Mediaboss Marketing

Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill Miami Herald Moderate Republican senators who opposed the original Obamacare replacement bill will face increased pressure from health care advocates to hold the line next week in a possible vote on the revised legislation. Republican senators who are on the fence ... and more »

Originally posted here:
Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill - Miami Herald

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Progressives are in a bit of a panic lately, looking at the results of a recent focus group study that shows their core base of millennials are abandoning the leftist ideology in droves, jumping out of the Democratic Partys ship to take their votes gasp! elsewhere.

Why? Apparently, millennials, and particularly millennials of color of which is 44 percent of that demographic are sick and tired of being taken for granted.

The chickens coming home to roost. Suddenly, blacks arent content to simply and automatically pull the poll levers for Democratic Party candidates, or progressives. Now, theyre demanding actual representation. Theyre decrying the feeling of being taken for granted, according to results from a focus group conducted by the Civic Engagement Fund in Florida and Wisconsin.

Heres the line that really slaps, though.

Youre damn right, I dont have any loyalty to Democrats, one participant in the Florida focus group said, in The Hill. If Republicans want to get real about shit thats happening in my community, I would vote for every one of them. Then maybe Democrats would take us serious too.

Whats astonishing about the statement is that Democrats, progressives and pretty much anyone running for political office with a left-leaning vision and platform could bank on the support of blacks and other minorities. The overall attitude was: Well, who else would they vote for a Republican?

This research shows yes. Maybe.

And consider this: The Brookings Institution reported millennials to be the largest group of voters by 2020 and in 2015, more than 44 percent of millennials were people of color, the Hill said.

Can you say President Donald Trump wins a second term?

We are not going to get back to national majorities again without these voters, said Cornell Belcher, the guy who conducted the focus groups for the Civic Engagement Fund.

Interesting. The gravy train for the Democrats appears to be coming to a halt. Todays minorities arent automatically voting left. And Republicans now have a sizable opening and its one that should start with a reminder of the history of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and which party fought the hardest, with votes, for their passage. Hint: It wasnt the Dems.

Read the original here:
Progressives panic as millennials flee: 'You damn right, I don't have any loyalty to Democrats' - Washington Times

In recent weeks, a number of Venezuelan specialists on the left side of the political spectrum have published and posted pieces that place them in an anti-Chavista, ni-ni position that consists of a plague on both your houses with regard to Maduro and the Venezuelan opposition. Certainly,at this moment the Chavistas are playing hard ball; the options available to them are limited.

I consider myself a critical Chavista. Its not an easy position to be in, particularly because the last thing I would want to do is to act in any way that would favor the right (that is the Venezuelan opposition and its allies abroad). On the other hand, I have always opposed (even in my writing) the position of some people on the left who feel that U.S. leftists should not publicly express criticisms of socialist governments. Criticism (including public criticism) is necessary as it is part of the process of assimilating lessons.

The recent articles that harshly attack the Maduro government have been published in Jacobin magazine by Gabriel Hetland and another by Mike Gonzalez as well as Hetlands piece posted by NACLA: Report on the Americas in which he uses the expression que se vayan todos. More recently NACLA posted an interview with Alejandro Velasco that was originally published in the magazine Nueva Sociedad.

I know a number of people in Venezuela and academia in the U.S. and elsewhere who I used to see eye to eye on with regard to Chavez and I now find them expressing total rejection of and even animosity toward the government. The only thing that binds us now is our common support for the need to defend Venezuelan sovereignty, and sometimes not even that.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE NI-NI POSITION THAT I AGREE WITH AND WHAT ARE THE ONES I DISAGREE WITH:

AGREE:

1. CORRUPTION IS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUIS PROBLEM IN VENEZUELA, which the government has not done nearly enough to combat, though some timid measures have been taken (eg. over the last 6 months in the oil industry).

2. THE GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED CERTAIN DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES the decision to strip Henrique Capriles of the right to participate in elections on grounds of corruption; and the delay of the gubernatorial elections; but not the decision not to hold the recall in 2016 (since the opposition didnt have their act together on that one).

3. THE NEGATIVE ROLE OF THE STATE APPARATUS AND THE CHAVISTA ELITE - Velasco begins his interview with these words. I agree that the state bureaucracy and Chavista elite have stifled internal Chavista democracy and in doing so have discouraged mobilization. Nevertheless, I also recognize that this bloc (the Chavista bureaucrats) buttresses the Chavista hold on power as it has a mobilization and organizational capacity that would be lost should Maduro unleash a revolution within the revolution. Hastily turning power over to the rank and file would have disastrous immediate consequences. Thus, for instance, Chavezs decision to implement the Plan Guayana Socialista in which the workers chose the presidents (known as worker presidents) of state companies in the Guayana region was a failure because the labor movement in those firms, almost 100 percent Chavista, went at each others throats.

4. THE CHAVISTA MOVEMENT HAS LOST A LARGE NUMBER OF ITS ACTIVE SUPPORTERS. In addition to the factors named by the ni-nis (corruption, government bungling, etc.) there is the factor of desgaste (wearing down process over time) which is inevitable and doesnt in itself reflect negatively on the Chavista leadership. Eighteen years is a long time.

DISAGREE:

1. THE MADURO GOVERNMENT IS AUTHORITARIAN OR HEADING IN AN AUTHORITARIAN DIRECTION, which at this point is my most important disagreement with the ni-nis. Those who make this statement never acknowledge the importance of context. They recognize, though in some cases they play down (not so in the case of Hetlands Jacobin piece), the violent activity unleashed by the opposition, but dont relate the states police actions to the challenges it is facing. Just to provide one example. A totally anti-government hostile communications media encourages the audacity and extremism of the opposition for two reasons. First the police and National Guard are held back from responding firmly and without hesitation and thus they lose their dissuasive capacity. And second, the protesters themselves feel empowered. Both factors play on each other. In the U.S. or any other country, the corporate media (and some of the alternative media) would be completely sympathetic to the actions of security forces, even their excesses, in a situation of urban paralysis and urban violence over such an extended period of time (its been three and a half months). Furthermore, to use the term authoritarian when the local media is so supportive of the opposition, is simply misleading. It is true that the national TV channels (specifically Televen, Venevision, and Globovsion) are less hostile to the government than in 2002-2003 but they (perhaps with the exception of Venevision) are still more pro than anti-opposition. But almost all of the important written media both nationally and locally are vocally anti-government. And in the case of the international media, the bias has no limits.

Finally, there are valid criticisms of the Chavista-chosen methodology for the Constituent Assembly election to be held on July 30, but that doesnt make Venezuela authoritarian. In 18 years of Chavista rule, there has never been plausible evidence of electoral fraud. Compare that with the dubious legitimacy of last months elections in the state of Mexico City, hardly unique for that nation.

The real elephant in the room is the gubernatorial election of December of this year, which the Maduro government is committed to holding. Those contests, to be held in just five months from now, will measure popular support. And they will put to the test the democratic commitment of both the government and the opposition. In my opinion the radical fringe of the opposition would prefer to reach power through force in order to crush the Chavista movement and impose neoliberal policies shock-treatment style rather than reach power through electoral means, in which case their options would be more limited.

2. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SINCERE ABOUT DIALGOUE, according to Velasco there is no evidence one way of the other on this one.

3. THE CHAVISTA RANK AND FILE HAS LITTLE REASON TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE MADURO GOVERNMENT and for that reason two million of them abstained in December 2015. Although obviously disillusionment is widespread, there are many important reasons for progressives and popular sectors to support the Maduro government: nationalistic foreign policy, rejection of neoliberal type agreements with international financial institutions, social programs that involve community participation; zero-sum-game policies that favor the popular sectors (example: the Bus Rapid Transit BRT that in Barcelona-Puerto La Cruz reserves one of two lanes on the main drag connecting the two cities to accordion-typebusesat the expense of automobile traffic); and finally Maduro (in spite of all of his shortcomings as an administrator and failure to take necessary bold decisions) has proven to be a fighter and to convince his base that hes not going to go down without a struggle to the end. He has also attempted to mobilize his base; the failure to attempt to do so by Lula and Dilma Rousseff is a major reason why the impeachment against the latter went through.

4. VENEZUELAS ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES ARE NOT ABOUT LOW OIL PRICES BUT ABOUT GOVERNMENT INEPTNESS. In fact, there are three causes of the economic crisis and they all have approximately the same weight: low oil prices, the economic war (with Julio Borgess public campaign against multinational investments in Venezuela, the existence of an economic war is clearer to see than in the past), and erroneous government policies. With regard to the latter (and here I probably diverge somewhat from Mark Weisbrot), I believe that decisions on economic policies were necessary and urgent, but that there were no easy and obvious choices and any one that was made would have come with a price, both politically and economically.

5. GOVERNMENT INTRANSIGENCE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CHAVISTA LEADERS DONT WANT TO LOSE THEIR PRIVILEGES. This statement is misleading, even while there is undoubtedly an element of truth in it. But the statement assumes that Chavista leaders are all cynics and without any sense of idealism. Where is the scientific evidence to support this claim?

6. ATTORNEY GENERAL LUISA ORTEGA DIAZ REPRESENTS A NUETRAL POSITION WHICH THE MADURO GOVERNMENT IS UNWILLING TO TOLERATE. In fact, regardless of her motives, she has assumed an explicitly pro-opposition position. In such a critical situation in which the opposition openly proposes anarchy as a means to unseat Maduro, it makes sense that the Chavistas are attempting to remove her from office.

In short,I believe in the conclusive need to support the Venezuelan government in spite of the numerous criticisms that I have (some more profound than others). With that, I am not arguing for non-discussion of the errors. Everything to the contrary, the Venezuelan experience needs to be analyzed from a critical perspective, especially because of the plausibility of the criticisms formulated by critical progressives and the thorniness of many of the issues that have been raised. But there is a long tradition of purism on the left that runs counter to the position of critical support that I advocate.

First published by teleSUR English, adapted and expanded for Venezuelanalysis.

Here is the original post:
The Venezuelan Dilemma: Progressives and the "Plague on Both Your Houses" Position - Venezuelanalysis.com

The battle for the future of the Democratic Party is being fought at places like the Nathan Hale Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Huntington Station.

Thats where freshman Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) held a town hall Monday night. Yet despite Suozzis admirable commitment to near-monthly sessions, parked cars overflowed onto the grass, and attendees clamored for question time. Because a number of them were there to push him to support single-payer health care.

Suozzi represents one vision for how Democrats might emerge from the surprising political wilderness where they find themselves in the era of Donald Trump, considering the cascading miscues and enduring Russia scandal engulfing the Republican president. That vision does not include the more progressive dream of creating a single-payer health care system.

Suozzi is a self-described reasonable person, a pragmatic member of the Problem Solvers and Quiet Skies caucuses in the House of Representatives. He opened the forum touting bipartisan relationships hed developed so far in Congress, including joining a bipartisan gym crew.

He says there are issues he wont move on when Republicans come calling, including opposition to the GOP health care plan that looks to leave millions of Americans uninsured. Yet he remains sure that what may be a relatively moderate district would see tax increases or the threat of them as non-starters. Hence, his support of single-payer health care on an academic basis only.

Thats not good enough for members of the grass-roots Long Island Activists and other like-minded attendees, some of whom showed up to demand that Suozzi co-sponsor a House bill making single-payer a reality.

For people like Joseph Sarno of Dix Hills, Democrats need to fall in line for a more progressive platform. He and others implored Suozzi on that front on Monday, as they had in the past. Suozzi addressed one of Long Island Activists founders, Ron Widelec of Commack, by name.

But like much of national politics, the two sides are at an impasse. Should Democrats double down on the seriously progressive initiatives reintroduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, seeing that as the way to combat Democratic apathy? Or is the lesson from the 2016 campaign that Democrats should tailor arguments to a more local tune, edging out wins wherever they can get them even if their ideology is not always perfectly consistent?

Armed with limited information gleaned from special elections and the reading of social media moods, partisans on both sides of the Democratic divide are preparing the way forward for the party into 2018 and beyond. They are weighing whether the losses of national-style Democrats in high-profile, well-funded races mean the party needs to find candidates more amenable to their regions. Or does the win of someone like Christine Pellegrino a Sanders delegate from West Islip with union backing who won a South Shore Assembly seat in a Trump district in a low-turnout race on May 23 imply that progressive ideals are winning?

That was all in the caldron for Suozzi to deal with on Monday. He noted that to change things, you need to win. The activists might add that to win elections, the candidates need to change. There does not appear to be much chance of rapprochement.

But in reality, there is plenty of room between the hard goal of single-payer health care and the moral nightmare of the GOP plan. That middle ground could be something both sides of the Democratic divide could support. Coming to some sort of truce on issues like this when it matters at election time will be the true test of 2018 and after for the party. If either side abandons the other, the wilderness may be unbroken.

Mark Chiusano is a member of Newsdays editorial board.

See the article here:
Suburban progressives want to push Tom Suozzi and the ... - amNY

While rolling out their plan to extend Californias cap-and-trade program, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders have portrayed their proposal as a win on two fronts: reaching the states ambitious climate goals and tackling local air pollution.

But beyond the triumphant rhetoric, there is ambivalence about the proposal, largely from progressive lawmakers and environmental advocates. Meanwhile, more conservative legislators and industry groups have stopped short of embracing the plan, throwing the swift passage Brown hoped for in doubt.

The reactions to the proposal underscore a key tension in the debate over Californias self-styled role as a national and international climate leader, particularly as President Trump slashes environmental regulations in Washington: How to balance aggressive action with broad political appeal.

The state is responsible for a tiny fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, meaning its only hope of influencing global warming is modeling policies that can be embraced elsewhere, including in more conservative states. Cap and trade, a system that requires companies to buy permits to release greenhouse gases, is seen as a more business-friendly alternative to other methods that would dictate how polluters such as refineries reduce their emissions.

Being able to show that [emissions] reductions can happen, that the economy can continue to thrive with this ambitious climate commitment, that's going to be critical for this model being replicated around the world, said Erica Morehouse, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, a national environmental group that quickly backed Browns plan.

But other green advocates want the state to set an example with the most stringent possible regulations, and blanch at the concessions that oil companies and other industries have extracted from Brown, who has been pressing for a deal before lawmakers break for summer recess July 21.

Brown wanted to declare victory on something and go home, and that's what he's doing unfortunately hes doing so at the expense of our state's climate goals, said R.L. Miller, president of the grassroots group Climate Hawks Vote.

Gov. Brown and Democratic leaders offer plan to extend cap and trade, with aim for approval this week

The climate package, which was unveiled late Monday, received a lukewarm reception among lawmakers across the ideological spectrum Tuesday. Progressive Democrats worried the design of the cap-and-trade system was too friendly to industry. Republicans, whose votes Brown has courted, want tweaks on tax relief for manufacturers and for certain landowners currently paying for fire prevention that was written into the measure. They also want more clarity on how the revenues from the cap-and-trade auctions will be spent.

Brown and his allies want a two-thirds vote to extend cap and trade, the threshold for passing tax increases, to insulate the program from legal challenges. Democrats narrowly hold the necessary supermajorities in each house, but a substantial bloc is aligned with business interests, making it difficult to push a purely progressive measure through the Legislature.

Despite California's reputation as a green leader, environmental groups often struggle to become the driving force in the Capitol, said Fabian Nez, the former Assembly speaker who shepherded landmark legislation on climate change in 2006.

"There's a difference between protest politics and governance," he said. "The environmental community has difficulty transferring from one to the other."

The disappointment among some environmentalists stands in stark contrast to their major victory last year with legislation setting an ambitious target for slashing emissions by 2030. With the goal enshrined in state law, they hoped to have more leverage over industry groups when it came to negotiating the future of the cap-and-trade program.

Brown said the business community was "going to plead" to extend the program to avoid more costly regulations. Browns prediction, in a sense, was borne out: Now, industries that have tried to undermine the program in the past are now seeking its extension, touting it as the most cost-effective way to reach the states goals.

Although clean energy businesses were quick to tout the plan released Monday, other sectors, including oil and agriculture, have so far kept quiet.

Given the magnitude of the importance of this, we only have one shot to get this right, said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. We support cap and trade, and we are all trying to figure out how we can build a balanced plan we can support that reduces greenhouse gases and grows our economy.

Chris Megerian

There's a lot of ideas out there for changing the cap-and-trade program. Here are the highlights.

There's a lot of ideas out there for changing the cap-and-trade program. Here are the highlights. (Chris Megerian)

The implications of cap and trades future extend beyond Californias borders. Dean Florez, a member of the California Air Resources Board, said the governor needed to make a market-friendly proposal to show China and others considering climate change policies that a large economy could develop a measure that was environmentally sound and allowed for economic growth and flexibility.

If the governor did anything differently with this, he wouldnt have been a credible person on the international stage, Florez said. It would be seen as this wacky proposal.

Industrys hand was strengthened at the beginning of June when oil companies teamed up with powerful building trade unions, which have contracts at refineries, to block climate legislation backed by progressive lawmakers and some environmentalists.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council, the umbrella group for construction unions, said Tuesday it supports Browns plan. Cesar Diaz, the groups legislative director, said the state needs a "balanced approach."

"Our members are working at these refineries," he said, adding that if they started shutting down or scaling back, "our members would suffer."

Besides the split between labor and environmentalists, green groups have also struggled to reach a consensus among themselves. Increasingly ambitious environmental justice advocates, who are focused more on addressing local pollution, are generally opposed to cap and trade, while other more established national organizations back the policy.

Meanwhile, oil companies worked with other industries, such as manufacturers and agriculture interests, to create their own detailed proposals, which aligned in part with the legislation introduced Monday.

Perhaps no issue has caused as much angst with the environmental justice faction as an industry request that would limit state and regional regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would prohibit air quality regulators from adopting carbon-cutting rules for refineries and other so-called fixed pollution sources that are also subject to cap-and-trade.

A Bay Area Air Quality Management District official criticized that provision as a giveaway to the Western States Petroleum Assn., the industry group that has led the charge against the districts efforts to regulate greenhouse gases from refineries.

That element of the bill is specifically designed to prevent the adoption of progressive, tough air quality regulations by agencies like the Bay Area air district against refineries, said Tom Addison, senior policy advisor for the Bay Area district.

The provision was similarly criticized by environmental justice advocates.

Diane Takvorian, who heads the San Diego County-based Environmental Health Coalition and sits on the state Air Resources Board, called the limitation a direct attack on ARB's proposed refinery reduction measures.

"We just can't tie the hands of our state and local regulatory agencies like this," Takvorian said.

For now, negotiations continue at their wearying pace, as backers strive for a vote by the weeks end. Well into Tuesday evening, the governors office was still hosting meetings with Republicans and other interested parties on the package.

Times staff writer Liam Dillon in Sacramento contributed to this report.

melanie.mason@latimes.com, chris.megerian@latimes.com, tony.barboza@latimes.com

Twitter: @melmason, @chrismegerian, @tonybarboza

ALSO

Here's how Jimmy Gomez's new job makes the state's climate change fight more difficult

Heres the latest report card on Californias battle against climate change

Updates from Sacramento

View post:
Here's why progressives aren't thrilled with Gov. Brown's cap-and-trade plan - Los Angeles Times