Mediaboss Marketing

Progressive groupDemand Justice on Monday applaudedSen. Bernie Sanders for his willingness to release a shortlist of judges he would consider appointing to federal judicial seatsshould he win the presidency in 2020.

The Vermont senator and candidate for theDemocratic presidential nomination told theNew York Timeseditorial board in an endorsement interview published Mondaythat he recognized the importance of being transparent with voters about the kind of judicial branch they could expect under his administration.

"It's a reasonable idea," Sanders said. "I'll take that into consideration. Nothing wrong with that. As to who [my] potential nominees for the Supreme Court would be. Yep."

"Releasing a Supreme Court shortlist would help voters understand how a candidate would deal with one of the most important issues facing the country and mobilize voters around a progressive vision for the courts."Brian Fallon, Demand Justice

In 2016, editorial board member Jesse Wegman noted in the interview, then-candidate Donald Trump enticed conservatives by releasing a shortlist of extreme right-wing judges who he was planning to appoint to federal judiciary seats.

Sanders's willingness to release his own shortlist "is a step in the right direction," said Demand Justice, as Democrats try to offer voters an alternative vision for the country after three years of Trump's presidency.

"Releasing a Supreme Court shortlist would help voters understand how a candidate would deal with one of the most important issues facing the country and mobilize voters around a progressive vision for the courts," said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Since taking office in 2017, Trump has remade the judicial branch by appointing 187 conservative judges to federal seats, including his addition of two right-wing judges, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With one-in-four U.S. circuit court judges now a Trump appointee, a key provision of the Affordable Care Act was struck down by one right-wing court weeks ago. Trump has flipped the court responsible for appeals from Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, which will soon hear several cases regarding voting rights.

"As the field narrows, all presidential candidates should prioritize the courts if they want to show voters they have a real plan to protect any of their other ideas from a hijacked judiciary," said Fallon.

As Common Dreams reported in October, Demand Justice has called on all the Democratic candidates to release lists of their potential judicial nominees.

The group also released its own shortlist for potential progressive nominees, including racial and criminal justice reform advocates Michelle Alexander and Bryan Stevenson; Nicole Berner, general counsel for the SEIU; and Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee who has blocked and sharply criticized some of the most extreme anti-choice laws put forward under the Trump administration.

"Democrats running for president...should be bold enough to pick someone who's worked to defend civil rights, workers' rights, or reproductive rights," said Fallon last year.

Read more:
Progressives Applaud Sanders for Willingness to Release List of Possible Judicial Nominees Before Election - Common Dreams

They want a president who will get things back to where they were in 2016, not 1950.

| 2:15 PM

One of the questions that has stumped (mostly white) reporters during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary is the overwhelming support Joe Biden is getting from African American voters. While it is true that other candidates garner some support from younger black voters, the older crowd remains firmly in Bidens camp.

Weve heard some helpful explanations of this phenomenon from African American commentators recently, like Charles Blow and Marcus Johnson. But Jason Johnson from The Root went right to the source and talked to a group of older black voters. A couple of things he heard stood out to me. First of all, these folks have been watching the political scene for decades nowand theyve drawn some conclusions.

Senior Week committee members see Trump as a threat and have policy preferences just like everyone else. However, they have seen decades of working class white America voting against their own economic interests if it meant screwing over African Americans, too. So many of them looked for the best candidate for black America this week one you could also sneak by white folks.

There has been a raging debate among Democrats for decades about whether it is possible to win back white working-class voters. More than any other group, African Americans know that racism sits at the center of that discussion. Given that their primary objective is to beat Donald Trump, these older black voters have made an interesting calculation. They are betting on a candidate they can sneak by white folks.

I suspect that one of the things that went unsaid in these discussions is that older African Americans have spent years making that kind of calculation and never succumbed to the idea that they have to be emotionally inspired by a presidential candidate. That leaves them free to be pragmatic on the question that seems to be front and center in 2020electability.

At one point, Johnson gives us a hint about why so many older African Americans are rejecting the arguments made by the more progressive candidates.

Just this week, Yang, again focusing on white voters, said that growth and progress have slowed for all Americans since the 1940s. I thought Yang was supposed to be good at MATH? Literally every generation of black people has done better than the previous one, (even kids in the 90s) but that doesnt mean the 40s were some golden age either. Trust me, we have committee members born in the 40sand by almost every empirical measure black Americans are better off in 2020 than we were in 1940.

Embedded in the minds of most white peopleregardless of party affiliationis the idea that life was better for middle-class Americans in the aftermath of World War II. Progressives hail things like FDRs New Deal and the rise of unions that spurred the hopes of an American dream.

What we tend to forget is that, for African Americans, racism and Jim Crow were alive and well through all of that. So the 40s and 50s were hardly a golden age for them. The trajectory of their lives didnt change until years after the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Eventually, African Americans started to buy into the so-called American dream. Back in 2011, Ellis Cose identified the countrys new optimists.

African-Americans, long accustomed to frustration in their pursuit of opportunity and respect, are amazingly upbeat, consistently astounding pollsters with their hopefulness. Earlier this year, when a Washington PostKaiserHarvard poll asked respondents whether they expected their childrens standard of living to be better or worse than their own, 60 percent of blacks chose better, compared with only 36 percent of whites.

Although many African Americans identify long-standing problems that still plague the communitysuch as unemployment and access to high-quality educationthe black population remains largely optimistic about the future and satisfied with the direction the country is going in, according to a new survey by Ebony magazine and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

The rise of that kind of optimism within the African American community coincided with the rise of white progressive angst about income inequality and the way that it was killing the American dream. In addition to the election of this countrys first African American president, that helps explain the disconnect between progressives and black voters during the Obama presidency.

Of course, the racism that fueled the election of Donald Trump turned all of that on its head. But that recent history helps explain why older African Americans would be suspicious about the kinds of deep structural changes proposed by the more progressive presidential candidates. Not only are they betting on Biden being the candidate they can sneak by white voters, they simply want a president who will get things back to where they were in 2016not 1950.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

Read more:
Why the Progressive Message Isn't Resonating With Older African Americans - Washington Monthly

Welcome to Thursday's Overnight Health Care.

Progressive groups are raising red flags over health insurers donating to Democratic candidates, an HHS proposal on religious groups is getting pushback, and a Trump-appointed FTC commissioner broke with her party on drug prices.

We'll start with 2020 donors:

Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations

A lot of Democrats are talking about "Medicare for All," which would essentially abolish private health insurance, but that's not stopping donations from the industry to Democrats.

Four big insurance companies -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna -- and their employees have given about $4.5 million collectively in campaign contributions in the 2020 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Just more than half -- about $2.3 million -- of that has gone to Democrats, including to some of the party's top-tier presidential contenders. The Center for Responsive Politics totals are based on Federal Election Commission data through the third quarter of 2019 and include money from the companies and their PACs, owners and employees and their immediate families.

These companies and employees have been giving big, on both sides, in recent cycles, and that has progressives worried

"Insurance companies are using their money to try and influence not only Republicans but Democrats as well. The problem is that they control the whole system," Paco Fabian, director of campaigns at the progressive group Our Revolution, told The Hill.

Read more here.

Vaping illness update: 60 deaths in 27 states

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 60 deaths in 27 states linked to the vaping-related lung illness outbreak that began this summer.

As of Tuesday, 2,668 cases of hospitalization or death were reported to the CDC.

The illnesses have been tied to THC vapes that were mostly obtained from informal sources, like friends, family or dealers.

The CDC investigation into the cause of the illnesses has zeroed in on vitamin E acetate, a chemical compound that has mostly been found in THC vaping products. According to experts, vitamin E has been used in unregulated, illegal vaping products to dilute THC oil in order to maximize profits.

Republican FTC commissioner says she supports Medicare negotiating drug prices

There's a somewhat unexpected source of support for Medicare negotiating drug prices: a Republican FTC Commissioner.

"I may touch a third rail here," Christine Wilson, said while speaking at a health care conference in Washington. "I think part of the problem is that the federal government has not been able to negotiate under certain parts of Medicare and Medicaid for pharmaceutical prices."

Context: The remarks from an appointee of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump's newest Russia adviser, Andrew Peek, leaves post: report Hawley expects McConnell's final impeachment resolution to give White House defense ability to motion to dismiss Trump rips New York City sea wall: 'Costly, foolish' and 'environmentally unfriendly idea' MORE to the FTC come amid a raging debate over high drug prices. Democrats are touting a bill the House passed in December to allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices.

But President Trump and Senate Republicans have rejected that bill, backing more modest alternatives.

"The federal government, which accounts for I think a third of pharmaceutical spending, is essentially a price-taker, and that seems like a problem to me," Wilson added at a conference hosted by the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, a coalition of health care companies and other groups.

Read more here.

Trump moves to protect money for religious organizations

Nine federal agencies -- including the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Education -- released proposed rules that aim to remove what Trump administration officials describe as "discriminatory regulatory burdens" that the Obama administration placed on religious organizations that receive federal funding.

Under the Obama rule, religious health care providers need to tell patients that they can receive the same services from a secular provider, and need to provide reasonable efforts to refer the patient elsewhere if he or she objects to the religious character of the organization.

The proposal drew swift backlash from Democratic lawmakers as well as LGBTQ and abortion advocates, who said it would give providers a license to discriminate. Advocates argued that some people seeking services at religious organizations may feel pressured to participate in religious activity.

They have also alleged the administration is unfairly giving more money to Christian organizations.

From Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "Our taxpayer dollars should go to organizations that provide culturally competent, expert care and services without discrimination -- not to organizations that deny services to vulnerable communities. This proposed rule is dangerous, and it could do serious harm to those who already face barriers to care, including LGBTQ people, women, and religious minorities."

Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenHillicon Valley: Biden calls for revoking tech legal shield | DHS chief 'fully expects' Russia to try to interfere in 2020 | Smaller companies testify against Big Tech 'monopoly power' Lawmakers call for FTC probe into top financial data aggregator Overnight Health Care: Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations | Republican FTC commish backs Medicare negotiating drug prices | Trump moves to protect money for religious groups MORE (D-Ore.):"This proposed rule amplifies previous actions by not only allowing faith-based providers to turn Americans away, but making it harder for those in need to find a place to go after they are denied services. This change could also tie the hands of local and state governments from stepping in to prevent discrimination."

Read more on the full picture of Trump's actions here.

Report: Progress in reducing racial gap in health insurance has stalled since 2016

While ObamaCare helped narrow gaps in access to health care for racial and ethnic groups, progress has stalled since 2016, according to a report released Thursday.

The rate of black and Hispanic adults with health insurance improved after implementation of the 2010 health care law, bringing it more in line with the rate of white adults who have health insurance.

But coverage gains for blacks and Hispanics have stalled since 2016, along with the overall population of the U.S., according to the report from the Commonwealth Fund.

"It's encouraging to see that the gaps in access to health care for black and Hispanic adults are narrowing over time, but we cannot let the progress we've made slip through our fingers," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund.

Takeaway: The researchers note that racial gaps in coverage could shrink further if the remaining 15 states that haven't expanded Medicaid do so.

Read more here.

What we're reading

Pharma execs pitch ideas at #JPM20 to lower drug costs. None of them include dropping their own prices (CNBC)

What the 2020s have in store for aging boomers (Kaiser Health News)

'Donation after cardiac death': New heart transplant method being tested for the first time in the U.S. (Stat News)

State by state

Missouri governorpledges to combat violent crime, blasts Medicaid expansion in annual message (Kansas City Star)

Austin confirms its first case of rubella since 1999, less than a month after finding measles (KVUE)

Legislative mini-session produces little movement on health care issues, despite new call for Medicaid expansion (North Carolina Health News)

View original post here:
Overnight Health Care: Progressives raise red flags over health insurer donations | Republican FTC commish backs Medicare negotiating drug prices |...

Many on the left hoped that the silver lining of the prolonged slump since the Great Recession of 2008 would be to discredit capitalism and build momentum for drastic change. Only the youngest voters have stayed wedded to this idea, with much of the broader electorate holding a fairly positive view of the status quo: 76 percent of voters rate economic conditions as either very good or somewhat good, according to a CNN poll in late December.

For liberals, this sets up a worrisome political dynamic ahead of 2020. Typically, positive attitudes about the economy are good news for incumbent presidents.

But one nice thing about a strong labor market is that it creates political space to finally pay attention to the myriad social problems that cant be solved by a good economy alone things like child care, health care, college costs, and environmental protection that during, the Obama years, tended to be crowded out by a jobs-first mentality.

Good times, in other words, could be the perfect opportunity to finally tackle the many long-lingering problems for which progressives actually have solutions and about which conservatives would rather not talk.

For years, there was a mostly true narrative that despite positive GDP growth, actual good economic news was largely limited to stock prices and corporate profits. More recently, however, the corner has turned.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index shows a high degree of optimism about the future of the economy. A Gallup poll found that 65 percent of adults think its a good time to find a quality job, and 55 percent rate economic conditions as either good or excellent. Fifty-six percent of Americans rate their personal financial situation as good or excellent, 66 percent say they have enough wealth and income to live comfortably, and 57 percent say their personal financial situation is improving.

Corporate profits, meanwhile, remain high but have actually been falling as a share of the economy since 2012.

At the same time, a low unemployment rate plus higher minimum wages in many states mean that pay is rising especially for workers at the bottom end.

At the same time, according to voters, the economy no longer rates among the top four problems facing the nation.

That doesnt change the fact that macroeconomic management remains, substantively speaking, one of the governments most important tasks. But the mission for the next administration wont be to heal a broken labor market, but to take advantage of a sound one to create huge benefits.

One nice thing about low unemployment is that it tends to lead to wage increases.

Employers, of course, dont like to raise wages when they can get away with it. But in the context of a strong labor market, that stinginess brings its own benefits, since the only way to get away with avoiding big wage increases is to take a risk on workers who might otherwise be locked out. Companies have suddenly found themselves more open to hiring ex-convicts, for example, which is not only good for a very vulnerable population but also makes it much less likely that ex-offenders will end up committing new crimes. Similarly, people in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction arent normally an employers first choice of job applicants. But beggars cant be choosers, and a strong labor market is a great chance for people who need of a second chance to get one.

A related issue is racial discrimination. For as long as we have records, the black unemployment rate has always been higher than the white unemployment rate. But the racial unemployment gap, which surged during the Great Recession, has been steadily narrowing ever since. Discrimination becomes more costly during periods of full employment, and continued strength in the labor market will continue to whittle away at this and other similar gaps.

Last, but by no means least, a strong labor market is the optimal time for labor militancy.

The threat of a strike is much more potent at a time when customers are plentiful but potential replacement workers are scarce. And periods in which its relatively easy for an experienced worker to get a new job with a new company are typically periods in which its hard for employers to intimidate workers out of organizing. Indeed, as Polish economist Michael Kalecki predicted way back in 1943, this is one reason why business interests somewhat counterintuitively fail to advocate for robust full employment policies. An actual recession is bad for almost everyone but a healthy chunk of the population out of work makes for a decent disciplinary tool, and it keeps the political agenda occupied with things like the need to fix the mythical skills gap rather than with worker demands for a bigger piece of the pie.

Meanwhile, a reduced public obsession with the need to address short-term economic problems opens up more space to address the many longstanding problems that cant be cured by a strong economy.

Even as the labor market has gotten steadily healthier in recent years, the American birth rate continues to fall from its recession-era highs.

Women tell pollsters thats not because the number of kids theyd ideally like to have has fallen. Instead, the No. 1 most-cited reason is the high cost of child care. Child care doesnt get more affordable just because the unemployment rate is low. If anything, its the opposite child care is extremely labor-intensive, and the prospects for introducing labor-saving technology into the mix look bad. To make child care broadly affordable would require government action; its just not going to happen in a free market, which doesnt magically allocate extra income to people who have young kids.

More broadly, Americas sky-high child poverty rate compared with peer countries is entirely attributable to our failure to enact a child allowance policy. A better labor market helps marginally, but it doesnt address the fundamental issue that a new baby increases financial needs while also making it harder to work long hours.

By the same token, getting sick is expensive, and simultaneously, often leads to income loss. Absent a strong government role, theres no way to ensure that care and other needed resources are there for those who need it most.

Last, but by no means least, theres the environment. An unregulated economy generates a lot of pollution, and nothing about strong economic growth changes that. On the contrary, what happens is the long-term negative impacts of the pollution end up outweighing the short-term benefit of letting businesses operate unimpeded. Moving the ball forward on everything from climate change to lead cleanup to air pollution requires persuading voters to make the opposite calculation: that the economy is doing well enough to prioritize long-term concerns.

These are all policy areas in which progressives want to act regardless of the current state of the economy. But the mass public is more likely to give these ideas a hearing when theres no real worry of a short-term economic emergency. And conservatives really have nothing to say about any of them.

The administration of President Donald Trump is steadily pursuing a policy agenda aimed at stripping as many people as possible of their health insurance, but the president never talks about it.

By the same token, his reelection campaign claims we have the cleanest air on record when, in fact, air quality has been declining under Trump, and his administration is working on a bunch of regulatory rollbacks that will make air pollution even worse. Meanwhile, Trumps only child care proposal has been the idea of creating a one-off grant program designed to give states extra money if they agreed to lower quality standards for child care settings.

Progressives have ideas about how to boost economic growth, but conservatives have their own clearly articulated vision, one centered on tax cuts and business-friendly regulation. By contrast, when it comes to other social concerns that transcend the short-term state of the economy, progressives have a set of proposals and, well, conservatives have basically nothing. The strong economy is, itself, an asset for Trump during his reelection bid. But the recovery hes presiding over plainly began under former President Barack Obama, and all Trump has really done is avoid rocking the boat too much. Meanwhile, growth itself is raising the salience of a whole range of other topics on which conservatives have essentially nothing to say.

Democrats best path forward isnt in denying that economic progress has been made, but in emphasizing the extent to which its absurd that a rich and stable country like ours is also home to sky-high child poverty, middle-class families who cant afford day care for their kids, and worsening air quality. Low unemployment is great, but it should be the start of good social policy not the end.

View original post here:
The economy in 2020 is a progressive opportunity - Vox.com

Labour must embrace radical political reform including a proportional voting system and ditch party tribalism to take on the Conservatives, leadership contender Clive Lewis argues.

The Norwich South MP is pitching himself as the candidate to tackle what he calls the crisis of democracy.

If the rules of the system are rigged, dont fight by them, he said. So lets talk about having a constitutional convention, lets talk about PR [proportional representation], lets talk about reform of the Lords. Lets talk about devolving, and moving power-structures out of London.

I think now, being on this political precipice as we are after that result, the worst since 1935 now is the time for telling the truth.

He said Labour must overcome the internal divisions that have riven the party during Jeremy Corbyns leadership, and reach out beyond party boundaries to other progressive campaigners.

Do I think we can go on another five years divided as we are? I dont. I really dont. Not just as a Labour party. Divided parties fall. But its also as a progressive movement in this country. How can we stop trying to dictate to what you would call progressives in the UK?

He decried what he called Labourism: the mentality that Labour is the leading leftwing force in British politics, and that those outside it, in other parties and beyond, are viewed with suspicion.

We can actually begin to build the cement of those alliances that are actually going to be needed to take on the Tories: on climate, on racism, on democracy in our society. That can be by working together with others who want the same thing, he said.

And he warned against the leadership race being used as an opportunity for a different section of the party to take control.

I think most people, including MPs, are tired of the swing thats gone on, in the postwar period, between left and right where one faction takes over, and sees it as its almost God-given right to suppress the other side, he said. What we had under the New Labour years wasnt unity, it was hegemony. The left did exist, but it existed in a tomb.

Jess Phillips

The MP for Birmingham Yardley is a strong media performer who has built up a significant public profile from the backbenches. Her fiery speeches and witty barbs aimed at the Conservatives frequently go viral online.

PitchPrepared to argue for Britain to re-enter the European Union and address challenge of bringing back working-class voters.

Keir Starmer

Ambitious former director of public prosecutions has led the charge for remain in the shadow cabinet. He was instrumental in shifting Labours position towards backing a second referendum

PitchLaunched his campaign by highlighting how he has stood up for leftwing causes as a campaigning lawyer, and unveiled the slogan Another Future is Possible.

He called for a thorough review of Labours internal democratic processes, to be overseen by a deliberative convention of party members. Corbyns leadership pitch included a pledge to democratise the party; but Lewis said that had been lost along the way.

Giving examples of reforms he would like to see, he cited giving constituency branches the power to decide whether they would stand candidates aside for other likeminded parties such as the Greens.

And after Labour was reduced to a single MP in Scotland at the general election, he said Scottish Labour must be able to decide what its policy should be on independence.

In Wales and Scotland, its about saying that the December result was more than just a devastating election defeat; more than just a Brexit outcome; it was also about, I think, the ability for the union to survive in its current configuration, he said.

Now what form that takes I dont know; but the change is coming. And I think what we now have to do for our Scottish and Welsh colleagues is to say to them, we want to give you full autonomy, to decide the best way forward now. Is that for some kind of devo-max federal structure? Or is it for you to campaign for an independent Scotland, independent Wales? That should be their choice.

Unlike most of his rivals, Lewis is cautious about criticising last months manifesto but says the party had failed to prepare the ground adequately for such a radical set of policies.

I loved that manifesto, he said. In many ways, it was almost like a fantasy football manifesto. It was a brilliant manifesto and if you take each individual idea, I think most people who are left of centre in our party would have said: I love this. But the trouble was, we tried to drop one of the most radical manifestos of the 21st century in a six-week campaign, and I dont think you can do that.

He says if he was Labour leader, the partys manifesto would be developed from the bottom up.

Lewis has only been an MP since 2015, but was quickly earmarked for promotion to the frontbench as a staunch supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. He resigned rather than obey the three-line whip to trigger article 50, the formal Brexit process but had been back on the frontbench, in John McDonnells Treasury team, since 2018.

He helped form the campaign group Love Socialism Hate Brexit, with colleagues including the York MP Rachael Maskell, to call for his party to embrace a second referendum.

That policy was blamed by many Labour candidates for the loss of their seats in the Midlands and north last month. But Lewis claims the party would have suffered at the hands of the anti-Brexit Liberal Democrats, if they hadnt supported a peoples vote. If we had had a more overtly Brexit position, arguably we would have haemorrhaged more votes.

And he says the Brexit vote was a symptom of longstanding problems in many of the red wall constituencies that fell to the Tories last month.

What happened in those seats, yes its about Brexit, but if you understand it in the context of the crisis in democracy, if you understand in the context that people wanted a sense of agency over their lives, of control over their lives, and they dont have that, then you understand that this has been 40 years in the making, he said.

More:
Clive Lewis: to beat Tories, Labour has to work with other progressives - The Guardian