Mediaboss Marketing

The fight to increase the minimum wage continues to pose a challenge for Democrats as progressive voices dispute analysis that a $15 rate would lead to fewer jobs and a higher deficit.

The findings by the Congressional Budget Office, released on Monday, outlined possible scenarios under President Joe Biden's plan to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025.

Biden's Raise the Wage Act of 2021 would benefit 27 million workers and lift 900,000 people out of poverty with a net increase in wages over a decade of $333 billion, the CBO said.

However, higher wages would raise prices for consumers and employers would move to automate more roles, leading to about 1.4 million fewer jobs by 2025.

This amounts to a 0.9 percent decrease in employment. There would also be a budget deficit increase of $54 billion over the next 10 years, because of higher government costs through unemployment insurance and health care spending.

As Democrats push to include the increase in their $1.9 trillion relief bill, the report may turn off moderate lawmakers in the party.

Republicans such as Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina have seized on the CBO report as evidence that a minimum wage increase would kill jobs. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) tweeted: "Washington needs to be putting forward solutions that will get Americans back to work not putting them out of a job."

After the White House described the projected job losses as "overstated," however, California Rep. Ro Khanna pushed back at the federal agency, tweeting: "This CBO analysis is not by leading economists in the field."

Referring to the economist Arindrajit Dube, who disputes that a higher minimum wage hurts job numbers, Khanna added: "Consider @arindube work, recent studies showing the impact is more HS degrees required, or that wage growth & spending would create more jobs than lost. False pretense of expertise."

His tweet was shared by entrepreneur Joe Sandberg, who told his 143,000 followers: "Agree with @RoKhannaa higher minimum wage is good for the economy, good for business, good for entrepreneurship, good for workers and long, long overdue!

"In the end, a $15 minimum wage would raise earnings of low-wage workers, reduce inequality, and have significant and direct fiscal effects."

Rep. Andy Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, shared an article about the impact a higher minimum wage might have on job numbers but added a message of support for the move.

Levin tweeted: "Congress has the opportunity not only to get folks the one-time resources needed to overcome the pandemic, but also to give 27 million Americans a forever raise and lift 1.3 million adults and kids out of poverty with a $15/hr minimum wage."

The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, also took aim at the CBO's projections, saying in a statement: "We believe the CBO's assumptions on the scale of job loss are just wrong." It added that the figures were "inappropriately inflated relative to what cutting-edge economics literature would indicate."

The graphic below provided by Statista shows minimum wage levels across the U.S.

When contacted for comment, the CBO referred Newsweek to sections of its report that described how, over the past two years, it had developed the capacity to analyze "the behavioral effects for minimum-wage legislation."

Its latest analysis took into account the impact of a higher minimum wage on businesses, prices, income distribution and employment.

"The set of affected programs is broader than those included in some other analyses; for example, this report includes effects on spending for major health care programs, unemployment compensation and Social Security," it said.

Raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 is a key ambition for progressive Democrats such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who helped implement a $15 minimum in Seattle in 2014.

In an interview with MSNBC, she emphasized that the plan would lift people out of poverty, despite its critics.

Jayapal said: "We want to make sure people understand we've got to get it across the finish line," adding that Democrats would "have to fight" to get the bill through the House and the Senate.

Newsweek has contacted the Congressional Progressive Caucus for comment.

Continue reading here:
Progressives Dispute CBO Analysis That $15 Minimum Wage Will Hurt Job Numbers - Newsweek

A group of liberal Zionists based in Solano County is organizing against what its members see as an effort within the progressive wing of the state Democratic Party to ostracize supporters of Israel.

The Progressive Zionists of California announced Jan. 26 that it had launched a petition and letter-writing campaign imploring the states Democratic Party leaders to oppose what it called dangerous litmus tests.

PZC is a nascent activist group whose co-founders are residents of Vallejo and Fairfield.

The groups latest actions follow a controversial statement and questionnaire sent out in December by the Progressive Delegates Network to delegate hopefuls. The document focused unduly on the Israel/Palestine conflict, PZC activists said.

The PDN document sent in advance of a since-completed election of delegates for each of the states 80 Assembly districts devoted two of its five affirmations to topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as reported in J. last month.

Critics have called the form a step in pushing the Democratic Party to the far left, and are afraid efforts like it will erode historic support for Israel in a manner some said is anti-Jewish. Some compared it to what former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a longtime supporter of Palestinian rights and critic of Israel, attempted to do to his party in Britain.

We, in the California Democratic Party, spend more time on Israel/Palestine resolutions than on any other issue and have been doing so since 2017, said Susan George, one of PZCs co-founders. Though the Vallejo resident is not Jewish, she said she is concerned about a growing anti-Israel narrative in the party.

In a statement, the PZC said its efforts were a necessity in response to demonizing anti-Zionist rhetoric that has become a central organizing principle in the Progressive Caucus.

California Democrats should know, the PZC statement said, that since 2017 more time has been spent in the resolutions and platform committees on Israel and Palestine than on any other issue of importance, including climate change, economic and racial justice, health care, housing and womens rights.

Democrats for Israel Los Angeles also has been critical of the PDN of late, issuing a statement last month opposing candidate forums that have been organized by groups such as PDN, Jewish Voice for Peace and Muslim Allies.

The L.A.-based groups statement called JVP, which is headquartered in Oakland, a fringe group that is the only self-identified national Jewish American organization that has called for the destruction of Israel and removal of any Jewish character from Israel by creating a single Jewish-minority state.

As for the candidate forums, the statement said, Rather than reaching out and building bridges, these events do little other than reinforcing confirmation biases of activist echo chambers.

Despite supporting many PDN policy aims, Oakland City Council member Dan Kalb said he was taken aback by the forms apparent focus on Israel. Kalb, in his ninth year on the council, said he planned to forward the issue to the California Legislative Jewish Caucus in Sacramento.

The form asked potential progressive delegates to pledge to never restrict the right to boycott, divest from or sanction countries that engage in routine human rights violations. Another affirmation referenced refugees right of return to their ancestral homelands, a call often made by Palestinians and their supporters. Those seeking to become delegates agreed, by signing the form, that they would support those stances and vote to endorse candidates that support these issues (though a comment box was provided for those who had any concerns regarding your ability to adhere to the affirmations).

It seemed so very odd that we had a questionnaire two-fifths of which concentrated on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, said Kalb, a progressive state Democrat Party delegate for more than 25 years. The Progressive Caucus is supposed to promote a broad range of progressive policies to work on, and are picking one international issue to spend 40 percent of their work time on. That seems very odd and it doesnt make sense to me.

Other local Jewish delegates, such as Soli Alpert of Berkeley, disagreed. A delegate in the 15th District who has been endorsed by PDN, Alpert said he saw nothing wrong with the questionnaire. The 23-year-old also said theres nothing unusual about California Democrats engaging in discussions about foreign policy.

We endorse federal policies, he pointed out. The debate over what our relationship with Israel should be is totally relevant and one we should have. We spend more money on Israel than on nearly any other country in the world.

While he acknowledged the existence of antisemitism on the left and that maybe we spend more time on [the Israel/Palestinian issue] than we should, he said they do so because its an important one.

He insisted there is no effort within the state party to squeeze out Zionists.

Theyre not trying to exclude any Jews from the party. Its not a conspiracy against Jews, Alpert said. I understand peoples concerns. But to not endorse people who disagree with you politically, well, thats politics. Atrocities done against Palestinians by Israelis in my name as a Jew have to be opposed.

As of Feb. 8, the PZCs petition had received 177 signatures, according to its website. The petition is called Act Now: Tell CADEM leadership to oppose dangerous litmus tests. CADEM stands for California Assembly District Election Meetings.

The PZC also sent letters to California Democratic Party leaders (such as current chair Rusty Hicks and chair candidate Delaine Eastin), executive board members of the partys Progressive Caucus and a number of organizers within the Progressive Delegates Network.

George and fellow PZC co-founder Matthew Finkelstein said the possible erosion of Democratic support for Israel represents a wider threat.

They say, As goes California, so goes the nation, George said. Thats where theyre trying to steer the national party as a whole in this direction. Because so many people are silent and afraid to engage on the issue, the whole party is vulnerable. Its time for the party leadership to act.

Kalb fumed at the thought that support for Israel could blacklist someone from liberal politics in California.

No one is going to tell me Im not progressive just because I believe in a two-state solution, and no ones going to push me out of the progressive wing of my party because I want to see a fair resolution to the Israel/Palestinian issue, he said.

Though he said he agrees with the Progressive Caucus on a number of issues, Kalb acknowledged the existence of a subset of people who are hyper-focused on attacking Israel. It takes away from the items the state party should be focused on.

See the original post:
California progressives get pushback on Zionism 'litmus test' J. - The Jewish News of Northern California

The euphoria that Democrats felt in defeating Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDOJ to seek resignations of most Trump-appointed US attorneys: report Trump attorney withdraws request to not hold impeachment trial on Saturday Kinzinger in op-ed calls on GOP senators to convict Trump in impeachment trial MORE was significantly tempered by their surprising loss of House seats and a failure on election night to take back the Senate. As is often the case in politics, this disappointment provoked finger-pointing by both progressives and moderates. Rep. Abigail SpanbergerAbigail Davis SpanbergerWhat I learned in 19 weeks of working with progressive Democrats The Memo: Ohio Dem says many in party 'can't understand' working-class concerns Hillicon Valley: Intelligence agency gathers US smartphone location data without warrants, memo says | Democrats seek answers on impact of Russian hack on DOJ, courts | Airbnb offers Biden administration help with vaccine distribution MORE (D-Va.), who narrowly escaped defeat, started things off by saying, We need to not ever use the word socialist or socialism ever again. We lost good members because of that.

Other moderates, and many political analysts, said the term defund the police was responsible for some losses or narrow victories. They argued that Republicans successfully cast the most vulnerable Democrats as socialists and tied them to liberal ideas such as Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and cutting police budgets. Said Rep. Kurt SchraderWalter (Kurt) Kurt SchraderWhat I learned in 19 weeks of working with progressive Democrats Why are millions still flowing into the presidential inauguration? Democrats poised to impeach Trump again MORE (D-Ore.): Democrats messaging is terrible. When the far-left gets all the media attention, voters get scared.

The partys progressive wing didnt take this blame lying down, saying their message won the election because it stimulated record turnout among minority and young voters. Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said, We need a Democratic Party that stands for something more than being anti-Trump.

Whos right? Both sides are. There is no doubt that calls to defund the police hurt Democrats badly. The Biden campaign realized that. In a speech in Pittsburgh, Joe BidenJoe BidenButtigieg: Officials consider negative COVID-19 test requirement on domestic flights DOJ to seek resignations of most Trump-appointed US attorneys: report Kinzinger in op-ed calls on GOP senators to convict Trump in impeachment trial MORE said he is actually for additional funding for police training. The speech helped the campaign put together an effective TV ad that played heavily for 10 days. But, down the stretch, Republican messaging pounded the idea that defunding the police would reduce police presence and make communities less safe. Republican messaging also was effective in scaring people about socialism. For swing voters, that can be an effective tactic.

Democratic messaging did not effectively rebut this charge. Why not have an ad quoting Republicans in 1935 trying to scare voters by calling Social Security a socialist program and quoting Republicans in 1965 calling Medicare a socialist program? Social Security and Medicare are probably the governments two most popular programs and voters would get the message that Republicans were trying to needlessly scare them.

Progressives are right when they say that the espousal of bold programs helped to bring out the partys growing base of minority and young voters. They can point to Georgia, where high turnout among minority and young voters in Januarys special elections finally gave Democrats control of the Senate again.

Yet even improving messaging wont solve all of the Democratic Partys problems. Is it possible to stop infighting before it tears us apart and robs us of the opportunity to take advantage of the implosion of the Republican Party? I believe it is, if both wings of the party would simply realize they have the same goals and aspirations for the American people: health care coverage for all; a cleaner/safer environment; a $15 an hour minimum wage; a reduction in income inequality; a fairer, more effective justice system; and ensuring every Americans right to vote.

The difference between the partys two wings lies in how to achieve those aspirations. But the best way to resolve these differences is for both sides to find compromises, rather than insisting on ideological purity.

Last August, I received a call from Meredith Rose Burak, a member of the board of The Sanders Institute, a think tank started by the family of Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersCBO says minimum wage would increase deficit B The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by TikTok - Senate trial of Trump to dominate this week This week: Senate starts Trump trial as Democrats draft coronavirus bill MORE (I-Vt.). She was spearheading an initiative to help Democrats take back the Senate, focusing on races where a moderate Democrat had prevailed in the primary over a progressive. I agreed to help raise money to directly communicate with young Sanders supporters who otherwise wouldnt have been engaged. For 19 weeks I was immersed in Sanders world. Now, I was an avid Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhat I learned in 19 weeks of working with progressive Democrats Poll: Biden notches higher approval rating in Texas than Gov. Abbott In Marjorie Taylor Greene, a glimpse of the future MORE supporter in 2016 and with Joe Biden from the day he announced, but I have always admired Sanders passion and honesty. I began to see the value of fighting for our highest aspirations and not settling if there is a chance to get it all.

A typical example of this is raising the minimum wage. As Pennsylvanias governor, I felt great when I signed a bill raising the states minimum wage by $2 an hour, knowing that I was giving over 400,000 Pennsylvanians a $4,000 yearly raise and putting more spendable income into our regional economy. Although a $15 minimum wage is certainly fair, I thought we had no chance of virtually doubling the federal minimum in one piece of legislation. But the pandemic hit and Ms. Burak reminded me that many of our essential workers are paid far less than $15 an hour for risking their lives while working. She persuaded me that my position was wrong. We shouldnt try to reach $15 an hour with wage bumps every two years when $15 is barely livable for a family of one parent and two children. It is right, and doable.

We argued over the Green New Deal. I called it impractical, and she said that such a stance shuts down any discussion and undermines the bills purpose. We cannot move forward, as a party or as a nation, by drawing a line in the sand and rejecting other ideas. Our country calls for bold ideas, and we grow stronger through discussing them. We are a nation that grew strong on ideas that once were considered impractical.

What I learned from discussing our positions on various issues is that the Democratic Party needs both wings to talk to each other, to discuss differing ideas, so that each side understands the other and we can move forward on areas where we agree and continue to argue for positions where we still differ. If we communicate, were likely to find some merit in what each is saying.

We also need to convince both wings of the party that they cannot insist on 100 percent purity for our candidates. Our party must remain a big tent. In 2006, when Republican Sen. Rick Santorum was running for reelection, he was a top-heavy favorite to win. Polls showed that two strongly pro-choice Democrats had no chance of beating him. A few Democratic leaders asked me to convince these potential candidates not to run so that Bob CaseyRobert (Bob) Patrick CaseyWhat I learned in 19 weeks of working with progressive Democrats OVERNIGHT ENERGY:DOJ to let companies pay for environmental projects again to reduce fines | House Democrats reintroduce green energy tax package Republican 2024 hopefuls draw early battle lines for post-Trump era MORE, a pro-life Catholic, could run against Santorum with a clear shot of winning. I am strongly pro-choice, but taking back the Senate and electing a senator with whom I agree on most issues was more important to me. Casey went on to defeat Santorum and has been a great advocate for progressive positions. Is he still pro-life? Yes, but as he has explained, he has done things to help women and children before and after birth.

So, we can do this, Democrats. Think of our goals and realize that getting 70 percent of a goal is better than nothing. Maybe we should get The Squad and our Blue Dogs to work together on an important project for 19 weeks. They might just find out that their differences arent as significant as they thought. In politics, you cant always get what you want, but you just might get what America needs.

Edward G. Rendell was the 45th governor of Pennsylvania. He is a former mayor of Philadelphia and former district attorney in that city. He served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 presidential election. Follow him on Twitter @GovEdRendell.

Go here to read the rest:
What I learned in 19 weeks of working with progressive Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

By TCR Staff | February 8, 2021

A number of progressives appear to be heading toward a showdown with President Joe Biden over a new commission that will study changes to the Supreme Court, underscoring the tricky politics at play for an administration that is aiming for bipartisanship but also hoping to retain support from the left flank, reports USA Today. Biden proposed the commission in October to head off a push by liberals to expand the number of justices on the nine-member court an effort prompted by the quick confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the Nov. 3 election. Her narrow approval gave conservatives a 6-3 advantage, the most lopsided split since the 1930s. Several progressives said they remain hopeful about the commissions work but are also sounding early alarms over its composition and timeline. The panel itself was widely seen as a way for Biden to punt on a proposal that has been politically poisonous since President D. Franklin Roosevelts failed attempt to pack the court in his second term.

The pressure for some kind of overhaul has not come exclusively from left-leaning groups. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under Obama, said during a recent Brookings Institution event that federal courts badly need reforms and asserted that Democrats are uncomfortable with using their power in a way that Republicans have not been. Expanding the size of the Supreme Court wont win Republican support and it has already made some centrist Democrats squeamish. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., a key swing vote, said in October he opposes adding justices.

View post:
Progressives and Biden Square Off on Supreme Court Expansion - Crime Report

The progressive political action committee No Excuses has started a campaign to try to oust conservative U.S. Senate Democrats Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, and Krysten Sinema, of Arizona.

Politico reports the PAC is starting to search for candidates to challenge incumbent Democrats they say are standing in the way of ambitious action to end the coronavirus pandemic and revive the economy.

In an email to supporters, the PAC says, Help us find the next AOC to replace Manchin and Sinema.

I will leave it up to the political wags in the Grand Canyon State to weigh in on the chances of a successful primary against Sinema, but it is a safe bet in the Mountain State that Manchin cannot be taken out in a Democratic Party primary when he is up for reelection in 2024.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents the 14th Congressional District of New York, an urban district of New York City where 40% of the residents are immigrants. The district voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, some areas by as much as 70 or 80 points.

That is a long way from West Virginia, but it did get me thinking about where progressive Democrats are in our state based on the last election.

The New York Times put together an interactive map with 2020 presidential election results in 1,922 of the 3,143 counties in 42 states. It includes a specific breakdown of counties, and even voting precincts, in West Virginia.

Bidens limited success in West Virginia was almost exclusively in the states few urban areas. He dominated Charlestons West Side, where he received 85% of the vote in one precinct. Biden beat Trump by 64 points in Institute and 58 points in the neighborhoods around the state Capitol Complex.

Bidens best performance in Huntington was the district between Hal Greer Boulevard and 20th street, where nine out of 10 voters supported him.

The map shows Beckleys voting precincts were divided between Trump and Biden, although Biden did get 93% of the vote in one precinct. Biden won by 67 points in a downtown Bluefield precinct.

One exception to the urban trend was in Southern West Virginia. Trump won McDowell County, but Biden got more votes in a couple of precincts along U.S. 52 between Welch and the Mercer County line.

Wood County is Republican and, there, Biden managed to win the downtown only by a couple of votes. In the Northern Panhandle, Biden carried downtown Wheeling and one precinct in Edgewood.

Biden had some success in the I-79 Corridor in north-central West Virginia. He carried Morgantown, winning eight of the citys precincts by an average of 38 points. He also picked up a few precincts in Fairmont.

Biden split with Trump in Martinsburg. In Shepherdstown, Biden outdistanced Trump 87% to 11%. Biden got 77% of the vote in Harpers Ferry, but he won just narrowly in Charles Town. Biden also won two precincts in Elkins and one in the Canaan Valley of Tucker County.

Even though Biden outperformed Trump significantly in many of the urban areas of the state, Trump still won statewide by 39 points. The New York Times map shows where the progressives are in West Virginia they are the sources of the blue geysers in an otherwise red state.

However, the map also shows there simply are not enough of them to make a significant political impact statewide, and clearly not enough for a progressive Democrat to take out Joe Manchin.

Hoppy Kercheval is the host of Talkline, on MetroNews.

More:
Hoppy Kercheval: Progressive Dems will never oust Manchin (Opinion) - Charleston Gazette-Mail