Mediaboss Marketing

(PPStock / Shutterstock)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Some days it may feel like were in apocalyptic times, but in the midst of the chaos and fear, there is reason for hope. The virus has made the ideological debates of the primaries ever more real and strengthens the case for government and the need for solidarity and imagination as we step into the future.Ad Policy

I dont want to be a Pollyanna, especially when so little is known about what happens next with the coronavirus pandemic, but its important now to hold onto hope. So here are a few things progressives should feel proud aboutand that Ive been focusing on.

If the coronavirus teaches us anything, it is that we are interconnected, and while we each have a responsibility to care for ourselves, we also bear a responsibility to the whole. We are in this together. Justice, we see, is not a moral but an existential issue. People should never have been packed into jails, immigration detention centers, or homeless camps, but at this moment, we do not have the option of looking away. In a global pandemic, our fates are intertwined.

There couldnt be a better argument for why government and social services matter, for everyone. As social distancing has become required to quell the virus, policies like paid sick leave become no-brainers. Access to free health care becomes less of an abstraction to people in power and more urgent than ever. And relief for students and debtors who cant work to pay off their loans becomes a duty. Bernie Sanders may or may not be our next president, but his ideas could deeply shape our response to this moment.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, the country was still struggling through the Great Depression. In 1934, Roosevelt pulled together a Committee on Economic Security and passed the National Social Security Act in August of 1935. It didnt achieve everything hoped forand it was added onto over the yearsbut its worth remembering that this program, which is now a pillar of American society, was established in a moment of turmoil.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In last Sundays debate, we saw different approaches taken by the two Democratic nominees. While Biden agreed that we can take bold and temporary actions to address the coronavirus pandemic, Sanders made the point that weve been in a public health crisis of a different kind for a long time. It is likely that we will get some temporary relief for families, but the question that requires hope is how we ensure were making meaningful and lasting changes.

Having lived together through the crash and bailout of 2008, electeds and the public are more aware that a stimulus cannot simply benefit corporations; it must also benefit the broader public. The 2011 popular uprising Occupy Wall Street was in response to the inequitable bailout, which saved the banks that then continued to foreclose on families. There were too few constraints and strings attached to the stimulus. This time we can do things differently.

This time, no one should lose their home; this time, new affordable housing must be built. Social Security should be increased and student debts should be canceled. Elizabeth Warren has laid out how she would do a stimulus at this moment, putting the grassroots first. Andrew Yangs advocacy for a universal basic income is being met with bipartisan support and we may soon see a cash transfer to individuals. Movement and advocacy organizations are already geared up and fighting to make sure that this bailout is not a corporate payday.

There was a striking moment in Sundays debate when we moved from a conversation about the coronavirus to one about the climate crisis. For a moment, the word crisis held renewed force. A crisis is a time when the government can take big actions, mobilize all its resources, and create massive changes in our social structures. If we acknowledge that the climate crisis is indeed a crisisone that is greater than the pandemic we face todaywe can expand our imagination around what is collectively possible.Progressivism

The conversation around a Green New Deal has already created a new vision for how we can mobilize the economy in ways that transform our energy systems and reduce carbon emissions. While it has not yet been crystallized into legislation, the Green New Deal resolution provides a guide for how we might rethink the way we tackle a global problem at the scale required.

These are hard times, times when we need to be kind, caring, and generous to one another. These are times when we must develop our empathy and recognize that our neighbors may be losing family and friends. But exactly for that reason, these are also times when we must be visionary and expansive. We must be firm and unrelenting in the fight to ensure that this moment is a transformative one, that this moment doesnt leave anyone behind. In the midst of our isolation, this is the time when we must come together.

See the original post:
Progressives, There's Reason to Hope. Really! - The Nation

WASHINGTON The coronavirus pandemic is worsening across the United States, with some states limiting bars and restaurants to carry-out only and forcing gyms and other businesses to close.

Early Saturday morning, the House passed legislation to enact paid sick leave for some people affected by the coronavirus, increase food assistance to students and families, and provide free testing for the disease.

It's about putting families first, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last Thursday at her weekly press conference.

But its also an opportunity, congressional progressives have said, to prove that their policies work at a time when theyre consistently under attack for being too expensive or unrealistic.

I really think that our push for Medicare for All is being highlighted or the need for a system like that is being highlighted right now with this, Congressional Progressive Caucus cochair Rep. Pramila Jayapal said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Thursday. You can see we're having to waive costs of tests we're waiving the costs of other barriers that would prevent people from seeking medical care. And all of you know, a lot of those things would be a) so much easier and b) wouldn't be an issue if we have Medicare for All.

Jayapals home state of Washington has been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus. The state had 769 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, and 42 deaths, according to the most recent data from Johns Hopkins University researchers.

Theres a lot we still dont know about the coronavirus outbreak. Our newsletter, Outbreak Today, will do its best to put everything we do know in one place you can sign up here. Do you have questions you want answered? You can always get in touch. And if you're someone who is seeing the impact of this firsthand, wed also love to hear from you (you can reach out to us via one of our tip line channels).

As of last Thursday, about a dozen people in nursing homes in the state had tested positive, including one person in Jayapals own district, she said, a development thats highly concerning due to the fact that older people are at the most risk should they contract the disease.

The coronavirus response package that passed the House requires some employers to provide full-time employees with up to 10 days of paid leave. Jayapal said she believes it could be a rare test run for progressive policies.

We are clairvoyant, Jayapal said, referring to the inclusion of many progressive policies in the Democratic response to coronavirus. Its not only an opportunity to prove their priorities will work, she said, but also that they are necessary for the rest of the economy to survive.

A lot of times what happens is, you know, these things get pitted against some other cost, she said. They're said to be too expensive or impractical or not necessary. And what a crisis like this shows in a time like this shows is that they are actually all of those things. They're practical, they're necessary, and we can afford them because the cost of not doing them is way more unaffordable.

But its not a perfect test for Jayapal. After BuzzFeed News spoke with the Democrat, the bills paid sick leave policy was altered to exempt large companies with more than 500 employees.

The legislation, which also includes increased food security benefits, is still the subject of intense negotiation on Capitol Hill. It still needs to pass the Senate and President Donald Trump is pushing for a payroll tax cut and federal assistance for the oil and gas industry in response to the pandemic.

Not only is he trying to focus on corporations and, really, corporate interests, but also doing things that are illogical, like trying to bail out [the] oil industry that you know are completely unrelated Rep. Mark Pocan, who serves as Jayapals cochair on the Progressive Caucus, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Thursday.

Trumps bailout plan is similar to the response to the 2008 financial crisis, Pocan said, and he thinks its misguided.

We gave money to Wall Street, we gave money to the auto industry, we gave it to big companies or big industries, he said. This time, Nancy [Pelosi] has been very, very clear that this is something that's family-focused first.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have balked at Trumps payroll tax cut proposal, and though they have resisted House Democrats plan, Jayapal said Thursday she believed it was possible to pick up some Republican votes on the package, particularly because the proposals are temporary and tied to the virus.

I've never believed that these ideas are partisan. I believe that they would bring enormous comfort to and support to everybody across the country, whether you're in a red district or a blue district, she said especially, now, she added, because the cost is death.

Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the Democrats proposal as currently drafted was dead on arrival in the Senate and merely left-wing political messaging. But Friday afternoon, House Democrats and the White House struck a deal, which passed the House last week and is set to pass the Senate early this week.

Read more here:
Medicare For All And Paid Sick Leave Are Often Dismissed As Impractical. Progressives Say The Coronavirus Proves Theyre Not. - BuzzFeed News

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday that he and PresidentTrump supported sending $1,000 checks straight to the American people as tens of millions face furloughs, layoffsand financial uncertainty as the coronavirus outbreak spreads a major shift of the Overton window regarding direct cash assistance for Americans amid the pandemic.

"We are looking at sending checks to Americans immediately," Mnuchintoldthe press. "Americans need to get cash now and the president wants to get cash now, and I mean now in the next two weeks."

Mnuchin reportedly said the administration "likes the idea of $1,000" for the checks, but declined to give an exact number in a press briefing or to say whetherthe proposal would be free of restrictions that could leave out people who receive other government benefits. He alsosuggestedthe program could be means-tested, telling reporters, "We don't need to send people who make a million dollars a year checks."

Still, the notion of direct cash assistance from the Trump administration would have been "inconceivable" just days ago,Washington Posteconomics reporter Jeffrey Steintweeted.

"Ifthe cash is genuinely unrestricted, it would be a historic move. While Americans received checks as part of the response to recessions in2001and2008, those were sent out as rebates or refunds to taxpayers,"wroteDylan Matthews at Vox.com. "Never before have all Americans, regardless of income, and including the poorest citizens who do not earn enough money to have positive income tax burdens, gotten checks."

Advertisement:

Mnuchin's statement followed intense criticism of the administration's previous economic stimulus proposal to offer apayroll tax cutto companies a plan which would not help Americans in the immediate term and would carry no benefit for people who lose their jobs as a result of the public health crisis.

The suggestion that the federal government could send checks to tens of millions of Americans came a day after Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utahand Tom Cotton of Arkansascriticizedan economic relief package from House Democrats for failing to deliver fast enough assistance to American workers. The bill left most workers out of its plan for paid sick leave, and the legislation wasscaled back even furtherlate Monday, limiting the benefit for the next 10weeks to people who are out of work because they need to care for children.

The scaling back of the House bill and the administration's potential offer of assistance, as well as the proposals put forward by Republican senators, has effectively placed Democrats to the right of the GOP regarding coronavirus aid,HuffPostreporter Zach Cartertweeted.

"A handful of Republicans are outflanking Democrats on coronavirus aid," he wrote, sharing the plan of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.,to send checks for several thousand dollars to families. "If Republicans move in this direction and Democrats keep insisting on narrowly targeted means-tested plans with a zillion carve outs for particular businesses, it will be a catastrophe for the Democratic Party."

Following the push on Monday from Romney, Cotton and Hawley, some Senate Democrats also began pushing for direct cash assistance. On Tuesday, Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio,proposed immediate payments of $2,000 for every American adult and child, followed by additional payments later this year.

"The 'send people money' bids are ramping up in the Senate,"New York Timesreporter Jim Tankersleytweeted.

Last week, before the House passed its relief bill, Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.,and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio,proposedsending checks of up to $6,000 to every American earning less than $65,000. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.,alsoannouncedTuesday on Twitter that she was planning to introduce legislation to offer $1,000 to every adult and $500 to every child in the country, with "no exceptions," as well as direct stimulus to any small business that doesn't lay off its workers during the crisis.

Other progressives in Congress applauded the Trump administration for considering direct cash payments and pushed the president to move forward with other proposals for assistance to Americans.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.,and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.,both called on Mnuchin and Trump to suspend student loan payments or cancel student debt.

Read the original post:
Now Trump and Mnuchin want to send us money: Progressives wonder who will qualify - Salon

Photo: Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images

One of the more confusing questions pollsters have asked Democratic voters to answer this year is whether they would prefer their candidate return to Obamas policies versus pursuing a more liberal (or conservative) course. A modest plurality picked the Obama option. You couldnt find a bigger believer in Obamas legacy than me I literally wrote a book touting it and Im not even sure how Id answer that question. Obama policies could mean any one of the following:

1) The policy status quo as of January 20, 20172) The policies Obama implemented plus the policies he proposed but were blocked by Congress or overturned by conservative courts3) The policies Obama would be proposing if he were running for president now

The ambiguity about this question reflects the larger confusion about Biden and the return to normalcy he promises. Bidens rhetorical emphasis seems to imply his plan is no more than the first definition of Obama-ism, winding the clock back to the moment before Donald Trump took the oath of office. But the truth is that Biden has a domestic agenda that, while nowhere near as radical as the Bernie Sanders platform, is almost certainly to the left of anything even a Democratic-run Congress would pass.

Last summer, Biden assured a group of donors that nothing fundamental will change in their lives under his plan. Outraged progressives seized on the words, often skipping right over the fundamental, reimagining the line as a promise that nothing would change for the rich:

Biden was not saying that. His point was that he was asking them to take a hit to their after-tax income in return for buying social peace, but that the sacrifice would be finite he would not confiscate their homes or end their livelihoods. Indeed, last week the Tax Policy Center published its analysis of Bidens plan to increase taxes on the rich. The plan would raise $4 trillion over a decade, making it if enacted one of the largest wealth transfers in American history.

TPCs has a chart illustrating the effect on after-tax income. One-percenters would see their annual income drop by 10-15 percent:

Now, as Biden promised, that still wouldnt be a fundamental change in their lives. They would still have a lot of money more, in most cases, than they enjoyed a decade ago. But it is still a very sizable change, one that would likely meet with bitter and even hysterical resistance from the rich when introduced in Congress.

There is plenty more liberal meat on the bones of Bidens program. He is proposing more generous subsidies and medicaid funding along with a public option in order to achieve universal health care; a combination of $17 trillion in clean energy investment and a suite of tighter regulation to bring emissions to zero by 2050; a combined $2 trillion in new spending on early education, post-secondary education, and housing, a $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan, and a $15 minimum wage.

There is more Biden could be proposing to advance the liberal agenda. Ive argued he should adopt some of Elizabeth Warrens anti-corruption and financial regulation plans, including a financial transaction tax. Eric Levitz has some ideas of his own, including marijuana legalization. If he can carry a Democratic majority into the Senate, a lot of possibilities will open. Campaign proposals only go so far, though. The limits of his legislation will be set by the 50th Senator, and the limits of his executive action will be set by the fifth Supreme Court justice. That would have been true under a Sanders or Warren administration, too.

Obama effected a great deal of progress, especially in the first two years, before Republicans took back Congress and blockaded major legislation. The slow-paced last six years of Obamas presidency helped spur the Bernie movement, with its ambition of summoning a mass army of non-voters that would force the likes of Mitch McConnell to open the way to left-wing reforms.

The failure of the Sanders campaign to inspire anything like such a voter uprising, and the all but certain end his campaign is facing, should bring the left back to reality. But reality doesnt mean nothing. It means that, with the possibility of full control of government comes the opportunity for meaningful progress again. Biden mostly casts himself as a return to normalcy. But what he is promising as well is a continuation of the liberal tradition of Roosevelt, Johnson, and Obama.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

The rest is here:
Joe Bidens Platform Is More Progressive Than You Think - New York Magazine

The primary contests for Bernie Sanders have not gone as hed hoped and, while the election isnt over yet, the question now looms about what happens to the progressive movement after Bernie Sanders.

I think the answer to that was never centered around the presidential race to begin with. Which should be intuitive because the future of the progressive movement cant be a 78-year-old white guy whos been in politics for several decades, almost by definition. Bernie is a pioneer, not the future. The future is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (And Ayanna Pressley. And Ilhan Omar. And Rashida Tlaib. And Katie Porter. That they are all women is not a coincidence. That they are all, except for Porter, women of color isnt either.)

In the past few weeks, Ocasio-Cortez has been asked repeatedly whether she would support the Democratic nominee for president if he or she wasnt Bernie Sanders, and her replies have been affirmative and unambiguous.

As to Sanders, whose campaign she helped revive with her endorsement after his heart attack in October, she was clear Tuesday evening: Theres no sugar-coating it. Tonights a tough night. Tonights a tough night electorally, Ocasio-Cortez said on an Instagram live chat, noting the stark generational divide in the Democratic Party on health care, on climate change, on foreign policy.

She noted that Our generation seems to have a streak of progressivism that doesnt seem to be going away soon, and that, while movements arent necessarily electoral, as people get better at learning to vote over time.

During her short tenure in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez has already been a powerful agenda-setter for Democrats in ways that long-term elected Democratic officials who skew more moderateestablishment Democrats, as Bernie would put ithave not always embraced or even felt threatened by. Shes also been visible, vocal, and in hearings, unintimidated by process or her peers and impeccably prepared. And to the extent that this has made her the unofficial bogeyman of the right, she has turned it into a powerful microphone for educating people about what it means to need the things a progressive agenda has to offeruniversal health care, upward mobility for younger people suffering from decisions made by the prior generation, justice and equality for marginalized peopleand how it can actually be achieved.

Despite the incessant howling on Fox News about the horrors of socialism, 76 percent of Democrats say theyd vote for a socialist president, and AOCs telegenic accessibility has the potential to make democratic socialism less scary to the 24 percent who are holding out. She natively understands media in a way that her priors dont and leverages it to speak to the left about the need for more progressive work and the right, simply because she has their attention.

At the core, there is nothing on Sanders agenda that is not also on Ocasio-Cortez agenda, and Sanders recognizes that. She is his most visible and powerful surrogate. She speaks to the younger voters that are the most vibrant and crucial part of his coalition and also models for them a pathway that works in the context of the flawed and, in certain ways, increasingly more fragile government we have. But she also advances a rhetoric of reform that leaves room for new constituencies, and that may be the key difference between AOC and the Sanders campaign, if not Sanders.

There is a small but vocal portion of the Sanders base that is accelerationist in nature, and cannot really think about what it would do with power within the Democratic party in any meaningful way because its mostly concerned with dismantling the partypunitively, and for crimes the party has certainly committed (bowing to special interests, aligning itself with undemocratic policies, choosing between corporate interests and vulnerable populations and picking the former).

But there are a lot more progressives who view the existing system of government and the two-party system as the most obvious, maybe only way, to get progressive policies enacted. And hostility toward the party in the abstract does not, for many Democratic voters, translate to hostility toward Democrats generally. You can think the party at the most elite powerful levels is full of corrupt insiders and still like your local representative, who you think has your back. You can also think that some of the best progressive advances that weve made as a country were accomplished by Democrats in spite of those problems.

Ocasio-Cortez seems to be able to thread this needle in a way that Sanders cant. Shes pushed back against what she perceives to be party regressivenessrefusing to pay DCCC dues after they banned vendors who worked on her campaignbut also exhibiting a willingness to work with people (Republicans even; Ted Cruz, even!) where they can potentially agree on a progressive objective.

So its not going to feel like a win for progressive voters this week at the presidential level, but the baton is already being passed, and to a progressive standard bearer who can hold insiders to account and maintain the excitement Bernie Sanders movement built with younger voters, while simultaneously pulling new people into the progressive movement and getting things done within an extremely flawed system. The progressive movement is bigger than any single candidate in any case, but if were going to choose avatars by necessity, we still have exciting options.

Excerpt from:
Bernie Sanders Was a Progressive Pioneer. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is the Future of the Movement. - The Daily Beast