military spending. In 2020, 93 members in the House and 23 in the Senate voted to cut the Pentagon budget by 10% and invest those funds in critical human needs. A House Spending Reduction Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), emerged with 22 members on board, including all four members of the Squad but also more moderate or mainstream Democrats.

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, one of the largest caucuses in Congress with almost 100 members, also want reductions in the military budget.

Were in the midst of a crisis that has left millions of families unable to afford food, rent and bills, Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told The Nation magazine. But at the same time, were dumping billions of dollars into a bloated Pentagon budget. Dont increase defense spending. Cut it and invest that money into our communities.

Bidens military and non-military budget resolution, a package deal, is expected to hit the floor in June or July. If Republicans refuse to support it, the president would need every Democrat in the Senate and almost all Democrats in the House to win approval.

In the House, Biden needs at least 212 of the 218 Democratic seats (allowing for current vacancies in both parties. But what if at least seven members of the House voted no or even just threatened to put their foot down because the budget calls for increased military spending and a plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons and maintain 800 overseas bases?

Now is the time for congressional progressives like the Squad Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Presley (D-Mass.) to unite with Jayapal, Lee, Pocan and others in the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, to stand as a block against a bloated military budget.

During a pandemic, it makes no sense to approve a military budget that is 95 times the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The billions saved from right-sizing the Pentagon could also provide critical funds for addressing the climate crisis.

And it would be applauded by the Democrats base. Polls show that 70% of Democrats favor not just cutting nuclear weapons, but actually eliminating them. This is in line with the newly passed U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires nuclear states to pursue disarmament to avoid a catastrophic accident or intentional nuclear holocaust.

Will progressives in Congress play hardball to threaten Bidens entire budget by insisting he reduce military spending and scrap plans for a new nuclear arsenal? Will they have the courage to unite behind such a noble cause as saving the planet from an existential nuclear threat?

Odds will improve if their constituents flood them with messages insisting that now is the time to finally put an end to the cycle of exponential military spending and invest, instead, in the needs of the people.

This column was produced for The Progressive magazine and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America is a coordinator for CODEPINKCONGRESS, where she spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize votes for peace.

May 10, 2021

9:32 AM

Visit link:
Let's Unite to Cut Military Spending - Progressive.org - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House issued Mother's Day messages on Sunday as some progressives crusadingagainst gendered terms elect to use the term "birthing people" instead.

"Our mothers are our Guardian Angels, and we carry them always in our hearts, whether or not we are blessed to have them with us," Pelosi, D-Calif.,wrote on Sunday. "Happy Mother's Day to you and your family."

REP. CORI BUSH SCORCHED FOR REFERRING TO WOMEN AS BIRTHING PEOPLE'

"Moms have always built, shaped, led, and sustained this country and were committed to fighting for the safe and equitable workplaces, affordable health care, child care, and equal pay that every mom deserves. Happy Mother's Day," the White House wrote on Twitter.

However, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and pro-choice group NARAL have emphasizedthe term "birthing people" in recent days.

"Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors dont believe our pain. My children almost became a statistic. I almost became a statistic. I testified about my experience@OversightDems today. Hear us. Believe us. Because for so long, nobody has," Bush wrote on Twitter on Thursday.

"When we talk about birthing people, we're being inclusive. It's that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it's not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body," NARAL posted on its official Twitter account on the same day.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, mocked the phrase on Mother's Day.

"Happy Birthing People's Day!" he wrote on Twitter alongside a graphic showing the word "Mother's" erased and replaced with "Birthing People's.

Republicans also mocked House Democrats earlier this year when they unveiled a gender-free rules package.

In an effort to be inclusive to those who don't identify as a specific gender, therules package strips all mention of gender-specific pronouns and terms such as "man," "woman," "mother" and "son."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, March 19, 2021. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via AP) (AP)

The Office of theWhistleblower Ombudsman, for instance, is renamed in the rules to the "Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

There's nothing in the rules that prohibit members from using gender-specific terms when speaking on the House floor or conducting business.

House MinorityLeader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., mocked the inclusionary effort as "stupid."

Fox News' inquiry to Bush's office was not returned at the time of publication.

Fox News' Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:
Pelosi, Biden praise moms on Mother's Day amid progressive talk of 'birthing people' - Fox News

We Texans are used to hearing our state caricatured by Northerners as a desert full of swaggering cowboys, big oil and corrupt conservative politicians. But recently, there's been a new addition to the list of tropes: the elusive Latino vote.

Ever since the 2020 election, pundits have had a field day talking up the supposed erosion of Latino support for Democrats. Don't be misled. While it's true that there was some shift in the Latino vote towards Republicans, those of us who live and labor in Texas are experiencing a groundswell of new, young, liberal engagement, promising a different trajectory is already underway.

As a veteran community and political organizer in the state, the Texas I know is racially diverse, increasingly urban, and getting both younger and more progressive. And to anyone who really wants to change American politics and secure democratic voting practices, a fair economy, racial justice, and climate remediation, I say: Texas is your place.

Nowhere are the demographic trends more favorable. You might know that 40 percent of Texans are Latino. But did you know Texas is also home to the largest population of Black Americans in the country? Almost 13 percent of Texans are African American. Add a growing percentage of Asians, and a healthy smattering of other groups, and you have a microcosm of the growing diversity across the country.

Our age demographics make the prospects for a progressive Texas look even brighter: An eye-popping 43 percent of Texans are under 30, and Latinos comprise 50 percent of those under 18. Furthermore, studies indicate that this base of new and prospective voters veers decidedly progressive. A 2018 report by Jolt Initiative, the civic engagement organization which I led, found that the top priorities for Latino youth in Texas are healthcare for all, immigration reform, and racial equity. In the 2020 election, young people turned out in record numbers--and voted overwhelmingly for President Biden.

The 2020 drift of Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley toward Donald Trump was more an indication of desperation than values. In a part of the state where the pandemic tripled unemployment, the Republican message was, "We will get you back to work, and reopen your schools," while the Democratic message was, "Stay at home, wear a mask."

If you're that mom or dad who just lost your job and are about to get evicted, who do you vote for?

Pundits should beware of overgeneralizing from these trying times and the Democrats' poor messaging. The real Texas is far more nuanced than the current spate of news-spinning suggests, and it's fertile ground for progressives, provided we foster the conditions for change.

That includes moving from a two-dimensional Republicans vs. Democrats model to a multidimensional electoral universe that includes the entire eligible voting-age population. Because the sad truth is, one third of eligible voters rarely or never vote. And statistics indicate that those who don't vote are people of color, the young and the poor.

We need fair laws that allow people to actually exercise their voting rights through equal access and fairly drawn districts. According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, it was harder to cast a ballot in Texas than in any other state across the country in 2020. Texas's regulations have especially disadvantaged urban areas, home to the largest communities of color, and which trend Democratic.

Now, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Republican majority advanced new legislation to codify suppression under the false pretense of "election integrity." Reminiscent of the barriers to voting that swept through the Jim Crow South, they are so blatantly racist and anti-democratic that even major corporations have stepped in to object. These laws, and the likely fiesta of gerrymandered new districts we can expect to follow the Census, are an insult to democracy.

We need to give our communities a compelling reason to vote for a progressive vision. Less than a year before 2020, Bernie Sanders was the favorite Democratic candidate for Latino voters, both in South Texas and in the urban areas. Better outcomes lie ahead for Democrats if we pay real attention, invest early, speak to the real needs and dreams of voters of color, and fight for every vote to count, and be counted.

It's well worth the investment. Texas isn't just the vestige of Confederate America that Northerners imagine. In its scale, geography, diversity, and demography is the vision of our best America, the one we've been talking about since our inception, with equality and opportunity for all.

And the road to that America runs deep through the heart of Texas.

Antonio Arellano is a Senior Political Strategist and former Interim Executive Director of Jolt, a progressive civic engagement organization focused on building the political power and influence of young Latinos in Texas. Twitter: @AntonioArellano.

The views in this article are the writer's own.

See original here:
Stop Saying Latinos Are Turning Republican. The Progressive Future Runs Through Texas | Opinion - Newsweek

Dear Editor:

How do our governmental representatives learn to stop worrying and love apartheid? There is a discouragingly long list of progressive sell-outs who have talked about human rights for Palestinians before they ran for office, only to forget about the suffering of 5 million once elected.

I am not talking about Trump, who learned to love Israel when Sheldon Adelson showered him with a hundred million dollars. No, I am talking about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who spoke openly about Israel's racist oppression, only to clam up when the Israel lobby cash started flowing. And what about our brave local House member, Antonio Delgado, who won't let the word Palestine slip from his lips? His price? $31,723 last year from the lobby (according to OpenSecrets.org).

Or the new senator from Georgia, Raphael Warnock, who described the government of Israel as "shooting down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brother like birds of prey" before he was elected. Now he is off to the bank with this year's payment of $444,659 from the Israel lobby, having taken back all his rash words for the generous donations.

Israel's influence on our government is as strong as that of Big Pharma, Big Banks or Big Oil. It is a system drowning in cash and corruption. No matter whom we elect, they end up selling their souls for the money.

When it comes to supporting the racist, Jewish supremacist regime in the Middle East, they become PEP: Progressive Except for Palestine.

The Israel lobby is poisoning our democracy.

Fred Nagel

Rhinebeck, N.Y.

Follow this link:
Letter: Progressives in Congress sell out to Israel lobby - The Daily Freeman

Castigating moderate Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinManchin, Biden huddle amid talk of breaking up T package Biden to go one-on-one with Manchin There will be no new immigration law under Biden, unless he changes course MORE (D-W.V.) on his infrastructure stance is now a liberal litmus test. Education advocates are rightly outraged at the decrepit condition of public-school infrastructure. But instead of criticizing him, they might want to learn a hard truth from the senator, who knows how to use his one vote to protect his constituents. The case for public-school infrastructure is clear, but what is not is whether any progressive legislators are willing to fight like Joe.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision on infrastructure. The justices found that, unlikeairports, border walls, bridges, interstate highways, main thoroughfares, railroads, tunnels, etc., public school infrastructure iscoveredby the equal rights protections in the 14thamendment to the Constitution.

The famed 1954Brown v Board of Educationof Topekadecision,and theBrown IIfollow-up ruling a year later, involved appeals from several cases, not merely the titled action. One forgotten case came from President BidenJoe BidenCaitlyn Jenner says election was not 'stolen,' calls Biden 'our president' Manchin, Biden huddle amid talk of breaking up T package Overnight Energy: 5 takeaways from the Colonial Pipeline attack | Colonial aims to 'substantially' restore pipeline operations by end of week | Three questions about Biden's conservation goals MOREs home state. The plaintiffs were Black public-school students. Delawares high court had ruled that equal educational rights could beviolateddue to the decrepit condition of school facilities. The Supreme Court agreed.Brown IIspecifically said decrepit public-school facilitiescould alone denythe right to equal educational opportunitiesirrespectiveof any other educational spending.

Regrettably, the infrastructure aspect ofBrown IIhas faded from contemporary discussion. Forty years later, President Clinton famously told Congress, we cannot expect our children to raise themselves up in schools that are literally falling down. A generation later, the age and decrepit dysfunction of the average school facility is worse.

Education is the great equalizer, declared Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But in 1956, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower and a Democratic Congress were only interested in passing the Federal Highway Act promising 41,000 miles of interstate highways. The federal government would pay 90 percent of the cost.

Today, there are upwards of 41,000 aging school facilities needing full or nearly complete renovation. As the 2020 Democratic Platform suggests, crumbling facilities are disproportionately found in minority urban neighborhoods and white rural counties.

Congressional infrastructure advocates are promising to modernize 20,000 miles of highways, repair the worst 10,000 smaller bridges" and subsidize 500,000 EV stations, among other specified numerical targets. They reference $100 billion to upgrade and build new public schools but pointedly avoid any claim to fully renovate a specific number of decrepit school facilities. Why?

Approximately 20 million school children attend the most decrepit, dysfunctional school facilities. Dividing this number into the $100 billion comes out to$5,000per-child for infrastructure, assuming no money goes to schools serving the other 30 million.

There are roughly 10,000 West Virginia coal miners, and 33,000 nationwide.Democrats are targeting $38 billion to the coal sector to achieve a more eco-friendly infrastructure grid. That equates to$1.1 million per coal miner.

The sacrifices of coal miners fueled our industrial revolution. They volunteered to save democracy from the Nazi threat. Most of the $38 billion will, of course, not go to them. But Joe Manchin is at least playing hard ball to help his 10,000 constituents get job training and a transition to non-coal economy employment.

Take Richmond, Virginia. Modernizing an elementary school costs $20 million, $40 million for a middle school. A recently built high school cost over $100 million. In a recent column, columnist Nicholas Kristoff writes that it took only $530,000 in current dollars to provide his hometown with a needed high school during the Great Depression. That wouldn't be enough to renovate the gym in most schools today.

After decades of broken school infrastructure promises, Manchin-style 2021 hardball may be required, not New Deal nostalgia. Imagine what Manchin could do if he had 20 million coal miners as leverage?

The West Virginia case highlights a most enduring political truth: It is not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but rather the size of the fight in the dog.

Paul Goldman, former chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia, is a Richmond, Virginia attorney. Mark J.Rozellis dean of the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and co-author (with Clyde Wilcox) ofFederalism: A Very Short Introduction(Oxford University Press, 2019).

View original post here:
It's Joe Manchin vs the progressives on infrastructure | TheHill - The Hill