Mediaboss Marketing

The Biden administration is in mortal peril. Hemmed in by circumstances, the Democrats bet nearly their entire domestic agenda on the passage of two gigantic bills, the trillion-dollar infrastructure package and the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package.

Both are now in serious trouble because Democratic moderates and progressives arent close to agreeing on what should be in the bills, how much they should cost or even when they should be voted on. If these bills crumble, the Democrats will fail as a governing majority, and it will be far more likely that Donald Trump will win the presidency in 2024.

We dont want that, so the question is, how can moderate and progressive Democrats create a package they both can live with? The best way to do that is to build on each sides best insights.

The best progressive insight is that we need a really big package right now.

Joe Manchin, a leading moderate, argues that the $3.5 trillion package is too big. The economy is already growing. Inflation is already rising. The national debt is already gigantic. We dont need another flood of deficit-bulging spending. We should pause to think this through.

The American people largely agree with Manchin. A No Labels poll revealed that 64 percent of Americans living in suburbs support a strategic pause while only 36 percent oppose one (in urban areas, 53 percent support large-scale welfare spending now while 47 percent support a pause).

But Manchin and those people supporting his position are missing the big picture. Were a nation in decline. Were in decline because we have become a wildly unequal, class-rived society in which tens of millions of people feel alienated, disillusioned, distrustful and left out.

The progressives have a strategy to reverse American decline: Redistribute money to people without a college degree. Make health care more affordable so people have a stable foundation upon which to build their lives. Offer child tax credits so parents have more options. Expand free public education by four years so the coming generations are better equipped.

Thats a plausible strategy and the time to enact it is now. There are rare critical junctures in history. Covid has exposed the tears in the American social fabric and made Americans more enthusiastic about government spending. If we can add, say, $4 trillion to the roughly $5.3 trillion in Covid-relief spending that already passed, well at least have made a giant effort to heal the ruptures bedeviling American society.

The key moderate insight is that were America, not Europe. We are mostly an immigrant-fueled, frontier nation. We place a lot of value on individual striving, hard work and mobility. We are hostile to centralized power. These values have made America more unequal and crueler than Europe but also much richer, more innovative and more productive.

The moderates are right to point out that a newly expanded welfare state should flow along the grain of American values and not against it.

We should not be doling out huge benefits to people without asking anything from them in return, like work and education requirements. A recent YouGov/American Compass poll found that only 28 percent of voters said they supported a permanent child tax credit that went to people regardless of whether they work. The history of welfare reform over the past few decades shows that there are better outcomes for kids when governments help parents join the labor force.

We should not be centralizing power in Washington, pouring more money into federal programs that badly need reform or rigging personal choices to fit the preferences of the professional class. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that high-quality pre-K education for kids 3 to 5 years old can produce long-term gains. But Head Start has been ailing for decades and needs to be transformed, not reinforced. Even we champions of early childhood education have to admit that theres some evidence that when done badly, it can have negative or no effects. Government should give parents more resources to make decisions based on whats best for their own children.

We should not be under the illusion that were going to create a European-style welfare state on this side of the Atlantic. The Danes were apparently happy to devote 46 percent of their G.D.P. to taxes in 2019, to contribute to their welfare provisions. In America the 50-year average federal tax revenue-to-G.D.P. ratio was 17 percent, and as James Pethokoukis points out in his column in The Week, even if the Democratic bills passed, it would go up to only 19 percent in the coming decade. Americans prefer to control their own resources, and so were never going to have the kind of cradle-to-grave system Europeans are content with.

The upshot is that we need a big jolt to heal the nation, but every plank should be about building a society in which if you work hard you will get ahead. We should ditch provisions like Medicare expansion and double down on pre-K, community colleges, infrastructure, green energy jobs and the child tax credit.

The theme should not be cradle-to-grave security. It should be giving people an open field and fair chance to be better capitalists, pioneers of their own destinies. America will reverse decline with a measure that is progressive in its scope and moderate in its values.

More here:
Opinion | What Democrats Need to Do Now - The New York Times

WASHINGTON President Bidens passionate language on reducing gun violence, safeguarding access to abortion and protecting voting rights has lifted the hopes of progressives who were once wary of electing a traditionalist who champions compromise.

But now, as they look past the final push on a $3.5 trillion spending bill the White House has made its policy priority, they are growing more concerned that Mr. Bidens actions will not be as bold as his tone at least when it comes to some of their key issues.

The spending plan that Democrats are trying to get through Congress would be transformative, affecting almost every American at every stage of life, from free universal prekindergarten to coverage of elder care. It includes money to address not only social programs and the expansion of the social safety net, but also funds to address climate change.

But in order to take up some of the other issues Mr. Biden has framed as threats to the foundations of American democracy, he will have to confront arcane rules that guide the institution of the Senate that he reveres and that so far he has made clear he does not want to pressure senators to change.

Privately, White House officials have been trying to assure activists that they plan to turn their attention in earnest to voting rights after their push on infrastructure is through at the end of the month. But that has done little to ease anxiety.

Im guardedly concerned, said the Rev. Al Sharpton, who said he was nervous that Mr. Biden would not follow up his lofty statements and speeches with action. Theres a difference between passion and marriage.

Mr. Sharpton said he wanted the White House to pressure senators to support a carve-out in the filibuster to allow voting rights legislation to pass with a simple majority.

They have not said theyre going to do that, Mr. Sharpton said.

Marc H. Morial, the president and chief executive of the National Urban League, said that in private meetings, he had pressed the president and his senior aides to work to pass voting rights by any means necessary. If you cant find 10 Republican votes, then the filibuster must go, it must be carved out, it must be reformed, he said. Its not more important than protecting American democracy.

The response from the president and his top aides, according to Mr. Morial, has been muted.

You dont get much of a response, he said. I think theres a reluctance to telegraph future moves.

Mr. Biden has used soaring language to match the bases passion on certain issues.

Every life that is taken by a bullet pierces the soul of our nation, the president said in May after a mass shooting in San Jose, Calif. He also referred to gun violence in America as an epidemic that required urgent action.

This month, after the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions, Mr. Biden called the decision an unprecedented assault on a womans constitutional rights.

And in a summer speech on voting rights, he framed the movement to suppress and subvert the right to vote as an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are who we are as Americans and said it was threatening the very foundation of our country.

But the question remains: What comes next?

Mr. Biden is approaching a crossroads moment for his domestic agenda, where he has already had to trim back his policy goals on the minimum wage, electoral safeguards and criminal justice reform in the face of resistance from Republicans as well as members of his own party.

This month, the president admitted a stunning defeat for his gun-control agenda when he had to pull his pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after he could not muster enough support for the nomination in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, has said that growing frustration among gun safety advocates should be vented at the members of the House and Senate who voted against the measures the president supports, and wed certainly support their advocacy in that regard.

That is not a satisfying answer to many activists.

We will have had two years with Democrats in full control, and if they end up breaking their promises on every one of those issues from guns to voting rights to abortion rights that seems inconceivable and should be inconceivable, said Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for Fix Our Senate, a coalition of more than 80 organizations working to eliminate the filibuster. But thats what theyre on track to do unless they finally address the filibuster standing in the way.

Stephen Spaulding, a senior counsel at Common Cause, said that engaged Democratic voters were attuned to the filibuster, the Senates signature procedural weapon that requires a 60-vote supermajority to advance most bills.

They will have serious questions if its not reformed and there is no action to protect voting rights or reproductive rights, both of which are under attack in states across the country, he said. They will ask the question: Why did you care more about a Senate rule than these priorities?

Even a pared-down voting rights bill that Senate Democrats have united around is unlikely to gain traction with Republicans, who have argued the legislation is a threat to their party.

Mr. Biden has criticized the filibuster, saying at his first formal news conference as president that it was being abused in a gigantic way.

But since then, he has said he does not want to press for reforms because that fight would distract from his agenda. Wouldnt my friends on the other side love to have a debate about the filibuster instead of passing the Recovery Act? he said at a CNN town hall event in July. He also said he wanted to pass voting rights with bipartisan support, not by changing Senate rules.

I want to make sure we bring along not just all the Democrats, we bring along Republicans who I know know better, he said. What I dont want to do is get wrapped up right now in the argument whether or not this is all about the filibuster.

The conversation has become unavoidable, even as the White House has tried to avoid it. In a round table meeting that senior White House officials held this month with womens rights and reproductive health leaders, many participants raised the issue of the filibuster and asked whether Mr. Biden was going to be shifting his position, according to attendees. They received no response from the officials in attendance.

While many of them offered suggestions on how to fight the Texas abortion law, and encouraged legal action that the Justice Department took this month, all of them said that a legislative fix was ultimately necessary and that White House pressure would help.

Long term, we need legislative intervention just as its needed on voting rights, said Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who participated in the meeting. Its necessary to stop Texas from what its doing, but also long term to actually address this issue.

A White House spokesman, Chris Meagher, said that the president has made clear that voting rights, protecting a womans constitutional right to access safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe, and combating the scourge of gun violence are critical priorities for his administration. Mr. Meagher added, He will continue to engage with leadership on the Hill to prioritize legislation around these critical issues.

See original here:
Progressives Worry Their Priorities Will Be Left Behind, Despite Bidens Bold Words - The New York Times

Democratic activists hoped that President Biden's ascent to the White House would put an end to what theyviewed as a nightmarish slate of immigration policies under former President TrumpDonald TrumpGraham says he hopes that Trump runs again Trump says Stacey Abrams 'might be better than existing governor' Kemp Executive privilege fight poses hurdles for Trump MORE.

Yet the past week has raised new concerns among progressives that little has changedover the treatment of migrants at the southern border.

Scenes of Haitian migrants trudging through theRio Grande to seek asylum in the U.S. only to be circled by border officials on horseback on the other side have drawn up painful memories and reinvigorated a debateover how far officials will go to reform a system many see as deteriorated, corrupt and inhumane.

Own that shit, said Chuck Rocha, a former senior adviser to Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersIn Washington, the road almost never taken Don't let partisan politics impede Texas' economic recovery The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Alibaba - Democrats argue price before policy amid scramble MORE (I-Vt.) and leading campaign strategist who ranthe Democratic presidential candidate'sLatino operation in 2020.

Youve got to get there and be like 'Look, what happened at the border is unacceptable. Theres going to be an investigation and thosef---ing people are going to be fired, and just like [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas said, theres no more horses on the border, youre going to stop that shit right now, not under my watch.

And you get tough about it, he said.

Bidenon Fridayexpressed regret and promised consequences after patrol agents on horseback were captured on photo earlier in the week appearingto spin their reins like a lassoat the Haitian migrants.

Responding to a journalists inquiry about the situation, Biden suggested the scenewas antithetical to the nations principles of inclusion and decency.

To see people treated like they did, horses barely running them over and people being strapped it was outrageous, the president said. I promise those people will pay.

Vice President Harris also said she was outraged by the conduct,comparing the incident to "times of slavery."

The crisis at the border has opened up another avenue for intra-party critiqueas well as attacks from across the aisle at a time when Bidens approval ratings have dropped significantly following the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In a Reuters poll released on Thursday, 51 percent of respondents surveyed said they disapprove of the job the president is doing at this point, while 44 percent approve. A Pew Research survey put out on the same day also found a steep decline in Bidens standing with the public. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled now disapprove of his performance, while 44 percent are in favor of it.

While both sides have lashed out at the administration, Biden is taking particular heat from progressives incensed over the treatment of migrants and what they view as lingering damage undera Democratic administration that promised to reverse Trump's hard-line approach.

Many say Biden has a duty to provide a more humane haven for individuals entering the country and are urging him to do that in practice, on top of hispointed rhetoric.

We cannot allow Trumps policies on asylum to become the default, former Obama-era Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julin Castro told The Hill. We elected President Biden to chart a new course.

Im glad to see President Biden speak out about the mistreatment of Haitian asylum-seekers. But his administrations use of the Trump-era Title 42 policy to deny Haitians their right to seek asylum is equally concerning, added Castro, who ran for president in the 2020 cycle.

Many Democrats like Castro and immigration advocates have denounced the Biden administrations extension of Title 42, which justifies the rejection of some migrants due to possible public health ramifications upon entrance into the U.S. Most recently those fears have been linked to COVID-19.

Stephen MillerStephen MillerJulian Castro knocks Biden administration over refugee policy Why is the Biden administration turning its back on asylum seekers? Defense & National Security: The post-airlift evacuation struggle MORE, a leading architect of Trumps immigration doctrine, reportedly wanted to remove migrants through Title 42, causing outrage at the time among many on the left. The provision still exists under the Biden administration.

The mistreatment of Haitian asylum seekers goes beyond horses and border patrol. Theyre being subjected to the asylum policies of Stephen Miller eight months into the Biden administration, said Sawyer Hackett, who serves as executive director of Castros "People First Future" PAC. Thats inexcusable.

While Biden on Friday publicly addressed the scenes that have inundated the media this week, the White House has gone on the defensive amid a barrage of questions aboutextending some Trump-era border policies.

"First of all, they're not deportations. People are not coming into the country through legal methods, White Housepress secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiBiden does not plan to shield Trump docsin Jan. 6 probe The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Arizona recount to show Trump's loss by even wider margin Watch live: Psaki, Homeland Secretary Mayorkas hold press briefing MORE said about some Haitians being turned away from entering the country.

That answer did not satisfy many progressives. And some members of Congress, including the influential Congressional Black Caucus, which as a group is usually more quiet in its criticism of the president, expressed concerns throughout the week.

Sergio Gonzales, who runs an advocacy network called Immigration Hub, said that the Biden administration should simply return to the most basic promises the president made when seeking office.

On the campaign trail, Biden called Trump's agenda a moral failing and in alist of commitments he pledged to take urgent action to undo Trumps damage and reclaim Americas values, modernize Americas immigration system and welcome immigrants in our communities. He also said he would reassert Americas commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees.

This is the time to go back to the vision, the commitment and the framework that was put out and to recommit to that, said Gonzales. That means not summarily expelling refugees and that means not keeping in place Trump policies like Title 42, but ending those things and then doubling down on the original strategy.

Its a good strategy, it really is, he said.

As tension over the border intensifies, many point to the difficulty of fixing a process that has seen decades of internal issues, particularly at the Department of Homeland Security, which has faced numerous complaints spanning Republican and Democratic administrations.

Others say that on top of that Biden is crippled by competing national crises, making the issue more difficult to manage. One strategist based in Texas said that an influx of people entering the country during a global pandemic inherently raises some health concerns.

I do think it carries risks, said Keir Murray, a longtime Democratic operative from Houston. Because ofCOVID and the economy, dont think public is wild about having a lot of undocumented folks enter.

But Murray, who has been based in the state for many years, sees nuance in the highly polarized issue.

People also [are] justifiably upset at cruel treatment of some of the migrants. Increase in flow of migrants [is] not [the] Biden administrations fault, but its taken them a while to adjust and deal with it.

Tough situation all around, he said.

And while some Democrats are criticizing Biden for one of the biggest immigration controversies yet in his term, others on the left argue the administration needs to do a better job messaging how many deportation policies started before he took office.

Democrats are very, very clutch pearl, Rocha said. Voters want somebody whos going to stand up to them and say, Hey, this aint how we treat people.

Read more here:
Progressives seething over Biden's migrant policies | TheHill - The Hill

There's an obvious way out for Democrats struggling to cobble together the votes for the more liberal reconciliation bill that is part of their two-pronged approach to infrastructure: come together and pass what they can, sending it to President Biden's desk. It will be a win for the president, a sign the party can govern with its narrow majorities, and it will let them run on infrastructure and maybe even bipartisanship in the midterm elections.

The question is whether progressives will go along. They were once in a similar situation with ObamaCare. The public option was a compromise for them, as they preferred something closer to Medicare for All. Then even the public option was stripped out of ObamaCare by moderates and a small number of insurance state Democrats.

Liberals briefly threatened to blow everything up. "Caucus leaders expressed absolute commitment to the idea of a robust public option, and said they expect it to be part of any health-care reform legislation," the office of then Rep. Lynn Woosley, a California Democrat who belonged to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said at the time. Without a public option, said group co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, "we are just showering money upon money upon the same system and the same industry that got us into the mess we're in right now."

But the alternative was no health-care bill at all. No legislative victory for a first-term Democratic president beyond a basically partisan fiscal stimulus package. And, based on what happened after the Bill and Hillary Clinton health-care plan failed to even receive a congressional vote in the 1990s, it was likely Republicans wouldhave been able to use the legislation against them in the midterm elections while Democrats would have had nothing to show for it.

Sound familiar? The $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is the left's compromise now, and they are again being asked to settle for even less. Back then, progressives relented. Today they are ready to run a party they are a much bigger part of now than in 2010. Their young leaders are sick of the aging, dwindling moderates. And they are still trying to pass something more ambitious than ObamaCare.

But the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the party do believe in government, and therefore governing. Do they view the GOP's Freedom Caucus, which is often more interested in stopping legislation, as a model for how to do so?

Originally posted here:
Progressives' obvious way out - The Week Magazine

As Germany heads to the polls this weekend, it is the scenario that haunts conservatives nightmares and has progressives daring to dream: that after 16 years of conservative-led rule, Europes most powerful economy could for the next four years have a full-throated leftwing government.

The possibility of a power-sharing deal between the centre-left Social Democratic party (SPD), the Greens and the leftwing Die Linke nicknamed red-green-red or R2G has been highlighted aggressively in recent weeks by the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in an attempt to paint a vote for the current frontrunner for chancellor, the pragmatic finance minister, Olaf Scholz, as tantamount to a radical lurch to the left.

The SPD and the Greens are more quiet on the subject, declining to rule out such a pact in public but voicing ample scepticism in private.

When pressed on the subject several delegates from the two large centre-left parties declined to answer on the record but made their views clear: talk of a red-green-red-run Germany was to them above all a strategic weapon, potentially to nudge the centre-right Free Democratic party (FDP) into joining their governing alliance.

Yet while the chances of the SPD and Greens going out of their way to court Die Linke are slim, Germany is entering uncharted territory with this election: for the first time, a coalition between at least three parties looks inevitable. Old certainties will crumble either way.

Red-green-red isnt an election outcome that is especially likely, but it isnt one you can rule out either, said Stefan Liebich, a Die Linke delegate who has been one of the most vocal advocates of Germanys left bloc overcoming its historic rivalries. Its more than just a bogeyman conjured up by conservatives.

The SPD has been open in principle to talks with its far-left rivals since 2013, when it passed a motion to no longer rule out coalitions with any party apart from rightwing populists and rightwing extremists.

Since then, R2G coalitions have formed and worked together more or less harmoniously in the eastern state of Thuringia, where Die Linke provides the state premier, and in the city states of Berlin and Bremen.

Before Sundays national vote, polls forecast a slim but stable governing majority for a R2G alliance. The parties programmes suggest more scope for joint initiatives than in previous election years, with a study by Berlin WZB Social Science Center finding more policy overlap than between any other parties, especially on social issues.

Paradoxically, some Social Democrats see such commonalities as an obstacle rather than a boon for an effective power-sharing deal: since all three parties already call for a wealth tax, for example, its unclear what policy Die Linke could sell its supporters as a win even if were to get its hands on the coveted labour ministry.

To prepare the ground for a robust and functioning coalition, you need to make sure that no one walks out of talks looking like a loser, said one SPD delegate. Thats difficult enough with two, but it becomes even more difficult when you have three partners.

For Die Linke to join a national German government would still represent the breaking of a taboo not only for the partys history as the democratic successor to the Socialist Unity party, East Germanys all-controlling power, but for its strongly pacifist stance on foreign interventions and military spending.

In its election manifesto, Die Linke calls for dissolving Nato and replacing it with a collective security system with Russias involvement. Even the partys own leaders say such demands pay tribute to historic creeds of faith rather than expressing contemporary ambitions. Discussions of the future of Nato, they say, are already taking place anyway, initiated by centrists such as Frances Emmanuel Macron.

But Die Linkes decision to abstain on last months vote to send German troops on a rescue mission to Afghanistan has illustrated how far it remains apart from the other left-leaning parties on the issue. Its message control is tentative: MPs have used their slots in the Bundestag to voice support for Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and strongmen leaders in South America.

Especially among the Greens, where human rights champions around the chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock are in the ascendancy, there is scepticism verging on disgust over the left partys positions. Clashes with Die Linke over a pan-European military initiative, they say, would be as severe as disagreements with the FDP on matters of financial burden-sharing.

In a reference to Die Linkes ideological baggage, the SPDs Scholz has said he would only form a government with parties who had clearly committed themselves to Nato and a strong EU. And while Die Linkes current leadership is more pro-European than, for example, the nationalist left of Jean-Luc Mlenchon in France, an emphatic commitment to these two key points may be hard to come by.

Willing delegates from the SPD and Die Linke have spent the last few years discussing how their clashing foreign policy views could be reconciled in a coalition. One solution that has been mooted is an internal vote preceding foreign deployment votes, on a case-by-case basis. Most Social Democrats say such a mechanism would be unworkable, especially for longterm UN mandates.

Even then, in the weeks ahead there are likely to be some kind of preliminary talks over a left-bloc alliance. So-called Sondierungsgesprche, tentative talks to test each others willingness to cooperate, usually precede coalition talks proper, and the coalition options to be explored this year are more plentiful than ever.

Should the FDP not move an inch on key Social Democrat pledges such as a minimum wage hike and the new wealth tax, talks with Die Linke may gain momentum.

One argument in favour of a pact with Die Linke could be the far lefts current weakness. With its leads in its former eastern strongholds diminishing, polls forecast the party to only scrape into the Bundestag this year.

The partys leadership duo, Janine Wissler and Susanne Hennig-Wellsow, are relative newcomers on the national stage, and may see entering government as a final chance to reverse the partys decline, even if it means moving some of its red lines of old.

We are entering a new world of three-way coalitions, said one SPD delegate. And we all have yet to work out what the rules of the game are going to be.

Read the rest here:
German progressives dare to dream of leftist red-green-red coalition - The Guardian