Mediaboss Marketing

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi excluded a plan to keep unemployment down by subsidizing firms to keep workers on payrolls from her relief package last week, dozens of progressives have banded together with 10 front-line Democrats from swing districts to introduce it as a standalone piece of legislation.

The Paycheck Recovery Act, authored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., aims to make sure that paychecks are flowing from employers to workers during the coronavirus pandemic. A previous version, the Paycheck Guarantee Act, had been a priority of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Jayapal is a co-chair. The bill subsidizes struggling companies payrolls in order to discourage layoffs and keep unemployment down. While Pelosi had said she was open to considering the idea, she ultimately kept it out of the HEROES Act, the coronavirus relief bill passed by the House on Friday, which includes an extension of unemployment subsidies. Jayapal confronted her on a private caucus conference call over the decision, and Pelosi aides later pushed back, criticizing the measure for not having official legislative text or Republican co-sponsors.

Jayapal ultimately voted against the legislation, along with eight other progressives, citing the exclusion of her program. They were joined by five front-liners, some of whom objected to the paycheck measures omission, others of whom opposed it from the right, complaining of a lack of bipartisan buy-in.

The stampede of front-liners toward Jayapals new bill, according to people involved in the negotiations, is driven by an intersection of policy and electoral concerns. The front-liners are concerned that Pelosis rejection of the paycheck bill, and her focus on unemployment, makes for poor politics, and they have complained that they are getting hammered at home by Republicans, who are dubbing Democrats the party of unemployment.

The alliance of swing-district Democrats and the progressive wing of the party represents a new threat to House Democratic leaderships domination of the caucus. Because of the stark partisan divide in the House, Pelosi cant rely on the few remaining moderate Republicans to push legislation over the top. Instead, leadership typically shapes legislation to appeal to the swing-district bloc of Democrats there are 42 front-linerswho the party considers in need of electoral protection then bludgeons progressives into supporting it, arguing that whatever is being offered is better than nothing and promotes the necessary goal of maintaining the majority, without which progressives have no power at all. Efforts by progressives to organize enough no votes to extract leverage in negotiations over coronavirus relief have so far not come to fruition, but teaming with front-liners opens up a new potential strategy as the pandemic scrambles political calculations.

For years, Pelosi has insisted that if it were up to her, the party would go further left than it does, but that the imperatives of reelection require moderating legislation for the members she calls majority makers. But if those majority makers get out ahead of Pelosi, that rationale would evaporate, and the dictates of making and keeping a majority would militate in their direction.

The first glimmer of the potential coalition came when Rep. Haley Stevens, a freshman from Michigan, voted against the rule linked to the HEROES Act on Friday afternoon. Flipping just four more votes would have shot down the rule, which would have blocked the underlying bill from coming to the floor. Members of Congress often express opposition to legislation by opposing the rule, even if they later vote in support of the bill itself later, which Stevens did.

Stevens, in a statement explaining her support for the HEROES Act and her vote against the rule, said that the bills failure to keep workers tied to their jobs, prioritizing unemployment instead, was a knock against it. Any relief package must prioritize strong employment measures to protect jobs and the relationship between workers and employers for an extended and flexible duration of time, she argued.

It was a clear reference to the paycheck measures omission from the final package. Mass unemployment is not and will never be our answer to this crisis, Stevens said.

Rep. Katie Porter of California, among the most progressive front-liners, also voted against the rule, as did Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who cited a number of concerns, among them that that the bill didnt prioritize addressing catastrophic unemployment rates.

Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat from Long Island and a moderate member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, is co-sponsoring Jayapals legislation. I think the most persuasive argument is that state unemployment systems are ill-equipped to handle the volume of claims and that will not be rectified in the near future, he told The Intercept. Helping people by having more folks on unemployment is not the answer. Additionally, PPP the Paycheck Protection Program, which is meant to help small businesses keep their payroll going has too many big small businesses that dont need the help. This bill seems more effective and more targeted.

The other front-liners so far on the bill, which has 93 co-sponsors, are Democratic Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Tom Malinowski of New Jersey; Sean Casten of Illinois; Katie Porter and Mike Levin of California; Jahana Hayes of Connecticut; Steven Horsford and Susie Lee of Nevada, and Kim Schrier of Washington.

The Senate is currently debating its version of the relief package, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pretending that liability protection for businesses during the pandemic is the sole provision Republicans want and, therefore, that everything else is a Democratic demand. Such conditions dont leave much room for policy innovation, but Jayapals paycheck guarantee is one program that has bipartisan support in the Senate and has worked elsewhere in the world.

In moments of economic decline, resulting from either natural disasters, pandemics, or financial crises, governments around the world have two primary means of mitigating harm and reducing the depth and duration of the slump: extending unemployment payments to those laid off through no fault of their own, or extending subsidies to companies to keep workers tied to their jobs, even if their hours are heavily reduced.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Germany relied on a program of wage subsidies to keep people in their jobs, which kept unemployment in the low single digits. The U.S., meanwhile, focused instead on providing relief in the form of unemployment payments and brief subsidies for health care coverage for the jobless. The U.S. unemployment rate, as expected, rose dramatically, while Germanys didnt, and the U.S. recovery took much longer. U.S. policymakers, or at least those in charge of writing the laws, learned little from the last crisis.

The CARES Act, the multitrillion-dollar relief package that was passed in late March, took the route of subsidizing unemployment by providing workers who had been recently laid off with an extra $600 in unemployment benefits for four months. The HEROES Act includes an extension of those benefits until January 2021. Mass unemployment is a policy choice, and we must choose differently, Jayapal said Tuesday, introducing the Paycheck Recovery Act.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., joined by a handful of Democrats, has sponsored a similar piece of legislation in the Senate. The politics of fighting on behalf of jobs is an obvious winner, and Hawley is hoping to exploit Democrats failure to do so in an election year. Some Republicans, Politico reported, see an opportunity to get the upper hand on jobs and the economy after the Democratic House proposal omitted Jayapals paycheck guarantee legislation. Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, facing a tough reelection fight in Colorado, publicly backed the paycheck measure at the end of last week. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Doug Jones, D-Ala.; and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., have also supported versions of the legislation.

We should put forward a proposal that is focused on jobs in contrast to what House Democrats are doing. They could have done something like this. They had an opportunity to put forward a jobs proposal and they didnt, Hawley said. It is unbelievable that you would propose $3 trillion in federal spending and you wouldnt have a focus on workers.

See the rest here:
Swing-District Democrats Link With Progressives to Back Paycheck Bill Pelosi Rejected - The Intercept

Two progressive Democrats, Siah Correa Hemphill and Pam Cordova, who are challenging incumbents who lean more to the right within the Democratic party, are getting a boost in their campaign efforts.

Correa Hemphill is running against incumbent Democratic state Sen. Gabriel Ramos. With her May filing report, she has outraised Ramos by $53.26. Ramos, who was appointed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to replace Lt. Gov. Howie Morales, is running his first election for the seat.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico is spending $150,000 in the remaining weeks of the primary to educate voters on the fact that Ramos and state Sen. Clemente Sanchez, also a Democrat, both voted against HB 51 in 2019. The bill, supported by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, would have repealed a 1969 ban on abortion. Eight Democrats in the state senate sided with Republicans and voted the measure down. Ellie Rushforth, reproductive rights attorney with ACLU-NM, said the nonprofit organization expects to reach 25,000 voters with their efforts.

One of those eight Democrats, Sen. Carlos Cisneros of Questa, has since passed away. His replacement, Bobby Gonzalez, was previously in the House, where he voted for HB 51.

The other seven are up for reelection and all seven face progressive challengers, in some cases, for the first time in years. Senator Mary Kay Papen, who represents mostly Doa Ana County in senate District 38, is facing a primary challenger for the first time since 2000, which is the first year she ran.

Related: Progressive Democratic challengers want new voices in the state legislature

Now the ACLU-NM is working to educate voters in the June 2 primary race that Ramos and Sanchez voted against HB 51.

Rushforth said the money will be spent on digital ads, mailers as well as phone banking and texting in the districts Sanchez and Ramos represent. She said ACLU-NM does not endorse candidates. The money is intended to educate on the issue, she said.

Last week U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich invited the public to learn about the two candidates through a live presentation on Facebook, which also raised funds for the two candidates. Heinrich has endorsed both Correa Hemphill and Cordova, calling them leaders and advocates for their respective communities.

With her most recent campaign finance filing, Correa Hemphill has brought in $83,738.70. This included $5,000 from Heinrichs Lobo Pac, $1,000 from the Committee to Elect Deb Haaland and $5,000 from Emilys List, a political action committee that supports women candidates who stand for reproductive rights. But the vast majority of Correa Hemphills funds have come from small donations from Silver City residents. Senate District 28 comprises portions of Grant, Catron and Socorro counties.

Lujan Grisham endorsed Correa Hemphill last week.

Ramos has raised $83,685.44, putting the two neck-and-neck going into the final weeks of the campaign for primary voters. Much of Ramos fundraising has come from the oil and gas industry with $5,000 from Chevron Policy, Government and Public Relations, based in Albuquerque, and $4,000 from Yeso Energy out of Roswell. The American Federation of Teachers Union, based in Washington D.C., donated $2,000 and Sapien for Senate PAC gave $5,000, Michael Padilla for State Senator gave $1,000 and the Committee to Elect Patricio Ruiloba gave $1,000. The Santa Clara Pueblo gave $500 and the pueblo Ohkey Owingey gave $1,000. Ramos chairs the Senate Indian and Cultural Affairs Committee.

Cordova has raised $86,066, according to her April and May filing reports. She has received some large donations from unions the International Union of Operating Engineers, based out of Washington DC, has given two $5,000 checks, one for the general campaign. The Sheet Metal Workers International Association, based out of Los Lunas, donated $1,000 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Albuquerque gave $5,000. Heinrich donated $5,000 through his Lobo PAC, U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland gave $1,250 and Emilys List provided $5,000 in support.

But Sanchez started April with an opening balance of $163,897.52 and reported a closing balance of $205,224.44 in early May. Sanchezs support has come from pharmaceutical companies, healthcare companies, railroads, associations representing bankers, beverage companies and oil and gas companies such as Devon Energy Production Company, out of Oklahoma City. It gave $5,000 and the tribe, Ohkay Owingeh, gave $1,000 as did state Sen. Peter Wirth. The American Federation of Teachers Union PAC out of Albuquerque gave Sanchez $2,000 and the Santa Clara Pueblo gave $500. Sanchez chairs the Senate Corporations and Transportations Committee.

Rushforth acknowledged that because of the pandemic, candidates are now in uncharted territory. But, she said reproductive freedom and healthcare are still priority issues for folks.

Reproductive justice is healthcare justice, its economic justice. If people cant get access to the healthcare they need, it adds another challenge in an already challenging time, she said.

Related

More here:
ACLU spending on education in two state senate districts targeted by progressives - New Mexico Political Report

Protests broke out around the country in 2011 during the Occupy movement, with people clamoring for taxes on the rich. Fast forward to Connecticut in 2020, where progressive lawmakers want Gov. Ned Lamont to reconsider his refusal to raise taxes on the rich.

The next Connecticut income tax debate is heating up but not at the Capitol.

A key state legislative caucus is crafting a letter urging town and city councils, local political committees and other grassroots groups to press Gov. Ned Lamont to tax Connecticuts wealthy to close pandemic-induced state budget deficits.

As much as Governor Lamont doesnt want to go there, theres a new appetite for this, said Rep. Anne Hughes, D-Easton, co-chairwoman of the House Democratic Progressive Caucus. I think the pandemic has changed everything.

Hughes, who joined Connecticuts labor leaders and others in a late morning teleconference calling for tax reform, said the argument that wealthy residents would flee the state in the event of a tax hike has never been more flawed.

Where are they going to flee to? Florida, where theyre going to get infected? Hughes said. She added that growing interest in Fairfield and Litchfield real estate markets suggests wealthy New Yorkers are fleeing to Connecticut to avoid the widespread concentration of COVID-19 cases in New York City.

The Lamont administration projects the coronavirus-induced recession will consume the states entire, $2.5 billion budget reserve and still leave a $500 million deficit during the fiscal year that begins July 1.

More importantly, fiscal analysts also project state revenues will contract by more than $2 billion annually over the following two fiscal years.

Lamont, a Greenwich businessman, has said repeatedly that raising taxes on Connecticuts wealthy would prompt them to leave the state.

The governor worked during his first year in office in 2019 to kill a proposal from fellow Democrats on the legislatures Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee to raise income tax rates on investment-related earnings among Connecticuts top earners.

From his first budget address in 2019, Lamont has made it clear that he opposes income tax hikes on the wealthy as a way of balancing Connecticuts budget. The pandemic should force him to reconsider that position, progressive lawmakers say.

Capital gains and dividends can fluctuate significantly with the economy and Lamont warned in a briefing last week about the risks states face due to revenue volatility.

The governors chief of staff, Paul Mounds Jr., told the CT Mirror last week that the administration also remains very concerned about keeping its tax rates competitive with those of neighboring states like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Lamont, who must give legislators a plan in February to balance the next two-year state budget, already has said he will seek help from labor unions to reduce costs.

Rob Baril, president of Connecticuts largest healthcare workers union

I dont think the union members are ready for a fourth round of concessions at this point, Sal Luciano, head of the Connecticut FL-CIO, said during the press conference. He added that Connecticuts impending deficits are too large to be solved chiefly with spending cuts.

Rob Baril, president of SEIU Healthcare 1199NE, the states largest healthcare workers union, said many state employees risk exposure daily to the coronavirus in prisons, group homes, psychiatric hospitals and other facilities. After granting concessions in 2009, 2011 and 2017, he said, they should not have to do so again.

All were asking is that the state of Connecticut show some balance, he said. We continue to make the poor, poorer and the rich, richer.

In recent years, progressive caucus proposals to shift the balance through higher state income tax rates on the wealthy bogged down at the Capitol.

Republicans, who hold minorities in the House and Senate, universally have opposed nearly all tax increases.

And with growing numbers of Democratic legislators hailing in the past four years from affluent communities on the shoreline and in western Connecticut, Lamont has had plenty of allies to block tax hikes on the rich.

Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden, who also serves on the progressive caucus, said there is support for a more progressive tax system among the voters. He believes nothing will change unless more communities make their voices heard at the Capitol.

An October 2018 poll commissioned by Sacred Heart University and Hearst Connecticut Media Group found almost two-thirds of Connecticut voters supported raising income taxes on millionaires to balance the state budget if cuts to services cant do the job.

Back in 2009, Quinnipiac University found 71% of voters favored a proposal to raise income taxes on couples earning more than $500,000 and 55% of those polled rejected the argument it would spur the wealthy to exit Connecticut.

I just think Governor Lamont doesnt believe in this more progressive tax concept, Elliott added. But if he really does think about running for office again, he will have to acknowledge what others groups want.

Read the original:
Progressives look to bring CTs tax fairness debate to the grassroots level - The CT Mirror

AA new proposal from four senatorstwo Democrats and two Republicansto offer a tax credit for workers displaced by the coronavirus outbreak is under fire from progressive critics who warn the convoluted plan is both insufficient to the scale of the crisis and an affront to more simple and far-reaching alternatives.

"Give people money," tweeted journalistAnand Giridharadas. "Money is like a refundable tax credit except useful."

The proposal from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) offers a $4,000 refundable tax credit for job retraining to those who lost their jobs due to the pandemic's effect on the U.S. economy.

"The workers could use it to offset costs of training such as apprenticeships, certificates, and two- and four-year programs, including online learning, through the end of 2021," reported CNBC.

Centrist think tank Third Way's co-founder and senior vice president for policy Jim Kessler celebrated the plan.

"We like it!" Kessler tweeted.

Progressives found that praise predictablebut not indicative of the proposal's benefit to working Americans.

JetPAC executive director Mohammed Missouri said on Twitter that the debt-focused payment schemes around higher education and training made the tax credit's prerequisites bad policy in and of themselves.

"In order to get $4,000 in a tax refund, people have to incur thousands more in debt," said Missouri. "That's moronic public policy."

"Just give people the money," tweetedNew Yorkmagazine writer Sarah Jones.

AtThe Discourse, writer Paul Blest echoed that call, writing that "giving people a $4,000 tax credit for 'skills training' right now is solving the wrong problem."

As Blest wrote:

This is a crisis. Tax creditsdo nothing on a macroeconomic leveland provide no immediate assistance to people in the short term. Instead of fucking around with these grand plans to remake the workforce by goading people into learning how to code or be HVAC mechanics or whatever, just focus on giving people money. Cut them monthly checks, cancel their rent and mortgages, cancel their student loans, give unemployment insurance to the people who need it and help states update their unemployment systems so those people can actually access it. All of these things would go exponentially further in helping to pull as many people as possible out of the despair brought on by the economic crisis.

There is a plan to do just that, as its architect Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) pointed out Wednesday evening.

"The problem is clear and so is the solution," wrote Blest. "Don't make this harder than it has to be."

Originally posted here:
'Just Give People the Money': Progressives Rip Third Way-Approved Complicated Tax Credit Relief Proposal - Common Dreams

Quebec Sen. Pierre Dalphond is leaving the Independent Senators Group (ISG) behind to become a member of the Progressive Senate Group, a caucus composed largelyof former Liberal senators.

With the addition of Dalphond, the Progressive Senate Group now has nine members enough to be recognized as an official caucus in the upper house.

The designation gives Progressive senators access to committee seats which are highly prized by members of the upper house and more research money.

Dalphond, a former judge appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in June 2018, has been an advocate for stricter gun control legislation in the Red Chamber.

Since his election in 2015, Trudeau has tried to strip the place of partisan appointees who sit as members ofparty caucuses.

Trudeau dropped all Liberal senators from the national caucus in 2014, at the height of the Senate expenses scandal.

The Liberal Senate caucus rebrandeditself last fall as the Progressive Senate Group, hoping that a name change would attract new senators who were leery of joining a caucus with past partisan ties, given the prime minister's push for more independence.

Followingits relaunch, the caucus lost its "recognized" status after P.E.I. Sen. Percy Downe left for the small-c conservative Canadian Senators Group(CSG) in November and two mandatory retirements in January pushed membership below the nine-member threshold required for official recognition.

The ISG was established in 2016 to give non-partisan Trudeau appointees a home in the upper house. Nearly half of all sitting senators are members of the ISG.

But there have been a number of defections from the ISG in recent months.

Seven ISG members left in November to form the CSG. Manitoba Sen. Patricia Bovey also jumped to the Progressives earlier this month, paving the way for other liberal-minded senators to make the switch.

Ontario Sen. Peter Harder, the former government representative in the Senate, joined the Progressives last week.

In making the move, Harder said he worried that partisanship has been replaced by "majoritarianism" in the Senate due to B.C. Sen. Yuen Pau Woo's leadership ofthe ISG.

In an interview with CBCNews Thursday, Dalphond said he was motivated in part to make the switch because of some of Woo's actions in recent weeks, which he said undermined the equality of all senators.

In an effort to stop defections from his group, Woopassed a motion in the chamber(before its pandemic-imposedrecess began)to strip committee seats from members who leave a recognized caucus or group, with a few exceptions. The opposition Conservatives also supported the new rule.

Much of the Senate's "sober second thought" function is carried out at committees; the passage of Woo's motion creates anincentive for senators to stayput to keep a committee seat.

"That was the final straw that broke the camel's back," Dalphond said in an interview with CBC News. "For me, that was too much."

Even in the old days when theSenate was dominated by a Liberal and Conservative duopoly, he said,senators could keep their committeeseats if they left a caucus.

The former jurist said he became a senator to help reform a chamber that has been beset by scandal for years but he said the ISG leadership isreplicating some of the tactics employed in the past by partisan caucuses to amass power or block opposition.

"This is really going backward in a very shocking way and that was not adequately discussed among members," Dalphond said of Woo's motion.

"The ISG was supposed to be a group without a leader where each member is free and there's no whip and collegiality should be the driving feature. Perhaps it's grown too big. Things become too top-down, unfortunately."

Dalphond said he's happy to sit in a group that includescelebrated Indigenous leaders and experienced senators who know how to get things done.

"For me, standing for my principles is more important than group affiliation," he said.

He said he agreed with Harder's claim that majoritarianism has morphed into an ideology of sorts in the upper house as the ISG demands a majority of seats on all committees at the expense of smaller groups like the Progressives.

He also took issue with the ISG using its standing as thelargest group to push through its preferred choice for Speaker pro tempore(the deputy Speaker), Sen.Pierrette Ringuette,instead ofholding a secret ballot vote.

Woo also introduceda motion in December 2019that would strip references to "opposition" and "opposition leader" from the Senate rules a proposal that outraged the Conservatives because theyfear Woo is trying to paper over theexistence of an officially recognized opposition in the chamber.

In an interview, Woo strongly disagreed with some of the criticism levelled at him by his former caucus mate.

"I cannot think of one example where the ISG hasused its majoritarianpower to change a fundamental practice of the Senate. I reject that entirely," he said.

He said he moved the motion to strip committee seats from defectorsto preserve procedural fairness,and it was accepted by the "vast majority of our members."

He said he's not trying to permanently chain people to the ISGby dangling the threat of taking their committee seats away.

"Sen.Dalphond has left so it's obviously a redherring. He has clearly decided to leavein spite of this provision," Woo said. "He's refuted his own point by doing so."

He said, before the recent defections,the ISG offered 13 committee seats to non-affiliated senators like theProgressives (they accepted only six of those seats, he said)and he has shown a willingness to negotiate when there's disagreement.

"The whole narrative that the ISG has been excluding non-affiliated senators and withholding committee positions is untrue.The actual reality of the Senate today is that we have a tyranny of the minority," Woo said, citing privileges reserved for the government caucus which, after Trudeau's reforms, has just three members led by a representative and the Conservative opposition.

The rules of the Senatestill reserve for government and opposition leaders some important privileges including considerably longer speaking times on bills and, for the whips, other chamber functions such as decidingjust how long the bells should ring before a vote is held. Hours-long bells in the last Parliament pushed some sittings late into the night.

"If anything, the current practice of the Senate is that there is an abuse by the minority of their special privileges and rules and rights," Woo said.

See the original post here:
Progressive Senate Group back from the dead as another Independent defects - CBC.ca