Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Progressives Wont Wait for Biden to Set the Course – The Nation

Democratic presidential nominee former vice president Joe Biden embarks on a train campaign tour at the Cleveland Amtrak Station on September 30, 2020. (Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

On October 8, the Working Families Party released the Peoples Charter, a progressive road map out of our current state of crisis, endorsed by several leading progressive legislators and insurgent congressional candidates, including Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and other members of the Squad, as well as organizations including the Movement for Black Lives Electoral Justice Project,the Service Employees International Union, and MoveOn. Earlier, the Green New Deal Network, an even broader coalition anchored by Indivisible, released the Thrive Agenda endorsed by 85 sitting legislators and legions of unions, environmental, civil rights, and citizen action groups. These serve not only as policy statements but as political markers as well: If Biden wins next month as expected, progressives will not give him a pass but will seek to drive bold reforms from the get-go.Ad Policy

The contrast with 2012 and the early days of the Obama administration is stark. Obama, swept into office in large part by the energy of citizen movements, was wildly popular among progressive activists. National organizations, with leaders jockeying for positions in the administration, united to support his agenda. The Obama White House organized an outside roundtable to coordinate grassroots support. Progressives largely stood by as Obama dithered away his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, diluting his agenda in a fruitless pursuit of support from mythical Senate Republican moderates. When Obama prematurely embraced austerity with unemployment still in double digits, outcries from progressive economists had little support.

Biden wont get that pass. He has signed off on the boldest progressive agenda of any Democratic candidate in recent history, but hes focused his campaign more on pursuit of more moderate suburban voters and the ever-elusive disaffected Republicans than on mobilizing his own base. His closing argument features moving beyond red-state and blue-state divides to revive the spirit of bipartisanship in the country, promising to work across the aisle, pledging that cooperation is the choice Ill back as president. This can be written off as routine electoral posturing, but it also reflects Bidens history as a Senate centrist proud of his ability to work with Republicans. And that bodes particularly ill as Republicans rediscover their horror of deficits and start braying about the need for austerity. While progressivesled by Bernie Sandershave generally gone all in in the effort to eject Trump, most harbor serious doubts about Bidens willingness to champion fundamental reforms.

Progressives are in a far stronger position to drive the debate than they were at the beginning of the Obama administration. There is widespread agreement on elements of a bold reform agenda, in significant part drawn from the Sanders campaigns. Both the Thrive Agenda and the Peoples Charter call for large-scale public investment to modernize our infrastructure, move to clean energy, and create millions of jobs. Both would target public investment to low-income Black and brown communities. Both embrace universal health care and basic worker provisions like universal child care, paid family and medical leave, and paid sick days. Both emphasize the need to empower workers to organize and bargain collectively. Both call for strengthening public institutions from the postal service to public education. Both detail bold responses to help workers displaced in the pandemic. MORE FROM Robert L. Borosage

Each has distinctive features. The Peoples Charter calls for creating public banks, establishing public ownership stakes in corporations that are bailed out, and buying out oil and gas companies. Its first priority is moving funds from policing, jails, and endless wars into schools, public housing, and other services. The Thrive Agenda makes fair treatment of sovereign native nations one of its eight pillars. Neither includes an alternative trade agenda, reflecting the relative weakness of industrial unions in the coalitions.

Progressives also have greater strength in both the House and the Senate than they did at the beginning of the Obama era. The Thrive Agenda is endorsed by 85 legislators, and 10 senators including not only progressives like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Jeff Merkley but also Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. In the House, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, under the leadership of Representatives Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, has begun to act with greater cohesion and to exercise more power within the Democratic caucus. It will be bolstered by the election of several exciting new members who will add new energy to the push for a bolder agenda. The victories of Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, and Marie Newman over long-serving Democratic incumbents send a message to powerful older Democrats in safe Democratic seats that they have to lead, not resist, the new agenda.

Driving all of this are the citizens in motion across the country. The Black Lives Matter demonstrations, the growing climate movement, womens protests are in the streets. Importantly, independent worker strikesfrom the teachers in red states to the Fight for $15 by fast food and other workers to the workers protesting unsafe conditions in the pandemicpresage a new period of worker activism that could dramatically expand the demand for change.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The battle will be joined immediately after the election if Biden is elected and ifa big ifDemocrats take back the Senate. The first fight will be with the Senate Democratic caucus over whether to get rid of the filibuster to curb Republican obstruction. Biden, an institutionalist, has expressed doubts about the change. Sanders, Our Revolution, and much of the left will mobilize to pressure Democrats to move.

Bidens early agenda will feature reversing many of Trumps follies, ending his immigration abuses, reentering the Paris Accord, rolling back the assault on environmental protections. A first big skirmish is likely to be over the scope of the tragically delayed next Covid-19 rescue package. The next test is likely to be how Biden responds to what will be a growing Republican and establishment call of austerity in the face of large deficits.

Whats clear is that progressives wont wait for Biden to set the course. They will be pushing for bold reforms immediately. In the Great Depression, when the early Roosevelt agenda failed, growing populist movements and liberals in the Congress forced Roosevelt to embrace what became the second New DealSocial Security, the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Act, rural electrification, and more. Under Biden, the pressure will begin from day one. After claiming that he plans to be the most progressive president since FDR, Biden would be well-advised to lead the push, not resist it.

Visit link:
Progressives Wont Wait for Biden to Set the Course - The Nation

Progressives Tell Biden: Appointees Must Be Diverse and Free of Corporate Ties – Mother Jones

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Election Day is still two weeks away, but progressives are already ramping up theirefforts to influence who gets to serve in a potential Biden administration. In a new letter sent to the Biden transition team, a coalition of lefty organizations are demanding that the new administration be free of corporate influence and that it commit to a minimum diversity goal for its appointees.

The letter, spearheaded by the American Economic Liberties Project, a group that fights against monopolies and corporate power, urges the Biden transition co-chairs to appoint women, people of color, and members of underrepresented communities to least half of all positions. It also calls for all appointees to be free of corporate or lobbying ties.

First, you should build upon President Obamas efforts to strengthen the diversity of the federal workforce, the letter says. Second, you should appoint only individuals who have a strong track record of standing up to corporate power and whose commitment to public service is unimpeachable.

The 37 cosigning organizations span the progressive movement; all of them have made targeting corporate power a key plank of their mission. They include racial justice-oriented organizations like the Center for Popular Democracy and the Working Families Party; anti-Wall Street groups like Americans for Financial Reform; and climate groups like the Sunrise Movement.

These demands, the letter states, are based on the stakes of this moment, in which a global pandemic and its economic consequences have demonstrated the financial insecurity faced by Americans, particularly those of color. Individuals in a future Biden administration must also have the ability to understand and overcome the traditional, pro-corporate and pro-Wall Street ideological constraints on many policymakers imaginations that are partly to blame for todays crisis of concentrated corporate power, it says.

Diversity among White House personnel increased sharply after the country elected its first Black president. As the letter notes, Obama presided over an executive branch that, for the first time in history, had appointed women and members of underrepresented groups to a majority of top posts. Hillary Clinton, had she won, had committed to a female-majority cabinet. But progressives have had less success in pushing the party to keep Wall Street allies out of Democratic administrations. They blame Obamas bank-friendly appointees to the administrations top economic posts for orchestrating a lackluster response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Specifically, the letter asks that the transition team not consider policymakers who have held senior roles in the industries they will be tasked with regulating; who have worked as corporate lobbyists, whether registered or not; who have used public service for personal gain; or who have otherwise, through their affiliations or sympathies with abusive or extractive institutions and corporations, promoted interests at odds with the well-being of workers, consumers, people of color, the environment, small businesses, and communities as a whole.

Individuals with experience leading small and independent businesses should be welcomed into any administration, the letter says, but those who have chosen to advance the interests of abusive or extractive firms like Amazon, Facebook, and Blackstone should not.

Though Democrats have made a strong show of unity in the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the letter addresses a long-simmering intraparty fight. Last week, a group of left-wing House members, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Katie Porter (D-Calif.), joined 39 progressive groups in a letter asking that no C-suite-level corporate executives or corporate lobbyists hold Senate-confirmed posts in a Biden administration. A coalition of youth-oriented progressive organizations composed an open memo to the Biden campaign in April that similarly demanded the former VP appoint zero current or former Wall Street executives or corporate lobbyists to his transition team, advisory positions, or cabinet.

Other factions within the partyincluding some Black Democrats in Congress and on K Streethave argued that thelefts demands could end up hurting diversity by excluding some experienced people of color from serving in the administration. Despite the diversity gains under Obama, just 10 Black political appointees have served in federal financial regulatory roles, according to a recent study from the Brookings Institution. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)toldPolitico last month that a number of Black individuals who were considered for financial policy roles in a potential Clinton administration four years ago would have been disqualified under the standards progressives have laid out this time around. Critics of the lefts approach have said that its tone-deaf to the career paths often taken by those for whom a corporate or lobbying gig might make them the first in their family to hold a lucrative job and accrue wealth.

This new letter seeks to address this concern head-on. Its a notion we reject, says Morgan Harper, a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project. There are people who represent the interests of this country who reflect its diversity and are independent from corporate interests. Corporate interests are already overrepresented at this very important point of rebuilding the economy.

To achieve their goals, the cosigners urge the Biden transition team to make a concerted effort to look outside the beltway for individuals whose experiences will bring unique perspectives and skills to federal service. They add: While all appointees must have experience that qualifies them for the positions they hold, non-traditional experience or credentials should be considered to expand the pool of possible candidates.

The Biden campaigns plan for racial equityincludes a promise to promote diverse leadership for all federal agencies. Ted Kaufman, a transition co-chair and longtime Biden aide, told Politico that the transitions task amounted to getting seasoned people that are really qualified to do the job, adding that the team would look for potential appointees who have experience, are smart as hell, and reflect America.

A lot of this isnt about ideology or anything else, he said. Its totally about what do you do with the incredible hollowing out that Trump has done.

Excerpt from:
Progressives Tell Biden: Appointees Must Be Diverse and Free of Corporate Ties - Mother Jones

Why Progressives Love Ted Kaufman, Joe Bidens Alter Ego – HuffPost

Ted Kaufman, the co-chair of former Vice President Joe Bidens transition team, fits neatly into the Democratic presidential nominees small inner circle.

Like most of its members, hes old for a political operative 81. As a Philadelphia native, Wharton School of Business graduate and former engineer for DuPont, he shares Bidens geographic grounding in Pennsylvania and Delaware. And like most of Bidens closest allies, hes worked with the candidate for decades.

Kaufman is often seen as Bidens alter-ego, and was even selected to take over the Senate seat Biden vacated shortly after winning the vice presidency in 2008. The two men live within walking distance of each other, and allies inside and outside the campaign say the pair are ideologically simpatico.

I think its fair to say that Ted is Bidens closest political adviser and friend outside of his family, said Alex Mackler, who has worked for both men and was Kaufmans deputy chief of staff in the Senate. He has an overriding trust in Teds judgment.

There is one crucial difference between Kaufman and the rest of Bidens closest allies, however. While progressives look askance at the corporate ties of many key Biden advisers, the left-wing of the Democratic Partys ideological spectrum has little but ebullient praise for Kaufman.

He thinks Wall Street has too much influence in our government, he thinks that corporate America is too powerful and he thinks workers dont have a seat at the table, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio said in an interview, summarizing a consensus view. Hes a strong progressive.

During his roughly two years in the Senate, Kaufman proved his worth to the partys left-wing, helping lead their battle against bank lobbyists and centrist elements of President Barack Obamas administration to limit the influence and power of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis. In a key moment that has helped shape the Democratic Partys current contours, Kaufman stepped up to challenge the growing power of corporate interests in U.S. society.

Progressives view 2008 to 2010 as a crucible that revealed a critical divide (within the party) on Wall Street, said Jeff Hauser, the executive director of the Revolving Door Project. It was an extremely revealing and important time in our history, and we remember what side people were on. And Kaufman was on the side of populist progressives.

During the presidential primaries, progressives regularly argued Bidens record revealed him to be subservient to power, unwilling to challenge the banks and corporate interests who historically dominated politics in his home state of Delaware. Nominating him, they argued, would guarantee the Democratic Party was insufficiently tough on Wall Street and monopoly power, repeating key mistakes of the Obama era.

But Kaufman, as a senator, fought against Wall Street, leading the charge to break up the largest banks. He has openly and repeatedly lamented the failure of the Obama administration to prosecute bankers and CEOs in the wake of the Great Recession. His leading role in shaping and staffing the next Democratic presidency gives progressives hope a Biden administration can outperform its leaders centrist track record.

Biden, assigned other tasks by the White House, played little role in the fights over the response to the financial crisis. Kaufman, freed from political pressures because he decided against seeking a full term in 2010, joined the left to battle some of Washingtons most powerful forces. Could Kaufmans actions serve as a preview for a more aggressive Biden presidency?

Jonathan Ernst / ReutersKaufman (right) was a frequent critic of the approach taken by Tim Geithner (left), President Barack Obama's treasury secretary, to the financial crisis.

Kaufman was Bidens chief of staff so long ago that his title wasnt even chief of staff. Back in 1975, top senatorial aides were called administrative assistants. He held that job for two decades through Bidens first run for president in 1988, his handling of tumultuous Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the senators two aneurysms in the late 1980s. Kaufman left in 1995 and into a series of roles common to once-powerful government officials.

He served on government boards, as a member of the Democratic National Committee and taught at Duke University. He remained a close friend and adviser to Biden, and a mentor to many of the younger staffers in Bidens office.

He was always a father figure to everyone in the office, said Tony Allen, a former Biden staffer who is now the president of Delaware State University. Before you made a big decision, you knew he was the one to go to.

Throughout all of this, Kaufman remained behind the scenes, quoted in Delaware newspapers and as an expert on the Senate but with little public profile. That changed on Jan. 15, 2009, when Biden resigned his Senate seat days before becoming vice president and Kaufman was sworn in to replace him. At the time, one issue dominated Congress the response to the 2008 financial crisis.

The crisis remains complex to untangle and explain, but heres a grossly oversimplified version: A downturn in housing prices made risky bets placed by major banks turn bad, seizing the entire financial system, which crippled the broader U.S. economy and led to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

With bipartisan backing, the George W. Bush administration in its last days bailed out the largest banks, which were considered too big to fail without taking the entire economy down with them. The program they created, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), would buy up more $400 billion worth of essentially worthless financial instruments. After the Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress took office in January 2009, they passed what was then the largest fiscal stimulus in U.S. history, the nearly $800 billion Recovery Act.

The perceived gap between the two responses $400 billion for the banks, $800 billion for everybody else has driven the populist rage that has shaped the nations politics since then, from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street to the rise of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump. Today, most Democrats freely admit the party shouldve gone bigger with the stimulus law, even if many doubt a more ambitious proposal would have made it through Congress.

A decade ago, however, disputes over the crisis response were the defining rift within the Democratic Party.

On one side was a then-Harvard Law professor named Elizabeth Warren, along with the AFL-CIO, a significant chunk of the House and Senate Democrat caucuses and good government groups. Warren led an obscure panel overseeing the bailout, and regularly going viral in the process, dressing down bankers and regulators alike.

She and others argued the new administrations efforts to muddle through the financial crisis was too focused on the banks financial health, and not focused enough on helping middle-class families and alleviating a massive home foreclosure crisis.

On the other side was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and much of the rest of the Obama administrations economic team. They viewed Warren as a grandstander, and her allies as asking for the impossible. While they also supported the financial reform legislation that would end up being known as Dodd-Frank, they thought efforts to break up the big banks were unnecessary and counterproductive.

Kaufman joined the first team. In an interview, he told HuffPost his reaction to the financial crisis was simple: Somebody should go to jail for this. Clearly, crimes have been committed at a massive scale. He wondered why the banks were all taken care of, but the foreclosures, the help for regular people, somehow we couldnt figure out how to make that work.

He spent much of his Senate stint consumed with Wall Street malfeasance: He played a major role in crafting a law to increase funding for law enforcement agencies to find fraud committed during the crisis. He pushed for stronger regulation of high-frequency trading. He sharply questioned bankers like Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Bankfein. But the biggest showdown was over an amendment he co-sponsored with Brown to break up the nations largest banks.

Supporters of the amendment, which would have forced JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to split up, argued breaking up the banks was necessary to ensure none of them would ever again grow too big to fail and require a bailout.

It was the very problem we needed to solve, Warren said in an interview. It was a really aggressive push to rein in the banks, and Ted was right in the mix.

But the Obama administrations Treasury Department fought against it, arguing the amendment would put passage of the larger Dodd-Frank reform legislation at risk and harm the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets. It failed on a 33-61 vote, with everyone pointing to Treasurys opposition as key in swaying moderate Democrats against it. The larger bill became law in July 2010.

Jeff Connaughton, who was Kafumans chief of staff, said his boss efforts put the banks of defense, setting up the whole bill and especially its creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for passage. The CFPB, designed to protect consumers from financial wrongdoing, was Warrens brainchild and the major progressive victory in the legislation.

He was among the first to hammer at the anti-Wall Street fissures that later divided the party, Connaughton said. His instincts were deeply held and ahead of the curve when it came to standing up to powerful financial interests.

A few months later, Warrens vault from obscurity ended with Obama giving her a role in helping to launch the CFPB, a compromise reached with elements of the administration determined to block her from leading the agency she had conceived of. That meant her spot chairing the Congressional Oversight Panel, set up to oversee TARP, was open.

Warrens work on the panel had won her fans across the country, the beginnings of the political base that would power her to a 2012 Senate victory in Massachusetts and her unsuccessful presidential run earlier this year. It had also deeply alienated large sections of the Obama administration, including Geithner and Summers.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) picked Kaufman to fill the slot. But any worries that a close ally of the vice president would put the kibosh on the panels oversight efforts quickly faded. He kept most of Warrens staff and continued their oversight efforts until the panels work wrapped up in early 2011.

We had been really aggressive, Warren said Kaufman. Ted brought real continuity. He was studious, he was serious. He picked up the work right away and kept exercising real oversight. And thats not something everyone wouldve been willing to do.

Another panel member, AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers, agreed Kaufman represented a continuation of Warrens work, saying the senator was able to both continue Elizabeths public spirited approach to oversight and to maintain a general bipartisan unity among the panel.

Even after the panels work ended, Kaufman remained an occasional thorn in the Obama administrations side. In 2013, in a documentary interview, he slammed the administrations failure to prosecute any major crimes connected to the financial crisis.

Theres all kinds of behavior that went on that clearly was fraudulent in my opinion, looking back on it, for which no one paid a penalty. And that has severe consequences for the country, Kaufman told Frontline, pointing to what he saw as clear fraud leading to the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

He also said: The fact that we brought [no major prosecutions] sends a clear message that theres two levels of justice in this country. Clearly, people can steal millions of dollars which I think is what went on and get away with it, and the rest of the folks have to pay for whatever crimes they commit.

Joe Bidens alter-ego was sounding a lot like Elizabeth Warren.

MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images via Getty ImagesSen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts campaigned for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden earlier this month. Warren, who sought the White House this year on a more progressive platform than his, has declined to say if she wanted to join a Biden administration.

Suffice to say, the rest of Bidens inner circle lacks similar credibility with the left. Steve Richetti, who served as Bidens chief of staff during the final years of his vice presidential tenure, is a former lobbyist for the health care and telecommunications industries. Bruce Reed, his predecessor in that chief of staff role, was an early leader of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and played a key role in the reform of welfare that slashed its benefits during the Bill Clinton administration.

Both men are considered potential chiefs of staff if Biden wins the presidency. The third likely contender, Ron Klain, is progressives pick for the job and is now seen as the frontrunner. Klain, who was chief of staff for both Biden and former Vice President Al Gore, is seen as a more partisan figure, as open to left-leaning ideas and with a background well-suited to battling both the coronavirus pandemic and handling an economic recovery.

But Klains tenure in the Clinton administration, along with his stint as a lobbyist for the mortgage finance giant Freddie Mae and time as a venture capitalist, serves to highlight the lack of truly left-leaning possibilities for one of the top jobs in a Biden administration.

(A brief definitional aside: The left-wing of the Democratic Party in Washington is loosely divided into camps allied with either Warren or Sanders. Left-leaning figures aligned with Warren, who tend to be more focused on Wall Street power and on the financial crisis as a flashpoint, also tend to be more excited about Kaufman.)

As transition chair, Kaufman would theoretically play a key role in who becomes chief of staff and who fills dozens, if not hundreds, of other slots in the administration. In his HuffPost interview, Kaufman declined to answer any questions about his work on a transition. (Its also unclear if Kaufman would take a formal role in the administration, though Democrats who know both men said it would be difficult to stop Biden from regularly calling Kaufman for advice, regardless of the latter mans title.)

Kaufman was the natural choice to lead the transition. He led Bidens vice presidential transition in 2008. And after he left the Senate, he worked with former Utah GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt to co-author an influential report on how to refine the process. Many of the reports recommendations became law in 2015.

No other person who has run a transition has the depth of knowledge on transitions and a greater understanding of the high correlation between a successful transition and a successful launch of a presidency, said Max Stier, the president and CEO of the Washington-based Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit good government group.

Still, it can be easy to overstate Kaufmans influence. His co-chairs on the transition include two mainstream Democrats Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond and New Mexico Gov. Michele Lujan Grisham alongside senior campaign adviser Anita Dunn and Jeffrey Zients, the CEO of the private equity firm Cranmere. (The left is particularly wary of the influence of Zients, who had a reputation as a deficit hawk as a top economic aide during the Obama administration.)

The left has already collected some wins in shaping the potential Biden administration. Summers took himself out of contention for top jobs. The transitions advisory board includes Felicia Wong, the CEO of the progressive Roosevelt Institute, and Jared Bernstein, a labor-aligned economist who was Bidens chief economic adviser during his first term as vice president. Transition staffers with left-wing ties include former Warren staffers Julie Margetta Morgan and Julie Siegel, while Gautam Raghavan, a former chief of staff for progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal D-Wash.), has a leadership role.

But equally worrying signs are evident for the left. The Biden campaign barred fossil fuel or private prison lobbyists from securing transition jobs. But it declined to ban other lobbyists from the effort, instead allowing them to secure waivers from the transitions general counsel, Jessica Hertz. She previously worked on regulatory issues for Facebook, a company the left usually thinks of as a target for antitrust action rather than a source for hires.

The Biden transition has been run as a more progressive transition than Obama 2008 or Hillary Clinton 2016 (had she won the presidency), but those are low bars, Hauser said.

Even Kaufman has worried the left. His Senate farewell speech was an ode to the filibuster, the 60-vote requirement that routinely thwarts major legislation and a rule that progressives are determined to spike but Biden sometimes seems stubbornly attached to. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a friend of Kaufmans, suggested the decade-old speech might not reflect Kaufmans current views: Theres a large number of former and current numbers who have a wholly different perspective on it now after six years of GOP control under of the chamber under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Casey said. Im more open to [filibuster reform] than I was even a year ago.

Another concern for progressives is that in an August interview with The Wall Street Journal, Kaufman suggested the huge deficits created by the Trump administration would limit a Biden administrations economic plans.When we get in, the pantrys going to be bare, Kaufman said at the time.

The Biden campaign quickly clarified his remarks to reiterate its long-standing position: Biden was willing to use deficit spending to stimulate the economy out of the coronavirus-induced recession, but tax increases on the wealthy would pay for long-term programs.

In interviews, neither Warren nor Brown worried much about Kaufmans comments.

Theres going to be stimulus spending to help repair the historic damage that Donald Trump has done to our economy, and to help us recover from the economic shockwave of the pandemic, Warren said. Biden knows that, and Ted knows that. Its the Republicans right now who dont understand that.

The Biden campaign has successfully limited leaks from the transition, forcing reporters to rely mostly on scuttlebutt and chatter. While both Brown and Warren said they talked regularly with Kaufman, they declined to get into details. And Warren punted on whether she wanted to directly join the administration.

Lets get through the election first, she said.

Tom Williams via Getty ImagesKaufman, then a senator, and then-Vice President Biden are seen here conversing in the halls of Congress. The two men never directly discussed Kaufman's focus during his time in the Senate on dealing with the financial crisis, he said.

Throughout all of the financial crisis fights, Biden was mostly absent. The definitive history of the Dodd-Frank law, the book An Act Of Congress by Robert Kaiser, barely mentions the former vice president.

Connaughton, the Kaufmans chief of staff who also had been a Biden Senate staffer, has publicly lamented Bidens inaction at the time. In journalist George Packers book The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America,Connaughton said he pushed Kaufman to ask Biden to join their fight and apply pressure to the Treasury and Justice Department to crack down on banks.

Kaufman, then and now, has said Biden was busy with other issues,noting that Obama had assigned him a full portfolio of other tasks: leading oversight of the stimulus program, chairing a task force on revitalizing the middle class, managing the drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Kaufman said he never directly spoke to Biden about his work on the oversight panel or his work on Dodd-Frank.

Connaughton couldnt get over the strangeness: their former boss held down the second-highest position in the country, a few steps from the Oval Office, and they couldnt do a damn thing about Wall Street, Packer wrote.

(Connaughton has written his own memoir and is open about his disillusionment with both Biden and Washington writ large.)

Progressives have long assumed Biden more or less went along willingly with Geithner and Summers bank-friendly stances, noting his work as a senator on a controversial law passed in 2005 that made it harder for families to declare bankruptcy. The battle over that law put him head-to-head with a not-yet-famous Warren, and its eventual passage benefited MBNA, a massive bank in his home state.

Given how close he is to Biden, Kaufmans actions during his brief Senate stint challenge that narrative. Brown, for one, was confident Kaufmans experiences would shape how Biden governs.

Teds a good influence on Joe, the Ohio senator said. Hell make sure theres a progressive voice in the administration.

Some Biden allies also argue that the lefts image of Biden as a centrist out-of-touch with the Democratic Party and his stated desire to work with Republicans has overshadowed his broadly center-left record on guns, the environment and other key issues.

Today, Biden and his advisers are openly talking about a Rooseveltian presidency, one with eyes on super-charging an economic recovery and empowering the middle class. Bernstein and other Democratic economists openly discuss the failures and lessons learned from the Obama administration. Was Kaufmans work a decade ago a preview of how Biden will approach things?

Kaufman is pretty sure it is, and pointed to Bidens plans as proof. If you want to know what the transitions policy positions are, just look at what the vice president has said, he said.

If elected, Biden is likely to push for $3 trillion or more in stimulus spending on top of the $2 trillion Congress has already allocated far more ambitious than what Democrats secured in the 2009 stimulus, Kaufman noted to HuffPost.

Biden also supports a $2 trillion plan to boost clean energy; a nearly $800 billion initiative to make pre-K education universal and cut the cost of childcare in half for many families; and larger tax hikes on the wealthy than those Obama supported. He even, notably, supports a reversal of the bankruptcy law he and Warren battled over 15 years ago.

Kaufmans diagnosis matches an emerging consensus among Democrats on both sides of the partys internal divide: Biden is a party man, first and foremost, and hell move left or right alongside the rest of the party. Democratic voters and elected officials have unquestionably moved to the left on economics, guns, immigration and a host of other issues over the past 12 years. Those shifts are likely to matter far more than the positions Biden once advocated.

Income inequality was not a major driving factor for the Democratic Party in 2007, 2008, Kaufman said. Theres been a gigantic change in the Democratic Party since 2008.

Progressives big hope is that Biden has changed with it.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more here:
Why Progressives Love Ted Kaufman, Joe Bidens Alter Ego - HuffPost

How progressives should handle the Black male voter problem – Yahoo! Voices

OPINION: Rather than worrying about Black men who may vote for Trump, progressives need to focus on turning out Black men and women in larger numbers.

At President Donald Trumps recent (and possibly COVID-19 infectious) in-person rally at the White House, Black supporters of Trump attempted to recruit significant numbers of African Americans for the audience.It is just one of other awkward attempts the Trump campaign has made to improve its racial optics.

Given the presidents history of racist rhetoric and conduct, however, polls do not reveal such tepid efforts are likely to convert any significant number of Black voters.

Read More: Why is the Trump campaign courting Black male voters?

Nonetheless, there has been recent anxious debate as to why 14% of Black men reported voting for Trump in 2016 given how narrowly Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to Trump.

Rather than progressive candidates or campaigns wringing their hands about the likely small percentage of Black men who may vote for Trump in 2020, their focus should be upon turning out African American men and women in larger numbers period. As long-term voter turnout numbers reveal, Black men vote in greater numbers when Black women vote in greater numbers.

Treating the Black male voter problem in isolation is to ignore the fact that Black women are most often key organizers and mobilizers of the Black vote, including the votes of their brothers. Of course, there must be specific appeals targeted at the concerns and votes of Black men.

But scholars and activists of intersectionality warn us about the dangers of privileging the leadership and lives of Black men over those of Black women.

Read More: Megan Thee Stallion pens NY Times op-ed championing Black women: Were all we have

It is true that in 2016 there was a slight gender gap where greater numbers of Black men reported voting for and having more favorable views of Trump as compared to Black women (see the tables.) Still, pro-Trump Black women and men were a fraction of the Black vote; other than Black women, Black men were the least likely of all race-gender combinations to support Trump; and in general Black men and women held views that were small differences of degree and not in kind.

Story continues

Overwhelming majorities of African American women (80.1%) and Black men (71.1%) voted for Clinton for president or had favorable views of Clinton (78.2 % and 71.5%, respectively).

2016 CMPS: In the election of President, did you vote for

Black women

Black men

Difference

Hillary Clinton

80.1

71.1

9.0

Donald Trump

4.9

9.6

-4.7

2016 CMPS: Had favorable or somewhat favorable views of

Black women

Black men

Difference

Hillary Clinton

78.2

71.5

6.7

Donald Trump

10.2

17.3

-7.1

And it is unlikely that these slight differences can be explained by differences in ideology, given that roughly equal percentages of Black women and men ideologically identified as liberal (35.8% vs 36.26), moderate (37.1% vs. 39,6%), or conservative (15.3% vs 14.4%).No matter the labels, Black women are somewhat more likely than Black men to support left-leaning policy proposals such as universal healthcare or same-sex marriage.

While there is a presidential turnout gap between all race-gender combinations of women and men, the gap is most pronounced between Black women and men.In 1980, about 56% of Black women turned out to vote as compared to 51% of Black men.In 2016, while overall Black turnout declined to 59% (from 66% in 2012), the gap between Black women and men was 10% or 64% for the former as compared to 54% for the latter.

Read More: 6 states where low Black voter turnout helped Trump win in 2016

Simulations conducted by the Center for American Progress indicate that if Black turnout in 2016 matched that of 2012, African Americans could have been the critical margin of victory for Clinton in the critical Blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Thus, the reason why in 2020 a bevy of groups from the Black Male Voter Project to Amplify Action are attempting to increase Black turnout especially among Black men.

Of course, there are structural barriers that may very specifically and directly impact Black mens rates of voter participation from felony disenfranchisement to GOP-led purges of inconsistent voters.While Black women for various reasons may be enthused by the Democratic vice-presidential candidacy of Sen. Kamala Harris(D-CA), we do not know if her candidacy will have an Obama effect with Black men even though Harris has made pitches directed at Black men in battleground states like Michigan.

There is an array of issues that speak to Black mens interests including questions of economic and occupational inequalities. But we do not know if Black men will be drawn to the economic and health policy platforms of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In the end, a multi-pronged approach that targets both Black women and men may be the most successful and progressive strategy.

Todd Shaw is an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, where he teaches political science and the African American studies.

The post How progressives should handle the Black male voter problem appeared first on TheGrio.

See original here:
How progressives should handle the Black male voter problem - Yahoo! Voices

A progressive federal budget and how to pay for it – Maclean’s

Ed Broadbent and Brittany Andrew-Amofah: To 'build back better' Canada will need childcare, pharmacare, a green recoveryand new measures to sustain them

Ed Broadbent is the Chair of the Broadbent Institute. Brittany Andrew-Amofah is the Institutes Senior Policy & Research Analyst.

The recent Speech from the Throne made some significant federal commitments that could result in historic and positive changes in the lives of Canadians. Unless the upcoming budget includes concrete line items to make good on promises related to childcare, pharmacare, and other priorities, the optimism of progressives will be short-lived. As usual, its the details that will matter.

Given COVIDs grim impact on the economy and our lives, Canadians want to see ambition from their governments commensurate with the scale of the challenge at hand. Recent polling by the Broadbent Institute found that a majority of Canadians want a pandemic recovery that improves people lives and deals with climate change. Fifty-four per cent of Canadians want the government to implement bold new ideas, with nearly half of those respondents indicating an unwillingness to vote Liberal in the next election if the government fails to deliver. A lot is at stake.

Here are a few things that Canadians will be watching for in the upcoming budget:

The Throne Speech commitment to implementing a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system should be informed by Child Care Nows Affordable Child Care for ALL Plan. Phase 1 of the plan requires an initial investment of $2.5 billion in federal transfers to the provinces/territories and Indigenous communities to support the existing childcare sector. The governments promise to provide significant, long-term, sustained investment into an early learning and childcare system modelled after Quebecs system should bear in mind the importance of that provinces Educational Child Care Act, which enshrines the right for every child to have access to child care services.

As we approach the federal budget, a key indication that this policy will come to fruition nationally shouldnt just be funding investments or federal transfers, but also includes legislation that outlines the right to childcare.

The Throne Speech also indicated the governments plans to move forward on national, universal pharmacare. A recent Broadbent report noted that Canada is the only country with a single-payer health-care system that does not cover the costs of drugs in that system. The road-map to pharmacare has been clearly laid out by the Hoskins report, which called for an initial investment of $4.1 billion. The speech signaled the federal governments willingness to work with provinces and territories that are ready to move forward without delay on pharmacare. Given that the B.C. NDP has promised, in its platform, to lead the charge on the creation of national pharmacare, should the NDP win the current election the federal government should seek their cooperation in launching a national pharmacare program.

To build back better post-COVID, our efforts must be focused on transitioning towards a green economy and infrastructure program. The Task force for a Resilient Recovery, a project of the Ivey Foundation, outlined 5 bold moves for a green recovery, one that would reduce emissions, bolster electric power, protect our natural environment and see the creation of clean, competitive jobs. With a total investment of $55.4 billion over 5 years, this plan could provide the substance for the building back better slogan.

The creation of an early learning and childcare system, universal pharmacare and a green economic recovery, will require new progressive tax measures to implement and sustain them over time. A recent Broadbent Institute report laid out a pandemic fiscal plan to pay for an equal and just recovery. Included are key items such as a wealth tax, the closure of tax loopholes and cracking down on offshore tax havens. In light of COVID-19, an excess profits tax is also necessary to ensure that above-average company profits acquired throughout the pandemic should be used to benefit the public, rather than line the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.

The Throne Speech had some promising language. But the details of the upcoming budget are what really matter. As it constructs its fiscal plan, the Trudeau government should look to the policy suggestions noted above to provide a detailed and progressive approach to Canadas COVID recovery.

Here is the original post:
A progressive federal budget and how to pay for it - Maclean's