Mediaboss Marketing

There are plenty of takeaways from this weeks GameStop/Reddit/Robinhood saga.

For your sake (and mine), I would prefer not to delve into the financial weeds here. Sure, Ive watched The Wolf of Wall Street twice and Ive read 3.5 stories on shorting but that does not a financial wizard make.

The debacle did cause quite a stir on Twitter, though, and thats where my expertise comes in. I have one main piece of advice: Conservatives, stop being so thirsty for progressives praise their hatred of you means youre never going to get it.

When Robinhood stopped its users from trading GameStop stocks, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) tweeted that the move was unacceptable.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) retweeted the AOCs statement with the reply, Fully agree.

Many naive onlookers thought this was a rare moment of bipartisan harmony, reaching across the aisle, extending the olive branch, etc.

But alas, it was not to be. Instead, AOC reminded Ted Cruz in her typical drama-queen fashion that she despises him.

I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where theres common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out, she tweeted. Happy to work w/almost any other GOP that arent trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.

As always, AOCs hysterics launched a thousand breathless headlines.

Politico: You almost had me murdered: AOC rebukes Cruzs shared interest in trading oversight. The Cut: AOC tells Ted Cruz to Take a Seat. New York Daily News: AOC torches Cruz for trying to get her killed after he backs push for WallStreet reform.

On its face, her latest accusation is hilariously hypocritical, especially given the Democrats history of violent rhetoric and action.

Cruz did not try to have her murdered. He objected to the electoral votes on Jan. 6, much like, say, Massachusetts U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern in 2017, or then-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. in 2001.

Perhaps Sen. Rand Paul can enlighten AOC why blaming politicians for their fringe supporters is a bad idea. Maybe he can start with the story of the Congressional baseball practice and then segue into the time his neighbor broke his ribs while Paul was cutting his lawn in Kentucky.

But my real frustration with this entire back-and-forth is not with AOC.

Its with Ted Cruz.

As Karol Markowicz, a columnist from the New York Post, replied to the seasoned senator: Why tweet that you fully agree with AOC? Who is Ted Cruz trying to impress? She hates you, shes open about it, stop being so thirsty. That goes for every conservative trying to catch AOCs eye. Stop giving her so much power. Enough.

The word thirsty is defined by Urban Dictionary as too eager to get something or desperate.

Now, am I thirsty on Twitter? You bet! In fact, Ive been trying to get verified on the app for years.

But Im the peanut gallery. Ted Cruz is a U.S. senator, a former candidate for president. Doesnt he have bigger fish to fry than bonding with AOC over GameStop?

Between the Keystone Pipeline, the border, coronavirus lockdowns, election integrity and 2022, Cruz and his fellow conservatives might want to give their keyboards a break.

Leave the Twitter dunks and meme wars to those of us who dont cash paychecks from the American taxpayers.

Furthermore, if youre going to tweet, at least know your audience. While Donald Trump spent plenty of time on Jack Dorseys app, he didnt try to appease his haters. If anything, he trolled the left knowing they were going to hate him even more.

But Trump, unlike some of these Republican leaders, welcomed the idea that people loathed him. In politics (and in life) you have a big edge if you can just accept the fact some of your detractors will never like you.

Some people will always think youre racist or evil simply because you challenge their ideas.

But most Republicans, despite the Democrats glaring disdain for them, perpetually want their Sally Fields Oscar moment in the sun.

Its never going to happen. Listen closely Republican pols: They hate you they really hate you.

The sooner you accept it, the better off we will all be.

Cruz and company need to stop reaching for that strange new respect from Hollywood and the media and the Democrat stars.

Remember John McCain? When he was running in 2008 against more conservative Republicans, the press raved about the maverick. But once McCain got the GOP nod and was running against their hero Obama, the press turned on a dime.

It was ever thus.

Republicans are never going to get chairs at the cool kids table and thats OK. The nerd table is way more fun, anyway.

More here:
Curley: Conservatives need to cut out their thirst for progressive approval - Boston Herald

Progressives Democrats have expressed skepticism that Bidens calls for utility and bipartisanship on a coronavirus relief deal will bear legislative fruit. Moderates have called for patience to allow more time for centrists to come on board. Key unemployment benefits expire in mid-March.

Both Jayapal and fellow progressive Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), who joined the event, had little appetite for bipartisanship.

This is not a normal time. Were trying to act like its normal, Jayapal said. I have only limited tolerance for a Republican party that wrings its hands and talks about unity and moving forward. We had an insurrection where their leader of their party incited that insurrection and many of them continue to support him.

Without getting a bold, progressive agenda through, Jones said Thursday he thinks that Democrats will lose a slim House majority in 2022.

Theres great urgency around that, Jones said.

Despite Jayapals calls for further action, she lauded Bidens agenda so far, calling it the most progressive platform yet that weve seen in a long time. Biden has moved leftward since the beginning of his campaign, with Jayapal and other progressives pushing him to go further.

We feel very good about where hes started, Jayapal said. Hes gone a far way from when he started his campaign to where he is as president. I do think he understands the crises and the fact that this is a history-making time and a legacy-making time for him, and frankly for our country.

Jayapal was one of more than 50 House progressives, spearheaded by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who wrote a letter to Biden Thursday calling for recurring checks throughout the pandemic. The Washington lawmaker also said Thursday she would send a letter Thursday alongside Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) and Jason Crow (D-Colo.) saying that Bidens move to end Department of Justice use of private prisons should extend to private immigration detention facilities.

Jayapal also said shes pushing Biden to cancel student loan debt, a move she said the president is trying to determine whether he has the power to make. Biden has previously signaled he wouldn't give into progressives calling for executive action to cancel debt.

With Biden calling for unity, debate has ensued about whether Democrats should use reconciliation to push through priority items with little GOP support. Republicans have called Bidens calls for unity hollow in light of some of his agenda.

Jayapal called Thursday for Congress to use budget reconciliation, a maneuver that could pass the bill with a simple majority, to pass a proposed $15 federal minimum wage if Republicans dont get on board. Jayapal said all options should be on the table, including overruling the Senate parliamentarian if they determine reconciliation isnt the proper avenue for some legislation.

Jones called for the end of the filibuster and called for Biden to continue to use executive action to address issues.

This moment is our generations Reconstruction. We have to get Reconstruction right this time around, Jones said.

Read the original here:
Jayapal pushes Biden to go further on progressive priorities - POLITICO

Ever since I arrived in the United States to begin my university education in 1982, I have been baffled by arguments used by white (and some Black and Latino) American progressives, leftistsand socialists to justify voting for Democratic presidential and congressional candidates.

Unlike mainstream liberal and conservative Americans, who believe their country is Gods gift to the world, the arguments of progressives often stress that Democrats are the lesser evil of the two contending parties.

The Democratic commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama

Many agree that, in the words of Gore Vidal: There is only one party in the United States, the Property party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinairein their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.

Still, progressives always proceed according to the lesser evil theory. If I raised the question of US imperial policy, dubbed foreign policy in the US liberal mainstream media, I would be told by the more astute progressives that both parties were equally imperialist, and therefore their vote for the Democrats was justified by distinctions in their domestic policies.

Still, because the elected Democratic presidents after Ronald Reagan, namely Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, were as neoliberal as Reagan and proceeded with his agenda of mercilessly dismantling the US welfare state, I remained at a loss as to what magnitude of difference existed between the two parties.

The more class-conscious socialists assured me that they were under no illusions that either party defended the white poor, let alone the downtrodden, impoverished racial minorities of Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. Indeed, they insisted that both parties defended the rich, with the Democrats also defending the middle class in a limited way, although that commitment had declined measurably since the Clinton years.

Sowhat, I asked, are the essential benefits to middle-class Americans that you are defending as progressives, socialistsand leftists? Their sober responses highlighted issues of healthcare, social securityand womens reproductive rights. I replied that all of the above had been weakened by the neoliberal Democrats.

Support for womens right to abortion declined considerably when the Clinton administration declared that abortions should be safe, legaland rare. Obama acknowledged the arguments of pro-lifers and called for reducing the demand for abortion, while Joe Biden, until his recent campaign, was a regular supporter of the 1976 Hyde Amendment (he changed his position in 2019), which prohibits federal healthcare programmes from directly funding abortion procedures except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

As for Social Security, a bipartisan effort began the war on it in a set of 1983 congressional amendments, which Reagan signed into law. Both Clinton and Obama attempted to cut Social Security and government health benefits to Americans during their respective administrations, but were prevented from doing so by the Monica Lewinsky scandal in Clintons case, and public opposition in Obamas.

As for health services, attempts to offer universal healthcare to all Americans were obstructed by Clinton and later Obama, who adopted a Republican plan to subsidise private, for-profit health insurance companies, rebranded as Obamacare, and who paved the way for the horror that Americans found themselves in with the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The US empire is falling apart. But things can always get worse

Oscar Rickett

While President Donald Trump also proposed cutting health benefits, which he did not do, anti-Trump propagandists accused him of proposing to cut Social Security, which he never did.

What about the Democratic policies of enriching the rich? Yet again, the party's commitment to the rich was made amply clear with the major subsidies given to them by Clinton and Obama. The latter subsidised them to the tune of $350bn in his bailoutof the banks at the expense of middle-class homeowners whose houses were foreclosed upon. Obama did not hold Wall Street firms accountable for the economic meltdown, which followedClintons 1999 repeal of New Deal-era banking regulations, but rewarded them instead.

So what justifies progressive, leftistand socialist Americans voting for the Democrats as the lesser evil? Is it ideological blindness, or attachment to the cosmetic political language of Democratic politicians, whose actions might have been worse than Trumps, but whose style of delivery tends to be kinder and gentler?

Why did the policies of Clinton,which transformed the criminal justice system in 1994 to expand the mass incarceration of African Americans, not cause a public outcry amongliberals? Indeed, it was none other than Biden who helped to write the crime bill - thesame Biden who opposed the racial integration of schools in Delaware back in the 1970s. And what about Kamala Harris, the grand incarcerator,who may succeed Biden in the2024 election, assuming he does not step down due to ill health before then?

America Last: Coming to terms with the new world order

Why did Obamas deportation ofmillions of illegal immigrants not garner the kind of popular opposition that Trumps policy, which is a mere continuation of Obamas atrocities, has encountered? While the American Civil Liberties Union challenged Obama in the courts, such legal opposition never translated into a public outcry against the Deporter-in-Chief.

Why was there no outrage over the fact thatit was only in the last few months of Obamas eight-year term that his Justice Department finally prosecuted one lone white cop for the racist murder of an African American?

In four years, Trumps Justice Department did not prosecute a single white killer-cop, but this was a continuation of Obamas practices. Yes, Obamas Justice Departmentpursued pattern of practice investigations against police departments, whichTrumpdiscontinued- but that is hardly a major achievement on Obamas part.

And, yes, the so-called Muslim ban - yet another of Trumps racist policies against some Muslim-majority countries -whichpeople forget was based onalist of countriesprepared by none other than Obama.

A legitimate feeling of horror was expressed on account of the 13 federal executions of convicted criminals carried out by the Trump administration in recent months, but these were never compared with the thousands of people that Obama killed by checking targets off his weekly drone kill list. Does it not matter to US progressives and leftists that unlike his Democratic predecessors, Trump, while continuing some of the subcontracted wars that Obama started - and presiding over a rise in civilian deaths as a result of US actions -did not launch a single new all-out war on some hapless country?

There is no such thing as American 'foreign' policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy 'domestic' policy

Could all these people who voted for Biden (slightly more than half of those who voted) -especially the benighted, white liberal intelligentsia - not know that many of the things they complained about during Trumps rule were in fact done by their own beloved liberal presidents?

Most of them know, and their campaign against Trump was nothing but hypocrisy for the sake of propaganda, so that the poor and downtrodden would believe that Trump was evil while Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris were good -or at least, the "lesser evil.

In my conversations with progressive, leftistand socialist Americans over the decades, I have tried to point out that the US is not just the leader of the world, as asserted by liberal and conservative Americansequally committed to US jingoism, but that the US has been since 1991 the primary ruler of the world.

I explain to them thatas US citizens, they are the only people on Earth who have the right to vote for a government that rules the entire globe, and that they are thus complicit in American imperial crimes when they decide, based on some illusory domestic agenda of the lesser evil, to vote for a government that would launch wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people. I add that there is no such thing as American foreign policy when US power controls the entire globe, making foreign policy domestic policy.

Like their liberal and conservative patriotic and imperialist compatriots, many progressive and socialist Americans are not moved by such arguments. Indeed, they enjoin poor white Americans (the deplorables as former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called them), along with downtrodden Black, Latinoand Native American communities to join them in celebrating the Biden victory.

Why do they expect these Americans to celebrate with them, let alone the rest of the Third World - where millions have been killed by US firepower and covert operations since 1945, in wars launched by both Democratic and Republican leaders- when they know the US will probably initiate more wars against them? The reason is that these progressive and leftist Americans, like their liberal and conservative compatriots, are beneficiaries of theracist, classistand imperialist US system, which has always prevented them from seeking any real radical change.

The most they are willing to do is vote for a leftist imperialist Democrat, such asBernie Sanders-who, like them, commits to changing very little, yet presumably also represents the lesser evil.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

See the article here:
The myth of the 'lesser evil': Why US progressives back Biden - Middle East Eye

In a move they say is designed to return democratic power to the voters of New Jersey and away from politically connected party bosses, a coalition of progressive organizations and candidates has joined a landmark lawsuit to force reforms in New Jersey elections by limiting the influence county party leaders exert in drawing ballots that favor particular candidates.

For decades, New Jerseys county parties have exercised an iron grip on New Jersey elected officials from congressperson to state legislator to township councilperson by wielding control over who gets the coveted party line to give these chosen candidates an unfair advantage at the polls.

That practice violates the United States Constitution and must be reformed, according to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

This antiquated practice is truly indefensible. saidSue Altman, State Director of New Jersey Working Families, one of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. If we learned anything over the last four years, its that our democracy is fragile and requires a vigorous effort maintain. This expansive coalition is fighting to make democracy stronger in New Jersey. Up and down the state advocates agree: It is long past time for real, competitive primary elections. Our democracy is at stake, this is a matter of equity and whose voice counts.

The case, filed on behalf of six candidates from all over the state, seeking offices ranging from Congress to township committee, argues that the current ballot design process violates several constitutional rights, including freedom of association and equal protection.

New Jersey is the only state that designs its ballots in this way, and the practice has significant impacts on voting patterns.

A study published by New Jersey Policy Perspective, by Rutgers Professor Julia Sass Rubin, found that in the 2020 primary election, in races where different congressional candidates received the county line in different counties, the average margin of difference between having the county line versus not having the county line was about 35 percent.

New Jerseys use of the line is a voter suppression tactic, used to pre-determine elections outcomes and diminish the voice of voters, saidJesseBurns, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. Our ballots disregard all established and proven best practices for ballot design, causing voter confusion and apathy. We applaud this historic lawsuit for seeking to give voters, not county party chairs, the democratic power to elect candidates of their choosing.

The case was originally filed over the summer on behalf of a single candidate, Christine Conforti. On Monday, the suit was expanded. Additional plaintiffs were added and an amended complaint laying out new legal arguments was filed with Chief Judge Freda Wolfson of the Federal District Court in Newark, who is hearing the case.

Democracy reform is central to achieving other progressive political goals, including enhanced labor protections, strengthened civil rights laws and fair tax policies.

The line gives party insiders far too much power, helping them pick primary election winners, saidBrandon McKoy, President of New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP).This robs voters of their full power and influence and prevents new and diverse voices from running successful campaigns at every level of government. Until we have sensible ballot design, New Jerseyans cannot be confident that our elections are open, competitive and fair.

New Jerseys current system also contributed to underrepresentation at all levels of government.

The New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, a racial justice advocacy organization, is not a party to the lawsuit but supports elimination of the party line.

The party line has the effect of restricting voters choice, which can contribute to diminishing the diversity of who is elected at the local, state and county levels, saidRyan Haygood, President and CEO of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. As we stated in ourOur Vote, Our Powerreport, it is against the principles of democracy to stack the deck to favor one candidate simply by their positioning on a ballot. If government is to get serious about tackling issues like criminal justice reform and economic justice, we need legislators who are accountable to the people they serve. Eliminating the line is key to this process.

After taking a stand against the county party and voting my conscience on several important issues, I was ejected from the line and lost my seat, saidplaintiff Kevin McMillan, a six-time elected member of the Neptune Township Committee in Monmouth County who ran as an incumbent. I saw firsthand the outsize power county party chairs play. Im participating in this lawsuit because I want to ensure that our elected officials can act in their constituents interests without having to look over their shoulders and worry about punishment from unelected party leaders and special interests.

When state law systemically puts its thumb on the scale in favor of certain candidates by extending them preferential ballot treatment, it creates significant barriers to the electoral chances of candidates who do not benefit from political allegiance, and creates an arbitrary and confusing ballot design, saidBrett Pugach, Esq. of Bromberg Law LLC, a progressive advocate and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case.

It bears emphasis that New Jersey is the only state in the nation that designs its ballot in such a manner that prioritizes the grouping of candidates over the political office actually being voted on, saidYael Bromberg, Esq. of Bromberg Law LLC, an attorney and nationally recognized expert on voting rights and constitutional law issues who is representing the plaintiffs. Candidates can either be blessed by party leaders or be cast in Ballot Siberia, and voters and democracy suffer for it.

New Jersey communities ultimately win as a result of this type of ballot design reform, saidChristine Conforti, the original plaintiff in this case. Political candidates at all levels of government will finally be incentivized to listen to voters and be accountable to their public promises to people, not to political party insiders who most often serve corporate lobbyists who fund them. Restoring a truly democratic ballot design one that is easy to understand and give equals visibility to all candidates is the simplest form of democracy reform we not only deserve, but require at this critical moment in Americas test of integrity to its constitutional rights and values.

The notorious line prevents candidates of the same party from having the same chance to compete for voters, saidLaura Leibowitz of Central Jersey Progressive Democrats. This is especially true at the local level, where non-Line candidates do not have the same access to resources, experience or political machinery. The line makes it hard for candidates to compete and even harder for voters to evaluate their choices fairly.

This is the single most consequential fight in New Jerseyscivic world and it is a fight we will win, saidplaintiff Mico Lucide, a Mays Landing resident who is running for Atlantic County clerk.. We will bring to this fight the tenacity of New Jerseyans who are fed-up with corruption and voter suppression. Nothing is more fierce than a New Jerseyan in a fight for justice.

I am incredibly excited to be a part of this effort to address one of the foundational issues in New Jersey democracy, saidplaintiff Joe Marchica, who is also founder and Chair of Our Revolution Mercer, a progressive advocacy group. My own personal experience with it aside, the ballot line more than any single element of our democracy puts power in the hands of political power brokers and corporate special interests, depriving voters of the ability to select and hold their representatives accountable. If we want policies out of Trenton that reflect the will of the New Jersey people, abolishing the line is a necessary and crucial first step.

Its far past time that the stranglehold on democracy in New Jersey is loosened, saidplaintiffArati Kreibach, a Glen Rock Borough councilwoman who is seeking the Democratic nomination for a North Jersey congressional seat. Its clear that the line is an unfair structural barrier, conferring needless advantage to particular candidates over others. New Jersey voters and candidates deserve better than a gerrymandered ballot that suppresses democracy and ultimately impedes progress.

The lawsuit is being supported in part by the NJ Fair Ballot Legal Defense Fund, a newly formed independent nonprofit.

The time for a fair ballot where everyone is treated equally under the law is long past due, saidJonathan Lee Gibson, managing director of the New Jersey Fair Ballot Legal Defense Fund.The NJ Fair Ballot Legal Defense Fund is proud to be raising the financial support necessary to fund this groundbreaking and long overdue challenge to root out New Jerseys corruption and cronyism: The County Line.

(Visited 2,298 times, 17 visits today)

Link:
Progressives File Suit to Eliminate the Party 'line' on Ballots - InsiderNJ

Progressivelawmakers and activists are encouraged by President Joe Biden's first week, and his surprisingly aggressive policy rollout. But theyintend to keep the pressure on his administration to go bigger while Democratshave control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Many of Biden's former progressive primary foes havepraised him for getting off to a running start but hope it's just the beginning. "I think we're headed in the right direction," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said after last week's inauguration. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has praised some of Biden's administration picksand called his coronavirus relief plan a "very strong first installment."

Biden's first major legislative proposal is a $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue packagethat includes $1,400 direct payments to most Americans, an increase of the federal minimum wage to $15, and hundreds of billions to help unemployed people, state and local governments, schools, and small businesses.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., the former co-chair of Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, told Salonthe plan was a "strong start" and thatthe minimum wage increase would be "foundational to improving conditions for the working class." He noted that several aspects of the bill that have not gotten as much news coverage could dramatically slash child poverty and help working families.

Lawmakers are drafting a bill that would expand the child tax credit, which currently tops out at $2,000 per child at the end of the year, to $3,600 for children under 6 and $3,000 for older kids, The Washington Postreported last week. Unlike the current credit, these benefits would be delivered in monthly payments and would be fully refundable.

Biden's proposal would also expand the earned income tax creditand provide up to 14 weeks of paid sick and family leave for nearly all American workers.

The child tax credit expansion "would cut child poverty in half," Khanna said in an interview. "Paid family leave is something progressives have been fighting for for a long time. So I am optimistic with the progressive priorities that have been included. Now we have to fight to make sure they're passed."

Khanna and other progressives, however, have bristled at Biden's proposal to send $1,400 checks on top of the $600 direct payments that Congress approved in December. The direct payments in Biden's plan are the same as thosein the bill approved by the House last month before it was rejected by Senate Republicans.

"$2,000 means $2,000. $2,000 does not mean $1,400," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post. She has also called for the enhanced $400 unemployment benefits in the bill to be retroactive.

A group of 54 progressive lawmakerson Thursday urged Biden to consider making the payments monthly, though they did not specify an amount.

"When that money runs out, families will once again struggle to pay for basic necessities," the letter said. "One more check is not enough."

Khanna, who signed the letter, says Biden should "do more" and send $2,000 checks monthly. But he saidhedoesn't expect that progressive lawmakers will torpedo the relief plan over the differences between the two sides.

"My sense is where the progressive fight will be is to get this passed, to get this through without compromising and losing parts of the agenda," he said.

Khanna has also joined with a growing number of Democrats in calling to scrap the filibuster in the Senate, which would allow the new Democratic majority actually, a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Kamala Harris available as a tiebreaking vote to pass legislation with a simple majority. Those calls may have hit a roadblock this week when moderate Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., vowed to preserve the filibuster. Despite Biden's optimism aboutbuilding bipartisan support for legislation, many Republicans have already balked at large partsof his relief proposal.

"I appreciate Joe Biden trying, and he is doing the right thing by trying, but it has to be reciprocated," Khanna said.

In the absence of filibuster reform, Democrats have signaled that they intend to pass the relief bill and other legislation through the budget reconciliation process, which was used by Republicans to push through a massive tax cut in 2017 that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and corporations.

"We should do this [through] reconciliation, and if we have to amend the Byrd rule, we amend the Byrd rule," Khanna said, referring to a 1985 Senate rule that limits the types of provisions that canbe included in reconciliation bills to only budgetary items, which could stand in the way of boosting the minimum wage.

Khanna predicted that Congress could pass a large infrastructure bill through the reconciliation process as well. He added that statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico could also be approved bysimple majority vote.

"That is absolutely critical," he said. "Two things that we should ask ourselves every day:Are we getting our agenda to move to help working people? And are we getting our agenda to move to secure voting rights?That should be the prism through which we will get our policy."

Biden has also kicked off his presidency with aslew of executive orderslargely aimed at rolling back Donald Trump's executive actions, like the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries andthe ban on transgender people serving in the military.

"A big thing that he could do right away" is to sign an executive order canceling student debt, Khanna said. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., previously led calls for Biden to immediately cancel up to $50,000 in student debtper person. Biden has called on Congressto pass legislation to cancel up to $10,000 in debt per person. Some economists have pushed back on this particular policy, arguing that student debt forgiveness would overwhelmingly favor the top 20% of earners.

Progressive groups have also urged Biden to go further in tackling climate change. On Wednesday, Biden announced a series of executive actionsaimed at addressing the "climate crisis" a term never previously used by an American president creating a commission to focus on creating a "civilian climate corps" modeled after a similar proposal in the Green New Deal, suspending new leases for oil and gas drilling on federal land, and elevating climate change to a national security priority. He has already canceled the Keystone XL pipeline and rejoined the Paris climate accord.

The Sunrise Movement, a climate-focused progressive group, said in a statement that the actions make clear that Biden is serious about delivering on his campaign promises, while callingonhim to go further.

"Now is the moment to deliver transformative change for the American people, and our generation will not accept any excuses for delay or inaction on delivering historic legislation to build back better, creating millions of good jobs investing in clean energy, communities, and sustainable infrastructure," Varshini Prakash, the group's executive director, said in a statement.

The group has called for Biden torequire 100% clean, renewable electricity by 2035, 100% zero-emission vehicles by 2030, and 100% clean buildings by 2025, among a host of other proposals. In a sign of synchronicity, General Motors announced Thursday it would phase out all production of gasoline-powered vehicles by the 2035 model year.

"The Sunrise Movement demands that President Biden follow through on the bold, progressive climate agenda he ran on through executive actions and by passing the first pillars of a Green New Deal," Ellen Sciales, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement to Salon.

One area where Biden has received significantpushback from the left is in his selection of White House and Cabinet officials, a numberof whom have corporate ties.

Prior to Biden's inauguration, many progressives were concerned about the number of Biden administration picks with links to corporate interests, while largely praising many of his choices. Former Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., who now heads the White House Office of Public Engagement, came under criticismfor being a top recipient of donations from big oil and gas firms and said he would be a conduit for corporations in Biden's White House. Steve Ricchetti, who serves as a counselor to Biden, is a longtime corporate lobbyist.

"It's a mixed bag," said Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, a progressive group that scrutinizes administration appointments. While Biden ran as the most conservative option in the Democratic primary race, Hauser said, "There's no instance in which a Biden nominee is worse from a progressive standpoint than their Obama counterpart. And there are several instances in which they are noticeably better, and even some of the weaker Biden people are making outreach steps to progressives."

Khanna said that Richmond has been "extraordinary" in his outreach efforts to his former progressive House colleagues and that Ricchetti "has also outreached to many of us and has welcomed our comments and welcomed our feedback."

"The sense I've gotten with Biden's inner circle atthe White House is that they have actually done a very good job of outreach to progressives on the Hill," he added. "Now, would Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders have had different picks in some of these positions? Of course.But Biden won the election, and he won the election on his platform. So given that, I think that the outreach to progressive wings of the party so far is sincere."

Hauser said he is still concerned about the influence of Ricchetti and Bruce Reed, Biden's deputy chief of staff, who has been criticized by progressives asa deficit hawk. Some Cabinet appointments, like Commerce Secretary-designateGina Raimondo, the Rhode Island governor and former venture capitalist who has come under criticismfor a perceivedhistory of siding with corporations over working families, are downright "terrible," he said. But there are a lot of bright spots among Biden's picks, particularly in lesser-seen roles.

Biden staffed the Office of Management and Budget with people like Sharon Block, the acting head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who come from the labor movement and back corporate regulations, Hauser said. Hisgroup is also "encouraged" by Biden's regulatory-minded picks at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Labor Department, Department of the Interior, and some key positions at both the Treasury and Justice departments.

"Right now, there are a lot of very important wins happening, but I have some questions about the Department of Treasury and the Department of Justice," Hausersaid. "Obviously, those are two extremely important departments."

Biden has fired several Trump appointeessince taking office, but some progressives want him to go further. Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., and others have called for Biden to fire the entire U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors over their "complicity" in Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's "sabotage"that led to a nationwide mail slowdown. Biden has no power to directly fire DeJoy, but the USPS board does.

Hauser said the process of firing the USPS board is complicatedbut noted that Biden could quickly fire IRS Commissioner Charles Rettigand holdover U.S. attorneys. He also called for Biden to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray, who he said "did nothing to prevent" the Capitol riot. Biden may wish to observe the formerly-existing norm, in which FBI directors were appointed to 10-year terms and seen as independent from politics. Those days may well be gone, Hauser suggested.

"If you survived a Trump administration loyalty purge, then you should be presumptively disloyal to the rule of law in this country, because Trump opposed the rule of law," Hausersaid. "He acted upon that. You were neither fired nor quit, which means you just don't have a very active conscience."

Khanna said he is optimistic that Biden's rollout could pave the way for Congress to pass a large infrastructure package, strengthen union protections, address racial equity and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

Hauser said that Biden's first days in office, on the other hand, have made clear thatprogressives will have to fight to have significant influence over the administration.

"The Biden administration is largely run by political professionals who are constantly taking the temperature of the [Democratic] party andtrying to be at the center of the party. To the extent to which activists succeed in shifting the party's views, be it on the $15 minimum wage or ethics in governmentor clean energy and the Green New Deal and those sorts of principles,they're going to influence the Biden administration. So I think people should definitely, objectivelybe encouraged that activism matters."

Khanna acknowledged that thingswill likely get "tougher" in two years when Democrats have to defend their narrow congressional majorities in a midterm election, which historically have not been kind to the incumbent president's party, while facinganother round of Republican gerrymandering.

"I think anytime you have both chambers and the White House, you have to get as much of your agenda through as possible," he said. "I mean history shows this is not something that lasts that long. It's a very fortunate thing to have, and we have to make the most of the opportunity."

Link:
"One more check is not enough": Progressives push Joe Biden to do more to help working families - Salon