Mediaboss Marketing

Editors note, May 17: Former city council member Cherelle Parker has been declared the winner of Philadelphias Democratic mayoral primary and is expected to be the citys next mayor. The original story, published on May 16, follows.

On Tuesday, Philadelphia voters will cast their ballots in a crowded Democratic mayoral primary that wont just decide wholl be the citys likely next mayor, but will also offer national Democrats new data on which ideological direction is resonating most with the partys voters.

Given the citys blue skew, whoever emerges triumphant on Tuesday is expected to win the general election this fall. Going into the primary, polls show a tight race between five top contenders, including former city council members Helen Gym, Cherelle Parker, and Allan Domb, former city controller Rebecca Rhynhart, and grocery store owner Jeff Brown. The narrowness of the polls and the high number of undecided voters indicate the race could be especially close and it could even take days to determine the winner, depending on how long it takes to count mail-in ballots.

The election is so close that its likely the winner will only pick up a minority of votes. Because of that, experts have cautioned against taking the result as too definitive a signal about which Democratic factions have the most momentum heading into the 2024 elections. Progressives hope, however, that the race will indicate strong support for their candidates, and are angling for another local win as they prepare to challenge more moderate figures next year.

National progressives including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are backing Gym, a former city council member, teacher, and community organizer who has championed funding for schools as well as a jobs guarantee for people under 30. Theyre hopeful that Gym can continue a string of progressive mayoral wins in major cities including, most recently, former education organizer Brandon Johnson in Chicago.

If the most progressive candidate in the race, Helen Gym, wins by a significant margin and if she brings out many young voters who have traditionally sat out municipal primaries in Philadelphia, that would say something about an energized, activist-oriented left, says University of Pennsylvania political science professor Daniel Hopkins.

Turnout is a big factor Democrats will be watching, as they try to keep voters energized going into the 2024 elections when Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Caseys Senate seat is up and President Joe Biden seeks reelection. Whoever wins on Tuesday will have a major role to play as a 2024 surrogate, due to Pennsylvanias status as a battleground state.

Key issues for voters in the city include gun violence, public safety, and education, all of which have risen to the fore during the pandemic. High gun violence rates in the city, which saw a record number of 562 homicides in 2021, have been top of mind for voters, local experts say. The physical infrastructure of schools and the effects of Covid-19 on students academic success and mental health are other concerns.

Notably, the winner of this election could make history as well. Depending on the outcome, Philadelphia could be on track to elect its first woman mayor, its first Asian American mayor, or its first Black woman mayor.

Philadelphias Democratic primary marks the latest big city match-up between different factions of the party, and will offer clues as to which one voters in the city feel more aligned with. Along with Johnson, other progressives like Michelle Wu and Karen Bass have also won major mayoral races in Boston and Los Angeles in recent years, while moderate Eric Adams defeated his more progressive rivals in New York City.

As Hopkins noted, Gym is seen as the most progressive option, while Rhynhart is seen as liberal, and Parker, Domb, and Brown are viewed as more moderate. Crime and public safety are among the areas where the candidates ideological fault lines have been evident.

Parker, Domb, and Brown have indicated an interest in increasing the number of police in the city and a return to a version of stop and frisk policies. Gym, meanwhile, has said she backs more first responders who respond to mental health emergencies, more detectives for violent crimes, and moving existing police to bike and foot patrols, according to the Wall Street Journal. Rhynhart has said shes focused on ensuring theres a presence of beat officers and that police can respond more quickly to 911 calls than they currently do.

Gym, a former elementary school teacher endorsed by teachers unions, has also been a longtime activist advocating for more funding for public schools and against the state takeover of Philadelphia schools. Rhynhart has emphasized her experience making the citys budget more efficient and effective as controller, while Parker, a longtime legislator, has garnered support from a number of elected officials, including the citys Black establishment, and stressed her tough on crime credentials. Domb, a former city councilor also known as the condo king for his large stakes in property in the city, has urged investments in entrepreneurship, while Brown, an owner of multiple Shop Rite franchises, is associated with bringing businesses to food deserts and advocated for adding police officers in the city.

In general, what [the race] says about the Democratic Party is that its highly fragmented, says Drexel University political scientist Richardson Dilworth, of the candidates wide-ranging ideological positions. Theres a struggle between the traditional Democratic Party and the more progressive, democratic socialist wing.

Beyond the ideological message the race could send to Democrats, it also has important implications for the 2024 presidential election, when Pennsylvania is once again set to be an important swing state.

Historically, Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs have been central to Democrats victories in the state, so maintaining high voter enthusiasm and energy is crucial. The race will be an important test of what type of messaging is resonating with the areas voters as statewide candidates prepare their campaign strategies. In 2022, Philadelphia saw its turnout decline significantly, a potentially bad sign for Democrats who rely on the citys voters.

Philadelphias mayor is expected to play an important role in keeping voters enthused next year, while also acting to defuse ongoing Republican attacks on Democratic city leadership. As they do so, theyll have to confront the local issues on voters minds Tuesday housing, taxes, crime, and gun violence, as well as lingering challenges its public education system has faced because of underinvestment.

See the article here:
Philadelphia mayoral race 2023: What to know about the May 16 Democratic primary - Vox.com

Progressive lawmakers renewed their call for President Joe Biden to bypass Congress to avert a default after the abrupt cancellation of debt ceiling talks on Friday.

But the White House remains resistant. It issued a subdued statement indicating it sees no reason to pull the plug on talks. And privately, its message has been even blunter.

Senior Biden officials have told progressive activists and lawmakers in recent days that they do not see the 14th Amendment which says the "validity of the public debt" cannot be questioned as a viable means of circumventing debt ceiling negotiations. They have argued that doing so would be risky and destabilizing, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

The White House has studied the issue for months, with some aides concluding that Biden would likely have the authority to declare the debt limit unconstitutional as a last-ditch way to sidestep default. But Biden advisers have told progressives that they see it as a poor option overall, fearing such a move would trigger a pitched legal battle, undermine global faith in U.S. creditworthiness and damage the economy. Officials have warned that even the appearance of more seriously considering the 14th Amendment could blow up talks that are already quite delicate.

They have not ruled it out, said one adviser to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly about discussions. But it is not currently part of the plan.

The administrations deep skepticism of the 14th Amendment as a workable off-ramp further heightens the stakes surrounding the debt ceiling talks, after negotiators briefly walked away from the table on Friday.

The White House acknowledged that the two sides had hit an impasse, and Republicans cited disagreements over the level of spending restrictions as a major sticking point. But the presidents team reiterated the need to eventually find an agreement.

There are real differences between the parties on budget issues and talks will be difficult, a White House official said. The presidents team is working hard toward a reasonable bipartisan solution that can pass the House and the Senate.

Story continues

Biden himself has said that he sees a bipartisan deal as the only option to the current standoff, casting doubt on the 14th Amendment as workable in public remarks. But the private resistance being registered by his aides has frustrated progressives who worry the president is too readily giving up his leverage. It also threatens to fracture months of party unity behind Bidens debt ceiling strategy, exposing the White House to increasingly vocal criticism just as it enters the final stage of its high-stakes standoff with the GOP.

I think Biden is actually flirting dangerously with a backlash among his own supporters, said Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor close to progressive lawmakers who has advocated for ways that Biden can take unilateral action.

Top White House aides have largely dismissed the rising angst among progressives and other allies who feel left out of debt talks. Instead, the administration has effectively gone all in on a debt ceiling-and-budget agreement with Republicans that officials hoped to finalize as early as Sunday, the people familiar with the discussions said.

That would allow Biden to clinch the deal shortly after returning from the G-7 Summit in Japan, and give congressional leaders in both parties several days to lock down the votes needed to push through a debt ceiling increase.

Momentum appeared to slow on Friday, after negotiators broke camp without plans for a next sitdown.

"We've decided to press pause, because it's just not productive," Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said as he walked out of the meeting.

The immediate reaction in the White House was muted, with aides wary of making any public statement that Republicans could use to claim Biden was no longer working in good faith. Some close observers of the process saw it as an inevitable snag rather than a sign of impending doom.

"I can only conclude that these are the usual stumbling blocks that take place right before any agreement is reached," said G. William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a veteran of decades of budget battles.

Indeed, the White House and Republicans later Friday evening agreed to resume talks.

But in some corners of the Democratic Party, the setback only re-energized calls for a fallback option.

"We urge you to ready the use of all possible measures at your disposal including preparing to invoke the Constitution's 14th Amendment," the 65 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote in a Friday letterthat warned Biden against "surrendering" to the GOP's demands. "Stay strong in your resolve to keep Democrats united behind our core democratic values and refuse to reward Republicans' reckless refusal to raise the debt ceiling without preconditions."

The letter led by CPC Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) came a day after 11 Senate Democrats issued a call of their own for the White House to weigh the 14th Amendment, writing that GOP demands for concessions on spending and their opposition to any tax increases have made it seemingly impossible to enact a bipartisan budget deal.

This is a hostage taking, said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). The president has a mechanism to push back. He has the 14th Amendment.

House Democrats this week separately began gathering signatures on a long-shot discharge petition to force a clean debt ceiling vote.

Kevin McCarthy does not know how many votes he has, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO Playbook in an interview. He cant even go to the White House and say, If you give me this, I will have X votes; if you give me that, Ill have Y votes.

Privately, the White House shares some of the progressives anxiety that McCarthy will balk at the last minute, or prove unable to sell his conference on whatever deal is reached. But officials believe they have no choice but to forge ahead.

Biden aides have bet that a bipartisan agreement on new spending restrictions will ultimately be seen as a worthwhile tradeoff if it means protecting the major investments spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act that underpin Democrats economic vision.

"This is a president that they could be reassured is fighting for clean energy, is fighting for manufacturing, is fighting for health care," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday in response to progressives' concerns.

White House negotiators are advocating for a pact that lifts the debt ceiling into 2025 and caps spending for as little as two years, at levels substantially higher than the 22 percent across-the-board cut initially sought by Republicans. The two sides are also discussing clawing back billions of dollars in unspent Covid aid and an agreement on energy permitting reforms.

But the GOPs envoys were still pushing for more ahead of Friday's interruption, the people familiar with the discussions said, such as lengthening the spending caps beyond two years. Republican lawmakers also now say some level of work requirements for safety net programs must be a part of the deal.

The White House, in private conversations with allies, has downplayed the odds it will agree to any new work rules. Still, Bidens unwillingness to publicly rule it out inflamed progressives who already harbored doubts about the White Houses strategy.

After Biden first appeared to open the door to work requirements for programs other than Medicaid last Sunday, officials spent hours trying to tamp down alarm among progressive advocates and lawmakers that he would agree to restrictions on food aid and cash assistance. But that work was undone early the next day, when a tweet from Bidens account went out mentioning only his vow to protect Medicaid.

The tweet, which was pre-scheduled, set off another round of panic and prompted the White House to issue a second tweet later in the day explicitly criticizing Republicans demands on food aid, according to two people familiar with the previously unreported episode.

Progressives widespread concerns about the debt ceiling talks have since broken into the open, fueling the renewed push for Biden to stick to his original vow of a clean debt ceiling hike or the use of the 14th Amendment rather than give in to any Republican demands.

The White House remains unmoved. And officials there arent alone.

David Kamin, who served as an economic adviser in both the Obama and Biden White Houses, said that invoking the 14th Amendment might technically avert a default but would do little to protect the U.S. from the subsequent fallout.

I dont think we should kid ourselves about the damage that would be imposed on the economy and the credibility of the United States, he said. That is not a position the government should be put in.

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Bidens 14th Amendment message to progressives: It aint gonna happen - Yahoo News

Photo: John Baggaley/Getty Images

Sen.Bernie Sanders and other progressives in the House and Senate have resurrected a Medicare for All bill that would seek to use the federal program as a springboard to a single-payer health system.

Sanders (I-Vermont) was joined by Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington)and Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), as well as 14 senators and 110 members of the House of Representatives.

As a catalyst for the renewed push for Medicare for All, the lawmakers cited the lives lost during the COVID-19 pandemic about a third of which they claim was linked to a lack of health insurance as well as the roughly 15 million Americans they say could lose Medicare coverage this year.

WHAT'S THE IMPACT

Implemented over four years, the Medicare for All Act would provide healthcare coverage to all Americans with no out-of-pocket expenses, insurance premiums, deductibles or copayments. That would include coverage for primary care, vision, dental, prescription drugs, mental health, substance use disorder, long-term services and supports, and reproductive healthcare.

Lawmakers said it would also reduce the cost of prescription drugs by allowing the federal government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare for All would save the healthcare system about $650 billion annually. A study by Yale epidemiologists published in The Lancet estimates that Medicare for All would save some 68,000 lives per year, while a RAND study found that moving to a Medicare for All system would save a family with an income of less than $185,000 about $3,000 a year, on average.

Despite these figures, most of the healthcare industry stands opposed to Medicare for All. Payers are against a plan that would gut private insurance, while hospital providers say a government-run health plan would ultimately result in lower reimbursement.In previous Medicare for All attempts, AHIP has said it is against what it calls the one-size-fits-all government system for health insurance. Under current coverage, Americans have choice and control over their options and treatment, AHIP said.

Responding to the original 2019 bill introduced by House Democrats during the run-up to the presidential election, the American Hospital Association said Congress has a history of slashing provider payments for government health programs and that Medicare and Medicaid reimburse providers less than the cost of delivering care.

"America's hospitals and health systems are working with policymakers to help expand coverage and improve affordability for all Americans," said AHA EVP Tom Nickels in 2019. "However, we are opposed to 'Medicare for All,' as it would impede our shared goals. The AHA believes there is a better alternative to help all Americans access health coverage one built on fixing our existing system rather than ripping it apart and starting from scratch."

In 2020, the American College of Physicians, which represents internal medicine doctors, broke ranks with its industry peers by endorsing Medicare for All along with an optional government plan.

The ACP's reasons were numerous, as the group said such a policy would lower administrative costs and reduce barriers to care access. Physicians are becoming increasingly frustrated with the paperwork that comes with having multiple insurers with multiple rules and documentation requirements.

THE LARGER TREND

Based on 2019 surveys in a HealthPrep Data Service report, optional Medicare for All was the most popular policy among respondents at 45.4%. Keeping the current private system intact came in second, at 33.3%, while a mandatory Medicare for All system garnered the least support, at 21.2%.

This suggests that, while there's public support for a shift to some form of universal healthcare, voting-age Americans are wary of a complete break from the current system. In short, a majority of voters reject mandatory Medicare for All, while a majority support a Medicare for All option.

Twitter: @JELagasseEmail the writer:Jeff.Lagasse@himssmedia.com

The rest is here:
Medicare for All bill revived by House and Senate progressives - Healthcare Finance News

By most measures, a new progressive movement in Maine ought to be taking hold.

Democrats control the Blaine House, the Senate by a robust margin and the House by a comfortable one as they have now for three legislative terms running. The LePage years of acrimonious divided government are fading into the past.

Yet progressivism is nowhere to be seen as the Legislature hones in on adjournment a month hence.

Start with the basics. Maine has the opportunity to help adopt a fundamental voting reform: electing the president by popular vote. Yes, it can be done.

Its called the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), and its already passed in all other states with durable Democratic trifectas. Imagine: Americans get to elect the president on equal terms.

No more red states and blue states on election night. No more swing states. No more Bush v. Gore decisions, with the Supreme Court installing a president without counting all the votes.

Youd think Maine Democrats would jump at the chance to avoid these undemocratic outcomes. Had the NPVC been in place, George H.W. Bush in 1988 would have been the last Republican to win a first term.

But you would be wrong. In 2019, the Senate passed the bill but the House rejected it. In the 2021-22 session, it never got out of committee. And this year L.D. 1578 has not even been scheduled for public hearing as of this writing.

Somehow, Maine Democrats do not favor a democratic outcome for the most important vote any of us cast.

It goes on from there. We know all about Democratic stances on abortion rights, on racial prejudice, on religious bigotry, on rights for stigmatized and historically oppressed groups, and these are honorable, highly defensible positions.

But where are the voices and the bills on core economic issues that have always provided the backbone for progressive movements going back to the 19th century?

The standard is Franklin Roosevelts New Deal, greatly amplified by the Congressional New Dealers who pushed the agenda beyond Roosevelts own inclinations.

Labor, which had virtually no legal protection at state or federal levels, suddenly was free to organize and win contracts under the Wagner Act, followed by minimum wage laws incorporating time-and-a-half for overtime.

For the next quarter century, the distribution of wealth and income became dramatically more equal progressives would say more fair as wages rose, one job could support a family of four, and many more Americans went to college.

During World War II, to pay for the immense expenditures involved, federal income taxes became steeply progressive, with the top rate exceeding 90%. It was patriotic to pay taxes.

Then it all went into reverse. In the 1970s, Republicans began packing the judiciary, winning a majority of the Supreme Court and tilting decisions in favor of business. The Reagan revolution gutted the progressive income tax, and business tax preferences bloomed, especially at the state level.

Were now faced with a situation where the working poor pay a higher proportion of their incomes than the super-rich; as Warren Buffett memorably put it, his secretary pays more than he does.

Elizabeth Warren, and to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders, emphasized these issues during the 2020 presidential campaign, but despite other legislative accomplishments, President Biden has so far succeeded only in installing a corporate minimum tax though even that wasnt easy.

As a result, we face a future in which generational wealth continues to compound, while millions of people will depend on government aid simply to eat, go the doctor, and keep a roof over their heads.

Maine lawmakers dont have a Senate filibuster or national disinformation campaigns preventing them from acting, yet few progressive initiatives have emerged here either.

A modest bill last session to allow farm workers to organize was derided as a threat to family farms. You will hunt long and hard among the dozens of bills the Taxation Committee hears proposing yet more tax exemptions to find anything modifying the essentially flat income tax Maine now has after years of chipping away.

The national minimum wage remains $7.25, which brings in a weekly paycheck of $290 in many red states. Why this isnt a scandal, or at least front-page news, is hard to understand.

Individual rights are important, but politics at its core revolves around who pays and who benefits, who holds economic power and who is denied it.

The vast distance weve drifted from New Deal economic principles and toward a winner take all world is clear enough. Whats still unclear is whether a new progressive movement can craft a meaningful response, in Maine and the nation.

Previous

Next

View original post here:
Douglas Rooks: On economic issues, progressives are missing in ... - Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel

The editorial writers for the Portland Press Herald have never been known for having original ideas or coherent policy recommendations.

But an editorial the newspaper printed last week is so detached from the situation on the ground, so devoid of common sense, so infantile in its understanding of how government operates that it leads one to question whether the authors live in an alternate reality.

Ive seen higher quality thinking from high schoolers even ones from Maine public schools.

Those few septuagenarians who still subscribe to the paper will tuck it next to the fireplace along with the kindling.

But the virtue-signaling drivel over Maines migrant crisis and the General Assistance welfare program deserves a response.

First, we should clean up a falsehood the Press Heralds editorial advances concerning migrants eligibility to work in Maine.

And since asylum seekers began arriving in large numbers in 2019, [General Assistance has] been one of the only ways to keep [migrants] afloat while the federal government refuses to let them work.

The vast majority of asylum seekers currently in Maine are eligible for work right now because theyve been here longer than six months. Legitimate asylum-seekers in most cases are eligible to receive work authorization six-months after theyve filed a claim for asylum with federal immigration authorities.

New arrivals may not immediately be eligible to work due to the federal rules, but thats hardly the limiting factor on an individuals employment when they dont speak English, have no transportation, and live in the Portland Expo with hundreds of strangers. In short, that federal rule is not the reason migrants are having a tough go.

The idea that the migrants would be entirely self-sufficient were it not for federal rules designed to discourage illegal economic migration is a fiction. Current efforts at the state and federal levels to allow migrants to work immediately after filing asylum claims will apply to such a small population of people as to be almost meaningless, apart from the further incentive this would create for migrants to come to the U.S. and Maine looking for economic opportunity.

On the migrant crisis, the Press Herald at least recognizes that Portlands generous benefits serve as a magnet for migrants: The citys size and level of services mean it attracts a lot of vulnerable folks from other communities, in addition to asylum seekers.

Its refreshing to see progressives finally admitting that migrants are attracted to Maine because of benefits. Recognizing that Portland is attracting migrants and thereby creating a humanitarian crisis, a normal thinking person might say: Well, how might we stop attracting the migrants that are overrunning our social services?

But the newspapers editors are unable to fathom the idea that true humanitarianism might in some cases mean turning away economic migrants, discouraging them from coming to Maine, and ending the benefit programs that are leading them here. So they reach for the only policy tool they can ever imagine: more spending and more taxing.

Without more state help, these communities will be forced to raise property taxes on residents already stressed by rising costs, or cut back on services that are both necessary and already limited.

As suggested in legislation now before lawmakers, Maine should increase the reimbursement rate for General Assistance to 90%, where it was prior to 2015.

Kudos to the Maine Municipal Association for getting their talking points regurgitated. But where exactly do the Press Herald editorial writers think state help comes from? Its correct that property taxes are going up to accommodate the strain on General Assistance welfare budgets and local schools, but the state help ultimately comes from taxpayers working taxpayers.

How exactly does it solve any of the migrant-related problems to simply shift the manner in which Mainers are paying for it all?

The Herald doesnt say.

Such a policy would be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, even if it makes it a little easier to write a budget at Portland City Hall. Its just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Again, where do they think state reimbursement money comes from? Do the brilliant minds inveighing against actual reforms think that have the state pay more is a serious policy pronouncement?

Back to the Herald:

A series of bills from Sen. Eric Brakey, an Auburn Republican, aim to reduce General Assistance costs by making fewer people eligible through time limits and residency and work requirements. None of the bills have a chance at passing in the Democrat-led Legislature, and thats a good thing. Brakeys proposals would only leave more Mainers without the resources to get by.

Sen. Brakey is one of the few lawmakers who has proposed legislation that would actually reduce the magnetic incentives policymakers have created that draw asylum seekers to Maine in the first place. He has an excellent bill that would disallow economic migrants from enrolling in General Assistance for a period of six months. If you dont think migrants chase benefits, talk to the City of Sanford. They were overwhelmed last week when more than 100 migrants showed up at City Hall in response to a rumor that the benefits were better in Sanford than Portland.

Brakeys other welfare reforms come at a time when its never been easier to get entry level work in Maine. The only Mainers who would be left without the resources to get by under tighter General Assistance rules are those who choose not to work. By removing disincentives to work and become self-sufficient, Brakeys policy is actually more humane than what Maine is currently doing. And by removing part of the draw for migrants to continue flooding Maine, Brakeys proposal would protect scarce resources, including housing, for Maine residents and those migrants who are already here.

The Portland-area progressives believe this is heartless, cruel. As opposed to their current big-hearted policy of having thousands of foreign migrants living on top of each other at the Portland Expo and other shelters while Maine residents sleep in tents next to Trader Joes. Theres no greater lie in Maine politics right now than the claim that progressive policies are humanitarian. It is left-wing policies that have created the boiling homelessness crisis in southern Maine. Sadly, they lack the imagination to come up with real solutions.

The strain on General Assistance shows why we need a formal statewide program for coordinating services for the influx of asylum seekers. It shows we desperately need more affordable housing.

Here the writers have reversed cause and effect. The strain on General Assistance is just a symptom of a migrant crisis fueled by Maines current policies. The housing crisis is a symptom of a migrant crisis fueled by Maines current policies. Those policies are, by and large, the policies of open borders and a generous welfare state.

Consider this: the typical path for migrants begins in Brazil. From there, they travel through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Mexico before crossing into the United States.

If they are truly seeking asylum from persecution in Angola or the Democratic Republic of Congo, why dont they request asylum in those countries? Presumably whatever tyrannical force bent on genocide that caused them to flee their native country did not follow them into Brazil, or Guatemala, or Panama. Is there something those countries are or arent doing that make them less desirable locations for New Brazilians, New Guatemalans, or New Panamanians? Hmm

After entering the U.S., often illegally, though the line between illegal and legal immigration is so blurry under the Biden Administration as to be almost meaningless, they skip 50 other jurisdictions in America. The migrants could find a new home in dozens of other states with better weather, but they instead come to Maine. Why is that? Is there something those states are or arent doing that make them less desirable locations than frigid Maine?

The problem were now encountering is that unlimited immigration and unlimited welfare cannot coexist permanently. Eventually, something has to give.

None of this is the fault of the migrants. They are simply rational actors responding to the economic incentives Maines politicians have created. Those migrants who are already in Maine must be cared for like any other vulnerable Mainer. But if Maines policy makers dont change the policies that have created this crisis, that have spawned this disorderly migrant rush into Maine, then well continue to deal with the consequences. The people who will suffer the most under the status quo wont be the wealthy white liberals in southern Maine who voted for these policies; it will be poor Mainers and the migrants themselves.

Continued here:
Maine Media, Progressives Get Migrant Crisis Wrong - The Maine Wire