Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Progressives Now Hold the Cards in Congress – In These Times

In recent decades, progressives have largely been confined to the pious margins of American politics. One prime example was the fight over the Affordable Care Act under President Obama, when left-wing members of Congress demanded the inclusion of apublic option, only to be rolled over by more conservative members of the DemocraticParty.

But this week it was aclique of recalcitrant moderates, not progressives, who were made to cave under pressure from Democratic leadership. Nine of the most conservative Democrats in the House had threatened to vote down President Joe Bidens $3.5 trillion budget proposal unless the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was passed first, contrary to both Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosis stated strategy. On Tuesday, the nine holdouts agreed to pass the budget after securing apromise from Pelosi that the IIJA would be passed by September27.

The group, which included Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Jim Costa of California, Ed Case of Hawaii, and Kurt Schrader of Oregon, was acollection of some of the most corporate-friendly House Democrats. The group received more than $3 million in campaign donations from the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical industries, both industries which stand to lose from the budget plan, which would represent the largest expansion of the social safety net since President Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society in the1960s.

Gottheimer and Schrader, in particular, are two of Big Pharmas favorite Democrats, and have vociferously criticized Democrats attempt to lower prescription drug prices. Six of the groups members are among the top 15 recipients of oil and gas money in the Democratic caucus. Another priorityof the nine was removing the limit on the state and local tax deduction, colloquially known as the SALT deduction, which functioned mostly as atax break for wealthyhomeowners.

The budget would, over 10years, fund universal preschool, provide students two free years of community college, expand Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, institute federally-funded family leave, and fight climate change through investments in clean energy and low-emission vehicles, all paid for by raising taxes on the rich and large corporations. The blueprint also provides apath to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and would strengthen labor lawenforcement.

While the September 27 deadline puts pressure on congressional committees to iron out the details of the budget plan quickly, it doesnt change the underlying dynamic, in which progressives hold the leverage in the House over how the bills are moved through Congress. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have held firm in their goal of passing the budget bill before approving the bipartisan plan, and can still withhold their votes from the latter to get their way. While conservative Democrats may hope that enough Republicans will get on board with the IIJA to outnumber progressive holdouts in the House, that plan will likely go nowhere, as large number of House GOP members are unlikely to defy former President Donald Trump, who has called the bipartisan plan a terribledeal.

That centrists were made to hew to the party line shows how far the political ground has shifted in recent years. In 2009, members of the CPC said they would refuse to vote for an Affordable Care Act without apublic option. This outraged then-Senator Joe Lieberman, who threatenedto torpedo the ACA if progressives got their way. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders placated Lieberman and cut the progressive priority out of the bill. The CPC went along with it, allowing centrists to set the partysagenda.

But today, things are different. President Biden, one of the most conservative Democrats to contend for the partys nomination in 2020, and Speaker Pelosi, whose contentiousrelationship with House progressives is no secret, are working alongside the CPC to pass apair of historically-generous spending bills. Biden reportedly personally called the moderate holdouts to persuade them of the spending bills importance, and accordingto the New York Post, Democratic leadership even threatened to break up amoderates district through redistricting, and fire another members relative who worked at the WhiteHouse.

Rep. Ro Khanna of California, aCPC member, took atone traditionally used by moderates to scold progressives, saying, Look, everyone has to compromise in Congress. Iwant Medicare for All; thats not in the bill. Iwant free public college; thats not in the bill. Iwant student-loan forgiveness for working families; thats not in the bill. Guess what? You know whose bill it is? President Joe Biden. Last Iunderstood, he won election as president. The Democratic Party needs to unify around his agenda to help people, and anyone who votes no on this is sabotaging Joe Biden and sabotaging the Democratic Partysagenda.

Part of the reason for the sea change is that progressives now hold more political power than they have in decades. Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, played an essential role in developing the $3.5 trillion spending plan. The CPC has added 24 members since 2008 for atotal of 95in the House, and it stands as the largest ideological coalition in the Democratic Party. Plus, thanks to new rules passed late last year, the caucus now functions as akind of party-within-a-party: members must, two-thirds of the time, vote for legislation supported by two-thirds of the membership or risk expulsion. And more authority has been vested in the CPC whip, Rep. Ilhan Omar (DMinn.), caucus meetings are mandatory, and the co-chair structure has been abolished in favor of asingle leader, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWash.).

Despite the resolution of this fight, another intraparty standoff seems likely. Conservative Senate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have already voiced concern over the price tag and size of the $3.5 trillion budget bill, and will no doubt demand some changes to the legislation. But Sanders, the bills primary author, remains confident that the package will ultimately be approved, tellingPolitico on Thursday, at the end of the day, every Democrat understands that it is terribly important that we support the presidents agenda. And most of these ideas came from the WhiteHouse.

Our position remains unchanged: we will work to first pass the Build Back Better reconciliation bill so we can deliver these once-in-a-generation, popular, and urgently needed investments to poor and working families, and then pass the infrastructure bill to invest in our roads, bridges, and waterways, aCPC statementreleased after the budget passed the House said. As our members have made clear for three months, the two are integrally tied together, and we will only vote for the infrastructure bill after passing the reconciliationbill.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.) echoed the statement, tellingNBC News that the September 27 deadline is a bit arbitrary and that she is not committing to anydate.

For now, progressives, so often outsiders, are on theinside.

Read the original:
Progressives Now Hold the Cards in Congress - In These Times

AOC and other progressives call for Biden to replace Powell as Fed chair – MarketWatch

A group of progressive House Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, on Monday called for President Joe Biden to replace Fed Chairman Jerome Powell when his term expires in February.

In a joint statement first reported by Politico, the lawmakers urged Biden to re-imagine a Federal Reserve focused on eliminating climate risk and advancing racial and economic justice.

Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.; Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y.; and Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., joined Ocasio-Cortez in calling for a change. All five lawmakers serve on the House Financial Services Committee.

While acknowledging positive changes under Powell on efforts to reach full employment, the legislators said: To move forward with a whole-of-government approach that eliminates climate risk while making our financial system safer, we need a chair who is committed to these objectives. We urge the Biden administration to use this opportunity to appoint a new Federal Reserve chair.

Under his leadership, the Federal Reserve has taken very little action to mitigate the risk climate change poses to our financial system,they said of Powell. At a time when theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeis warning of the potential catastrophic and irreversible damage inflicted by a changing climate, we need a leader at the helm that will take bold and decisive action to eliminate climate risk.

The Democrats also decried moves by the Fed, under Powell, to reduce banking regulations put into place after the financial crisis. Weakening financial regulations that were specifically created to prevent such a disaster from happening again risks the livelihoods of Americans across the country, they said.

Powell is seen as having broad support from the White House and is expected to be nominated for another term. But a growing number of more liberal Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, have publicly criticized Powell recently.

Biden is expected to make a decision about Powells future this fall. The leading contender to replace him, if it comes to that, appears to be Fed governor Lael Brainard, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month.

Read more:
AOC and other progressives call for Biden to replace Powell as Fed chair - MarketWatch

Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal | TheHill – The Hill

Progressives are breathing a sigh of relief over the end of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, praising President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel advances 8B defense bill Democrats defeat GOP effort to declare 'lost confidence' in Biden after Afghanistan withdrawal House committee moves to block private funds for National Guard deployments MORE's commitment to halting the forever war even as the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul comes under heavy criticism.

After the White House declared the war over on Monday and Biden defended his decisions Tuesday, liberal lawmakers, strategists and movement-aligned activists offered words of support for what they considered to be a tough but moral decision.

The messaging from progressive thought leaders and organizations has been consistently critical of the War on Terror' and the war in Afghanistan more specifically, said Adam Weinstein, a research fellow at Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft who helped organize a coalition of groups around anti-war efforts.

With regard to America's involvement in longstanding battles, Weinstein sees two only options.

You can either continue them to try to avoid the aftermath, and in doing so you incrementally make things worse and worse, or you can end them and you will have to deal with the aftermath, but you break the cycle, he said. What President Biden did was he made the decision to break the cycle.

I think we all expected the can to be kicked down the road. If you look at history, that was the bet to make, Weinstein added. The reason for that is precisely what were seeing right now: There was going to be a political backlash.

While anti-Afghan invasion sentiment was scarce in Washington in 2001 when then-President George W. Bush unseated the Taliban, progressives became more fervent throughout the Bush years and subsequent administrations in their calls for a withdrawal, urging both former Presidents Obama and Trump to put a stop to what many perceived to be a misguided mission by the United States that had run its course.

On Tuesday, in an impassioned defense of his decision, Biden made clear he was sympathetic to that view.

Leaving August the 31st is not due to an arbitrary deadline. It was designed to save American lives, the president said from the State Dining Room late in the afternoon. I was not going to extend this forever war. And I was not extending a forever exit."

The speech was intended to give Americans a sober look at Biden's international agenda, one that puts a premium on stopping overseas combateven when politically inconvenient.

Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires for a reason, said Cullen Tiernan, a Marine Corps veteran and former campaign aide to former Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardProgressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Hillicon Valley: US has made progress on cyber but more needed, report says | Democrat urges changes for 'problematic' crypto language in infrastructure bill | Facebook may be forced to unwind Giphy acquisition YouTube rival Rumble strikes deals with Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Greenwald MORE (D-Hawaii), who ran on a presidential platform of ending foreign wars.

We have been there for 20 years, investing our lives, treasure and future into a corrupt Afghan government that clearly did not have the confidence or support of the Afghan people, Tiernan added.

After operations erupted into a disorderly scene in Kabul over the past two weeks, many expressed renewed frustration that the United States was involved in Afghanistan to begin with. That sentiment was bolstered by images and news reports of evacuation delays and the tragic killing of 13 American troops by ISIS militants.

Among progressives, many view the entire war as a wasteful act.

"Ending wars is good actually, tweeted Rep. Ilhan OmarIlhan OmarProgressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Ominous warnings from Afghanistan's last men standing Photos of the Week: Afghanistan evacuees, Paralympics and the French fire MORE (D-Minn.), a crusader against a hawkish approach to military intervention.

We never should have begun America's longest war in the first place a war of endless suffering and needless death, added Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). A top priority right now must be raising the refugee cap and assisting as many Afghans as possible with resettlement. My office stands ready to help.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOcasio-Cortez calls on Senate to reject Rahm Emanuel as Japan ambassador Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal On The Money Companies consider making unvaccinated workers pay MORE (D-N.Y.) hosted a town hall on Friday after the fatal bombing at the Kabul airport. Earlier in the week, she and Rep. Barbara LeeBarbara Jean LeeProgressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Overnight Defense & National Security America's longest war ends Juan Williams: Biden is right on Afghanistan MORE (D-Calif) the only member of Congress to vote against the Bush-era war act sent a joint letter to Biden asking him to allow more individuals into the country through the Refugee Admissions Program.

While the decision to withdraw early into Bidens administration was applauded by the left, there is also a sizable contingent speaking out about the way the exit was handled.

Trump and other Republicans strongly condemned the presidents end-game strategy and sought to portray him as incapable of skillfully handling a tough military decision other presidents didnt want to touch. Multiple GOP senators and the Republican National Committee called for his resignation. Sen. Ben SasseBen SasseRomney blasts Biden over those left in Afghanistan: 'Bring them home' Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal Biden: 'No deadline' for Americans still in Afghanistan who want to leave MORE (R-Neb.) said Biden was displaying cowardice and incompetence.

And Bidens approval rating took a hit. In a Morning Consult survey released on Monday, 49 percent of voters polled said they disapprove of the presidents job performance.

Still, some progressives discount critiques of ill preparation as disingenuous, claiming things were never going to be easy towards the very end. Biden appeared to agree with that assessment in his remarks.

I take responsibility for the decision, he reiterated, a line hes used in previous national addresses. Now some say we should have started mass evacuations sooner and couldn't this have been done in a more orderly manner? I respectfully disagree.

Theres also talk among Democrats and Republicans about the optics of praising the effort that has left somewhere between 100 and 200 Americans still in the country, according to the latest estimate by Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenAlmost 24,000 Afghans have entered US since Kabul airlift began Advocates 'demoralized' as 100K allies remain stranded in Afghanistan Rice, McMaster call for help removing orphans from Afghanistan: report MORE. Biden also tried to assuage those concerns.

The bottom line: 90 percent of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave, he said during his nearly 30-minute remarks. And for those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to get them out if they want to come out.

The focus on evacuating more people from Kabul is likely to escalate as the federal government juggles several top priorities heading into September. The degree to which Democrats will be united around a refugee strategy remains to be seen, some said.

So far, the party has sustained differences in opinion over policy versus process during the withdrawal stages, with progressives stressing the importance of the former and moderates taking issue with the latter.

The Democratic Party needs to be valuing both positions equally at the same time, said Emily Amick, a lawyer and former senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerProgressives launch campaign to exclude gas from Congress's clean electricity program The major emitter that's missing from climate negotiations Polluters would help foot the bill for conservation under Democratic spending proposal MORE (D-N.Y.) I dont think the party can choose one or the other. They have to choose both.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives breathe sigh of relief after Afghan withdrawal | TheHill - The Hill

September 9 Crucial Conversation: Why progressives should be working to keep state-sponsored sports gambling out of NC – ncpolicywatch.com

(Photo illustration by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Join us Thursday Sept. 9 at 3:30 pm for a very special Crucial Conversation:

Why progressives should be working to keep state-sponsored sports gambling out of North Carolina

Featuring Les Bernal, Executive Director of the national advocacy group, Stop Predatory Gambling.

Click here to register.

The North Carolina Senate recently took surprisingly swift action to advance legislation that would bring legalized sports betting to our state. In a break with precedent, Senate leader Phil Berger allowed the bill to come to a vote on the Senate floor despite the opposition of a majority of the Senate Republican caucus. The bill ultimately passed 26-19 and is now before the state House of Representatives.

Thus far, the main opposition to the legislation has come from religious conservatives, but as Les Bernal, the veteran executive director of the national advocacy group Stop Predatory Gambling, argues persuasively, this should also be a fight for progressives who care about tax fairness, racial justice, consumer protection and preventing the exploitation of children.

Prior to joining Stop Predatory Gambling, Bernal served as a Chief of Staff in the Massachusetts State Senate and worked as a campaign strategist for more than forty federal and state campaigns.

Please join us as Bernal provides an update on where this issue stands and why state-supported corporate gambling presents such a pernicious threat to community well-being in North Carolina.

Click here to register.

Dont miss this very special event.

When: Thursday September 9 at 3:30 p.m.

Where: Online; pre-register from the comfort of your home or office.

Suggested contribution: $10 (click here to support NC Policy Watch)

Questions?? Contact Rob Schofield at 919-861-2065 or [emailprotected]

Read this article:
September 9 Crucial Conversation: Why progressives should be working to keep state-sponsored sports gambling out of NC - ncpolicywatch.com

Overnight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Progressives wage ‘no gas’ campaign | TheHill – The Hill

Welcome to Wednesdays Overnight Energy & Environment,your source for the latest news focused on energy, the environment and beyond. Subscribe here: thehill.com/newsletter-signup.

Today were looking at progressive advocates pushing to keep the gas industry out of a federal clean electricity program, OPECs response to U.S. calls for more production and a United Nations report on the future of the climate.

For The Hill, were Rachel Frazin and Zack Budryk. Write to us with tips: rfrazin@thehill.com and zbudryk@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @RachelFrazin and @BudrykZack.

Lets jump in.

Dems face pressure over clean power program

Progressives are pushing to try to keep natural gas out of a Democratic proposal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector.

A number of progressive and environmental groups on Wednesday launched what they called a no gas campaign to pressure Democrats not to include fossil fuel in their clean electricity payment program in which power providers would be incentivized to switch to clean sources.

The 15 organizations also got support from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) in their push.

This is our moment to turbocharge the transition to a green, just economy, and the Clean Energy Standard can play a key role but it needs to be as ambitious as possible on renewables, and it needs to exclude gas, Bowman said in a statement.

The background: Natural gas is less carbon-intensive when burned than other fossil fuels like oil and coal, but it still contributes climate-warming emissions to the atmosphere.

The details behind the clean electricity payment program haven't been revealed yet. The program is modeled after a similar idea called a clean electricity standard that would have required a certain percentage of power to come from clean sources.

Democrats are banking on the program for a significant percentage of the emissions cuts from their infrastructure bills, saying that the policy and clean energy tax credits are together responsible for more than 40 percent of the emissions cuts they hope to achieve overall.

The package will have to be negotiated with both the left and right wings of the party, which hold razor-thin majorities in Congress, so its not clear how the debate will unfold.

Read more about the push here.

A MESSAGE FROM API

The American Petroleum Institute released a new analysis of the natural gas and oil industrys impact on the U.S. economy. Learn how the industry is powering each states economy here.

OPEC defies White House on oil output

A group of oil-producing countries known collectively as OPEC+ on Wednesday said it would move ahead with a previously planned increase in its output despite a call from the Biden administration to increase it even more.

In a statement, the coalition said it would reconfirm a plan approved in July to add 400,000 barrels per day to its monthly overall production until pandemic-related cuts are phased out.

The move comes in defiance of the U.S. which is not a party to the group as the Biden administration asked the group last month to add more oil to the market to temper prices.

The administrations request: "While OPEC+ recently agreed to production increases, these increases will not fully offset previous production cuts that OPEC+ imposed during the pandemic until well into 2022," national security adviser Jake SullivanJake SullivanOvernight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Progressives wage 'no gas' campaign OPEC moves ahead with planned production increase despite White House call for more Seven San Diego-area families evacuated from Afghanistan after summer trip abroad MORE said in a statement at the time. "At a critical moment in the global recovery, this is simply not enough."

The Biden administrations calldrew criticism from conservatives and progressives alike, with the former decrying the need to depend on foreign oil and the latter arguing that the country shouldnt encourage more fossil fuel production of any kind.

Read more about the announcement here.

DISASTERS UP, BUT GLOBAL DEATHS DOWN

Climate change is leading to more weather-related disasters but is resulting in fewer deaths, according to a report released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Tuesday.

According to the WMO's report, a weather-related disaster occurred every day on average between 1970 and 2019, killing 2 million people and costing $3.64 trillion in losses.

"The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and improved reporting. But, thanks to improved early warnings and disaster management, the number of deaths decreased almost three-fold," the WMO said in apress release.

In the 50 years that the WMO observed, the hazards that resulted in the most human loss were droughts, storms, floods and extreme temperatures.

Storms and floods were responsible for the most economic loss. Three of the top 10 costliest storms hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma occurred in 2017. These three storms accounted for 35 percent of the total economic loss caused by the top 10 disasters observed from 1970 to 2019.

More than 91 percent of reported deaths occurred in developing countries.

The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change, WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said.

Read more about the report here.

PRESIDENTIAL SURVEY

President BidenJoe BidenHouse panel advances 8B defense bill Democrats defeat GOP effort to declare 'lost confidence' in Biden after Afghanistan withdrawal House committee moves to block private funds for National Guard deployments MORE plans to travel to Louisiana on Friday to meet with state and local officials and view the destruction caused by Hurricane Ida.

The White House said in a statement that Biden will travel to New Orleans to survey storm damage from Hurricane Ida and meet with State and local leaders from impacted communities.

Plans for the visit were first reported byThe Advocate on Wednesday.

Up until now: Bidenhas received regular briefings on the storm. He met virtually with Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) and other state and local officials Monday and led a call with energy sector leaders about restoring power following the storm Tuesday.

Timing the visit: White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiWarren to campaign for Newsom ahead of California recall Overnight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Progressives wage 'no gas' campaign Biden to travel to Louisiana Friday, survey Ida damage MORE told reporters Tuesday that Biden was open to traveling to the region to survey the damage of the hurricane, but added that he was mindful of not taking up resources on the ground.

Psaki added during a briefing Wednesday that Biden would not be making the trip if it would take away from relief efforts.

This is a trip that is being planned in close coordination with leaders on the ground to ensure its the right time together, Psaki said. We are not going to go to any part of the state or visit any community where we would take away from relief and restoration efforts.

POWERLESS

A Louisiana energy company said this week that restoring power to the thousands of households that have lost electricity due to Hurricane Ida could be a "weeks long process."

"Though we would love nothing more than to restore power to all members at this time, without repairs to transmission and transformer poles, that isn't possible. Also until damaged infrastructure is repaired, we cannot begin to replace distribution poles and lines and estimated times of restoration are not possible," the DEMCO energy company wrote on its Facebook page.

"Our message is that this will be a weeks long process and members should make plans now for their health, safety and comfort," the company said.

House panel to mark up reconciliation proposal

The House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Rep. Ral Grijalva (D-Ariz.), will mark upits proposal for reconciliation spending on Thursday.

The bill, which comes from a $25.6 billion allocation, also contains revenue raisers, so its total spending is expected to be around $31 billion.

Key provisions include:

GOP response: As expected, Republicans are not pleased with the legislation.

Its a bad bill and its bad timing, Ranking Member Bruce WestermanBruce Eugene WestermanOvernight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Progressives wage 'no gas' campaign Push for Civilian Climate Corps highlights underlying obstacles to restoring public lands Honoring America's real VIPs MORE (R-Ark.) told reporters. With everything going on in the world today, I think the last thing the American people want to see is a congressional committee coming together to mark up a huge spending bill.

He specifically said that Republicans would propose amendments that remove Democratic provisions like one that provides money for a trust that preserves Presidio National Park in San Francisco and another that aims to prevent mining in an area of the Tonto National Forest called Oak Flat.

The GOP lawmaker also criticized the inclusion of funds for the Civilian Climate Corps, saying it would provide competition for the private sector and citing difficulties employers are having in hiring people.

Westerman noted a personal connection to the issue, saying his grandfather worked for theDepression-era Civilian Conservation Corps.

My grandfather worked for the CCC and he didnt have very good things to say about it but at the time it was the only job he could get, the lawmaker said.

WHAT WERE READING

A MESSAGE FROM API

The American Petroleum Institute released a new analysis of the natural gas and oil industrys impact on the U.S. economy. Learn how the industry is powering each states economy here.

FROM THE HILLS OPINION PAGES

Electric school bus investments could drive US vehicle electrification, writesWorld Resources Institutes' U.S. director Doug Lashof

ICYMI

Thats it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hills energy & environment page for the latest news and coverage. Well see you Thursday.

More here:
Overnight Energy & Environment Presented by the American Petroleum Institute Progressives wage 'no gas' campaign | TheHill - The Hill