Mediaboss Marketing

News Release Vermont Progressive Party May 4th, 2017

Contact: Josh Wronski Executive Director, Vermont Progressive Party 802-229-0800

Montpelier, VT Last night Progressive House Legislators stood unanimously opposed to a thinly veiled attempt to undermine workers rights in Vermont.

Governor Phil Scotts proposal to negotiate a statewide health insurance plan for teachers was rejected on Wednesday by a tie vote in the Vermont House. The plan would have stripped teachers and support staff of their right to negotiate health insurance with their local school boards. Gov. Scott claimed that the plan would save the state 26 million dollars. Progressives argue that the savings in the Governors plan are unproven, and that the amount and use of any savings should be negotiated between local employees and their communities. They say that the savings will happen through negotiations with educators and their school boards as school boards transition into less expensive health benefit plans in accordance with Affordable Care Act regulations.

Gov. Scotts plan to attack teachers health insurance and collective bargaining rights was supported by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. House Progressives stood unanimously opposed to the measure. Our caucus unanimously opposed this measure because it would have upended decades of labor practice with virtually no vetting, said Progressive Caucus Chair Robin Chesnut-Tangerman. We are confident that we can achieve savings without undermining the right of teachers to collectively bargain. Robin went on to say that a single payer healthcare system would avoid this issue completely and save money.

Progressive Party Director, Josh Wronski, stated that The Beck Amendment should have easily failed in a Democratic-controlled legislature. One must ask how dedicated Democrats are to organized labor with such a close outcome. Progressives respect educators right to bargain, especially over bread and butter issues like health insurance. Our Progressive caucus unanimously opposed this measure and proved again that we are the party of working people and their unions.

More:
Progressives Stand with Teachers and Their Families - vtdigger.org

With the subtitle A Roadmap for the Resistance, the Congressional Progressive CaucusPeople's Budget,isn't shy about its purpose in the Trump Era.

As Rep. Barbara Lee summarized it: In stark contrast to President Trumps cruel poverty budget, our progressive proposal is a plan for resistance and a roadmap to a safer, healthier and more prosperous America for all.

While Democrats and Republicansfighting to claim victoryin the deal on thefiscal 2017 spending plan, progressive Democratsare dreaming bigger.

The People's Budget is a yearly wish list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus meant to show what their priorities would beif the left wing of the Democratic Party was in power. Since that is far from the case, the proposalsin the budget are unlikely to become policy in the near future.

But the budget nonetheless provides one of the clearest pictures available of progressivespreferred policies. Unsurprisingly, they differ quite a bit from the deal reachedbetween congressional Democrats and Republicans.

The Peoples Budget includesspending on job creation to reach full employment as aprimary aim, which hasn't changed from previous CPC budgets. It includes $2 trillion in spending on infrastructure and other direct job creation over the next several years, with $281 billion in the rest of calendar year 2017 and about $710 billion over 2017-2018. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute(EPI), which releases an analysis of the CPC budget each year, found it would increase Gross Domestic Productby 2 percent and employment by 2.4 million jobs in the near term.

CPC co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison said in a statement that the budget would also implement debt-free college, fund universal child care, ensure equal pay for equal work, expand Social Security, and fight climate change.

As the Trump Administration attempts to gut the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Labor Department, and countless other essential services, the Progressive Caucus is providing an alternative vision one that will help working families, he said.

The People's Budget also contains provisions for increasing government revenue, largely through measures that are aimed at reducing income inequality, like raising marginal tax rates on millionaires and billionaires, raising tax rates on capital gains and large estate inheritances, closing corporate tax loopholes, and creating a financial transaction tax.

Spending cuts would come in the form of replacing sequestration cuts to the Defense Department with similarly sized, but longer-term, cuts that would slow the growth of defense spending.

Even considering that the People's Budget would increase the deficit in the short term, EPIs analysis estimates that its measures to increase employment would put the government on track to a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in a matter of years.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

View post:
Progressives' 'People's Budget' Becomes 'Roadmap for the ... - Roll Call

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Is it possible to be a good progressive and oppose abortion? This long-simmering question was brought to the fore recently when Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced their support of Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha who is also, inconveniently, antiabortion.

Under pressure from abortion rights groups, Perez quickly walked back his support for Mello and said that being pro-choice was not negotiable for Democrats. That reversal was in turn rebuked by a chorus of high-ranking Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). In the end, Perez walked back his walk-back, announcing there was no litmus test after all.

But is there? Should there be? Increasingly, abortion opponents hear a resounding yes. The message they get from progressive activists and commentators, if not from Democratic Party leaders, is increasingly hostile: As much as the party professes to be a big tent, those who oppose abortion rights arent really wanted.

This is a mistake and not only because it limits Democrats ability to keep or expand their voter base. It also reduces the core values of the progressive movement to a single symbol and constrains the debate on how to best achieve broader goals of social and economic equality. The associated contempt for antiabortion activists often relies on outdated assumptions about their aims and origins and fails to take into account the complexity of most Americans views on abortion.

Ironically, restricting abortion was once a progressive cause. Early defenders saw protecting the unborn as an extension of societys responsibility to shield the poor, weak and otherwise defenseless. Many were wary of abortions eugenic potential and of how it allowed men more leeway to exploit or abuse women without consequence.

But after the Supreme Court established the right to abortion in 1973, the issue became more and more a matter of left-right divide, and the antiabortion cause was folded into a broader portfolio of social conservative goals. Yet recent years have seen the emergence, or perhaps reemergence, of activists who oppose abortion from a divergent and sometimes frankly left-wing perspective secular humanists; consistent life ethic activists who oppose abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia with equal fervor; and antiabortion believers otherwise fed up with the Republican Party.

Democrats, and progressives more broadly, should be welcoming such people rather than disdaining them. Assuming bad faith on the part of anyone who opposes or is even willing to accept limits on abortion rights makes it too easy for the left to embrace a narrow perspective when deciding how best to pursue progressive goals.

Equating non-support of abortion to a total abandonment of womens rights, the way a pointed headline in New York Magazine did last month, ignores the reality that womens rights should include far more than that from an end to pervasive sexual harassment to broader support for mothers. And yes, economic factors may play a role for many women deciding whether to obtain abortions. But suggesting, as did ThinkProgresss Bryce Covert in a recent New York Times op-ed, that an unyielding abortion rights stance is the only way to ensure womens ability to achieve financial security confuses cause and effect.

Equating progressivism with being pro-abortion rights assumes that providing a single, simple solution making it easier to terminate pregnancies is worth more effort than addressing the root causes of the problem. An equally if not more progressive strategy might focus instead on addressing the lack of maternal leave and child-care policies, demanding a living wage, and pushing back against an economic system that penalizes women for having and rearing children in the first place. And while one might argue that Democrats are already doing all of the above, the willingness to excommunicate those who disagree with one strategy even if they adhere to all others makes it clear which issue matters the most.

Of course, even if progressive successes made it possible for every woman to care for an unexpected child, there would still be women who didnt want to continue an unwanted pregnancy. And this is where enforcing cut-and-dried allegiances supporting abortion in all circumstances is the only possible Democratic stance is at odds with the conflicted way that most Americans, even those who would by and large support progressive policies, approach the issue.

According to Gallups 2016 polling, 47 percent of Americans think that abortion is morally wrong, but a full 50percent believe it should be legal, though the circumstances in which they would allow it vary. Attempting to neatly slice these shades of gray in order to most perfectly define a true Democrat would leave many thoughtful Americans out in the cold.

Movements need defining tenets to unite around. From there, individuals within the community can debate the best ways to achieve their goals. But the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement more generally, should be wary of replacing the goals of social and economic justice with the proxy of being pro-abortion rights. Flatly writing off antiabortion progressives alienates potential supporters of the larger cause, while narrowing the spectrum of discussion to the perspectives of a purist few.

See original here:
Why won't Democrats let antiabortion progressives under their tent? - Washington Post

Three years ago, as the Princetonbaccalaureate speaker, I stood in the pulpit of the University Chapel and addressed the graduating Class of 2014. I talked about the sacrifices my parents made so I could attend college and my commitment to using my education to help future generations. I encouraged the graduates to consider the path I had chosen: a career in public service.

Last week, I returned to a campus that felt very different from my earlier visit. I met with a range of student groups, and each conversation inevitably turned to our countrys new President, the harm caused by his policies, the disruption of established norms, and the growing political polarization in our country.

At the end of these conversations, the same question kept coming up: Does public service still matter?

For progressive students interested in working for the government, many now find their plans upended. They rightly question whether they can work under the leadership of a President whose values and policies are so contrary to their views.

I share your disappointment, anger, and fear. But even in these troubling times, I havent lost my faith in the value of public service. Now more than ever, our government needs to continue attracting young people who understand the importance of facts, data, and science. However, for progressives interested in public service, the changed political landscape will require a broader search for ways to make a difference.

To those students who remain interested in federal service, I encourage you to pursue those opportunities. Much of what the federal government does is not affected by who occupies the White House. Civil servants implement and enforce the laws that keep our country stable and functioning. They manage critical programs that help millions of Americans. Because of the dedication of federal employees, veterans receive high-quality health care, unemployed workers are trained for the jobs of the 21st century, and medical researchers are eradicating diseases.

That being said, it would be disingenuous for me to say that it doesnt matter who captains the ship. In fact, it matters very much. Just over the past 100 days, climate change is being erased from the federal governments agenda, a 70-year-old foreign policy consensus has been upended, and health care for millions is in danger of being stripped away.

If I were starting a career in government today, I would look instead to state and local government. Progressive leaders across the country are driving change that will create greater opportunity and fairness, and these local actions will eventually become the foundation for national policies.

When it comes to helping American workers, states like California, New York, and Connecticut are leading the way in raising the minimum wage, requiring paid leave, and protecting against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. When it comes to fighting climate change, cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago are committed to taking meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

With the smaller size of state and local government, its also easier to make a difference earlier in your career. The impact of your work will be felt more quickly and acutely in the communities you serve, which, in turn, will result in a more gratifying professional experience. If you want to impact peoples lives every day and get to know the people youre serving the rewards at the local level may ultimately be greater than chasing the shiny object of federal service.

However, public service isnt limited to working in the government. Important policy changes can be driven through nonprofit organizations, foundations, and even the private sector.

I am a board member of the American Sustainable Business Council, which represents a quarter of a million companies around the country. These socially responsible companies support pro-environment and pro-labor policies because they know that profits can made without sacrificing people or the planet. These companies understand that the high road is the smart road.

In the end, public service doesnt take just one form. Its a mindset. Its a commitment to address the problems of our time and not simply pass those problems on to the next generation.

As former President Obama said shortly after leaving office, Our democracys not the buildings, its not the monuments, its you being willing to work to make things better.

I have spent two decades in public service, and I cant imagine a more intellectually stimulating and professionally rewarding career. Our nation is going through one of the most challenging periods in its history, and many are disillusioned about what the future holds. Yet, even in times like this, I still believe in the power of ordinary citizens to create a more perfect union for future generations.

Chris Lu 88 served in the Obama Administration as Deputy Secretary of Labor and White House Cabinet Secretary. He is a news editor emeritus for The Daily Princetonian. He is now a senior fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center of Public Affairs. You can contact him on Twitter @ChrisLu44.

Go here to see the original:
Why public service still matters for progressives - The Daily Princetonian

When Sen.Bernie Sandersbegan to emerge as a viable contender for the Democratic presidential nomination during the primaries, Sanders supporters expected that Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be one of the few Democrats in office who would endorse him. Warren is often seen in tandem with Sanders in the Senate, leading the fight for economic justice and against the greed and excess of Wall Street. Sanders supporters waited and waited for her endorsement. EvenafterRep.Tulsi Gabbard boldly resigned asDNCvice chair to endorseSanders, Warren continued to sit silently. Her endorsement never came. Instead, she waited until theDemocratic primariesended to formally endorse Hillary Clinton. Her endorsement was exclusively announced in an interview withMSNBCsRachel Maddow and was touted byClintonsupporters as a final nail in the coffin to Sanders candidacy.

Since the primaries, Warrens rapport with progressives has continued itsdownward trajectory. During the protests against theDakota Access Pipeline, Warrenignoredprogressives despite her history of claiming Native American ancestry based on anecdotal evidence from her grandmother. Even after the general election, when the political risk of taking a position on the pipeline waned, Warren stood on the sidelinesuntilthe Army Corps of Engineers made the decision to temporarily halt thepipelinesconstruction.

After Clinton lost the general election, Warren joined theDemocratic Partyin defendingClintoninstead of providingconstructive criticism forwhat went wrong forDemocrats. Finally, in April 2017,Warrennoted in aninterviewwith USA Today that the blame forClintonselection loss lies not just with Clinton, but with all Democrats. Its all of us, she said. We have to bear responsibility for thatWe didnt get out there and fight hard enough.

In a recentinterviewwith the Guardian, Warren lent rare criticism toward former President BarackObamaandDemocratsby hitting a note similar to the brand of economic populism that made Warren famous as a popular progressive voice.I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots. That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans, she said. And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, theyre getting kicked in the teeth. Warren added that while Republicans have embraced wealth and power over voters, manyDemocratshave done the same. Warrens rhetoric is much needed within theDemocratic Party, whichhas been abrasive toward any push for reform. However, she still hasa long way to go towin back the support of progressives whose support she has lost.

Several polls have citedSandersas the most popular politician. One of the most recent polls conducted by Morning Consult putsSandersfavorability at 75 percentandWarrens at 56 percent. This gap likely stems from Warrens recent record of silencerather than taking strong, principled stances. It remains to be seen if Warren will embrace populist rhetoric and begin to adopt progressive stances, such as disavowing donations from Super PACs. In 2016, a pro-Warren Super PAC, Level the Playing Field, raised $1.6 million, and a PAC run through MoveOn.org has raised over $300,000 for Warren during her Senate career, according toOpen Secrets.Though Warren has dodged questions about a potential 2020 run for president, she iswidely expected to be in the field of contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. ThoughWarrenis making effortsto win back progressives support, she will need to run a grassroots fueled presidential campaign to winthe primaries and defeatTrump. Thereare still manyquestions regarding how progressive she will actually turn out to be.

Read more:
With Sights on 2020, Elizabeth Warren Tries to Woo Progressives - Observer