COVER/Jonathan Cohn
Progressives will get their debate on Medicare for all — and questions abound
EDITORIAL
No ransom for hostages
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
The demons come to haunt us all
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Shutdown ripples through the community
DISPATCHES
Trump outlined his vision in his inaugural address. Two years later, how’s it going?
Two years into Trump’s presidency, far-right extremism has surged.
Scientists say Trump’s first two years may be fatal for livable climate.
Four volunteers convicted for leaving life-saving supplies for immigrants in Arizona desert.
Nancy Pelosi's popularity surges.
House Dems snub labor choice for trade panel.
Pollution at Texas coal plants poses major threat to health and environment.
Businesses hit hard by Trump shutdown are suddenly silent about GOP lawmakers ...
ADAM TURTLE
Adapt or die: This is the lesson of both evolution and history
JOHN YOUNG
Miles and miles of big, beautiful lies
JILL RICHARDSON
Hollywood’s fat shaming is getting old
ART CULLEN
Epic hypocrisy of Republicans’ sudden distaste for Steve King
SAM PIZZIGATI
Prices, plutocrats, and corporate concentration
LEO GERARD
Tax dollars can buy happiness
JIM VAN DER POL
Geoengineering is no solution to climate change
ED RAMPELL
How will Trump’s presidency end? Seven ways it may.
BOB BURNETT
Trumpty dumpty sat on a wall ...
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Welcoming Cupid!
SAM URETSKY
Can Pelosi dance with Ocasio-Cortez?
CHUCK COLLINS
The government shutdown expands the ranks of ‘underwater nation’
WAYNE O’LEARY
Bigger is not better
JOHN BUELL
Tax justice and the Democratic prospect
N. GUNASEKARAN
Messy urbanization hits Asia’s poor hard
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Blue waves in the Golden State
ROB PATTERSON
Songs of resistance
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
Heck of a job, Donald
SETH SANDRONSKY
Rethinking mythologies
THEATRE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Quills, quips, quibbles, questions — and revolution
JAMES A. HAUGHT
Best and worst
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Friday, January 11, 2019
Editorial: AOC’s Modest Proposal
New Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been living rent-free in the heads of right-wing pundits ever since the Democratic socialist former bartender from the Bronx gained notoriety with her upset win over liberal 20-year incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in the June 26 Democratic primary. But the right wingers really flipped their wigs when she suggested, during a 60 Minutes interview, that the top marginal tax rate be increased to as much as 70% to finance initiatives such as the “Green New Deal” she is proposing to get a handle on climate change.
The ensuing hubbub showed that some prominent “conservatives” either don’t understand how marginal tax rates work, or they were being intentionally dishonest about it, Aaron Rupar noted at Vox.
After a preview of the interview was released Jan. 4, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), tweeted that Ocasio-Cortez’s tax proposal would result in government seizing “70% of your income and [giving] it to leftist fantasy programs.”
A few hours later, Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for Tax Reform, claimed in a tweet that Ocasio-Cortez “wants 70%” of “your production,” and suggested her proposal is akin to slavery. “It’s hard to believe that Norquist, who has dedicated his professional life to tax policy, doesn’t understand how marginal tax rates work, but he is nonetheless misrepresenting it on Twitter,” Rupar wrote.
Conservatives have attacked AOC for allegedly not being well-versed in policy details, but Rupar noted she succinctly and accurately described how progressive marginal tax rates work while discussing her proposal.
“Once you get to the tippy-tops, on your $10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%,” she said. “That doesn’t mean all $10 million dollars are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”
Under the current marginal tax rates, the first $9,525 earned by a single filer is taxed at 10%. Income from $9,525 to $38,700 is taxed at 12%. Income from $38,700 to $82,500 is taxed at 22%. The brackets go up to the top rate of 37%, which for a single filer kicks in at $500,000 ($600,000 for a married couple filing jointly).
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, in a New York Times column Jan. 5 noted that AOC is advocating a tax rate of 70% on very high incomes, “which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance. … And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.
“To be more specific, Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73%. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80%.
Krugman noted that when America had very high rates on the rich (as high as 92%) after World War II, the economy did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.
“Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious,” Krugman wrote.
In 2017, the Economic Policy Institute reported that CEOs at the 350 largest companies in 2016 took home an average of $15.6 million — 271 times what the typical US worker earns. That was up from a ratio of 30:1 before the Reagan-era tax cuts. When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, CEO compensation averaged 59 times the typical earner. The increasing use of stock options to inflate executive compensation packages has exploded that CEO-to-worker pay ratio since then.
AOC proposed that the top marginal rate of 70% be applied to incomes over $10 million, but that allows a generous ratio of executive compensation at 321 times the median personal income, which was $31,099 in 2017. We would propose that any compensation more than 30 times the median personal income, which would be approximately $932,000, should be taxed at 70%. That would give executives an incentive not only to reinvest earnings in their company, but also to pay their workers more, so they’d get that median income — and the top marginal tax benchmark — up.
After getting the government opened up, the first bill the Democrats hope to pass is a sweeping anti-corruption bill aimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights. HR 1 has no chance in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said, “That’s not going to go anywhere,” possibly because Republicans know they can’t win a fair election any more.
AOC and her progressive allies might not get much of their initiatives past the Republican-dominated Senate, but if the progressive coalition can pass some of these bills out of the House, with the cooperation of new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, they can show voters what might be possible if they return Democrats to a Senate Majority and the White House in 2021.
Trump, who routinely stiffed contractors on his real estate projects, forcing them to sue him to get their payments, has suggested that the shutdown could result in a net savings for the federal government, which shows his misunderstanding of how the government works.
First, most of the federal employees will eventually get their back pay when the impasse is resolved. About 420,000 of the federal workers are classified as essential and are working without knowing when they’ll be paid. About 380,000 federal employees have been furloughed and probably will get back pay when the shutdown is resolved. And they’re not all highly-paid bureaucrats. J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 40,000 Bureau of Prisons employees who have been furloughed in the shutdown, told the New York Times his members get an average take-home pay of $500 a week, which leaves little cushion during a shortfall.
Also, an estimated 4.1 million people work for federal contractors, according to Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. The contract workers clean offices, serve food and provide security or other services for federal agencies, and they are not expected to receive back pay when the deal is worked out.
In the past, Trump’s father bailed him out of financial trouble until the debts got too great, as Donald managed to lose money on three casinos in Atlantic City as well as the Plaza Hotel in New York City, taking them through bankruptcy a total of six times. Trump said there was nothing wrong with using bankruptcy to handle debts, and insisted he had “used, brilliantly, the laws of the country.” But that’s why he had to turn to Russian oligarchs and Mideastern potentates to finance recent ventures — and now he is desperate to distract the public from the fact that he’s in over his head.
Tell your senators to put the government back to work. — JMC
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
The ensuing hubbub showed that some prominent “conservatives” either don’t understand how marginal tax rates work, or they were being intentionally dishonest about it, Aaron Rupar noted at Vox.
After a preview of the interview was released Jan. 4, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), tweeted that Ocasio-Cortez’s tax proposal would result in government seizing “70% of your income and [giving] it to leftist fantasy programs.”
A few hours later, Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for Tax Reform, claimed in a tweet that Ocasio-Cortez “wants 70%” of “your production,” and suggested her proposal is akin to slavery. “It’s hard to believe that Norquist, who has dedicated his professional life to tax policy, doesn’t understand how marginal tax rates work, but he is nonetheless misrepresenting it on Twitter,” Rupar wrote.
Conservatives have attacked AOC for allegedly not being well-versed in policy details, but Rupar noted she succinctly and accurately described how progressive marginal tax rates work while discussing her proposal.
“Once you get to the tippy-tops, on your $10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%,” she said. “That doesn’t mean all $10 million dollars are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”
Under the current marginal tax rates, the first $9,525 earned by a single filer is taxed at 10%. Income from $9,525 to $38,700 is taxed at 12%. Income from $38,700 to $82,500 is taxed at 22%. The brackets go up to the top rate of 37%, which for a single filer kicks in at $500,000 ($600,000 for a married couple filing jointly).
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, in a New York Times column Jan. 5 noted that AOC is advocating a tax rate of 70% on very high incomes, “which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance. … And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.
“To be more specific, Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73%. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80%.
Krugman noted that when America had very high rates on the rich (as high as 92%) after World War II, the economy did just fine. Since then tax rates have come way down, and if anything the economy has done less well.
“Why do Republicans adhere to a tax theory that has no support from nonpartisan economists and is refuted by all available data? Well, ask who benefits from low taxes on the rich, and it’s obvious,” Krugman wrote.
In 2017, the Economic Policy Institute reported that CEOs at the 350 largest companies in 2016 took home an average of $15.6 million — 271 times what the typical US worker earns. That was up from a ratio of 30:1 before the Reagan-era tax cuts. When Ronald Reagan left office in 1989, CEO compensation averaged 59 times the typical earner. The increasing use of stock options to inflate executive compensation packages has exploded that CEO-to-worker pay ratio since then.
AOC proposed that the top marginal rate of 70% be applied to incomes over $10 million, but that allows a generous ratio of executive compensation at 321 times the median personal income, which was $31,099 in 2017. We would propose that any compensation more than 30 times the median personal income, which would be approximately $932,000, should be taxed at 70%. That would give executives an incentive not only to reinvest earnings in their company, but also to pay their workers more, so they’d get that median income — and the top marginal tax benchmark — up.
After getting the government opened up, the first bill the Democrats hope to pass is a sweeping anti-corruption bill aimed at stamping out the influence of money in politics and expanding voting rights. HR 1 has no chance in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said, “That’s not going to go anywhere,” possibly because Republicans know they can’t win a fair election any more.
AOC and her progressive allies might not get much of their initiatives past the Republican-dominated Senate, but if the progressive coalition can pass some of these bills out of the House, with the cooperation of new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, they can show voters what might be possible if they return Democrats to a Senate Majority and the White House in 2021.
Deadbeat Don Holds Workers Hostage
Another reason why we should not run government like a business was on display during the federal government shutdown. It was no surprise that Donald Trump, who has been a grifter and a deadbeat all his life, sees nothing wrong with leaving nearly five million workers without paychecks for an indefinite period of time.Trump, who routinely stiffed contractors on his real estate projects, forcing them to sue him to get their payments, has suggested that the shutdown could result in a net savings for the federal government, which shows his misunderstanding of how the government works.
First, most of the federal employees will eventually get their back pay when the impasse is resolved. About 420,000 of the federal workers are classified as essential and are working without knowing when they’ll be paid. About 380,000 federal employees have been furloughed and probably will get back pay when the shutdown is resolved. And they’re not all highly-paid bureaucrats. J. David Cox Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 40,000 Bureau of Prisons employees who have been furloughed in the shutdown, told the New York Times his members get an average take-home pay of $500 a week, which leaves little cushion during a shortfall.
Also, an estimated 4.1 million people work for federal contractors, according to Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University. The contract workers clean offices, serve food and provide security or other services for federal agencies, and they are not expected to receive back pay when the deal is worked out.
In the past, Trump’s father bailed him out of financial trouble until the debts got too great, as Donald managed to lose money on three casinos in Atlantic City as well as the Plaza Hotel in New York City, taking them through bankruptcy a total of six times. Trump said there was nothing wrong with using bankruptcy to handle debts, and insisted he had “used, brilliantly, the laws of the country.” But that’s why he had to turn to Russian oligarchs and Mideastern potentates to finance recent ventures — and now he is desperate to distract the public from the fact that he’s in over his head.
Tell your senators to put the government back to work. — JMC
From The Progressive Populist, February 1, 2019
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
Selections from the February 1, 2019 issue
COVER/Jim Goodman
Dairy farming as we knew it is dying. After 40 years, I’m done.
EDITORIAL
AOC’s modest proposal; Deadbeat Don
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
Divesting in Trumpism
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Let the presidential candidates show they can help
DISPATCHES
Mainstream media blows coverage of Warren’s DNA test.
Maine’s new governor gives health care to 70,000 on first day.
US-Mexico treaty shows Trump border wall absurd, also illegal.
Only six on terror list stopped at southern border in first half of 2018, and more immigrants are leaving than coming in.
Trump's trade war costs middle-class families hundreds of dollars this year.
Trump in ‘no hurry’ to get Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretaries.
Trump tops 7,645 lies in December.
Supreme Court clears the way for Mass. A.G. to pursue ExxonMobil.
Don't mess with AOC ...
ART CULLEN
Our role in Democracy
JOHN YOUNG
Trump nation can’t see out its own windows
JILL RICHARDSON
New Year’s affirmations
ANTHONY PAHNKE
The Farm Bill should be better
JIM VAN DER POL
Reaching across the aisle isn’t working for the people
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Time to leave the war zone
JAMES A. HAUGHT
Evangelicals vote, ‘nones’ falter
MARK ANDERSON
Beekeepers seek to save the buzz
SETH SANDRONSKY
Amazon and cross-border solidarity
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
From genetics to the media: In praise of sunshine
SAM URETSKY
Not all cities get IT booms
FRANK CLEMENTE
The GOP tax bill is creating jobs — just not in the US
WAYNE O’LEARY
The yellow and the green
JOHN BUELL
Which way the yellow vests?
JOEL D. JOSEPH
Worldwide corporate tax dodge
BOB BURNETT
Trump’s slow-motion breakdown
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Let it all out
ROB PATTERSON
Thank goodness for Bob Dylan
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
There’s a new crust in town
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
The life aquatic with Hawaiian Jason Momoa: Polynesian power!
Dairy farming as we knew it is dying. After 40 years, I’m done.
EDITORIAL
AOC’s modest proposal; Deadbeat Don
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
Divesting in Trumpism
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Let the presidential candidates show they can help
DISPATCHES
Mainstream media blows coverage of Warren’s DNA test.
Maine’s new governor gives health care to 70,000 on first day.
US-Mexico treaty shows Trump border wall absurd, also illegal.
Only six on terror list stopped at southern border in first half of 2018, and more immigrants are leaving than coming in.
Trump's trade war costs middle-class families hundreds of dollars this year.
Trump in ‘no hurry’ to get Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretaries.
Trump tops 7,645 lies in December.
Supreme Court clears the way for Mass. A.G. to pursue ExxonMobil.
Don't mess with AOC ...
ART CULLEN
Our role in Democracy
JOHN YOUNG
Trump nation can’t see out its own windows
JILL RICHARDSON
New Year’s affirmations
ANTHONY PAHNKE
The Farm Bill should be better
JIM VAN DER POL
Reaching across the aisle isn’t working for the people
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Time to leave the war zone
JAMES A. HAUGHT
Evangelicals vote, ‘nones’ falter
MARK ANDERSON
Beekeepers seek to save the buzz
SETH SANDRONSKY
Amazon and cross-border solidarity
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
From genetics to the media: In praise of sunshine
SAM URETSKY
Not all cities get IT booms
FRANK CLEMENTE
The GOP tax bill is creating jobs — just not in the US
WAYNE O’LEARY
The yellow and the green
JOHN BUELL
Which way the yellow vests?
JOEL D. JOSEPH
Worldwide corporate tax dodge
BOB BURNETT
Trump’s slow-motion breakdown
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Let it all out
ROB PATTERSON
Thank goodness for Bob Dylan
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
There’s a new crust in town
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
The life aquatic with Hawaiian Jason Momoa: Polynesian power!
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Trump’s wall is a typical GOP maneuver: Propose a stupid idea that hurts non- whites to solve a non-existent problem
By Marc Jampole
As Stephen Colbert pointed out, Republican strategist Stuart Stevens best characterized Donald Trump’s Oval Office speech about the proposed wall along our Southern border hours before Trump gave the speech: “There are numerous examples of presidential addresses made to calm a public. This will be the first to frighten a calm public.”
The partial federal government shutdown is now well into its third week and millions of Americans are suffering because Donald Trump and his Republican flunkies in the Senate insist on building a wall along the border of Mexico, a bad solution to a non-existent problem. We already do tight security screening and illegal entry is way down, thanks to a combination of better Latin American economies and the unwelcoming attitude of the current administration.
It’s not the first time that Republicans have addressed a non-existent problem with a solution that will hurt many people, primarily non-whites, and not help the country. Remember, the states under GOP control have passed dozens upon dozens of restrictive voting laws to address the non-existent problem of voter fraud by individuals. Just as the origins of building a wall is racism, so was the wave of new voter laws, which have targeted minorities, the young and the poor. For example, the Texas voter ID law allows voters to use a hunting license as proof of identification, but not a Texas university ID card. As with the wall, new voter registration laws solved a non-existent problem by targeting non-whites.
Time and time again, Republicans have used non-existent problems in the economy as the excuse to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Once again, there were no long-term problems with the economy. But even if there had been—as there were in 2008—the way to grow the economy and create jobs is never to give tax breaks to the wealthy. What works much better is to give tax breaks to the poor and lower middle class. But what works the best is to raise taxes on the wealthy and invest the money in the economy—building new dedicated mass transit, fixing roads and bridges, making college more affordable, developing carbon neutral technologies. Yet every time the Republicans seize power, the first thing they do is lower taxes on the wealthy. They did it under Reagan, Bush II and now, Trump. Lowering taxes on the wealthy hurts not only racial minorities and the poor, but the middle class and most of the upper middle class, in several ways: It takes money out of the economy, as the rich invest their tax savings in the secondary stock market, bigger houses and other non-productive assets. More important, the government has fewer funds to invest in programs that actually grow the economy and create jobs.
The Afghanistan war breaks the GOP pattern of solving a problem that doesn’t exist with something stupid and racist, but just a little bit. We did have a terrorism problem in 2001. The Afghan War started within a month of 9/11, supposedly to hunt Al Qaida. So the problem was real, but the solution was just plain stupid—the wrong answer, almost by definition, since every outside power that has ever tried to invade or control Afghanistan has instead got caught in the worst kind of intractable, unending, unwinnable quagmire. The Soviet Union, England, the Sikhs, the Mughals—all of these governments invaded Afghanistan, and all soon regretted it. As has the United States.
That brings us to Iraq. Let’s set aside the war for a second and think about what the government had done by 2003 to fight terrorism—greater cooperation with allies, an enormous increase in surveillance, enhanced airport and border security and the development of drones are just some of the many ways we fought terrorism from outsiders after 9/11. Some would say, and include me in this group, that we committed overkill. By 2003, terrorism was no longer a problem, thanks to the Draconian measures the Bush II Administration took, with the cooperation of the Democrats. Thus the war in Iraq was another wrong-headed GOP solution to a non-existent problem that ended up severely hurting populations of non-whites. It perfectly follows the pattern of the wall, voting restrictions and tax breaks for the wealthy.
Those who say Trump has taken over the Republican Party are absolutely and completely wrong. Trump and the GOP were a match made in heaven. Trump’s policies and actions are completely consistent with Republican ideology since Reagan. His decision-making process fits right into Republican strategizing: Create a problem and solve it with a cockamamie idea that hurts non-whites. The wall represents the apotheosis of Reaganism. Those Republicans like Romney and Corey Gardner who criticize Trump only dislike his obvious emotional instability, his crude style, his addiction to lies and the overtness of his racism. They’re fine with his policies.
Trump’s foreign policy does represent a break from Republican ideology, to be sure. He rejects traditional alliances and seems fond of autocrats—perhaps picturing himself as the de facto leader of an international white nationalist movement. Of course, the true leader is Vladimir Putin.
But he deserves credit for announcing the drawdown of about half the troops in Afghanistan. We can only hope that he follows through on this promise, and soon brings home all our remaining troops in Afghanistan.
That would be a start to dismantling the global U.S. military machine now operating in 80 countries total. We have active troops fighting in 14 countries and have recently bombed or used drones in 7. Our military personnel conduct counterterrorism training in 65 countries. All this, in addition to our 40 military bases around the globe. While Trump courts disaster to turn his back on our allies, start a trade war with China and replace multilateralism with go-it-alone bellicosity, his instinct to bring home U.S. troops is a good one.
But even when he gets it right, Trump screws it up. Of all the many places where the United States has an active military engagement, just about the only one we can justify is our presence in Syria. We have no business in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Central African Republican, Yemen, Mali and elsewhere, but our small force in Syria does bring a small measure of stability to the civil-war ravaged country. We can only leave once there is a permanent political solution that protects the Kurdish population. To do otherwise would mean we have abandoned an ally, a despicable action that we know Trump has embraced before in both his business and political careers.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Editorial: Call Trump’s Bluff on Immigration Reform
Donald Trump and his Republican enablers clearly see their xenophobic immigration policy as a great way to divide working-class Americans from the Democratic Party. An economy with less than 4% unemployment, as exists today, is considered “full employment,” and nearly everybody can find a job — but getting a job with a living wage is the challenge.
Many working-class white Americans blame immigrants for keeping wages down, but the real culprits are corporate managers who like the current immigration chaos precisely because a ready supply of undocumented immigrants who will work hard for low wages reduce the pressure to increase wages and benefits.
There is a progressive populist case to be made for preserving jobs for Americans.
First, Democrats must not approve any appropriations to build Trump’s wall along the border with Mexico. It’s a stupid idea, which not only would waste billions of dollars, but also interferes with property rights, commerce and environmental concerns along the border.
If Trump claims a mandate to build the wall because he campaigned on it, Democrats should remind him that he also promised Mexico would pay for the wall. Democrats certainly should not allow construction to proceed until the check from Mexico clears the US Treasury — and that should end the matter, since we don’t expect new Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to approve spending more than $20 billion on a 1,000-mile wall to help Trump keep his unwise promises.
Instead, Democrats should support a bill calling for enforcement of sanctions on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, including criminal penalties for employers who fail to withhold taxes for wages paid to immigrants. We have tried deporting undocumented immigrants when they are found, and that clearly does not stem the flow. Stiff fines and jail, when necessary, for bosses is the most effective way to reduce the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the US. If they can’t find work here, they won’t stay.
But I’ll let you in on a little secret: The US Chamber of Commerce and other industrial groups won’t stand for it. They like the current chaos because undocumented workers not only work hard for low pay, but also can be turned in for deportation if they cause any “trouble,” such as talking about joining a union.
So business lobbyists would put the kibosh on any effective immigration control. But it would be interesting to get Republicans on the record on employer sanctions. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to hire or recruit undocumented immigrants, but successful prosecutions are rare because the law included an “affirmative defense” that released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers’ documents.
In 1996 the federal government established the E-Verify program, which allows employers to compare information provided by the prospective employee with government records to confirm identity and employment eligibility. But the program remains largely voluntary.
Reviving employer sanctions should be part of a “Fair and Humane Immigration Policy” Sen. Bernie Sanders is advocating that includes enacting and expanding President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) to allow the parents of DREAMers, who were brought here as children, the parents of children who were born here as citizens, the parents of legal permanent residents, and other immigrants who would have been given legal protections by the 2013 immigration bill reform that passed the Senate but died in the House. This would allow all undocumented people who have been peaceably in the US for at least five years to stay in the country without fear of being deported. Under this plan, Sanders has said, close to nine million of an estimated 11 million undocumented aliens would be able to apply for deferred action.
Sanders also has proposed establishing a whistleblower visa for workers reporting labor violations. An affirmative process would be available for these individuals to request deferred action. And any immigration proposal should include support for all workers’ rights to organize their workplaces.
We must reject fear of immigrants. If Trump seriously believed that the “caravan” of refugees from Central America, who are trying to lawfully apply for asylum in the US, really contained Islamic terrorists, as he claimed when he was stoking fear before the midterm elections, he should have sent Homeland Security agents to meet them with a pocketful of “green cards” to hand out to Central American refugees who could point out Muslim imposters. We don’t mean to be racist, but an Arab jihadist would stick out like a sore thumb in a crowd of Central Americans. Of course, Trump was lying when he made the claim, but again, Democrats should call his bluff.
Unfortunately, the right wingers will remain in control of the Senate next year. But Democrats in the House can show what pro-worker progressive immigration reform would look like if Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump would get out of the way.
The report of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III might move the needle, but there is an awful lot of denial in the Grand Oligarch Party. House Dems should start probing but hold off on judgment.
It’s not as if there aren’t enough judgmental Republicans in the Senate. Remember President Bill Clinton was acquitted Feb. 12, 1999, of both articles of impeachment for lying about a sex act with a consenting adult, with 55 “not guilty” votes for perjury and a 50-50 vote on obstruction of justice. That’s when Republicans controlled the Senate, 55-45. Clinton left office with 66% approval.
Current Republican senators who voted to remove President Clinton from office include Mike Crapo of Idaho, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Pat Roberts of Kansas. Who among them do you think would support the removal of Trump, even on much more serious charges Mueller is sorting through? (Hatch will be replaced in January by Mitt Romney, who has shown little inclination to criticize the Great Misleader, and Kyl is keeping the late Sen. John McCain’s seat warm, but is expected to quit the Senate early next year to let Arizona’s governor appoint an interim senator who Republicans think they can elect in 2020.
Mitch McConnell will be working with a 53-47 GOP majority in January, so only if Republicans in “safe red” states start feeling the heat will they consider making Trump expendable.
In the meantime, Trump has never reached 50% job approval as president in the Pollster.com average of 40 national polls. The Gallup Poll in December found 48% approval and 50% disapproval, while the Pollster average was 43.1% approval, 50.9% disapproval, as of Dec. 4. Sure, Trump could still get re-elected, but a competent Democratic candidate who is willing to campaign in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ought to be able to beat him handily. — JMC
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
Many working-class white Americans blame immigrants for keeping wages down, but the real culprits are corporate managers who like the current immigration chaos precisely because a ready supply of undocumented immigrants who will work hard for low wages reduce the pressure to increase wages and benefits.
There is a progressive populist case to be made for preserving jobs for Americans.
First, Democrats must not approve any appropriations to build Trump’s wall along the border with Mexico. It’s a stupid idea, which not only would waste billions of dollars, but also interferes with property rights, commerce and environmental concerns along the border.
If Trump claims a mandate to build the wall because he campaigned on it, Democrats should remind him that he also promised Mexico would pay for the wall. Democrats certainly should not allow construction to proceed until the check from Mexico clears the US Treasury — and that should end the matter, since we don’t expect new Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to approve spending more than $20 billion on a 1,000-mile wall to help Trump keep his unwise promises.
Instead, Democrats should support a bill calling for enforcement of sanctions on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants, including criminal penalties for employers who fail to withhold taxes for wages paid to immigrants. We have tried deporting undocumented immigrants when they are found, and that clearly does not stem the flow. Stiff fines and jail, when necessary, for bosses is the most effective way to reduce the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the US. If they can’t find work here, they won’t stay.
But I’ll let you in on a little secret: The US Chamber of Commerce and other industrial groups won’t stand for it. They like the current chaos because undocumented workers not only work hard for low pay, but also can be turned in for deportation if they cause any “trouble,” such as talking about joining a union.
So business lobbyists would put the kibosh on any effective immigration control. But it would be interesting to get Republicans on the record on employer sanctions. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to hire or recruit undocumented immigrants, but successful prosecutions are rare because the law included an “affirmative defense” that released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers’ documents.
In 1996 the federal government established the E-Verify program, which allows employers to compare information provided by the prospective employee with government records to confirm identity and employment eligibility. But the program remains largely voluntary.
Reviving employer sanctions should be part of a “Fair and Humane Immigration Policy” Sen. Bernie Sanders is advocating that includes enacting and expanding President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) to allow the parents of DREAMers, who were brought here as children, the parents of children who were born here as citizens, the parents of legal permanent residents, and other immigrants who would have been given legal protections by the 2013 immigration bill reform that passed the Senate but died in the House. This would allow all undocumented people who have been peaceably in the US for at least five years to stay in the country without fear of being deported. Under this plan, Sanders has said, close to nine million of an estimated 11 million undocumented aliens would be able to apply for deferred action.
Sanders also has proposed establishing a whistleblower visa for workers reporting labor violations. An affirmative process would be available for these individuals to request deferred action. And any immigration proposal should include support for all workers’ rights to organize their workplaces.
We must reject fear of immigrants. If Trump seriously believed that the “caravan” of refugees from Central America, who are trying to lawfully apply for asylum in the US, really contained Islamic terrorists, as he claimed when he was stoking fear before the midterm elections, he should have sent Homeland Security agents to meet them with a pocketful of “green cards” to hand out to Central American refugees who could point out Muslim imposters. We don’t mean to be racist, but an Arab jihadist would stick out like a sore thumb in a crowd of Central Americans. Of course, Trump was lying when he made the claim, but again, Democrats should call his bluff.
Unfortunately, the right wingers will remain in control of the Senate next year. But Democrats in the House can show what pro-worker progressive immigration reform would look like if Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump would get out of the way.
Don’t Rush Impeachment
Many Democrats are urging the House to move on impeachment of the Great Misleader when the new Congress meets in January, but Democratic leaders need to consider the effect of passing an impeachment resolution in the House, when they would need 20 Republican votes in the Senate to reach 67 to convict Trump and remove him from office.The report of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III might move the needle, but there is an awful lot of denial in the Grand Oligarch Party. House Dems should start probing but hold off on judgment.
It’s not as if there aren’t enough judgmental Republicans in the Senate. Remember President Bill Clinton was acquitted Feb. 12, 1999, of both articles of impeachment for lying about a sex act with a consenting adult, with 55 “not guilty” votes for perjury and a 50-50 vote on obstruction of justice. That’s when Republicans controlled the Senate, 55-45. Clinton left office with 66% approval.
Current Republican senators who voted to remove President Clinton from office include Mike Crapo of Idaho, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Pat Roberts of Kansas. Who among them do you think would support the removal of Trump, even on much more serious charges Mueller is sorting through? (Hatch will be replaced in January by Mitt Romney, who has shown little inclination to criticize the Great Misleader, and Kyl is keeping the late Sen. John McCain’s seat warm, but is expected to quit the Senate early next year to let Arizona’s governor appoint an interim senator who Republicans think they can elect in 2020.
Mitch McConnell will be working with a 53-47 GOP majority in January, so only if Republicans in “safe red” states start feeling the heat will they consider making Trump expendable.
In the meantime, Trump has never reached 50% job approval as president in the Pollster.com average of 40 national polls. The Gallup Poll in December found 48% approval and 50% disapproval, while the Pollster average was 43.1% approval, 50.9% disapproval, as of Dec. 4. Sure, Trump could still get re-elected, but a competent Democratic candidate who is willing to campaign in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ought to be able to beat him handily. — JMC
From The Progressive Populist, January 1-15, 2019
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
Selections from the January 1-15, 2018 issue
COVER/Art Cullen & Tom Cullen
Trump denies what farmers already know: Rains are heavier every year.
EDITORIAL
Call Trump’s bluff on immigration reform
IM HIGHTOWER
Free the free press from Wall Street plunderers.
Putting the Trump stamp on the public.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
David, Goliath and Sister Mary
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Farmers won’t like climate change, and neither will you
DISPATCHES
Treasury report nixes revival of postals banking, but proposes limits on postal unions.
Supreme Court punts on defunding Planned Parenthood.
Powerful House Dem supports Green New Deal.
Unemployment unchanged at 3.7%, but wage growth stays weak.
House GOP leaders resist reinstatement of net neutrality.
Trump boost of the coal industry has consumption down 4%.
Nebraska farmers say Trump trade war cost them $1.2B.
Trump's AG pick has a special record on special investigtions ...
ART CULLEN
Trump got rolled
JILL RICHARDSON
Republicans don’t want your vote to count
JOHN YOUNG
Trump’s intriguing definition of ‘zero’
JASON SIBERT
Disorder defines Trump’s world
MARSHALL AUERBACK
GM offers proof to the world that slashing wages isn’t the ticket to profitability
DAVID J. SCHMIDT
The priest and the migrant: Meeting the caravan in the Advent season
JASMINE AGUILERA
Lessons from south of the border
GENE NICHOL
Impeachable offense
BOB BURNETT
10 Action items for Democrats
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
The gray wave rises
SAM URETSKY
Letting go of industrial regulations isn’t bringing back the jobs
SAM PIZZIGATI
Executives make millions misleading cancer patients. Here’s one way to stop them.
WAYNE O’LEARY
Trump’s sugar high
JOHN BUELL
Building a green new deal
SETH SANDRONSKY
Subsidize this
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Ordering the chaos
ROB PATTERSON
Traveling by tube
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
What to serve at a hanging
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
AFI Fest 2018: The Weekend, Stan & Ollie
Trump denies what farmers already know: Rains are heavier every year.
EDITORIAL
Call Trump’s bluff on immigration reform
IM HIGHTOWER
Free the free press from Wall Street plunderers.
Putting the Trump stamp on the public.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
David, Goliath and Sister Mary
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Farmers won’t like climate change, and neither will you
DISPATCHES
Treasury report nixes revival of postals banking, but proposes limits on postal unions.
Supreme Court punts on defunding Planned Parenthood.
Powerful House Dem supports Green New Deal.
Unemployment unchanged at 3.7%, but wage growth stays weak.
House GOP leaders resist reinstatement of net neutrality.
Trump boost of the coal industry has consumption down 4%.
Nebraska farmers say Trump trade war cost them $1.2B.
Trump's AG pick has a special record on special investigtions ...
ART CULLEN
Trump got rolled
JILL RICHARDSON
Republicans don’t want your vote to count
JOHN YOUNG
Trump’s intriguing definition of ‘zero’
JASON SIBERT
Disorder defines Trump’s world
MARSHALL AUERBACK
GM offers proof to the world that slashing wages isn’t the ticket to profitability
DAVID J. SCHMIDT
The priest and the migrant: Meeting the caravan in the Advent season
JASMINE AGUILERA
Lessons from south of the border
GENE NICHOL
Impeachable offense
BOB BURNETT
10 Action items for Democrats
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
The gray wave rises
SAM URETSKY
Letting go of industrial regulations isn’t bringing back the jobs
SAM PIZZIGATI
Executives make millions misleading cancer patients. Here’s one way to stop them.
WAYNE O’LEARY
Trump’s sugar high
JOHN BUELL
Building a green new deal
SETH SANDRONSKY
Subsidize this
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Ordering the chaos
ROB PATTERSON
Traveling by tube
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
What to serve at a hanging
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
AFI Fest 2018: The Weekend, Stan & Ollie
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
If Democrats want to win in 2020, they won’t nominate a woman for president and will nominate a woman for vice president
By Marc Jampole
The Democratic Party is full of smart, experienced and personable women who would do a great job as president. The list begins with Hillary Clinton, but obviously nominating her would court disaster, as the irrational “lock her up crowd” is still rather quite large. Why give Republicans another reason to come out to the polls? Hillary would perform particularly poorly against any Republican other than Trump, because none of them would have Trump’s baggage and Hillary would still have hers.
The four women I like for president are Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand. I personally think it’s about time that a woman served as president.
But nominating any of these truly competent woman or any other woman would be a mistake. About 34% of all voters, including 59% of Republicans, do not personally want to see a woman as president in their lifetime. That’s a steep demographic hill to climb. We know that any male Republican candidate, but especially Trump, will attempt to associate a female candidate with weakness. The news media is sure to exercise its double standard for female candidates: questioning them for past actions and family situations that go unspoken when the candidate is a male.
There is plenty of evidence that a backlash against the very necessary and important #Metoo movement has formed. Leading the anti-#Metoo-ist charge is Trump Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who has pushed through new college regulations regarding claims of assault that favor the accused. Of particular interest is a recent Bloomberg News report that men at Wall Street investment banks, brokerages and other financial institutions are avoiding being alone with women, rather than risk an accusation of sexual harassment. These powerful business men, virtually all of whom had a mentor at the beginning of their careers, call it the Pence Effect, after Vice President Mike Pence, who will be alone in a room or at dinner with a woman only if it’s his wife. Now Pence can blame his squeamishness on his religion, but these Masters of the Universe blame it on the potential for a misunderstanding or false accusation. The article never mentions the fact that a mere 2% of sexual harassment or assault accusations are false. That means the likelihood of dining alone with a woman resulting in a false accusation is close to nil. That is, if the man keeps the conversation during business hours to business matters, and the dinner conversation to business or non-threatening personal matters. No physical contact beyond shaking hands, when appropriate. That these men don’t realize that all it takes to avoid assault charges is not to assault suggests a terrible truth about the lack of respect that women still suffer in the business and public worlds.
Whoever the Republicans run, it’s essential for Democrats to win in 2020. Why take a chance? What if the answer to the question, “Is America ready for a woman president?” is still no?
But on the other hand, it is extremely important that America moves forward. We have to lay the groundwork for a female presidency in the near future. A woman has twice run for vice president and once for president. Running a woman as a vice presidential candidate in 2020 keeps women in the presidential campaign limelight. And let’s face it, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand are all more competent and presentable candidates than Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin were. A woman vice presidential candidate will make a Democratic ticket more attractive to millennial voters.
But whereas all four women would make wonderful presidents and vice presidents, I would not consider Elizabeth Warren as someone’s running mate, because she’s already 69. In four or eight years, she’ll be in her seventies, on the verge of being too old to run for our highest office.
Interestingly enough, running one of the three younger women as vice president makes Joe Biden a more appealing choice to head the ticket. Biden will turn 78 in 2020 and, if elected, figures to serve one term only. Whoever is his vice president will be the presumptive presidential frontrunner in 2024. Making it Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand or another woman sets up the probability that a woman is elected president in 2024, assuming the Democrats do what they say they’re going to do.
Biden wouldn’t be my first, second, third or fourth choice among Democratic men. I still don’t like the way he mistreated Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991. Moreover, I would rather see a younger, more vigorous person in office.
But who should it be? Tune in tomorrow for the last in my series of articles on who the Democrats should nominate in 2020.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
With a deep bench of talent, the Democrat’s mantra should be ABB: Anyone but Beto
By Marc Jampole
The Democrats are blessed with a large number of candidates whose experience, politics and personality make them qualified to assume the office of the presidency. Even if we rule out the most well-known but all fairly ancient Democrats—the septuagenarians Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders—the Democrats’ cup runneth over with talented candidates.
Unfortunately Beto O’Rourke is not one of them.
Yet, Beto is the one that the mainstream news media want to focus on. The other day, MSNBC’s pseudo-progressiveChris Matthews pumped up O’Rourke’s candidacy. This week, The New York Times ran a front-page feature focused focused on his potential candidacy. The only other possible candidates mentioned in the article are those the writer believes Beto particularly threatens—Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Joe Biden
What’s more, strong anecdotal evidence exists that large numbers of probable Democratic voters are intrigued by Beto. Other than Biden, Bernie and Hillary, O’Rourke attracted the most support in a recent national poll, although he won a mere 9% of participants. My Facebook universe of more than 3,500 friends, which is decidedly Democratic and progressive, generates at least two dozen updates a day about the 2020 election. About a sixth of the posts wail over the possibility of Hillary running and another sixth propose Bernie as the top choice. A handful of posts mention other candidates, while the remainder—about two-thirds—propose Beto as the top candidate.
Yet what has he done? Not much, as it turns out.
He served three undistinguished terms as a back bencher in the House of Representatives. Between forming an environmental coalition, speaking out (sometimes inaccurately) on many issues and paying her interns a decent wage, the spunky Alexandria Octavio-Cortez has already had a greater impact as a congressional representative than Beto did in six years, and she hasn’t even taken office yet. Before he ran for office, he had an undistinguished career in business.
Beto, like JFK, both Bushes, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Brown and Mitt Romney, does have the advantage of coming from a politically connected family. His mother is the stepdaughter of the Secretary of the Navy under JFK, while his father served as county commissioner and county judge and is a longtime political crony of former Texas Governor Mark White. We can assume that Beto called in decades of chits in first running for office as an unknown mediocrity.
When the news media and social media gush about O’Rourke, they focus on one fact and two feelings. First and foremost, they mention his charisma, which is, to quote Webster’s “a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure.” Charisma is an amorphous feeling that has been applied to JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Obama and George W. Bush (only in comparison to his 2000 opponent, Al Gore). No one likes to use the “c” word when talking about Donald Trump, Adolph Hitler, Huey Long or Mussolini, but we know that large numbers of people were irrationally devoted to these individuals. Some individuals with charisma were decent leaders, but most were fairly mediocre like JFK or Clinton, or full scale disasters like Ronnie and Georgie. Then there are the manipulative, lying demagogues. Many Democrats seem very likable, especially Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Corey Booker. Others have the gravitas that I prefer in a leader, including Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee and Sherrod Brown. All have greater credentials and have accomplished more in their lives than Beto.
Beto-heads like the fact that O’Rourke raised so much money from so many small donors for his failed campaign to unseat Texas Senator Ted Cruz. That’s the fact. We’ll never know, however, what portion of the small givers were as much anti-Cruz as they were pro-O’Rourke. A lot of people despised Cruz before they ever heard of Beto. Remember that Cruz is considered unctuous, hypocritical and untrustworthy by large numbers of people, and is even disliked by many of his allies in the Senate. No one has ever written that Ted has even a modicum of charisma, charm or even likeability.
Finally, supporters of O’Rourke believe that his great showing against Cruz in Texas demonstrates that he can beat Trump nationally in 2020. The implicit reasoning behind this feeling seems to be that the nation as a whole is more liberal than Texas. Yet Texas has a lot of minorities. Its demographic future seems to be similar to the path taken in Nevada, Virginia and Colorado, all states that are turning or have turned blue. Besides, it is Trump not Cruz who commands the so-called Republican base of evangelicals, those opposed to immigration and racists. They preferred Trump over Cruz in the 2016 primaries. If Beto couldn’t beat a despicable Cruz, why does anyone think he can handle the more formidable Trump?
Compare Beto to the last newcomer anointed as a charismatic Democratic savior who leaped ahead of more experienced Democrats, Barack Obama. First of all, Obama had far more relevant experience. He had been a prominent Senator who had made noises during his four years representing Illinois, and a Constitutional law professor before that. When we focus only on domestic affairs, Obama turned out to be a good president, but during his first few years in office he made several mistakes stemming from his lack of experience as an administrator. Can we expect the less experienced and less well-educated O’Rourke to do any better than Obama?
It’s not just that Beto is at best marginally qualified to be president. It’s that the Democratic bench is so deep and talented that it makes little sense to put the nation’s future in Beto’s hands.
In a related column tomorrow, I will consider some of these other Democrats from the standpoint of what should be the most important factor in 2020—electability.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Editorial: Turn Rural America Purple
It took a blue wave, partly motivated by the need to check Donald Trump’s authoritarian impulses, to unseat 40 Republican members of Congress in the midterm elections and give Democrats the House majority for the first time since 2011.
Democrats have faced an uphill battle in the House since a Republican wave in 2010 gave the GOP control over drawing new congressional maps in a majority of states in 2011. Those maps drawn by Republicans allowed Democrats to get huge margins in urban districts, but they gave Republicans healthy partisan margins in more suburban and rural districts.
A Brennan Center analysis of the 2012 election showed that in states where Republicans controlled redistricting, their candidates won 53% of the vote and 72% of the seats. That year, Republicans won 48% of the vote nationwide while taking 54% of House seats. In 2016, they won 49% of the vote and 55% of the seats — a 6 percentage-point gap.
In the November midterms, a combination of shifting populations, high voter turnout, a revolt of suburban female voters, and court-ordered redrawn congressional maps in key states allowed Democrats to capture seat totals closer to their share of the vote, Bloomberg News noted..
Republicans added to their narrow Senate majority, Dan Balz noted in the Washington Post, as Trump and his allies maximized support in red states among voters in rural areas and small towns. But the Trump-centric strategy backfired in the race for control of the House, as suburban voters — particularly women — revolted against the president, delivering a rebuke to his party’s candidates in district after district.
Among the 11 most rural districts considered competitive by the Cook Political Report before the election, Republicans held nine of the 11, Balz noted. When the new Congress assembles in January, they’ll still hold eight of the 11.
GOP losses in the next category, suburban-rural districts, were also modest, as seven of 19 districts in this group changed parties, with five shifting to the Democrats and two to Republicans, and one remaining to be decided.
The damage to Republicans grows in suburban-grounded districts. In 30 districts categorized as suburban-sparse, Republicans went into the election holding every one of them. Democrats won 16 of the seats in the election.
In 15 districts described as suburban-dense, something similar happened. Republicans held all 15 before the election. In January, they’ll represent just three. In nine districts categorized as urban-suburban, Republicans go from holding seven to holding just one.
Democrats will have a better chance of winning a Senate majority in 2020. While Democrats and independents who caucus with them were defending 26 Senate seats this year, only nine Republican-held seats were up for election. Democrats flipped two Republican seats while Republicans flipped four Democratic seats, and likely have a 53-47 majority (the Mississippi seat was up for grabs when we went to press). In 2020, the GOP is expected to defend 22 seats, including a special election for the late Sen. John McCain’s seat, while 12 seats held by Democrats are up.
Among the most endangered senators in 2020 are:
• Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who won a special election in 2017 to replace Jeff Sessions. Unless he can get the GOP to renominate Roy Moore, Jones will have trouble in a state Trump won by 28 points in 2016.
• Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) has been a faithful Trumper in the Senate despite his state’s increasingly blue lean.
• Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was appointed to the seat in September after John McCain’s death. But Kyl indicated he’ll step down early next year, so another Republican will run in 2020 in an increasingly competitive state, where Kyrsten Sinema (D) narrowly defeated Martha McSally (R).
• Susan Collins (R-Maine), a four-term senator who faces criticism from Republicans for her vote against Obamacare repeal while Democrats, spurred by her support of Mean Drunk Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have already crowdfunded $3 million for a challenger in a state Democrats have carried in the past three presidential elections.
• Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has been a faithful Trumper who may seek a second term in a swing state that Trump won by three point in 2016 but narrowly elected Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper on the same ballot. Tillis is rumored to be considering running for governor.
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) would be seeking a third term in a state that has gone from reliably Republican to a swing state as Democrats have moved into Boston’s outer suburbs.
• Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is seeking a second term in a state that Barack Obama carried twice but Trump carried by nine points.
Other Republicans who are potentially vulnerable include David Perdue in Georgia, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky (OK, we wish) and Steve Daines in Montana, particularly if term-limited Gov. Steve Bullock (D) runs. Republicans also likely will target Tina Smith, seeking her first full term in Minnesota, and Mark Warner in Virginia, who would be seeking his third term.
Republicans are counting on the urban-rural divide, as well as racially polarized voting, to keep Republicans competitive in 2020.
Democrats used to be competitive in rural areas and they should be again. Tom Vilsack, a Democratic former governor of Iowa who was Barack Obama’s agriculture secretary for eight years, told The Guardian his party needs to connect with the rural voters to win the next presidential election.
Vilsack said Democrat J.D. Scholten worked hard in his challenge of right-wing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), losing by only three points in a rural western Iowa district that King won by 22 points two years ago. Vilsack said Scholten was let down by the failure of the Democratic Party, particularly its national leadership, to offer a vision to rural voters who feel the party has little to say to them and is focused on urban supporters.
Vilsack thinks the party should talk more about rural challenges, such as the rapid contraction of small family farms, the disappearance of factory jobs, and shrinking populations as small towns are left with boarded-up businesses and aging residents. Democrats should have a plan for a future beyond an extraction economy and the kind of jobs that will keep young families in rural towns. He also wants the party to challenge the GOP’s anti-government rhetoric by championing the role of federal programs in helping rural communities by guaranteeing property loans, expanding access to clean water and reaching millions of people with broadband internet access.
Vilsack is right. Rural America hasn’t gotten much in return for its support of the Republican Party, which has neglected rural schools, health care facilities and economic development — and now Trump’s ill-considered trade war with China has left farmers with bins full of corn and soybeans and no place to sell them. Trump promised a $12 billion emergency farm aid package, but the average payment to farmers is $7,236, according to the Environmental Working Group, and many of the checks are less than $25, as corn growers are getting only a penny a bushel. “The corn payments are a joke. Someone at USDA made a mistake” in determining the formula for assistance, said Dermot Hayes, an Iowa State University economist, to the Des Moines Register (Nov. 28). Farm bankruptcies are up in North Central states, and experts fear the trend will get worse as farmers cope with the fallout from Trump’s trade war with China.
Had enough? Vote Democratic.
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
Democrats have faced an uphill battle in the House since a Republican wave in 2010 gave the GOP control over drawing new congressional maps in a majority of states in 2011. Those maps drawn by Republicans allowed Democrats to get huge margins in urban districts, but they gave Republicans healthy partisan margins in more suburban and rural districts.
A Brennan Center analysis of the 2012 election showed that in states where Republicans controlled redistricting, their candidates won 53% of the vote and 72% of the seats. That year, Republicans won 48% of the vote nationwide while taking 54% of House seats. In 2016, they won 49% of the vote and 55% of the seats — a 6 percentage-point gap.
In the November midterms, a combination of shifting populations, high voter turnout, a revolt of suburban female voters, and court-ordered redrawn congressional maps in key states allowed Democrats to capture seat totals closer to their share of the vote, Bloomberg News noted..
Republicans added to their narrow Senate majority, Dan Balz noted in the Washington Post, as Trump and his allies maximized support in red states among voters in rural areas and small towns. But the Trump-centric strategy backfired in the race for control of the House, as suburban voters — particularly women — revolted against the president, delivering a rebuke to his party’s candidates in district after district.
Among the 11 most rural districts considered competitive by the Cook Political Report before the election, Republicans held nine of the 11, Balz noted. When the new Congress assembles in January, they’ll still hold eight of the 11.
GOP losses in the next category, suburban-rural districts, were also modest, as seven of 19 districts in this group changed parties, with five shifting to the Democrats and two to Republicans, and one remaining to be decided.
The damage to Republicans grows in suburban-grounded districts. In 30 districts categorized as suburban-sparse, Republicans went into the election holding every one of them. Democrats won 16 of the seats in the election.
In 15 districts described as suburban-dense, something similar happened. Republicans held all 15 before the election. In January, they’ll represent just three. In nine districts categorized as urban-suburban, Republicans go from holding seven to holding just one.
Democrats will have a better chance of winning a Senate majority in 2020. While Democrats and independents who caucus with them were defending 26 Senate seats this year, only nine Republican-held seats were up for election. Democrats flipped two Republican seats while Republicans flipped four Democratic seats, and likely have a 53-47 majority (the Mississippi seat was up for grabs when we went to press). In 2020, the GOP is expected to defend 22 seats, including a special election for the late Sen. John McCain’s seat, while 12 seats held by Democrats are up.
Among the most endangered senators in 2020 are:
• Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who won a special election in 2017 to replace Jeff Sessions. Unless he can get the GOP to renominate Roy Moore, Jones will have trouble in a state Trump won by 28 points in 2016.
• Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) has been a faithful Trumper in the Senate despite his state’s increasingly blue lean.
• Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was appointed to the seat in September after John McCain’s death. But Kyl indicated he’ll step down early next year, so another Republican will run in 2020 in an increasingly competitive state, where Kyrsten Sinema (D) narrowly defeated Martha McSally (R).
• Susan Collins (R-Maine), a four-term senator who faces criticism from Republicans for her vote against Obamacare repeal while Democrats, spurred by her support of Mean Drunk Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have already crowdfunded $3 million for a challenger in a state Democrats have carried in the past three presidential elections.
• Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has been a faithful Trumper who may seek a second term in a swing state that Trump won by three point in 2016 but narrowly elected Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper on the same ballot. Tillis is rumored to be considering running for governor.
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) would be seeking a third term in a state that has gone from reliably Republican to a swing state as Democrats have moved into Boston’s outer suburbs.
• Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is seeking a second term in a state that Barack Obama carried twice but Trump carried by nine points.
Other Republicans who are potentially vulnerable include David Perdue in Georgia, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky (OK, we wish) and Steve Daines in Montana, particularly if term-limited Gov. Steve Bullock (D) runs. Republicans also likely will target Tina Smith, seeking her first full term in Minnesota, and Mark Warner in Virginia, who would be seeking his third term.
Republicans are counting on the urban-rural divide, as well as racially polarized voting, to keep Republicans competitive in 2020.
Democrats used to be competitive in rural areas and they should be again. Tom Vilsack, a Democratic former governor of Iowa who was Barack Obama’s agriculture secretary for eight years, told The Guardian his party needs to connect with the rural voters to win the next presidential election.
Vilsack said Democrat J.D. Scholten worked hard in his challenge of right-wing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), losing by only three points in a rural western Iowa district that King won by 22 points two years ago. Vilsack said Scholten was let down by the failure of the Democratic Party, particularly its national leadership, to offer a vision to rural voters who feel the party has little to say to them and is focused on urban supporters.
Vilsack thinks the party should talk more about rural challenges, such as the rapid contraction of small family farms, the disappearance of factory jobs, and shrinking populations as small towns are left with boarded-up businesses and aging residents. Democrats should have a plan for a future beyond an extraction economy and the kind of jobs that will keep young families in rural towns. He also wants the party to challenge the GOP’s anti-government rhetoric by championing the role of federal programs in helping rural communities by guaranteeing property loans, expanding access to clean water and reaching millions of people with broadband internet access.
Vilsack is right. Rural America hasn’t gotten much in return for its support of the Republican Party, which has neglected rural schools, health care facilities and economic development — and now Trump’s ill-considered trade war with China has left farmers with bins full of corn and soybeans and no place to sell them. Trump promised a $12 billion emergency farm aid package, but the average payment to farmers is $7,236, according to the Environmental Working Group, and many of the checks are less than $25, as corn growers are getting only a penny a bushel. “The corn payments are a joke. Someone at USDA made a mistake” in determining the formula for assistance, said Dermot Hayes, an Iowa State University economist, to the Des Moines Register (Nov. 28). Farm bankruptcies are up in North Central states, and experts fear the trend will get worse as farmers cope with the fallout from Trump’s trade war with China.
Had enough? Vote Democratic.
From The Progressive Populist, December 15, 2018
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
Selections from the December 15, 2018 issue
COVER/Art Cullen
‘Vaya con dios’: the impossible life of a judge on the US immigration frontline
EDITORIAL
Turn rural America purple
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
Dennis Kucinich, the blue wave and hope for the Dems
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Winning on issues is consolation prize
DISPATCHES
Centrist Dems work with Wall Street to block Pelosi House Speaker bid.
After Trump threat, Mexico announces asylum agreement may be off.
White House admits Trump climate policies will cost US $500 billion a year.
GM plant closings contradict Trump rhetoric.
Health care drives new voters.
Dirty farm water makes US sick, but Trump's FDA delays testing rule.
Arkansas Medicaid work requirement fiasco actually causes man to lose job.
Gowing Latino vote could make Texas 'fully competitive' in 2020 ...
JILL RICHARDSON
California is on fire. Trump’s solution: rakes?
JIM GOODMAN
We call BS, now, will you please get over this partisanship?
KENT PATERSON
Mexican saints and trumps emerge in migrant/refugee drama
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Can we talk about guns?
SETH SANDRONSKY
Losing Paradise
ROSS ROSENFELD
The Trump tax cut: Heavy costs, little benefit to the markets
HAL CROWTHER
Pax Vobiscum. Who are the patriots?
WENONAH HAUTER
Cash buys elections — and continued fossil fuel dominance
JOEL D. JOSEPH
The demise of American denim?
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Hubris at the feast
SAM URETSKY
With Amazon HQ2, be careful what you wish for
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
What’s wrong with the economy, and what can we do about it?
WAYNE O’LEARY
Now the hard part
JOHN BUELL
Defeating the Fasclican Party
N. GUNASEKARAN
US-led ‘great power rivalry’ causing instability in Asia
JOHN YOUNG
‘Big victory’: Another Trump whopper
ROB PATTERSON
Declaring war on bad Christmas music
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
The big o’s drive-by
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Foreign affairs at AFI: ‘Nonfiction’ and ‘Roma’
‘Vaya con dios’: the impossible life of a judge on the US immigration frontline
EDITORIAL
Turn rural America purple
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
Dennis Kucinich, the blue wave and hope for the Dems
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Winning on issues is consolation prize
DISPATCHES
Centrist Dems work with Wall Street to block Pelosi House Speaker bid.
After Trump threat, Mexico announces asylum agreement may be off.
White House admits Trump climate policies will cost US $500 billion a year.
GM plant closings contradict Trump rhetoric.
Health care drives new voters.
Dirty farm water makes US sick, but Trump's FDA delays testing rule.
Arkansas Medicaid work requirement fiasco actually causes man to lose job.
Gowing Latino vote could make Texas 'fully competitive' in 2020 ...
JILL RICHARDSON
California is on fire. Trump’s solution: rakes?
JIM GOODMAN
We call BS, now, will you please get over this partisanship?
KENT PATERSON
Mexican saints and trumps emerge in migrant/refugee drama
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Can we talk about guns?
SETH SANDRONSKY
Losing Paradise
ROSS ROSENFELD
The Trump tax cut: Heavy costs, little benefit to the markets
HAL CROWTHER
Pax Vobiscum. Who are the patriots?
WENONAH HAUTER
Cash buys elections — and continued fossil fuel dominance
JOEL D. JOSEPH
The demise of American denim?
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Hubris at the feast
SAM URETSKY
With Amazon HQ2, be careful what you wish for
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
What’s wrong with the economy, and what can we do about it?
WAYNE O’LEARY
Now the hard part
JOHN BUELL
Defeating the Fasclican Party
N. GUNASEKARAN
US-led ‘great power rivalry’ causing instability in Asia
JOHN YOUNG
‘Big victory’: Another Trump whopper
ROB PATTERSON
Declaring war on bad Christmas music
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
The big o’s drive-by
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Foreign affairs at AFI: ‘Nonfiction’ and ‘Roma’
Friday, November 16, 2018
Editorial: Good Day for Democracy
American voters made an important first step toward restoring democracy on Nov. 6 when they overcame a decade of gerrymandering to elect a Democratic majority to the House of Representatives.
It would have been better if Democrats had defied the odds and regained control of the Senate, too, but voters in Florida, Indiana and Missouri rejected moderate Democratic incumbent senators in favor of Trumpist Republicans. Democrats Jacky Rosen and Kyrsten Sinema flipped Republican seats in Nevada and Arizona, but it was not enough to tip the balance, so Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley will be free to ram Trump’s right-wing judicial nominees through the Senate for the next two years.
Some on the left are calling for new blood to lead the House in January, but this is no time for on-the-job training. House Democrats should elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker because she knows the levers of power and she performed ably as speaker of the House in 2007-8, in opposition to George W. Bush. Pelosi also played a key role as Speaker in 2009-10 in passing the bills Barack Obama needed to come out of the House in the first two years of his administration.
Much media attention has been on the newcomers, such as Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan, and Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, but, as of January, Donald Trump will have to answer subpoenas from House committee leaders such as Elijah Cummings, D-Md., incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., new chair of the Judiciary Committee; and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who will take over as chair of the Intelligence Committee from Devin Nunes, who was one of Trump’s biggest enablers in the House.
Trump, in his petulant press conference the day after the election, said he would negotiate with the Democrats on plans for infrastructure improvements, health care and “whatever they’re looking at,’’ as long as they don’t push investigations of his administration.
“They can play that game, but we can play it better, because we have a thing called the United States Senate,” Trump said. “I could see it being extremely good for me politically because I think I’m better at that game than they are, actually, but we’ll find out.”
Pelosi on Election Night indicated she is ready for a fight with the White House. “Today is more than about Democrats and Republicans. It is about restoring the Constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration.”
Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post noted that the government is due to run out of money on Dec. 7. “Don’t be surprised if a continuing resolution passed during the lame-duck session becomes the new majority’s headache when it expires next year. By March 2019, the suspension of the legal limit on federal borrowing (the debt ceiling) will expire. Raising the debt ceiling has gone from a must-do no-brainer to a Republican bargaining chip in a high-stakes game of fiscal roulette nervously watched by global financial markets.”
Then there is the replacement, probably illegal, of Attorney General Jeff Sessions with party hack Matthew Whitaker, Sessions’ former chief of staff, less than a day after the midterm elections. Whitaker’s apparent task is to shut down the investigation of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
The Democratic House should hit the ground running and not only protect Mueller’s investigation but also move bills that would help workers and small businesses, regardless of whether they stand a chance in the Senate or the White House.
House Democrats should hold hearings and pass bills to enact a $15-an-hour minimum wage, expand Medicare to cover all Americans — and improve the coverage for seniors — stop price-gouging by pharmaceutical corporations, rescind the 2017 tax break for billionaires and big corporations and instead cut taxes for workers and small businesses; and pass a new Voting Rights Act establishing that every citizen of voting age has a right to vote, and to have that vote counted, and providing criminal penalties for voter suppression.
As for the 2020 presidential race, the election shows how vulnerable Trump is to a competent challenger. Pollster.com shows the average of Trump’s approval ratings for recent polls was 43.9% on Nov. 6 while his average disapproval ratings was 51.8%. Those are not healthy ratings for re-election.
Trump in 2016 won the White House based on extremely narrow victories in three Great Lakes states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes) and Pennsylvania by 0.7 points (44,292 votes). All three states had Democratic incumbent senators who were thought to be vulnerable, as well as gubernatorial races. This year Democrats won all of them, including the long-sought ouster of labor-busting Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who was seeking a third term in Wisconsin. Walker finally lost to Tony Evers, a former school teacher who ran with the support of the unions the governor had conspired to crush.
While some lefties would like to recruit a celebrity, such as Oprah Winfrey or Tom Hanks, to run for president, Democrats should nominate someone who actually has served in a public office and can restore public trust in the White House. If Lyin’ Donald Trump hasn’t put to rest the foolish canard that government should be run like a business, we don’t know what will — but government certainly should not be run like a reality TV program.
With the election over, some senators who had deferred on making their ambitions known — particularly those who were up for re-election — are now stirring. Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar have locked up new six-year terms as senators, and they are widely expected to check out opportunities in Iowa and New Hampshire. Joe Biden appears ready to run, Hillary Clinton might give it another try, and many Beto O’Rourke supporters hope he’ll eye a White House run. But another possible candidate who bears watching is Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
Andrew Romano noted at Yahoo.com Nov. 10, “Of all the Democrats who could plausibly play a part in the looming drama of the next presidential campaign, the raspy, rumpled populist emerged from Election Day with by far the most to brag about.”
Brown managed to win in a state that backed Trump by 8% two years ago, and where Republicans swept all of 2018’s other competitive contests, from governor on down.
In fact, Brown received 280,000 more votes than his party’s gubernatorial candidate, Richard Cordray, and 100,000 more than Cordray’s victorious Republican rival, Mike DeWine.
Brown has compiled one of the most liberal and pro-worker voting records in the Senate. He has played down his interest in running for president. But he has released progressive populist policy proposals that would strengthen labor standards and expand collective bargaining rights. And he would implement what he calls a “carrot and stick” approach to big companies that slash labor costs to pad their profits, charging a Corporate Freeloader Fee to companies that pay less than a living wage so that their employees need food stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing vouchers.
In his victory speech Nov. 6, Brown noted that he won even as Trump had carried Ohio by eight points in 2016. “That is the message coming out of Ohio in 2018, and that is the blueprint for our nation in 2020,” he concluded. He should offer that blueprint to a national audience. — JMC
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
It would have been better if Democrats had defied the odds and regained control of the Senate, too, but voters in Florida, Indiana and Missouri rejected moderate Democratic incumbent senators in favor of Trumpist Republicans. Democrats Jacky Rosen and Kyrsten Sinema flipped Republican seats in Nevada and Arizona, but it was not enough to tip the balance, so Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley will be free to ram Trump’s right-wing judicial nominees through the Senate for the next two years.
Some on the left are calling for new blood to lead the House in January, but this is no time for on-the-job training. House Democrats should elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker because she knows the levers of power and she performed ably as speaker of the House in 2007-8, in opposition to George W. Bush. Pelosi also played a key role as Speaker in 2009-10 in passing the bills Barack Obama needed to come out of the House in the first two years of his administration.
Much media attention has been on the newcomers, such as Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan, and Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, but, as of January, Donald Trump will have to answer subpoenas from House committee leaders such as Elijah Cummings, D-Md., incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., new chair of the Judiciary Committee; and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who will take over as chair of the Intelligence Committee from Devin Nunes, who was one of Trump’s biggest enablers in the House.
Trump, in his petulant press conference the day after the election, said he would negotiate with the Democrats on plans for infrastructure improvements, health care and “whatever they’re looking at,’’ as long as they don’t push investigations of his administration.
“They can play that game, but we can play it better, because we have a thing called the United States Senate,” Trump said. “I could see it being extremely good for me politically because I think I’m better at that game than they are, actually, but we’ll find out.”
Pelosi on Election Night indicated she is ready for a fight with the White House. “Today is more than about Democrats and Republicans. It is about restoring the Constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration.”
Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post noted that the government is due to run out of money on Dec. 7. “Don’t be surprised if a continuing resolution passed during the lame-duck session becomes the new majority’s headache when it expires next year. By March 2019, the suspension of the legal limit on federal borrowing (the debt ceiling) will expire. Raising the debt ceiling has gone from a must-do no-brainer to a Republican bargaining chip in a high-stakes game of fiscal roulette nervously watched by global financial markets.”
Then there is the replacement, probably illegal, of Attorney General Jeff Sessions with party hack Matthew Whitaker, Sessions’ former chief of staff, less than a day after the midterm elections. Whitaker’s apparent task is to shut down the investigation of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
The Democratic House should hit the ground running and not only protect Mueller’s investigation but also move bills that would help workers and small businesses, regardless of whether they stand a chance in the Senate or the White House.
House Democrats should hold hearings and pass bills to enact a $15-an-hour minimum wage, expand Medicare to cover all Americans — and improve the coverage for seniors — stop price-gouging by pharmaceutical corporations, rescind the 2017 tax break for billionaires and big corporations and instead cut taxes for workers and small businesses; and pass a new Voting Rights Act establishing that every citizen of voting age has a right to vote, and to have that vote counted, and providing criminal penalties for voter suppression.
As for the 2020 presidential race, the election shows how vulnerable Trump is to a competent challenger. Pollster.com shows the average of Trump’s approval ratings for recent polls was 43.9% on Nov. 6 while his average disapproval ratings was 51.8%. Those are not healthy ratings for re-election.
Trump in 2016 won the White House based on extremely narrow victories in three Great Lakes states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes) and Pennsylvania by 0.7 points (44,292 votes). All three states had Democratic incumbent senators who were thought to be vulnerable, as well as gubernatorial races. This year Democrats won all of them, including the long-sought ouster of labor-busting Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who was seeking a third term in Wisconsin. Walker finally lost to Tony Evers, a former school teacher who ran with the support of the unions the governor had conspired to crush.
While some lefties would like to recruit a celebrity, such as Oprah Winfrey or Tom Hanks, to run for president, Democrats should nominate someone who actually has served in a public office and can restore public trust in the White House. If Lyin’ Donald Trump hasn’t put to rest the foolish canard that government should be run like a business, we don’t know what will — but government certainly should not be run like a reality TV program.
With the election over, some senators who had deferred on making their ambitions known — particularly those who were up for re-election — are now stirring. Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar have locked up new six-year terms as senators, and they are widely expected to check out opportunities in Iowa and New Hampshire. Joe Biden appears ready to run, Hillary Clinton might give it another try, and many Beto O’Rourke supporters hope he’ll eye a White House run. But another possible candidate who bears watching is Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
Andrew Romano noted at Yahoo.com Nov. 10, “Of all the Democrats who could plausibly play a part in the looming drama of the next presidential campaign, the raspy, rumpled populist emerged from Election Day with by far the most to brag about.”
Brown managed to win in a state that backed Trump by 8% two years ago, and where Republicans swept all of 2018’s other competitive contests, from governor on down.
In fact, Brown received 280,000 more votes than his party’s gubernatorial candidate, Richard Cordray, and 100,000 more than Cordray’s victorious Republican rival, Mike DeWine.
Brown has compiled one of the most liberal and pro-worker voting records in the Senate. He has played down his interest in running for president. But he has released progressive populist policy proposals that would strengthen labor standards and expand collective bargaining rights. And he would implement what he calls a “carrot and stick” approach to big companies that slash labor costs to pad their profits, charging a Corporate Freeloader Fee to companies that pay less than a living wage so that their employees need food stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing vouchers.
In his victory speech Nov. 6, Brown noted that he won even as Trump had carried Ohio by eight points in 2016. “That is the message coming out of Ohio in 2018, and that is the blueprint for our nation in 2020,” he concluded. He should offer that blueprint to a national audience. — JMC
From The Progressive Populist, December 1, 2018
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652
Selections from the December 1, 2018 issue
COVER/Steven Rosenfeld
It was a blue wave election — and Republicans got drenched
EDITORIAL
Good day for democracy
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
A theological treatise from Pittsburgh
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Strange poll results
DISPATCHES
Trump observes Veterans Weekend by shunning war dead, pushing to disenfranchise overseas military voters.
White House screams ‘fraud’ in Florida while Repubs await final counts in other states.
VA secretary plans budget cuts Trump requested.
FBI says Neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine trains US white supremacists.
Beto narrows gap in Texas.
Enfranchised cons might close gap in Florida.
People sickened by largest coal ash spill may finally get justice.
First priority for House Dems: Strenghtening democracy and ensuring voting rights ...
ART CULLEN
Map to White House starts on an Iowa blacktop road
JILL RICHARDSON
Getting past Gingrich
ROBERT BOROSAGE
2018 Midterms: Blue wave, red undertow
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
The day after
PETER CERTO
Midterm takeaway: We need a lot more democracy
JOEL D. JOSEPH
NAFTA 2.0: The US Mexico Canada agreement is a fraud
BOOK REVIEW/Seth Sandronsky
Race regimes
BOB BURNETT
Ten midterm takeaways
KEVIN BASL
How veterans changed the military and built the middle class
JIM GOODMAN and ANTHONY PAHNKE
NAFTA 2.0 will help corporations more than farmers
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Common-sense food stamps
SAM URETSKY
Political brain games
JASON SIBERT
Where are prison reformers?
WAYNE O’LEARY
Volcker at twilight
JOHN BUELL
Mars and other fantasies
JOHN YOUNG
Tourists in the White House
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
The re-education of Kanye and The Donald
ROB PATTERSON
Celebrities in politics
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
The high stakes of today
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
A funny thing happened on the way to the politicon: Socialism without socialists?
It was a blue wave election — and Republicans got drenched
EDITORIAL
Good day for democracy
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
DON ROLLINS
A theological treatise from Pittsburgh
RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Strange poll results
DISPATCHES
Trump observes Veterans Weekend by shunning war dead, pushing to disenfranchise overseas military voters.
White House screams ‘fraud’ in Florida while Repubs await final counts in other states.
VA secretary plans budget cuts Trump requested.
FBI says Neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine trains US white supremacists.
Beto narrows gap in Texas.
Enfranchised cons might close gap in Florida.
People sickened by largest coal ash spill may finally get justice.
First priority for House Dems: Strenghtening democracy and ensuring voting rights ...
ART CULLEN
Map to White House starts on an Iowa blacktop road
JILL RICHARDSON
Getting past Gingrich
ROBERT BOROSAGE
2018 Midterms: Blue wave, red undertow
GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
The day after
PETER CERTO
Midterm takeaway: We need a lot more democracy
JOEL D. JOSEPH
NAFTA 2.0: The US Mexico Canada agreement is a fraud
BOOK REVIEW/Seth Sandronsky
Race regimes
BOB BURNETT
Ten midterm takeaways
KEVIN BASL
How veterans changed the military and built the middle class
JIM GOODMAN and ANTHONY PAHNKE
NAFTA 2.0 will help corporations more than farmers
HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Common-sense food stamps
SAM URETSKY
Political brain games
JASON SIBERT
Where are prison reformers?
WAYNE O’LEARY
Volcker at twilight
JOHN BUELL
Mars and other fantasies
JOHN YOUNG
Tourists in the White House
SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
The re-education of Kanye and The Donald
ROB PATTERSON
Celebrities in politics
BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
The high stakes of today
MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
A funny thing happened on the way to the politicon: Socialism without socialists?
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)