Mediaboss Marketing

Progressives are concerned that high gas prices are worsening inequalities, creating tension between activists who want Democrats to do more to condemn big oil and those trying to navigate Russias deadly invasion of Ukraine.

Some on the left are critical of their own partys ties to fossil fuel, saying Democrats should be doing more to curb the industrys influence and clout.

We seem to have little or no political will to ensure accountability and to get the oil and gas industry to straighten up and fly right, said Jeri Shepherd, a progressive Democratic National Committee member from Colorado. Regular people are going to be feeling the pain, and we as a political system are going to be indifferent.

Liberals have often targeted oil and gas corporations, and anger is rising that such firms are entering a boom time even as their customers are hit with inflation. Gas prices have risen to well above $4 per gallon across the country.

The calls were joined on Wednesday by President BidenJoe BidenBelarusian president says Putin is 'completely sane' and 'in better shape than ever' Arizona Democrat tests positive for COVID-19 Thousands of Mariupol residents forcibly taken to Russia, city council says MORE, who took aim at the oil giants.

Last time oil was $96 a barrel, gas was $3.62 a gallon. Now its $4.31, Biden tweeted. Oil and gas companies shouldnt pad their profits at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Biden was piqued that gas prices had not fallen even as oil prices had.

Gas prices averaged $4.32 per gallon on Tuesday, according to the AAA.

Short version: If the price of oil goes down, the price of gas should also go down, White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiWhy you shouldn't expect profit margins to fall when prices rise Energy & Environment Interior to continue oil leasing plans Health Care Fauci warns of cases rising again MORE said on Twitter.

Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehousePush to make daylight saving time permanent has longtime backers If Democrats have their way, gas prices will surge even higher Democrats divided over how to deal with rising inflation MORE (D-R.I.) and Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaGas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party A chance to improve research Here's who stands to win from high gas prices MORE (D-Calif.) introduced a bill last week aimed at taxing windfall profits on crude oil. Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWhy you shouldn't expect profit margins to fall when prices rise Former Bernie Sanders press secretary: US should 'more holistically' fight climate change Gas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party MORE (I-Vt.), who has been vocal about rising gas prices for years, reiterated his support for the measure, which is also backed by climate hawks outside of Congress.

The rising gas prices have exacerbated Bidens political problems with inflation, which have cut into his campaign pledge to give working- and middle-class people relief in their daily lives.

The rhetoric from climate groups has also stepped up. Groups are accusing the oil companies of using the Russian war to boost profits and to take advantage of average consumers all at the expense of the climate.

The fossil fuel industry is really showing us their playbook, said John Paul Mejia, national spokesperson with the grassroots-led Sunrise Movement. He argued that corporations are looting Americans at the gas pump.

I think everyones seeing through that right now, he said.

Democrats are divided over how to address the issue.

On the campaign trail, left-wing endorsers and organizers are broadly supporting candidates who reject fossil fuel contributions, including in a high-profile Democratic primary match-up in Texas. Insurgent Jessica Cisneros is headed for a runoff election against Rep. Henry Cuellar, who has taken contributions from political action committees linked to the industry.

Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinFormer Bernie Sanders press secretary: US should 'more holistically' fight climate change Equilibrium/Sustainability Repurposing petroleum to build electric cars On The Money Democrats search for plan on inflation MORE (D-W.Va.), who proudly accepts fossil fuel funding, has caught fury from progressives for holding up Bidens Build Back Better package in the Senate.

Some on the left have also criticized Biden directly, saying he is facing a choice either to transition to clean renewable energy or to give more leverage to fossil fuel executives.

Others, however, have shied away from attacking the president, particularly one navigating the crisis in Ukraine.

There are real villains, said Zac Petkanas, a senior adviser to Invest in America Action, a group advocating for more public spending. We have a mad man invading sovereign countries that is driving up not just the cost of fuel, but very likely food and other things down the line.

A cost is a cost is a cost, whether youre paying a gas station to fill up your tank or a pharmacist to fill out a prescription, he said. We need to let people know that not only do we get that things cost too much, but we are laser focused on getting those costs down.

Biden has already taken action to decrease prices, including dipping into the nations strategic oil reserves, and suggested in his State of the Union address that he may do more. Energy Secretary Jennifer GranholmJennifer GranholmGas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party Overnight Energy & Environment Biden calls for faster gas price drop Biden argues gender equality benefits everybody to mark Women's History Month MORE last week asked top oil leaders to increase the amount of oil they are producing, citing a state of emergency.

We have to responsibly increase short-term supply where we can right now to stabilize the market and minimize harm to American families, Granholm said.

She acknowledged in a later interview that the administrations goal remains to wean the country off fossil fuels.

The gas prices and general worries about inflation are issues that Republicans have used to attack Biden and Democrats and are another reason why the party is pessimistic about retaining the House majority this fall.

While the price of oil did dip below $100 per barrel this week, the price of gas has remained frustratingly high and Biden has warned of tough days ahead.

No matter what, he is likely to face more pressure from the left to take more actions against oil companies and to back renewable energy sources.

Fighting authoritarians and oil oligarchs by merely propagating and empowering our own is a false solution, Mejia, of the Sunrise Movement, said. Continuing to rely on oil and gas is nowhere near energy secure.

Originally posted here:
Gas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party | TheHill - The Hill

Progressives need to rethink their views on housing or they risk losing the support of generations of young Canadians.

In Toronto and beyond both progressive politicians and residents who identify as such have extremely narrow views on how to solve our housing crisis that dont change the status quo, that havent provided much in the way of affordable housing, and that are beholden to the NIMBYism of comfortably housed people.

A smart friend recently asked me why, adding that it seems like conservatives are the ones who get it. In Ontario, the Progressive Conservatives have in fact talked a lot about housing, even convening a task force on housing affordability in November, pushing through a handful of affordable housing projects using controversial ministers zoning orders, or MZOs, and even proposing very dense clusters of housing around major transit nodes in the GTA.

Putting aside the question of whether or not these are the right solutions or particular moves, I offered some ideas on why the left people on the NDP-to-Liberal continuum are so tortuously bad at housing policy, arguing about interchangeable details and ideology rather than supporting solutions immediately.

The spirit of todays urban progressive movement was forged in the 1960s and 1970s in response to the excesses of modernist, postwar development. Whole neighbourhoods razed or torn apart by expressways. The right move at the time, but it never stopped trying to stop things.

Related to this is the idea that developers are evil. Some might be, and lots have gotten filthy rich, but even if we were building 100 per cent social housing, somebody would have to build it. The affordable housing standing today was built by developers, as were many beloved neighbourhoods. The government doesnt have the physical means nor expertise to build housing themselves, they can just fund it.

Like any government contract, like building roads or schools, somebody will make a profit. This evil developer belief plays out over and over as housing advocates, even young ones who can barely afford to live, are called developer shills by people who own property, as I certainly will be for writing this. Its all name calling without the actual cheque.

For some progressives, if the solution isnt 100 per cent purpose-built affordable housing, its wrong. This kind of view can be classified as perfect is the enemy of good and though a virtuous goal, the much more possible solution in our reality is a bold mix of market and social housing.

While some on the left pine wistfully away for Red Vienna, the period in the aftermath of WWI when the Social Democratic Workers Party of Austria built a massive amount of housing, our housing crisis gets worse. In Toronto, progressives are weak and havent held the balance of power in more than a decade. Do we wait until theyre more electable?

The generation gap is real. Theres a sense among comfortable, urban progressives, many who bought decades ago when it was much easier than it is today, that they actually live in a quaint village where any change is a threat, rather than a growing city. This manifests in various ways, such as directly opposing new housing, even truly affordable, like when the residents of progressive neighbourhoods around the Honest Eds redevelopment pressured the city to shrink the overall number of units there, reducing the amount of affordable units originally planned

On a smaller scale, even the gentlest density in protected neighbourhoods is outlawed to preserve neighbourhood character. Never mind that the comfortable progressives in places like Cabbagetown, Riverdale and most of the west side of old Toronto displaced working class populations. Never mind that the neighbourhoods are actually losing population. Never mind that these neighbourhoods are barely accessible to even the middle class now.

Progressive failure on housing is hard to see clearly because beyond the overt NIMBYism and exclusionary zoning, its about whats not being done.

Recent changes allowing laneway and garden suites in Toronto, all of which are wildly expensive and just a tiny part of the housing solution, allow some progressives to say see, were doing something when its the bare minimum.

Some progressive councillors defend their voting record, saying they always support planning staff decisions, but that hides behind the fact that a lot of the planning profession is actually quite conservative and loyal to the status quo, averse to change.

Purpose-built, deeply affordable housing will be the foundation of getting us out of this crisis, and we need progressives to fight for it because the other side would be happy focusing on mostly market-based solutions like simply increasing supply, but supply has to be a part of it too. Just as theres no one cause of the crisis, there isnt just one solution to it.

Yes, the financialization of housing, turning it into an investment vehicle, has done great harm, but to quote a famous boomer song, we didnt start the fire. Its not young peoples fault and theyre done with excuses.

For many people, it looks like conservatives have the answers. Progressives can make excuses or they can tackle this boldly and honestly. If not, they risk political oblivion.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

Read more from the original source:
Why the left cant get Torontos housing right - Toronto Star

Texas progressives won, or made runoffs in three Democratic primary contests. Thats got some more traditional Democrats talking. At least one longtime operative calls progressives a loud minority in the party.

Previously we dug into how the March 1 primary contests helped elevate Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw as be the leader of the new right in Texas, according to a conservative columnist for the Fort Worth Star Telegram. On the Democratic side, a recent headline in The Nation read, Democratic Insiders Keep Bashing Progressives, but Progressives Keep Winning Key Elections.

John Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, spoke with Texas Standard about how longtime Democratic operatives are reacting to progressive success in congressional primaries in Texas. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.

This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:

Texas Standard: Lets talk about the idea that progressives are being called a loud minority. Where exactly is this coming from?

John Nichols: Well, that comes from some of the key players in the Democratic Party establishment. And this notion that progressives are a loud minority is pushed by Democratic consultants like James Carville. He is the source of that quote. But its also pushed by a lot of the media, which has developed a fantasy that that somehow progressives live in a couple of neighborhoods in New York City and Washington, D.C., and in other ways that the movement doesnt really exist. Its quite the opposite as the Texas primary showed.

In fact, you narrowed in on three Democratic primaries in Texas. Give us a few more details about those three races and why you believe they signaled something for the left going forward.

Three congressional primaries in Texas all for open seats that got a lot of attention at the national level. You saw progressives and more moderate forces in the party show up. And those were in the Austin-San Antonio area thats the race that Greg Casar, a former Austin City Council member ran in. Then you had one in the Dallas area where Jasmine Crockett was running. And then down closer to the border, you had Jessica Cisneros running.

In those three seats, those people I mentioned all ran as extremely progressive candidates. They accepted endorsements from very progressive groups. They really distinguished themselves as folks who were on the left of the party. And in each case they ran very, very well. Greg Casar won his primary. Jessica Cisneros forced the incumbent congressman, Henry Cuellar, into a runoff, and Jasmine Crockett is also in a runoff, although she came within a whisker of winning a majority and looks to be very strongly positioned for the runoff.

What does that add up to? Does it mean that progressives need to be taken more seriously within the Democratic Party? Whats your whats your take?

My take would be that the issues progressives are running on need to be taken more seriously, and maybe we need to be a little careful about the labels. And whats interesting to me is that, in the case of Greg Casar, as well as Jessica Cisneros, they ran on single payer Medicare for all health care. Which, in the media is often identified as this left wing progressive stance. But the fact is, when you look at the polling, its very popular across the line. In fact, when you describe it to Republicans, theres a lot of them who like it.

And similarly with talking about the Texas grid and talking about how that relates to some climate issues, you find that theres an awful lot of people that are concerned. And so I guess one of the things that I would remind folks of is that both on the left and the right, there are issues that resonate beyond the labels. And I think what Texas showed is that some of the issues that progressives are running on resonate in a state that that isnt necessarily thought of as a bastion of left wing politics. Although admittedly, the districts were talking about doing relatively Democratic.

Do you think that were looking at the end of an era? Perhaps.

Thats an exceptionally good question. Clearly, weve seen the end of an era to an extent, because we now have a Democratic president in Joe Biden, whos certainly no left winger. Joe Biden pretty much defines the center of gravity in the Democratic Party. And yet he has governed with a lot of respect for the left. I think thats really the lesson: that since Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, youve seen adoption of a lot of progressive policies and frankly, the advancement of a lot of progressive thinkers within the party. Theres still a wrestling match, though, and there are a lot of what would be described for lack of a better term is establishment Democrats that dont like that change. Its a push and a poll. But clearly, that sort of new Democrat moment has faded. And again, Texas gives you a very good set of examples to back that case up from its primary results.

Read this article:
What does progressives' primary success mean for Texas Democrats? - Texas Standard

The deal to supercharge the Pentagon budget is partly thanks to a $25 billion boost to the administrations defense proposal that Democrats and Republicans endorsed in military policy legislation Biden signed in December. But congressional leaders must still pass legislation to fund the Pentagon, and their negotiations could produce Pentagon spending even higher than the $740 billion they agreed to months ago.

Despite that cash influx for the military, the funding bill could actually win more progressive support than in years past, thanks to an emboldened Vladimir Putin and years of uncertainty to come. Its the latest sign of the difficulty that Democrats left flank has encountered translating its Biden-era ambitions into policy progress.

Its going to be tough, said House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who was critical of the hefty Pentagon spending increases under former President Donald Trump. I dont like it. I think were spending far too much anyways. But I think its a harder political vote now to vote against significant increases in defense.

This years sprawling spending bill is Bidens first and perhaps best chance to shape the future of government funding in his first term, with control of at least one chamber of Congress widely expected to change hands in November.

With Democrats controlling all of Washington for the first time in a decade, progressives saw an opening to at least hold the line on military spending this Congress, if not decrease it. But the left lost the battle on Pentagon spending to a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, and instead focused on at least matching those increases on the social-programs side of the government ledger.

And many liberals already see the writing on the wall for more Pentagon spending to come. Bidens upcoming budget request is also certain to disappoint progressives when it is released in the coming weeks, as the White House looks to counter an even more urgent Russian threat and gear up for longer term security and economic challenges posed by China.

Without question its going to have to be bigger than we thought, House Armed Services Chair Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said last week. Im always going to be cautious of the people who always want to spend more money no matter what ... But the decision to invade Ukraine by Russia changes it, and its going to go up. Theres no doubt about it.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith speaks in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 29, 2021.|Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Smith is a skeptic of shoveling more cash at the Pentagon whos unsuccessfully fought efforts to increase the defense budget. Still, he acknowledged that Moscows aggression means U.S. military posture is now more complicated and more expensive.

Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested late Monday that the final total aid for Ukraine could be as much as $12 billion in the spending package. And Republican defense hawks are applauding Smiths change of heart: Good for Adam, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said about the Armed Services chairs support for higher military funding in light of the invasion.

The reality of the moment has hit a stronger America is a safer world, right? Graham said Monday. Any politician willing to adjust is doing the country a service left or right.

The top House Armed Services panel Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, agreed: We have huge threats that we have to get after.

Weve got to stop this, Rogers added of the monthslong stretch without a budget boost for the military. We have to be bipartisan in dealing with these threats.

Progressive leaders dont plan to take a formal stance on whether to vote in favor of the broader spending bill and have not been formally whipping their members. Privately, many liberals believe that most of their members with the exception of a dozen or so of the caucus most liberal members, such as the so-called Squad will ultimately back the funding package, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.

I do support military aid to Ukraine, said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). I think thats the thing. We never support the defense budget, but she noted her vote could come down to the procedural details of how exactly that bill is brought to the floor.

Its situational. And theres a lot riding on it. We need to support Ukraine, added Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who has voted against defense bills in the past.

Democrats hope to bring the full package to the floor as soon as Wednesday, with hopes of quick action in the Senate before the Friday night deadline. But if a deal isnt reached by Tuesday, lawmakers and aides acknowledged that another stopgap could be needed to avoid a shutdown even as they stressed it would be the last possible resort and all focus is on the broader spending bill.

Senior lawmakers are still discussing possible options for those progressives who do oppose the Pentagon spending hike: The House could take multiple votes on the package, allowing progressives to vote no on the military budgets, but yes on funding for social programs such as health, infrastructure or housing. A similar strategy was used to pass last years bipartisan funding deal, though a final tactic hasnt been decided yet for this year.

There is overwhelming interest in providing assistance to Ukraine. And I think thats going to factor into the calculus that members usually use to decide how theyre going to vote, said a senior appropriator, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

Asked whether the emergency spending for Ukraine might help win progressives votes on the funding bill, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said it would depend on what was in the package.

It might. It just depends on what its for, Jayapal said, noting that some House liberals also have issues with other controversial pieces of the spending bills, such as the Department of Homeland Security.

These are big bills. I think well have to see how it all shakes out. Whats actually in there, and then how its actually divided, Jayapal said.

Democrats could also decide to package the longer-term spending bill together with the Ukrainian aid to maximize pressure on Republicans to deliver a united vote. But doing so would also squeeze the left.

The White House last week proposed $10 billion in emergency Ukraine aid. Roughly half, $4.8 billion, would go toward the Pentagon for troop deployments to Europe, restocking weapons shipped to Ukraine and cyber operations.

But a portion of that money would also go toward humanitarian relief efforts to mitigate a burgeoning refugee crisis in Europe the piece of the package that progressives have been far more interested in touting.

Another major reason many liberals will eventually back the deal is the intra-party pressure House Democrats are under to pass the bipartisan funding deal through their chamber, with or without the support of Republicans. Theyll have just a handful of their own votes to spare.

Theres no guarantee with them, Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) said of GOP votes on spending bills. People understand the margins we have, and the fact that we have to act. We dont compromise principle, but we have to compromise on the practicality of it.

Jennifer Scholtes and Nancy Vu contributed to this report.

Link:
Progressives grit their teeth as defense wins big in spending bill - POLITICO

Erik Bottcher, my city councilman, says his mother is afraid to come to New York City, worried that she will be hit. Shes not wrong. The elected officials who claim to champion womens rights arent taking womens justified fears seriously.

Its no accident that when Frank Abrokwa allegedly smeared his feces on a victim in a Bronx subway station on Feb. 21, the victim was a woman.

Before the attack, the suspect tried to hit on his victim, saying, How come you dont want to talk to me?

Every woman or girl knows what this is like: Some stranger comes up to you and tries to talk to you. Do you entirely ignore him, and risk angering him? Or do you engage as minimally as possible, and try to find a way out of the interaction?

This is harder, of course, when there is no one else around too often the case on subway platforms these days.

She ignored him so he committed a premeditated act of retaliation designed to humiliate and degrade. He fled the scene to poop into a bag, returned, and smeared the poop across his victims face, hair and back,saying, like this, b-tch? as she tried desperately to escape. At his arraignment, Abrokwa used the same slur to address a female judge.

Abrokwa is now back on the street to escalate his behavior.

Signs show he will: Hes faced 44 past arrests, and has several violent cases pending from the past six months, including punching two people (men) in two different transit stations, and spitting on a man he called a fking Jew.

Because Abrokwa hasnt killed or raped anyone, judges in three separate cases have freed him on no bail, under the 2019 state law.

Sure, one judgecouldhave held him, under a provision that allows for incarceration for repeat suspected offenders. But she didnt, deeming insufficient evidence.

To proponents of the bail reform, this means its working. He could have been held if everything had worked absolutely perfectly.

This insistence that everything is fine ignores the fact that courts are deeply dysfunctional, and the new bail laws did nothing to change that.The Democratic state Legislature just grafted yet more opportunities for catastrophic mistakes on a system that makes such mistakes every day.

The flipside of bail reform is that maybe Abrokwa deserves a second chance (or a 45thchance). In that case, hes supposed to be getting the help he needs, in the new thoughts and prayers clich.

Mayor Eric Adams said that this horrific situation was partly due to a failed mental health system, and Bottcher, too, says the people making his mother afraid are suffering from untreated mental illness.

OK, fine. If were not going to jail people, well carefully tend to their mental needs.

But Abrowka wasalreadyon supervised release, because of his earlier alleged attacks.

What kind of mental illness does he have? Like the attackers in many recent violent crimes, he appears perfectly lucid, and understands cause and effect.

Why didnt his supervised release regimen fail to catch and treat this mysterious illness? What should the treatment be? What happens if he resists treatment?

Too many women are paying the price for the citys failure to answer these questions. This year alone, at least six New York City women have been killed by strangers: Jennifer Ynoa, Kristal Bayron-Nieves, Michelle Go, Dorothy Clarke-Rozier, Gloria Ortiz and Christina Yuna Lee.

Thats more than an entire years worth of stranger-on-women killings in normal years. In 2018,noNew York City woman was killed by a stranger, indicating how safe the city had become.

And too many women have had close calls particularly in the transit system. City public-health researcher Nina Rothschild suffered a skull fracture in a Queens subway stairwell, attacked by a career criminal whojust servedan 18-year sentence out of state.

A 68-year-old womanwas slashedin the Union Square subway last week.

Dont let anyone tell you this is just life in the big city. Its because of specific changes in state and city policies.

Bayron-Nieves attacker had been released without bail after an earlier attack. Lees alleged killer, too, was on no-bail supervised release. Gos alleged killerwas on parole, and had missed his appointments with no penalty.

Police no longer arrest chronic, repeat turnstile-jumpers so they are free to commit bigger crimes in the transit system.

As they look over their shoulders, New Yorks women should wonder how feminist their progressive politicians are.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institutes City Journal.

Excerpt from:
NY progressives' weak-on-crime policies are profoundly anti-woman - New York Post