Mediaboss Marketing

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

Facing a global pandemic, Americas very existence hasnt been this threatened since President Franklin Delano Roosevelts administration confronted the Great Depression and World War II. The coronavirus is challenging the USA with a double whammy that combines both dangers: Economic collapse and an invasion causing massive loss of life. To combat these twin perils requires a response on a par with Roosevelts New Deal and the Allied war effort against fascism.

Trump is moving in the direction of another upper class New Yorker who also became president in an era of extreme crisis. Its time for some bigly Federal government action again.

And who is emerging as the 21st century equivalent of FDR, mobilizing the Federal government to tackle this viral menace? Will it be that latter day New Dealer, presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who advocates nationalizing healthcare? Or his onetime rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Andrew Yang, who ran on the Universal Basic Income platform of disbursing $1,000 monthly payments to Americans? Or Democratic frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden, who can claim to have experience marshaling Washingtons resources to take on a national disaster?

No Americas new FDR wont be a Democrat, but may, surprisingly, come from the other side of the aisle. Indeed, it will be none other than President Trump call him Franklin DONALD Roosevelt. On March 17 the Republican chief executive went far beyond the usual conservative cant of simply seeking just a payroll tax holiday to overcome the coronavirus adverse economic impact. Indeed, Trump called for Congress to work with him on a big, bold stimulus package to stabilize the U.S. economy. And on March 18 Trump called himself a wartime president.

Sounding more like Roosevelts Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. than Trumps, Steve Mnuchin is negotiating a trillion dollar rescue program with Capitol Hill. Were going big, Trump proclaimed about his bigly plan to outspend the pandemics effect. Yang told CNN that the White House had contacted him to learn details about how his UBI initiative would work. After all, laissez faire, every-man-for-himself capitalism wont solve a plague through the invisible hand of the free market.

Now that Trumpsters have discovered the Big Government gospel, whats next? Are businesses going to display the National Recovery Administration blue eagle logo with its We Do Our Part motto again? Will Trump resurrect a 2020 version of the Works Progress Administration to put all the laid off flight attendants, hotel housekeepers, croupiers, cruise ship stewards, Uber drivers, etc., back to work, as Michigan Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee has advocated? Will an updated Federal Theatre Project turn the lights back on Broadway (setting the stage for Marla Maples comeback)? Will a modern day Tennessee Valley Authority powered by wind and solar provide renewable energy to America? Is a 21st century Civilian Conservation Corps combating climate change coming soon?

Trump may harness all of the powers of the presidency (which he claimed are unlimited due to Article II of the Constitution) and the Federal government to do all the right things. But of course, it will be for all the wrong reasons. After all, this is the megalomaniacal Manhattan realtor who wanted to build a high rise so tall it would cast a shadow across the Hudson River, bilked charities, mocked a disabled reporter at a rally, blithely tossed paper towels to Puerto Rican hurricane victims, called neo-Nazis very fine people, etc. the examples of his callous disregard for human suffering and basic decency are endless. When it comes to accountability, the presidential motto of this showboat whos always praising himself but never taking responsibility has been: The buck stops over there! A case in point was when a reporter tried to ask the denier-in-chief about his low credibility ratings the thin-skinned Trump highhandedly preempted him with his usual self-congratulatory self-aggrandizements.

So why would Trump finally step up to the plate in order to defeat COVID-19? Because he wants to be reelected in November (assuming, of course, that he doesnt cancel the election and assume emergency powers). With a plague afoot and the economy in freefall, hed be exposed as the incompetent fraud he is and everyone would see what most of us already knew: This would-be emperor has no clothes. With all of the Dows gains made since Trump took office wiped out with circuit-breaking plunges, no longer able to boast about the stock market and low unemployment, the prez has lost his trump card and probably millions of voters too, like those Trump University students who sued the conman to get their tuition back.

Referencing Bernies popularity Trump has reportedly said people like free stuff and if anyone should know, its this guy who was born with a golden spoon. Spending trillions to stabilize the economy and sending $1,000 checks to out-of-work Americans could mollify angry people enraged at a commander-in-cheek whod downplayed the coronavirus as yet another hoax, allowing it to rampage out of control on his watch. Besides, its not Trumps personal fortune hed be giving away; hes already proven hes extravagant when it comes to spending other peoples money. (Just ask Deutsche Bank.) And with the hospitality industry tanking, the self-dealer-in-chiefs resorts could probably use a bailout at taxpayers expense.

Of course, Trump is desperate to win the election because he presumes victory would give him another get out of jail free card for four more years for committing the alleged crimes hes reportedly under investigation for by Congressman Adam Schiff, the Southern District of New York, etc., purportedly including money laundering, tax fraud and not to mention the women claiming hes a sexual predator, et al.

Nevertheless, despite his sordid motives which have nothing to do with rescuing ordinary Americans and everything to do with saving his bungling bulging butt, lets hope that Trump does turn into Franklin DONALD Roosevelt and uses the powers of his office to mitigate the impending health and financial catastrophes. The Sander-nistas have already revived the notion of massive government programs and action. And while its true Biden is winning the Democratic primaries now, consider that out of 20-plus candidates Bernie is just about the only candidate still running against the ex-Veep, so his ideas are popular enough for Bernie Bros to give Trump Left cover. And it will be progressives role to hold TrumpDRs feet to the fireside chat to ensure that ordinary people will benefit from government intervention and expenditures not just fat cats.

As this viral Pearl Harbor sneak attack looms, itd be unrealistic to expect the bumbling Trump to eloquently wax poetic, in his own words, about the only thing we have to fear is fear itself or a date that shall live in infamy. But lets hope Trump can rise to the dire occasion by stealing a page from FDRs deeds with a new New Deal and an Allied global war against coronavirus.

Ed Rampell

L.A.-based journalist Ed Rampell co-authored Pearl Harbor in the Movies and The Hawaii Movie and Television Book.

See the rest here:
Meet the New FDRFranklin DONALD Roosevelt? - laprogressive.com