Mediaboss Marketing

I would like to respond to Jon Miceks editorial in the April 14 edition of the Daily Item.

John, I am a Republican, and I do support repairing and rebuilding road and bridges, ensuring safe water, and strengthening our power grid. Unfortunately, President Biden and the Democrats have decided to brand things totally unrelated as infrastructure and add them into the bill. This is their way of advancing the progressive agenda.

Look at how they are solving problems. Our government is paying people to stay home, while businesses cant find employees. They canceled a pipeline project with great paying jobs, and tell those workers to go work on solar energy jobs for one fourth the pay, plus losing their retirement. They have abdicated any control of our borders.

As far as electric cars are concerned, if everybody went electric today, the grid would have massive failures. While there have been major gains in solar, wind, and battery technology, we are at the point of diminishing improvements.

The progressives are against many of the ways of generating electricity, including coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric power, but current solar and wind power wont cover the added electric demand. Lithium mining for the car battery material is extremely dirty, and most of the lithium available is mined in other countries, mainly China. Also, our fire departments need training and equipment to handle an electric car fire.

The reason they are called progressives is that they want to progressively expand government, to progressively gain more control over our lives, while progressively increasing our taxes. This is because they know much better than the people who earn the money how it should be spent!

Thomas L. Dahlmann,

Shamokin Dam

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continue reading here:
Progressive agenda | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Of the 144 seats in the Louisiana Legislature, Democrats hold 47, and even fewer of those members espouse progressive ideas.

At the federal level, progressives like U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders advocate for higher minimum wages, universal health care and criminal justice reform and expect to make some headway toward their goals under the Biden administration. But in red Louisiana, the few progressives often find themselves having to moderate their stances as their ideas rarely make it through the Republican-run Legislature.

Most of the dozen or so most progressive members belong to the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus and represent lower-to-middle income parts of the states biggest cities.

Theres a lot of lobbyists representing special interests, but the people of Louisiana dont have anyone representing them at the table, said Rep. Matthew Willard, D-New Orleans. Theres no high-paid lobbyists representing the people.

Willard was elected in 2019, as was state Rep. Mandie Landry, D-New Orleans, another progressive.

A lot of members in Baton Rouge I think they just dont understand me, she said. Im like an alien to them.

In the legislative session that started Monday, Willard is pushing for easier access to midwives to help bring down the states high maternal and infant mortality rates. He also wants to establish a state income tax credit for parents with children under 18.

The progressives also support other proposals, like increasing the minimum wage, that would benefit the white working class, even though many of its members vote Republican. They also are seeking changes in the criminal justice system and hoping to bring more voters over to their side.

The division between moderate Democrats and progressives recently appeared on the federal level when eight Senate Democrats voted against a proposal in Washington to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Louisiana is one of five states that does not have a minimum wage set at the state level, and the federal one has not risen since 2009.

About half of Louisianas workforce would have seen a pay increase if the federal minimum wage would have increased to $15 an hour, Willard said. Louisiana defaults to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a fact that Willard said is totally unacceptable.

State Rep. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, said a low minimum wage creates negative societal impacts.

To me it seems to make more sense that we would want to ensure that people have a living wage, so they can work one good job to take care of family, be at home in the evening and help with homework or help with Little League, so that kids arent out breaking into cars, he said.

Gov. John Bel Edwards has tried several times to establish a state minimum wage as high as $10 an hour but has failed to get the votes given GOP opposition. He plans to try again this year, but Landry does not think he will succeed.

Its more likely going to happen on a federal level, especially with the Democrat majorities. I just dont see it happening in our state, she said.

Jan Moller, executive director of the nonprofit Louisiana Budget Project, said that polls since 2012 have shown broad support across party lines, age and race in Louisiana for raising the minimum wage. But the bill usually dies in the House Labor Committee, where lobbyists from the restaurant and other low-wage industries oppose it.

Get the Louisiana politics insider details once a week from us. Sign up today.

Another focal point for progressives is to push for more changes in the state's criminal justice system.

Stung that Louisiana had become the incarceration capital of the world and by the cost of housing for so many inmates, Democrats and Republicans agreed in 2017 to let thousands of non-violent offenders out of jail.

But, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Louisiana in 2019 still had the highest incarceration rate of any state, with 683 incarcerated per 100,000 residents. The following states are Oklahoma with a rate of 639 and Mississippi with 636.

We warehouse more people in prison than anywhere else, and I think it's one reason we stay impoverished here, Landry said. It's a waste of resources, in the sense of we're wasting money on jails, but we're also wasting our actual people.

"It's not like people from Louisiana are any more dangerous than people anywhere else, she added. There is nothing in the water that makes people in Louisiana commit more crimes.

Duplessis wants to change that Louisiana is one of six states that sentences criminals to life without parole. According to the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., Louisiana held 4,377 prisoners on life sentences without parole in 2020. That equates to 14% of the prison population, tied for the highest in the country with Massachusetts.

I dont believe everybody should be released, but I do believe everybody should have the opportunity to come up for review, to assess whether or not they have rehabilitated themselves, said Duplessis.

We are a state that promotes Christian values in our faith, he added. And part of Christian values, the last time I checked, is believing in redemption. I want us to have a conversation around the issue of redemption.

The Democratic Party in Louisiana can do a better job at our messaging in letting the people of Louisiana know that we are working on their behalf, Willard said.

In a conservative state, Democrats are often hurt by cultural and religious issues, like their partys pro-choice stance on abortion. Willard sees Louisiana Democrats as more diverse.

State Sen. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe, introduced a bill in 2019, for instance, that outlawed abortion after a heartbeat was detected. Edwards, the only Democratic governor in the U.S. who is pro-life, signed the bill into law.

We have always been a big tent party, Willard said. Were not the type of party where if you disagree or dissent, which is at the heart of American democracy, that youre going to be censored or called out. I think thats anti-democratic.

Landry, one of the few white progressive Democrats in the Legislature, is fervently pro-choice. Landry also has authored a bill for the 2021 session that would decriminalize prostitution. Her bill would help individuals who are being trafficked or encounter violence during consensual sex go to the police without the threat of being arrested.

Landry thinks she seems alien to other lawmakers not just because of her ideas but because she is one of only 26 women in the Legislature.

As much support as I get from my district, I get stuff thrown at me elsewhere, she said. Its mostly from men, mostly from white men, but not entirely. I get a little bit from white women around the state. But its a lot.

Originally posted here:
Louisiana's Legislature isn't totally conservative. Here's where progressives are focused - The Advocate

President BidenJoe BidenThe Hill's Morning Report - GOP pounces on Biden's infrastructure plan Biden administration unveils network of community leaders to urge COVID-19 vaccinations Pompeo 'regrets' not making more progress with North Korea MORE is on a potential collision course with progressives like Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersThe Hill's Morning Report - GOP pounces on Biden's infrastructure plan Biden risks first major fight with progressives Biden sets off Capitol Hill scramble on spending, taxes MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenThe Hill's Morning Report - GOP pounces on Biden's infrastructure plan Biden risks first major fight with progressives Biden sets off Capitol Hill scramble on spending, taxes MORE (D-Mass.) over the size and scope of his newly unveiled infrastructure package.

While many progressives applauded Bidens $2.25 trillion proposal on Wednesday, they also cautioned it is only the starting point for negotiations.

Some of the more ambitious proposals favored by progressives, such as expanding Medicare, investing in free community college and universal prekindergarten, have been relegated to a second infrastructure package slated for introduction later this year.

Thats making progressive lawmakers and outside advocacy groups nervous. They worry some of their top priorities, such as more funding for child care and a permanent child tax credit, may lose momentum if the first package, which focuses on more traditional infrastructure priorities, becomes law.

They also question whether its realistic for the White House to expect any Republicans to vote for a narrower infrastructure package which seems to be the main reason for dividing Bidens infrastructure agenda into two bills.

One key moderate, Sen. Rob PortmanRobert (Rob) Jones PortmanThe Hill's Morning Report - GOP pounces on Biden's infrastructure plan Biden risks first major fight with progressives Biden sets off Capitol Hill scramble on spending, taxes MORE (R-Ohio), took a shot at Bidens plan Wednesday, calling the proposal to raise corporate tax rates the wrong approach, an early sign that attracting Republican votes will be difficult.

This might be the last opportunity we have to really do big things under reconciliation. We need to see more here, and I think thats the universal thought across the movement right now, said Yvette Simpson, the CEO of Democracy for America, a progressive advocacy group, referring to special budget rules that allow Democrats to pass bills through the Senate with simple-majority votes.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerIntercept bureau chief on Democrats' efforts on minimum wage: 'Might as well go for it' Schumer kicks into reelection mode The disgrace that was the Biden press conference MORE (D-N.Y.) is making the argument to the Senate parliamentarian that Democrats should be allowed to move two more packages under those special budgetary rules.

Democrats are unlikely to pick up more than one or two Republicans on an infrastructure bill in the 50-50 Senate, if they get any GOP votes at all.

The big question is, Is this the last time were going to the well? We were told initially there were going to be two big reconciliation budgets. The first one was going to be around COVID and the second one was going to be everything else, said Simpson.

If Democrats arent able to move a third reconciliation package to enact reforms left out of Wednesdays infrastructure package, Simpson said, Bidens $2.25 trillion proposal isnt going to go far enough.

By putting the most politically popular infrastructure items in the first package, progressives worry itll be even harder to get support from moderates such as Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinBiden risks first major fight with progressives Biden sets off Capitol Hill scramble on spending, taxes White House moves to reshape role of US capitalism MORE (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaBiden risks first major fight with progressives Five things to watch on Biden infrastructure plan The Hill's Morning Report - Biden to talk infrastructure amid border, voting controversies MORE (D-Ariz.) when the more people-focused infrastructure package lands in Congress.

You may as well put everything in the bill, get your caucus together on one big bill, because outside of Republicans we still have to worry about the Manchins and the Sinemas of the world who want their potholes [fixed] and they want it now, but they may not care as much about health care, Simpson said.

Warren last week raised concerns that focusing exclusively on popular priorities, such as fixing highways, rebuilding bridges and upgrading ports, could make it more difficult to pass legislation later on that addresses economic inequality.

I want to see the details of how theyre planning to make sure that the climate issues and the child care issues dont get left behind. We cant have the train leave the station and critical parts are left on the platform, she said.

On Wednesday, she tweeted that the#AmericanJobsPlan is a game-changer and full of ideas that progressives like me are fighting for to make long-overdue investments in Americas future.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezThe Hill's Morning Report - GOP pounces on Biden's infrastructure plan Biden risks first major fight with progressives On The Money: Breaking down Biden's infrastructure plan | Biden eyes tax hikes on corporations, households left alone MORE (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said Bidens plan needs to be way bigger.

This is not nearly enough. The important context here is that its $2.25T spread out over 10 years. For context, the COVID package was $1.9T for this year *alone,* with some provision lasting 2 years, she tweeted.

Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalBiden risks first major fight with progressives Biden sets off Capitol Hill scramble on spending, taxes White House moves to reshape role of US capitalism MORE (D-Wash.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Tuesday the White House needs to go even bigger, lamenting that Biden's proposal is much smaller than what he championed on the campaign trail last year.

"The Biden infrastructure proposal on the campaign trail was significantly larger than what's been discussed so far with Build Back Better," Jayapal said on a call with reporters, citing estimates that put the cost of his campaign proposal between $6.5 trillion and $11 trillion over 10 years.

"So we really think that there's ample room to get the overall number up to somewhere in that range in order to really tackle the scale of investment that we need to make," she said.

Jayapal supports including tax hikes in the package but primarily as a way to bring more "fairness" to the tax code, rather than simply to offset the cost of infrastructure improvements.

"Democrats should not constrain ourselves or lower our ambitions because of manufactured concerns about the deficit," she said.

Among progressive activists, there are growing questions about whether Bidens infrastructure plan will do enough to tackle economic inequality in historically marginalized communities.

Theres a lot more that needs to be addressed, especially when we think about how equity has been reflected in climate justice work, said Joanne Prodin, an activist with Florida Rising. This is the time for us to get bolder.

She said the White House and Congress needs to make sure investment will be equitably spread across Black communities, brown communities, indigenous communities.

Given those concerns, progressive lawmakers and activists are rallying around another infrastructure proposal, the Thrive Act, unveiled on Monday. The measure would invest $1 trillion in the U.S. economy each year over the next decade with a goal of cutting climate pollution in half by 2030.

Its sponsors include Sen. Ed MarkeyEd MarkeyBiden risks first major fight with progressives Five takeaways on Biden's big infrastructure package Hillicon Valley: House lawmakers fired up for hearing with tech CEOs | Zuckerberg proposes conditional Section 230 reforms | Lawmakers reintroduce bill to secure internet-connected devices MORE (D-Mass.) and Reps. Debbie DingellDeborah (Debbie) Ann DingellBiden risks first major fight with progressives A year later, lawmakers long for hugs and Chuck E. Cheese FBI informant describes plot against Whitmer MORE (D-Mich.), Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaBiden risks first major fight with progressives Ocasio-Cortez endorses Turner in Ohio special election The Memo: How the COVID-19 year upended politics MORE (D-Calif.) and Yvette ClarkeYvette Diane ClarkeBiden risks first major fight with progressives Congressional proclamation prioritizes a critical societal issue: Lack of women of color in tech Democrats say increased recognition of climate change puts more pressure on GOP MORE (D-N.Y.).

Markey on Tuesday called the moment a historic opportunity to enact a bold plan.

With a Democratic White House and Senate and House of Representatives we have a chance to lift the gaze of our country to the constellation of possibilities in job creation and to finally rectify the historic racial injustices so many people of color have faced in this country, all while solving the climate crisis at the same time, he said in a video touting the legislation.

A progressive Senate aide called Bidens plan a good start, noting that raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and other business tax changes will raise around $3 trillion over 15 years.

But the source said Senate liberals are going to push for more on the climate stuff, on child care and more progressive tax policy.

Advocates of a bolder approach argue the federal government will need to spend more money to achieve full employment.

Its a good step in the right direction in terms of the scope, the fact that its pretty expansive. However, as it relates to the scale, were going to need larger-scale investments in order to reach full employment in this country, said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party.

He estimated that the Thrive Act would create 15 million jobs over 10 years.

Were going to work with President Biden and the Senate and the House to expand the size and scope of Bidens infrastructure package, he said, calling Bidens $2.25 proposal a floor.

Some activists are already turning their attention to Democratic moderates like Manchin.

Over the next week, during the congressional recess, there are more than 130 actions taking place all over the country where activists and others are going to be engaging their congressional leaders, Mitchell said.

The actions range from congressional town halls, but theres all types of other actions that activists are doing on the ground. In West Virginia, in front of Joe Manchins three offices, there are going to be concerts.

Follow this link:
Biden risks first major fight with progressives | TheHill - The Hill

Less than three months before the New York City mayoral primary, the citys progressive left has declined to coalesce behind a single contender. Some of the most influential organizations, like the Working Families Party, havent endorsed yet, and some of the biggest individual players, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, might not endorse at all. But looking at the endorsements that have come so far, three candidates have emerged as progressive favorites: New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, former nonprofit leader Dianne Morales, and former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, Maya Wiley. And movement leaders are putting their faith into ranked-choice voting, hoping the divided support actually becomes an asset.

Supporting multiple candidates, having them all do semi-well, take away votes from the ones you dont want to win I think is an actual strategy, said Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn-based activist who is influential in the progressive movement. It may seem like its not a strategy, but I actually feel like people are being a lot more strategic than theyre getting credit for.

The progressive movement in New York can be loosely defined as the individuals and organizations that supported Cynthia Nixon over Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the 2018 primary. While labor unions are often allies to this movement, their role and influence in the mayoral race is a different question entirely, driven by different motivations than a typical ideologically driven political organization, like the New York City Democratic Socialists of America or New York Communities for Change.

Members of the movement largely agree that Stringer, Morales and Wiley are most aligned with the group on policies like defunding the police, increasing taxes on the wealthy and forgiving unpaid rent accrued during the coronavirus pandemic. But there are enough policy disagreements among them, as well as different approaches, that choosing who to support, and in what order, is a hot topic of debate.

Our membership were kind of evenly split between who their favorite progressive was, said George Albro, co-chair of the New York Progressive Action Network, or NYPAN, which was born of Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. And rather than be a divisive choice, we thought wed unify the progressives in the race by doing a dual endorsement, of Morales and Wiley. But one persons unity is anothers division, and Stringer was the one left out. Albro was spooked by recent polling that didnt show Stringer in the commanding position he hoped to be in at this point. But theres also issues of race and gender to consider. Im not into identity politics per se, but weve never had a woman mayor of New York City, and weve gone 28 straight years with a white male mayor, Albro said. Stringer is a white man, while Wiley is a Black woman and Morales is Afro-Latina.

As much as Stringers identity may have been an asset in life, it could be a liability when trying to win progressive support in 2021. Still, it hasnt seemed to hinder him too much he has many more endorsements than either Morales or Wiley, including from women of color like state Sen. Jessica Ramos and Assembly Member Diana Richardson, who have been outspoken advocates for Stringers campaign.

In politics, discussions of race and gender often become questions of electability. Look no further than President Joe Bidens victory in the historically diverse presidential primary field, where a central argument of his supporters was that he, a traditional white male candidate, had the best chance to beat Donald Trump. But RCV may provide progressive voters a way to support a candidate like Morales, even if they harbor doubts about her viability as a first-time candidate in a crowded field and her low polling. Morales is basically the candidate practical lefties would never choose in a FPTP (first-past-the-post voting, the previous style) election, but with ranked choice, why not?, Steve Fox, an NYC-DSA member who works for Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, recently tweeted. Ill be putting her as my number one and Stringer as my number two. Stringer is who Id vote for in a FPTP primary.

Morales in particular has been earning interest from the socialist corners of the wider progressive movement.

Dianne doesnt identify as a socialist, but a lot of socialists like her, said state Sen. Jabari Brisport, who recently endorsed Morales as his first choice and Stringer as his second. Brisport is an NYC-DSA member, and although the organization isnt planning to get formally involved in the mayoral race, Brisport expects individual members will be inspired to help Morales.

Wiley is getting much less attention from leftists, many of whom see the former cable news legal analyst as a sort of MSNBC liberal, who doesnt actually want radical change. Of course, theres also some skepticism of Stringer. He has an impressive track record of endorsing progressive insurgents and speaking up on the right issues, but some cant help but think the longtime political operator is an opportunist, riding the progressive wave.

Enthusiastic or not, Stringer has far more money in his account than Wiley and Morales, solid name recognition, and enough political experience to last two lifetimes. And some in the progressive movement would rather go all-in on Stringer than put too much faith in RCV.

Scott is the lone progressive in this race with the political strength and resources to mount a successful challenge to Andrew Yang and Eric Adams corporate candidates who will betray working-class and poor New Yorkers, said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change in the organizations endorsement announcement. NYCC called on other groups on the left to rally around Stringer and help him stay competitive with Yang and Adams both of whom the movement views largely with disdain.

Stringer campaign spokesperson Tyrone Stevens insists that consolidation is already on track. Were building the progressive multiracial intergenerational coalition we need to win this race, he said. We have the most progressive support of any candidate for good reason and were proud of it. But many organizations and figures have yet to endorse. The Working Families Party is being closely watched, and an endorsement is said to be coming within the month. Jumaane Williams, another sought-after endorsement, hasnt formally backed a candidate yet, but is expected to. Same goes for his 2018 running mate Cynthia Nixon, and major groups like Make the Road Action. If they all back Stringer, it would be a strong case for consolidation, but if not, then the left will remain split in the mayoral race.

But with RCV throwing even more uncertainty into the mayoral race than usual, Sarsour doesnt think thats necessarily a bad thing.

The left is really being cautious about putting all their eggs in one basket, she said. Because with ranked-choice voting, you dont exactly know how its going to go.

Go here to read the rest:
In the mayoral race, progressives place their trust in RCV - City & State

More than two dozen House Democrats asked the Federal Reserve on Thursday to use its full arsenal of policy tools to direct funding away from the fossil fuel industry and toward communities harmed by climate change and pollution.

In a Thursday letter to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, 25 Democratic lawmakers asked the central bank to take more aggressive steps to fight climate change, including several actions the Fed has explicitly refused to take.

Without concrete objectives and measurable changes to the supervisory framework and monetary policy activities carried out by the Fed, we worry progress will be both too slow and insufficient in scale to adequately address the reality of the crisis our economy and our planet face, wrote the Democrats, led by Reps. Mondaire Jones (N.Y.) and Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibOmar on arrest of Georgia state lawmaker: 'Wild and completely unacceptable' Ocasio-Cortez endorses Turner in Ohio special election Democrats vow to go 'bold' with or without GOP MORE (Mich.).

The Fed has drawn political fire from Republicans for its early steps toward consideringthe risks climate change poses to financial stability and the economy. The bank has established two panels to research and identify those dangers, and is considering ways to incorporate climate risks into its supervision of U.S. banks.

Republicans have warned the Fed against steering banks and lenders away from fossil fuel production and toward green energy. But Powell and other Fed officials have unequivocally ruled this direction out.

We are not climate policymakers here who can decide the way climate change will be addressed by the United States. Were a regulatory agency that regulates a part of the economy, Powell told aHouse panel in February.

Some progressive Democrats, however, are pushing the Fed to do exactly what Republicans have pressured the bank to avoid.

Given the Feds financial stability objectives and supervisory role over these institutions, we believe there is a clear need and ability for the Fed to incentivize and enforce a reduction in fossil fuel financing, the House Democrats wrote.

The lawmakers asked Powell to explore all possible authorities it can use to encourage and support bank investment aimed at limiting global temperature rise ... with a particular emphasis on lending to low-income communities and communities of color hit the hardest by pollution and climate change.

The Democrats also asked the Fed to incorporate climate risks into its bank stress-testing regime another step the Fed has all but ruled out for now and gear future emergency lending facilities toward fighting climate change and away from supporting fossil fuel companies.

We echo the calls made by climate activists and concerned citizens for further action toprotect our financial system, our economy, and our planet from the devastating impacts ofclimate change," they wrote.

Read more from the original source:
Progressives push Fed to drive funding away from fossil fuel companies | TheHill - The Hill