Category: Pramila Jayapal

  • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi talks to reporters following the House Democratic caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 28, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has broken her word and reversed herself with the kind of rank shamelessness that Mitch McConnell would admire, and there will be hell to pay for it one way or another.

    On Monday night before a private gathering of the Democratic caucus, Speaker Pelosi announced that she will no longer support the policy she had promised to back since June — to bring the infrastructure bill and reconciliation bill to a simultaneous vote. At present, Pelosi intends to bring the infrastructure bill to the House floor on its own sometime this week, an act that will all but doom the larger and more substantive budget bill.

    “I told all of you that we wouldn’t go on to the BIF (Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework, i.e. the infrastructure bill) until we had the reconciliation bill passed by the Senate,” Pelosi reportedly told the assemblage. “We were right on schedule to do all of that, until 10 days ago, a week ago, when I heard the news that this number had to come down. It all changed, so our approach had to change. We had to accommodate the changes that were being necessitated. And we cannot be ready to say until the Senate passed the bill we can’t do BIF.”

    Pelosi’s remark about “the news that this number had to come down” refers to the $3.5 trillion price tag on the vital budget reconciliation bill, a number far lower that what Sen. Bernie Sanders initially sought but eventually agreed to accept out of a desire to get the deal done. Now, that concession is out the window, along with Pelosi’s promise not to decouple the two bills. The way this is trending, the Progressive Caucus will soon be expected to cast votes and hold meetings out in the rain. “Our approach had to change,” Pelosi will explain. Of course.

    What is the reason “this number had to come down”? Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, along with a small clutch of conservative House Democrats who are deep in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, are opposed to the budget bill’s reforms of Medicare and prescription drug pricing. Manchin, himself a polluter baron whose fortunes drizzle coal soot, cannot abide the climate-rescuing elements of the bill because they dent his own personal bottom line. None of them favor funding these priorities by taxing rich people and corporations fairly.

    “We obviously didn’t envision having Republicans as part of our party,” zinged Progressive Caucus Rep. Ilhan Omar after the meeting concluded. In this, she was referring to the huge national, bipartisan popularity the policies contained within these bills enjoy among the voters. Specifically, Omar was speaking to how Republicans have a habit of voting against policies their own constituents support. Manchin — a Democrat if you squint at the label — is swimming hard against the vast popular support these bills have in his own state.

    Omar was one of three Democratic House Reps — along with Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal and Katie Porter — who signed her name to a Monday editorial promising to vote down the infrastructure bill if it is decoupled from the budget bill. On Tuesday morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likewise announced her intention to vote against a decoupled infrastructure bill.

    This is not simple intransigence on the part of the Progressive Caucus. The so-called “moderate” conservative Democrats in Congress have already whittled away at the most important elements of the infrastructure bill, while leaving billions in fossil fuel subsidies intact, making it more palatable to the lobbyists and corporate paymasters they serve. They want to pass it so they can return to their districts and crow about bipartisanship. Those same lobbyists and paymasters despise the budget bill, however, and so those same “moderates” are almost certain to kill it if it does not come hand-in-hand with the infrastructure bill.

    “Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced her intention that the House vote this week on a transformative economic package and a major investment in infrastructure,” wrote Jayapal, Omar and Porter on Monday. “Congress now faces a choice: advance the entirety of an agenda that gets American families the help they need, or deliver only a fraction of it. That’s why we, as leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, remain committed to voting for the infrastructure bill only after the Build Back Better Act is passed.”

    As it stands, the lure Pelosi is using to bring the Progressive Caucus on board with the infrastructure vote amounts to, “Trust me and Joe Manchin.” Leave aside the glaring fact that Pelosi has nuked her own good word by reversing herself on these bills. Pelosi wants to make the progressives believe that if they support a stand-alone infrastructure bill, Manchin and his cohort won’t gut or entirely destroy the budget bill. This is a hollow promise Pelosi is in no position to make or keep — Manchin is enjoying his role as the power broker who won’t be pinned down, and won’t even provide a price tag he can accept — and the progressives know it.

    “It can’t be a pinkie promise,” Jayapal told MSNBC on Monday night. “It’s got to be be an actual bill that is written, the legislative text is written, the numbers are agreed to, everything is agreed to in order for us to be able to vote for the bipartisan bill.” Moments later, Omar backed her up with three tweeted words: “We aren’t bluffing.”

    It all gets very interesting from here.

    Pelosi has a three-vote margin of error on the infrastructure vote. Jayapal, Omar, Porter and Ocasio-Cortez are already four “no” votes. Jayapal suggested last week that as much as half of the 95-person Progressive Caucus was also prepared to vote the bill down. The Monday night meeting featured a welter of “moderate” Democrats bemoaning their fate as they attempted to shift blame for this debacle onto the progressives. Expect more of the same this week as Pelosi labors to bulldoze a path to victory.

    If the margin is close as the vote looms, it is entirely possible we could see Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House, going hat in hand to House Republicans asking them to support the infrastructure bill in numbers large enough to overwhelm the progressives’ objections. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has already advised his caucus to vote against it, and they will be in a position to squeeze Pelosi if it comes to that. Such a turn of events would be a cataclysmic humiliation for the Speaker.

    The September 27 “deadline” that Pelosi set was one of several glaring missteps made throughout this process, culminating with her surrender to the Manchin crew and her broken promise to keep these two bills together. Even if she somehow brings this mess to the other shore, there isn’t a Democrat — and especially a progressive — in the building who will be interested in taking her at her word ever again. That bridge burned down last night, and there’s nothing left but stumps and ashes.

    If the Progressive Caucus holds the line and votes down a stand-alone infrastructure bill — assuming they get the chance and Pelosi actually brings it for a vote — that bill can be recoupled with the budget bill once the latter emerges from the drafting process. Pelosi can keep her promise in this event and bring both up for a vote simultaneously, as she said she would three months ago.

    The alternative is a defeated infrastructure bill, an almost certainly doomed budget bill, and a Democratic Party done in more than a year before the midterm elections by its own flabbergasting incompetence… and the “moderate” conservative Democrats, along with the Speaker, will only have themselves to blame.

    Progressives have often wondered what it would be like if the politicians they agreed with most — like Jayapal, Omar, Porter and Ocasio-Cortez — were actually in the driver’s seat. At the moment, for the moment, that is exactly the case. Stay tuned.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Ilhan Omar listens during a news conference on September 22, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In a new CNN op-ed published on Monday, progressive lawmakers in the House explain their caucus’s vote-withholding strategy to get the Build Back Better bill passed, emphasizing the necessity of the provisions within the package.

    Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), Katie Porter (D-California) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) wrote in the article that President Joe Biden’s “build back better” message touting equity and investments in the future is “our shared vision — the vision the American people voted for.”

    They go on to outline why members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus want both the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back Better Act to pass simultaneously. Due to the machinations of conservative Democrats in the House who are determined to cut or kill the Build Back Better bill, progressives have had to strategize, withholding their votes for the bipartisan infrastructure bill if the reconciliation package isn’t passed first.

    “We must deliver for American families,” they write. “Our Progressive Caucus members will put our votes on the line to send the entirety of the Build Back Better agenda to President Biden’s desk.”

    Without the passage of the Build Back Better plan, the progressives say that the American public would only receive a “fraction” of Democrats’ agenda. “We hear remarkable consistency in our communities’ concerns,” they wrote, outlining widespread issues like climate disaster, unaffordable child care, crumbling public housing infrastructure, the criminalization of immigrants and exorbitant drug prices.

    The Build Back Better bill addresses these concerns and incorporates many of the proposals that Biden had introduced this fall. But due to lobbyists, dark money and the Democratic Party’s right wingers, the bill — and Democrats’ chances of passing their own agenda — is in danger. And despite progressive and Democratic leadership’s commitment to passing the bills together, conservative Democrats are threatening the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well.

    The lawmakers emphasized that the progressive caucus supports the passage of both bills and pushed back on conservative Democrats’ notion that the party should delay talks for the reconciliation bill.

    “Let us be clear: our caucus supports the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We see the harms that crumbling roads, structurally deficient bridges, and lead-poisoned water have on our communities,” they wrote. “But equally necessary are the child care, elder care, health care, housing, education and climate actions currently included in the Build Back Better Act. Without both the infrastructure bill and the budget bill, our economic recovery will be slow, unstable, and weak.”

    Part of why progressives and Democrats are facing such resistance to the reconciliation bill is because of an “all-out” lobbyist effort, Jayapal, Porter and Omar point out. The conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched six-figure ad campaigns, while the pharmaceutical industry has spent millions just to cut down efforts to rein in absurdly high drug prices.

    These lobbyists appear to have already influenced members of the Democratic party. Three democratic representatives, some with documented cash flow from the pharmaceutical industry, have shot down House plans to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices — a policy that progressives note is desperately needed in the U.S.

    Though the future of the Build Back Better bill is fraught with uncertainty, the progressive strategy appears to be working for now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has delayed a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill despite efforts from conservative Democrats, led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-New Jersey), to force a vote by September 27.

    Though the vote-withholding strategy has come largely from House progressives, last week 11 senators issued a statement supporting the representatives’ efforts.

    “We voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill with the clear commitment that the two pieces of the package would move together along a dual track. Abandoning the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act and passing the infrastructure bill first would be in violation of that agreement,” the lawmakers, including Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Jeff Merkely (D-Oregon), wrote.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal

    On Wednesday, Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders sent a letter urging top Democrats to repeal fossil fuel subsidies that are currently included in Democrats’ Build Back Better Plan, saying that the tax breaks only serve to pad the pockets of fossil fuel industry elites.

    The letter was spearheaded by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Deputy Whip Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California), who say that House leaders should axe tax breaks like one that allows oil and gas companies to write off drilling costs, and another that allows them to use “Last In, First Out” accounting methods to reduce the taxable value of their assets.

    Climate advocates and energy experts say such subsidies play a large role in keeping the fossil fuel industry afloat. According to a new report by Friends of the Earth, Oxfam America and BailoutWatch, the Democrats’ tax plan leaves $35 billion in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. “We were dismayed to see that the current version of the Build Back Better Act in the House is missing most of the domestic fossil fuel subsidies repeal passed by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year,” the progressives wrote in their letter. “There is no reason that the fossil fuel industry deserves special privileges over other businesses.”

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus leadership went on to point out that fossil fuel “giveaways” don’t go toward helping energy production or stability, but toward padding the fossil fuel companies’ profits. Indeed, they cite a study from earlier this year that found that in 2019, 96 percent of the value over minimum rate of return created by 16 fossil fuel subsidies went directly to excess profits.

    At the end of August, just as Congress was beginning to draft the Build Back Better Act, over 50 House representatives sent a letter urging Democratic leaders to include the repeal of fossil fuel subsidies in the bill.

    “We should not fall for the industry myth that these subsidies are necessary for good job creation,” the lawmakers wrote. “Despite the fact that big fossil fuel companies claimed $8.2 billion in 2020 from the CARES Act pandemic relief bill, the industry still laid off 16 percent of its workforce.”

    On the campaign trail, President Joe Biden pledged to end fossil fuel subsidies and pressure other world powers to do the same. “I don’t think the federal government should give handouts to Big Oil,” he said earlier this year when signing an executive order directing agencies to repeal the subsidies.

    In the president’s original tax plan, which the Build Back Better Act is based on, Biden proposed eliminating a small raft of subsidies, but climate advocates slammed the plan for being insufficient. He has thus far remained mum about the Democrats’ current tax plan and the subsidies contained in it.

    Climate advocates say that fossil fuel subsidies must end in order to fend off the ever worsening climate crisis. Funding the fossil fuel industry only increases the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, keeping the industry artificially dominant as the industry is generally on the decline otherwise, the report finds.

    Many climate advocates say that in fact, it is the fossil fuel industry that should be paying the government and the public for destruction wrought by climate disasters. The continued use of fossil fuels will have far more expensive consequences than any action taken to mitigate the climate crisis now, advocates and progressives say.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Nancy Pelosi prepares to remove her mask while walking behind a sign reading "PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY"

    Question: When is a Democratic majority not a Democratic majority? Answer: When it’s a Democratic majority.

    The roof started to cave in visibly on Monday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned her caucus to expect “adjustmentsto the $3.5 trillion climate/social spending budget bill that lies at the center of President Biden’s policy agenda. This is Democrat for “Prepare for imminent retreat, again.”

    A day later, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that they would keep to a totally artificial and arbitrary September 27 deadline for voting on the $1 trillion infrastructure bill, a huge victory for the likes of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and the House Pharma Dems, who have been chopping away at the legislation like hyper-caffeinated woodpeckers (or like feckless politicians swimming in lobbyist cash).

    Members of the Progressive Caucus have made it clear that they plan to vote to kill the infrastructure bill if it is brought up separately from the budget bill, because they know conservative Democrats will vote for the former and against the latter if they don’t come on the same sled.

    It is clear at this juncture that the budget bill will not be ready for a vote by September 27. Hoyer’s announcement effectively decoupled the two bills, and if the Progressive Caucus is to maintain any credibility at all, they will have to vote down the infrastructure bill in order to rescue both it and the climate bill; if the infrastructure bill fails, it can be offered again coupled to the budget bill once the budget bill is ready for daylight.

    The plot thickened substantially late Tuesday after Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, emerged from a two-hour meeting with Speaker Pelosi. Upon its conclusion, Jayapal made it known that she had enough votes in hand — half the 95-person caucus, in her words — to kill the infrastructure bill. Deftly swatting the ball into the Speaker’s court, Jayapal said, “I don’t think that the Speaker is going to bring a bill up that is going to fail.”

    Note well, gentle reader, that there is almost no Republican involvement in this slow-rolling fiasco. Mitch McConnell has informed the world that there will be no Republican votes for anything — the budget bill, the government shutdown bill, or the debt ceiling bill — which effectively makes him and his caucus one of the lakes on the Stratego game board: It’s there, it ain’t moving, so you have to go around it.

    House Republicans are even more invisible, though there is mounting pressure on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to whip his caucus into voting “no” on the infrastructure bill. If 30+ Democrats also vote “no,” however, those GOP votes will be a sullen afterthought and nothing more.

    President Biden, whose entire domestic agenda is about to go up in a ball of flaming tatters, is planning to hold a Wednesday sit-down with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Pelosi in order to find a way forward. A number of Democrats have been pleading with Biden to get more involved in the process, but the guest list raises the question: Why just those two, and not Jayapal and a contingent from the Progressive Caucus? Why not Bernie Sanders, who has cultivated this process with care and patience from the beginning? Why not the real adults in the room who have the power to make or break this thing?

    It is past time to stop mollifying “moderate” (conservative!) Democrats, who have been the real wreckers over the course of this process. A full 80 percent of Sinema’s Arizona voters support the Medicare/drug pricing reforms she has pledged to vote against, and the only coherent reason she opposes those reforms is because a dark money group funded by the pharmaceutical industry launched a massive ad campaign praising her just before she announced her opposition.

    When you make concessions to that sort of brazen broad-daylight corruption, concessions that will cause real-world pain for millions of real-world people, you will come away with nothing and get everything you deserve. The progressives have been steadfast throughout this benighted process — they have stood for everything a “Democrat” is supposed to support, they have already made significant compromises with the “moderates” in the name of progress, and it looks an awful lot like they are about to get the back of Pelosi’s hand, again.

    If so, there’s a galling irony here. The Democrats were thrilled to recapture the House majority in 2018, having done so by riding anti-Trump sentiment to victory in a number of conservative districts. Those gains were rolled back in 2020 when Republicans took back a number of those seats. In the time between, Speaker Pelosi has gone above and beyond defending the safety of her “moderate” Reps, even when they voted with Republicans time and again.

    Those same “moderates” are now the ones trashing this entire process. When is a majority not a majority? When those people are allowed to drive the bus.

    The whole thing smells like smoke right now, like gears grinding, like a massive and tragic waste of everyone’s time.

    In a way, I suppose, it might come to be a fitting epitaph: To have all this sound and fury come to nothing because the people who round out the House majority are also doing the most damage to the priorities of that majority. These conservative Democrats don’t want to make prescription drugs more affordable, any more than they want to tax their wealthy benefactors. That fact has already been included as one of the concessions made in the way these bills will pay for themselves, and it stands as a glaring flaw at the heart of the whole process. For all the genuine good contained in the budget bill, it pays for itself while making sure the vast wealth of the wealthiest remains virtually untouched. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich explains:

    Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee released its proposed tax increases to fund President Biden’s $3.5 trillion social policy plan. Here’s the big thing that hit me: Democrats didn’t go after the huge accumulations of wealth at the top – representing the largest share of the economy in more than a century.

    You might have thought they’d be eager to tax America’s 660 billionaires whose fortunes have increased $1.8 trillion since the start of the pandemic — an amount that could fund half of Biden’s plan and still leave the billionaires as rich as they were before the pandemic began. But House Democrats on Ways and Means decided to raise revenue the traditional way, taxing annual income rather than immense wealth. They aim to raise the highest income tax rate and apply a 3 percent surtax to incomes over $5 million.

    Yet the dirty little secret — which House Democrats certainly know — is the ultra-rich don’t live off their paychecks. Jeff Bezos’s salary from Amazon was $81,840 last year, yet he rakes in some $149,353 every minute from the soaring value of his Amazon stocks – which is how he affords five mansions, including one in Washington D.C. with 25 bathrooms.

    In other words, a lot of things will improve if this bill somehow struggles safely to shore, but nothing significant will actually change. Capital must be protected, and wealth must be extracted: That should be carved into the sign on the Statue of Liberty, right below the word WARNING.

    I live in a country where the current president has his job because Mike Pence got desperate consultation from Dan Quayle on the limits of his constitutional powers regarding the certification of Electors while a furious mob was battering down the Capitol doors trying to stop the whole thing in its tracks, and now a pair of bills that almost everyone likes is probably doomed because capitalism doesn’t want them.

    It’s not over yet, and Democratic leadership could pull off the legislative version of a nine-run rally in the late innings… except these are the late innings, and there is a government shutdown/debt ceiling crisis to be dealt with almost simultaneously. “The worst are filled with passionate intensity,” said W.B. Yeats. Pretty much sums it up.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In an effort to expand healthcare access to tens of millions of Americans in the continuing absence of a more ambitious universal care program, more than 125 House Democrats on Friday introduced legislation that would lower the age of general Medicare eligibility from 65 to 60.

    The bill — which is led by Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Conor Lamb (Pa.), Joe Neguse (Colo.), Susan Wild (Pa.), Haley Stevens (Mich.), and Debbie Dingell (Mich.) — would bring 23 million more Americans into the government-run program. The policy is supported by President Joe Biden, who — thought he continues to oppose Medicare for All — promised to lower the Medicare eligibility age during his 2020 presidential campaign.

    Sponsors of the new proposal hope it will be included in the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better budget reconciliation bill supported by Biden and progressive lawmakers — as well as a majority of U.S. voters. While both houses of Congress have passed the budget blueprint for the landmark package, congressional Democrats are facing an aggressive push by corporate lobbyists and right-wing colleagues from both sides of the aisle to eliminate or weaken crucial provisions.

    Proponents of the Medicare expansion bill said it would save many lives.

    “Lowering the Medicare eligibility age will not only be life-changing for at least 23 million people, it will also be lifesaving for so many across America who will finally be able to get the care they need and deserve,” Jayapal said in a statement announcing the new bill.

    Researchers have found that there is a massive increase in the diagnosis of cancer among Americans who reach the age of 65 that could have been detected much earlier if they had access to Medicare.

    Medicare eligibility expansion is also popular policy — and seen by many Americans, especially progressives, as a gateway to more ambitious healthcare reform. According to a Data for Progress survey in June, 60% of likely U.S. voters support lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60, while a March poll from Morning Consult found that 55% of respondents favor Medicare for All.

    Many of the lawmakers who support the new bill are also co-sponsors of the Medicare for All Act of 2021, which was introduced by Jayapal and Dingell in March.

    “We are the only industrialized nation that does not have guaranteed access to healthcare for all its citizens — this needs to change now,” Dingell said on Friday. “We’re working on ensuring universal healthcare, and this includes lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 so that more adults can get the critical access to the quality, affordable healthcare they need.”

    Healthcare advocacy groups welcomed the new bill.

    “The creation of Medicare transformed the lives of seniors by guaranteeing them access to healthcare and eliminating healthcare bills that threw many into poverty,” Public Citizen president Robert Weissman said in a statement.

    Weissman added that, if passed, the new bill “can have a similarly transformative effect on the lives of tens of millions of Americans, guaranteeing care, keeping people out of medical bankruptcy, and opening up life choices.”

    Jayapal said that “expanding and improving” Medicare “is not only the right thing to do from a policy perspective, it is also what the majority of Americans across party lines support.”

    “Congress and President Biden,” she added, “should immediately deliver for the people by prioritizing the expansion and improvement of Medicare in the upcoming Build Back Better package.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Pramila Jayapal

    Addressing the nine conservative House Democrats threatening to vote down their party’s $3.5 trillion budget resolution, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said Sunday that there’s nothing “moderate” about tanking an effort to expand Medicare, invest in green energy development, and establish long-overdue paid family and medical leave programs.

    “We can’t call people moderate Democrats if they vote against child care, paid leave, healthcare, and addressing climate change,” Jayapal, chair of the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), wrote Sunday. “This is the Democratic agenda, it’s the president’s agenda, and it’s what we promised people across America. Now we must deliver.”

    Jayapal’s comments came days after a group of nine House Democrats — almost invariably described as “moderates” in press coverage — sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declaring that they will not consider voting for the Senate-passed budget resolution until the lower chamber first approves a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which has been widely criticized as inadequate and potentially damaging to the climate. The Senate passed the bipartisan bill last Tuesday.

    The conservative Democrats’ letter on Friday augured a stand-off between the right wing of the House Democratic caucus and the chamber’s progressives, many of whom have committed to withholding their votes for the bipartisan infrastructure bill until the Senate also passes a sweeping budget reconciliation package that includes their priorities.

    “Our caucus is clear: the bipartisan bill will only be passed if a package of social, human, and climate infrastructure — reflecting longstanding Democratic priorities — is passed simultaneously through budget reconciliation,” Jayapal said last week.

    In order to begin crafting a reconciliation bill that can pass Congress without Republican support, both the House and Senate must first approve an identical budget resolution that sets the spending boundaries of the legislation. Last week, the Senate passed a $3.5 trillion budget resolution, and the House is expected to take up the measure when members return from recess next week.

    Pelosi, who has said she will not allow a vote on the bipartisan bill until the Senate greenlights a reconciliation package, wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter on Sunday that the leadership’s “goal is to pass the budget resolution the week of August 23rd so that we may pass Democrats’ Build Back Better agenda via reconciliation as soon as possible.”

    In an apparent attempt to placate the nine conservative Democrats threatening to revolt, Pelosi added that she has “requested that the Rules Committee explore the possibility of a rule that advances both the budget resolution and the bipartisan infrastructure package.”

    “This will put us on a path to advance the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation bill,” Pelosi wrote. “When the House returns on August 23rd, we will proceed in a way that builds consensus in our caucus, promotes the values of our party and advances the President’s transformative vision to Build Back Better.”

    But in a joint statement Sunday night, the conservative group led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) rejected Pelosi’s proposal, arguing that “we should vote first on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework without delay and then move to immediate consideration of the budget resolution.”

    Given Democrats’ narrow control of the House and the GOP’s unanimous opposition, Pelosi can only afford three defections from the budget resolution. And progressives likely have the votes to block the bipartisan infrastructure bill, depending on how many House Republicans support it.

    Progressives believe that keeping the bipartisan infrastructure bill tied to the reconciliation package is necessary to ensure that both ultimately pass Congress. In an appearance on MSNBC late last week, Jayapal said members of the CPC are worried that approving the bipartisan infrastructure bill first would free conservative Democrats to sink the reconciliation measure, which represents the cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s social spending and climate agenda.

    “We want to deliver both bills to the president in September and have him sign them into law so we deliver for the American people,” said Jayapal. “The best way to keep the urgency and momentum up is to do both bills together, and to make sure that everyone understands that whatever their priority is — whether it’s in the infrastructure bill or whether it’s in the Build Back Better reconciliation package — the way we get them done is to move them at the same time to the president’s desk.”

    “Without that,” Jayapal added, “you’re going to have a lot of people trying to push for one piece and not voting for another piece.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal participates in a news conference in Washington, D.C., on June 16, 2021.

    As the United States Senate on Saturday voted to advance a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package, progressive lawmakers warned that they will not vote for the proposed legislation if it does not adequately fund human needs such as healthcare, housing, and climate action.

    Saturday’s 67-27 Senate cloture vote on the 2,700-page Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (pdf) overcame a major barrier to the measure’s passage, although it was unclear when the Senate would hold a final vote on the bill.

    “We can get this done the easy way or the hard way,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor before the vote. “In either case, the Senate will stay in session until we finish our work. It’s up to my Republican colleagues how long it takes.”

    The deal — which falls short of the $2.25 trillion originally proposed in President Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan, and is far less than the $10 trillion that progressives say should be spent — includes $550 billion in new infrastructure funding, including for roads and bridges, public transport, railways, broadband internet, port and airport upgrades, power and water system improvements, and environmental remediation.

    Notably absent from the deal are progressive agenda items including a 7% corporate tax hike, Medicaid expansion, workforce development, and, critically, measures to address the climate crisis.

    Biden took to Twitter Saturday to tout the deal:

    Addressing the bill’s climate shortcomings, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse tweeted Saturday that “the plan is to get this bill passed and focus on the reconciliation package next. That’s where the big climate provisions will be.”

    Democrats plan to use the reconciliation process to thwart a Republican filibuster of $3.5 trillion in additional spending on progressive priorities including climate action, Medicare expansion, free community college, universal pre-K, and paid family leave, to be funded by tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy.

    Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) last month called the more ambitious progressive proposal “the most significant piece of legislation… since the Great Depression.”

    Progressive lawmakers and advocates have lamented what they say are the bipartisan deal’s many inadequacies, with the Congressional Progressive Caucus vowing Saturday to oppose any bill that does not include funding for climate and social agenda items.

    As Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said earlier this week, “If the bipartisan bill isn’t passed with a reconciliation package that has our popular priorities, we’re not voting for it.”

    Appearing on Democracy Now! earlier this week, Jacobin staff writer Branko Marcetic said that “the bipartisan bill, by virtue of having to negotiate with the Republicans, who, of course, are climate deniers and… are captured by corporate interests, including fossil fuels, of course, they do not want a whole host of climate measures in there that are going to compete with those industries or that will… eventually phase them out.”

    “So, a lot of that stuff has been stripped down,” Marcetic added. “The clean energy standard, which was meant to be one of the cornerstones of transitioning the United States’ electricity grid away from fossil fuels and to renewable energy, that’s out of the bill.”

    As The Intercept reported earlier this week, the bipartisan deal includes $25 billion in potential new fossil fuel subsidies.

    According to the outlet:

    The bill includes billions of dollars for carbon capture, utilization, and storage; hydrogen fuel made from natural gas; and “low emissions buses” that could run on fuels including hydrogen and natural gas. It also encourages subsidies that go unquantified in the legislation, for example urging states to waive property taxes for pipelines to transport captured carbon.

    Progressives are also seething at a Republican amendment that would increase Pentagon funding by $50 billion.

    Marcetic warned of the potential consequences facing Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterm elections if they do not fight for the provisions in the more ambitious $3.5 trillion proposal.

    “It’s going to be very difficult for Democrats to actually hold the House and the Senate,” he told Democracy Now!. “If this doesn’t get passed, it will be looked at as a massive missed opportunity that we will really regret, I think, in years to come.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal speaks at a "Go Bigger on Climate, Care, and Justice!" event on July 20, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    After Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) threw a bomb into the Democrats’ plan to pass a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, progressives are fighting back, saying that they won’t accept a bill that doesn’t include and sufficiently address their priorities.

    “Progressives have been clear from the beginning: a small and narrow bipartisan infrastructure bill does not have a path forward in the House of Representatives unless it has a reconciliation package, with our priorities, alongside it,” said Congressional Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) in a statement on Wednesday.

    Sinema said on Wednesday that she doesn’t support a $3.5 trillion bill and said she’d work in the coming months to negotiate the bill. But Democrats had wanted to pass the reconciliation bill in tandem with the bipartisan infrastructure bill before the Senate went into recess in early August, so Sinema’s opposition to the $3.5 trillion proposal as it’s written throws the Democrats’ plan for a loop.

    The Arizona senator said that she would vote to adopt the budget resolution, which is the first step to getting the reconciliation bill passed. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who has led the reconciliation bill effort, said Wednesday that the Senate has the required 50 votes needed to adopt the resolution.

    There’s no guarantee, however, that the bill will pass the whole chamber from there as it is — and, with House progressives standing against watering down the bill, there’s no guarantee it will pass at all if Sinema is successful in shrinking it. The potential blocking of the reconciliation package also means that the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which passed a cloture vote Wednesday night, might be in jeopardy as well.

    “The votes of Congressional Progressive Caucus members are not guaranteed on any bipartisan package until we examine the details, and until the reconciliation bill is agreed to and passed with our priorities sufficiently funded,” Jayapal said. “The investments we identified months ago are long-standing Democratic priorities, including affordable housing, Medicare expansion, strengthening the care economy, climate action, and a roadmap to citizenship.”

    The reconciliation bill in its current form contains proposals to address all of these things. Sanders has said that though the bill is a step down from the $6 trillion figure he had originally proposed, the $3.5 trillion bill still contains everything he wants, just for a shorter period of time. Indeed, $3.5 trillion was already a compromise for progressives, many of whom stood behind a $10 trillion infrastructure and climate bill earlier this year.

    Members of Congress like Representatives Mondaire Jones (D-New York) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) expressed frustration and threatened to pull their support for the bills on Wednesday. “Without a reconciliation package that meets this moment, I’m a no on this bipartisan deal,” Jones said on Twitter.

    Ocasio-Cortez issued a scathing statement responding to Sinema’s announcement, saying “Good luck tanking your own party’s investment on childcare, climate action, and infrastructure while presuming you’ll survive a 3 vote House margin.”

    Ocasio-Cortez also pointed out that the bipartisan infrastructure agreement was formed by all white senators. “A lot of times, ‘bipartisan agreements’ are just as defined by who people in power agree to exclude than include,” she wrote.

    This isn’t the first time progressives have made threats to pull their support for the infrastructure and reconciliation bills. They have been emphasizing for months that they would not support a bill without provisions to address the climate crisis, for instance. They have said that, not only is now perhaps the only time President Joe Biden will get to massively cut emissions, but it’s also an opportunity to demonstrate to potential midterm voters that Democrats deserve to keep their majority in Congress.

    But the White House is evidently celebrating the bipartisan infrastructure bill anyway, despite the fact that it’s only about a quarter of the size of Biden’s original proposal and excludes vital provisions on climate and raising taxes on wealthy people and corporations to fund the bill.

    While Biden took a victory lap touting the infrastructure bill Wednesday, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called the items cut out of the infrastructure bill “shiny objects.” But as even just the past weeks have demonstrated, action on climate is anything but trivial, which is why Democrats and progressives have been insistent on keeping addressing climate issues in the bipartisan deal.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden arrives at day 2 of the virtual Leaders Summit on Climate at the East Room of the White House on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Dozens of Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives signed a letter addressed to President Joe Biden this week, which reminds him that any eventual infrastructure deal struck between him and a group of bipartisan lawmakers should not lose sight of the ambitious plans for addressing environmental and climate change that were laid out in the early stages of the plan.

    The letter, containing the signatures of more than 130 lawmakers, was organized and pushed by Rep. Mike Levin (D-California). Its signers include Democrats from a broad array of political beliefs, from centrists like Problem Solvers Caucus co-chair Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-New Jersey) to the Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).

    The letter “demonstrates that we understand as the House Democratic caucus that we have to take the types of bold action necessary to actually deal with the climate crisis in a manner that is commensurate with the science,” Levin said.

    Biden has, in recent weeks, attempted to reach a deal with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on infrastructure. In doing so, many of the environmental pledges he made in his original pitch for the American Jobs Plan have been removed. The bipartisan plan, for example, takes out a proposal to make electricity on the nation’s power grids carbon-free by 2035, and also strikes out the president’s plan for establishing a Civilian Climate Corps.

    The Biden administration has said it’s still committed to follow-up on these goals in the future, but critics say that the infrastructure bill is an opportunity that cannot be wasted.

    “This is a historic, narrow opportunity to combat the climate crisis, and we can’t afford to kick the can down the road any further,” the Sunrise Movement’s Lauren Maunus said. “When Democrats agree to water it down more, they’re condemning Americans to untold devastation.”

    The letter from the Democratic lawmakers agrees, and asks Biden to join them in living “up to our promise to put millions back to work while rebuilding our infrastructure, expanding access to health care, and improving our nation’s environmental resiliency.”

    In the letter, the lawmakers say they wish to “strongly underscore our support for” several aspects of Biden’s original American Jobs Plan proposed earlier this year, which they want to see returned to the compromise infrastructure plan. Chief among them, a pledge for carbon-free energy by 2035, as well as a promise to deliver on a “basic right of clean water,” including the cleaning up of polluted water and the replacement of lead pipes and service lines across all of the U.S.

    “We are eager to help advance through Congress a strong American Jobs Plan that employs our communities and matches the scale of the challenge climate science tells us we face,” the letter concludes. “Ultimately, we urge you and our colleagues to act with the goal of ensuring the final legislative package gets across the finish line in the coming months while maintaining our key jobs and climate goals.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • If the Democratic coalition remains reliant on well-to-do suburbanites reluctant to accept taxes on the rich, the new Popular Front strategy will fall short.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders speaks during a hearing on June 8, 2020, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is embracing a push by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and other progressive lawmakers to add dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare.

    Schumer said he is “working with” the Vermont senator to include them “in the American Jobs and Families Plans,” President Joe Biden’s proposed infrastructure and relief bills.

    “There is a gaping hole in Medicare that leaves out dental, vision, and hearing coverage. This is a serious problem,” Schumer said on Twitter.

    Schumer reiterated his commitment to expanding items covered under Medicare while speaking during a news conference on Sunday, noting that such services would help reduce problems and costs for patients over time.

    “If you talk to family medicine or primary care doctors, they will tell you with certainty that ignoring medical issues related to dental, vision and hearing often devolves into far more serious medical problems for people — especially seniors — that cost more to treat and are harder to remedy,” Schumer said.

    Schumer recognized that the push to enhance coverage will be “an uphill legislative effort because there are some in the Senate who really don’t think this is a problem worth fixing.” Because of this, he said that it’s crucial to “galvanize support from the public” in order to pressure lawmakers to pass it.

    Earlier this year, Sanders, along with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), authored an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for Medicare to cover costs for those crucial needs.

    “It’s past time to fix the gaping holes that are the lack of coverage for dental, vision and hearing, which are so critical, especially as we age,” the two lawmakers said in their op-ed.

    Sanders and Jayapal added:

    [S]ince its inception in 1965, Medicare has not covered such basic health-care needs as hearing, dental care and vision. The result: Millions of senior citizens have teeth rotting in their mouths, are unable to hear what their children and grandchildren say or can’t read a newspaper because of failing eyesight. It is a cruel irony that older Americans do not have coverage for these benefits at the time when they need it the most.

    Schumer still has many disagreements with Sanders and other progressives on Medicare. Sanders, for example, has long been a supporter of Medicare for All, expanding the popular public health insurance program to every person living in the U.S. Schumer, meanwhile, opposes the measure.

    But the Senate Majority Leader has agreed with Sanders on other aspects of Medicare expansion, including lowering the eligibility age and supporting a public health insurance option to compete with private companies.

    Although it would be incredibly difficult to pass a Medicare for All bill in the presently divided Congress, such a plan has support from most Americans. A Morning Consult poll conducted in March found that only 32 percent of voters oppose Medicare for All, while 55 percent are in support of the idea, which would create a single-payer health insurance for everyone in the country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) speaks during a Senate Finance Committee hearing June 8, 2021 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

    In reaction to a monumental report by ProPublica on Tuesday detailing the extent to which the top 0.001 percent of earners in the U.S. are able to legally dodge paying federal income taxes, progressive lawmakers are renewing their calls for taxing the rich.

    In their report, which sent shockwaves through the media, ProPublica writers revealed that ultra-wealthy people like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett, through sophisticated tax dodging methods, are often able to avoid most, if not all, federal income taxes. In 2007 and 2011, for instance, billionaire Bezos didn’t pay any federal income tax. Tesla CEO Elon Musk did the same in 2018.

    Citing the report, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) noted the absurdity of the level of tax dodging by the wealthy on Twitter on Tuesday.

    “Our tax system is rigged for billionaires who don’t make their fortunes through income, like working families do,” Warren said. “The evidence is abundantly clear: it is time for a wealth tax in America to make the ultra-rich finally pay their fair share.” Warren has introduced and championed a proposal to tax the wealth of the richest Americans, starting with people whose wealth exceeds $50 million.

    When the ultra-wealthy analyzed in the report do pay federal income tax, it’s often at a much lower rate than average Americans. Within the context of the growth of his wealth, not just his income, Warren Buffett paid a “true” tax rate of 0.1 percent between 2014 and 2018, ProPublica found in its first-of-its-kind analysis.

    Overall, the average “true” tax rate paid by the top 25 richest people in the U.S. was 3.4 percent from 2014 to 2018, despite the fact that they collectively made $401 billion during that time period. Meanwhile, the median American household making about $70,000 pays 14 percent in federal taxes year by year, the report says.

    Leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) echoed Warren’s call for a wealth tax. “If you pay income taxes, you probably pay more than 0.1%. Or 1%. Or even 3%,” Jayapal said. “But that’s what America’s richest people pay. And it’s unacceptable. It’s LONG past time for EVERYONE to pay their fair share. Wealth tax now.”

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) shared the article on Twitter, also calling for more taxes on the rich.“It’s a sign of a sick society when some people have so much while so many others have so little.” To fix it, Omar called for tax reform: “Luckily, we have the cure: Tax the rich.”

    The ProPublica reporters, Jesse Eisinger, Jeff Ernsthausen and Paul Kiel, also say that their report is a damning illustration of the tax code. “[The analysis] demolishes the cornerstone myth of the American tax system: that everyone pays their fair share and the richest Americans pay the most,” they write. “The IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year.”

    More moderate Democratic lawmakers also joined the call to increase taxes on the rich in response to the report, saying that it bolsters the reasoning for President Joe Biden’s proposals to do so. “More evidence to support what we already knew — too many workers pay more in taxes than our country’s wealthiest billionaires,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) on Twitter. “Billionaires need to start paying their fair share for the infrastructure they’ve relied on to be successful.”

    Progressives and some moderate Democrats proposing higher taxes on the rich have been energized by Biden’s recent efforts to increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for his infrastructure bill. But as Republicans have been dragging out negotiations on the bill in part due to their opposition to the tax hikes, progressives have warned Biden that they may withdraw their support for the bill if it gets watered down.

    Meanwhile, progressives have been calling for more significant rewrites of the tax code for years, saying that it disproportionately favors the rich. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), for instance, in March proposed a higher corporate tax rate than the one proposed by Biden, as well as a drastic hike in estate tax rates.

    Sanders also highlighted the report online on Tuesday, saying “Tax the billionaires. Make them pay their fair share.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) holds a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on March 01, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    Progressive and Democratic lawmakers are raising concerns that President Joe Biden may be making concessions on the infrastructure bill that would not only continue to fail to win over the GOP, but would also make the plan significantly weaker in addressing issues such as the climate crisis.

    Biden has been in round after round of negotiations with Republicans, whose offers on infrastructure are paltry compared to the Democrats’ plan. On Friday, he rejected a plan from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), who is leading the Senate Republicans’ negotiations, that would add about $50 billion to the Republican plan that’s largely baseline spending. The gap between the plans in terms of new spending is about $1.4 trillion.

    Progressives are warning that the concessions may be futile because Republicans have sworn that their only goal is to stop the Democratic agenda, as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said last month.

    “We know Mitch ‘100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration’ won’t be coming around on a deal,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on Twitter. “Time to go big, bold, and alone.”

    Democrats have also raised the concern that Republican attempts to drag out the talks and water down the infrastructure bill are part of a tactic to make it an increasingly divisive issue — just like they did with the Affordable Care Act under Obama, which they ended up trying to overturn anyway.

    On the other hand, Jayapal warned in an interview with Reuters that progressives may not support Biden’s bill if it keeps getting chipped away, especially since there’s no guarantee of Republican support. Democrats and progressives have been energized by Biden’s infrastructure package, but with a greatly reduced package, all of the “momentum for doing something more goes away,” Jayapal said.

    Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York) is one such progressive who has said that he might not support the bill if Biden allows Republicans to water it down. “If what I’m reading is true, I would have a very hard time voting yes on this bill,” he said on Twitter in response to Biden offering a $1 trillion bill. “$2 trillion was already the compromise. [POTUS] can’t expect us to vote for an infrastructure deal dictated by the Republican Party.”

    Bowman reiterated his frustration with compromising with the GOP on Monday. “We compromised on the Civil Rights Act. We compromised on Social Security reform. We compromised on welfare reform,” he tweeted. “At every turn the people have been shortchanged. We cannot compromise on infrastructure now.”

    Progressive organizations have been sending out the same message. “Every day that passes where we’re still sort of hopelessly pursuing a mirage of bipartisanship is a day that we’re not moving on to the priorities that Democrats were actually elected to do,” Leah Greenberg, co-founder of progressive organization Indivisible, told Politico.

    Meanwhile, climate-focused Democrats and progressives have been raising concerns that spending less on infrastructure would mean not taking vital action needed for the ever-more-pressing climate crisis.

    “I’m now officially very anxious about climate legislation,” wrote Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) on Monday. Biden’s infrastructure counterproposal largely eliminated climate spending from the bill. “Climate has fallen out of the infrastructure discussion, as it took its bipartisanship detour. It may not return. So then what?”

    The “what,” climate activists say, could be increasingly worse climate disasters. As Grist wrote, the infrastructure plan is Biden’s best, and perhaps only, shot at achieving his goal of cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030. Climate advocates, meanwhile, are frustrated that the president is negotiating with climate deniers to, supposedly, get the bill passed.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal

    As President Joe Biden prepared to continue talks with the Senate GOP’s lead infrastructure negotiator on Wednesday, progressive Democrats in Congress implored the White House to stop wasting precious time wrangling with a party that has repeatedly shown it is uninterested in pursuing an adequate legislative package.

    “It’s time to go big, bold, and fast on an infrastructure plan that repairs bridges and roads — but also guarantees paid leave and child care,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said late Tuesday. “The GOP isn’t going to meet us halfway. It’s time to go alone — and get this done.”

    Last week, a group of Republican senators unveiled the outlines of an infrastructure proposal that called for just $257 billion in new spending over eight years — a far cry from the $1.7 trillion in above-baseline spending Biden offered as a compromise proposal. Republicans flatly rejected that offer as excessive, even though the president lopped roughly $500 billion off his initial American Jobs Plan.

    Progressive lawmakers, and even some centrists, have grown increasingly frustrated in recent weeks as Biden’s talks with the GOP have predictably moved toward less spending as Republican negotiators attempt to strip out key climate proposals and other measures they consider extraneous, including elder care.

    “Time is tick, tick, ticking past. Every day spent on hopeless bipartisanship is a day not spent on climate,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Tuesday. “We can survive bumpy roads; a ruined planet is for eons.”

    And yet, as Politico reported Tuesday, “the White House continues to see upside to infrastructure negotiations with Republicans, even as the talks run on longer than President Joe Biden initially planned.”

    “The president still has faith in his ability to win over reluctant Senate Republicans and advisers see benefits — reputationally and politically — in working across the aisle,” according to Politico.

    But leading progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have warned of the potentially disastrous consequences of dragging out negotiations with Republicans, both for the climate and for Democrats’ chances of holding on to their slim congressional majorities.

    The Vermont senator and other progressives in Congress have proposed spending $10 trillion over the next decade on rebuilding the United States’ core infrastructure, combating the climate crisis by expanding renewable energy, and tackling economic and racial inequities.

    “What happens if they spend week after week, month after month ‘negotiating’ with Republicans who have little intention of addressing the serious crises facing the working families of this country?” Sanders wrote in a CNN op-ed last week. “What happens if, after the passage of the vitally important American Rescue Plan — the Covid-19 rescue package signed into law by President Biden in March — the momentum stops and we accomplish little or nothing?”

    Sanders, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, has said he is prepared to move forward on infrastructure and other priorities using budget reconciliation, a filibuster-proof process that allows lawmakers to pass spending bills with a simple majority.

    But Biden and conservative Senate Democrats, most prominently Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have balked at using reconciliation without first attempting to attract Republican support. Manchin, whose vote Senate Democrats need to move forward with their agenda, indicated last week that he would be willing to let infrastructure talks with the GOP continue until the end of the year in the hopes of eventually reaching a bipartisan deal.

    As The Hill reported Tuesday, “The White House and congressional Democrats have said they want to get an infrastructure deal passed before the August recess.”

    “But the more time lawmakers devote to infrastructure,” the outlet noted, “the more uncertain it becomes whether Biden can get other priorities passed before the midterms.”

    With pressing agenda items such as voting rights expansion, immigration reform, and a major safety net boost at risk of dying in the Senate, Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) echoed Jayapal’s call for Democrats to move ahead with their policy priorities unilaterally.

    “Instead of wasting our energy negotiating against ourselves for an infrastructure package that Republicans clearly have no interest in passing,” Bush tweeted, “let’s put our energy into abolishing the filibuster, passing the policy we were elected to deliver, and getting ish done for our people.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren conducts a news conference in the Capitol on March 1, 2021.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) is planning to introduce legislation barring members of Congress and other top government officials from trading stocks, she told Insider in an article published on Monday.

    The senator plans to introduce the legislation sometime during this congressional session, which ends in 2023. It would be based on previous legislation to bar high-ranking government officials from stock trading, called the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act. Warren has introduced the legislation twice before, in 2018 and 2020, but it never made it out of then-Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee.

    “It is a no-brainer,” Warren told Dave Levinthal and Warren Rojas of Insider. “Every senator, member of Congress, president, Cabinet secretary, federal judge, and other senior officials in charge of writing the rules for our financial system should not be able to own or trade individual stocks.”

    Previous versions of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act also included provisions to stem the revolving door between government and lobbying, and create a separate federal office to oversee ethics laws, though it’s unclear whether or not the current version would also include those proposals.

    Though the Senate Finance Committee is now controlled by Democrats, the bill may still face opposition from both sides of the aisle. When Warren introduced the legislation before, it had zero co-sponsors in the Senate, and a mere six co-sponsors in the House, where it was introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).

    The relative unpopularity of the proposal may be because both Democratic and Republican legislators benefit greatly from stock trading. Despite the fact that the STOCK Act of 2012 outlawed insider trading for members of Congress, some say the practice is still ongoing — and both sides of the aisle may be implicated.

    Last year, four senators — Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia), Dianna Feinstein (D-California) and James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) — were accused of insider trading. The Justice Department eventually closed the investigations, but the stock trades worth hundreds of thousands of dollars still eroded public trust, ethics experts said.

    Warren told Insider that government officials “are there to serve the people, not their personal financial interests.”

    “Congress should pass anti-corruption legislation and restore Americans’ faith in government by making it work for everyone — not just the rich and powerful,” she said.

    When Warren first introduced the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, it was in response to ethics questions brought on by the Donald Trump administration. But the bill’s proposals remain salient as ever, and last year’s scandals may have shined new light on the issue.

    Burr’s stock trades in particular shook the Senate — involving elaborate schemes and secret meetings. After those stock trades were probed by not only the Justice Department but also the FBI over the course of 2020 and into 2021, even the conservative Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Politico: “Maybe the bottom line is, if you’re going to be in the Senate you can’t own any stock.”

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) also expressed a similar notion in March of 2020, tweeting, “Members of Congress should not be allowed to own individual stock. We are here to serve the public, not to profiteer. It’s shocking that it’s even been allowed up to this point.”

    It’s unclear, however, how far Warren’s bill would make it in Congress. Even if Democrats were all in favor of the legislation, Republicans have stated that their only goal is to obstruct Democrats. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the master of the filibuster, said last year that he believes members of Congress should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to trade stock.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rev. Barber Calls for “Third Reconstruction” to Lift 140 Million Out of Poverty

    Reverend William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign and president of Repairers of the Breach, says the United States needs a “Third Reconstruction” aimed at lifting 140 million poor and low-income people out of poverty. Barber worked with Congressmembers Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal to unveil a congressional resolution for a Third Reconstruction this week, which includes measures to expand voting rights, implement immigration reform, raise the minimum wage, establish a federal jobs program and more. “There is not a scarcity of resources,” says Barber. “What there is is a scarcity of social justice conscience.”

    Please check back later for full transcript.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal conducts a news conference in the Capitol on March 1, 2021.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) organized over 80 House Democrats to sign a letter calling on President Joe Biden to expand Medicare in his administration’s upcoming American Families Plan.

    The lawmakers are asking Biden to lower the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60 or even 55, require Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and add benefits such as dental, vision and hearing to Medicare coverage. In the letter, the Democrats argue that this would be “a critical investment in health care to bolster the security of our country’s economy and families.”

    “As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic — the nation’s most acute health care crisis in the last century — now more than ever, we must ensure that families and older adults are equipped with the health coverage they need,” the lawmakers write.

    The lawmakers say that expanding coverage by lowering the eligibility age for Medicare is vital to the nation’s health and could provide immediate relief to many Americans. They cite a study by Stanford researchers that found that cancer diagnoses spike up at the age of 65 because many adults are suddenly diagnosed once they have health care coverage under Medicare and are able to seek out care.

    Lowering the eligibility age to 60 would provide an additional 23 million people access to health care, the lawmakers write. Lowering it further to 55 would expand coverage to over 40 million people.

    The letter writers also cite statistics on Medicare beneficiaries who still struggle with their health because basic versions of Medicare coverage don’t cover vision, hearing or dental. Statistics from 2018 from The Commonwealth Fund cited by the Democrats show that over 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries struggle to eat or hear, likely due to this gap in coverage, and 43 percent hadn’t had an eye exam in the past year despite having trouble seeing.

    The House Democrats who signed the letter are also urging Biden to address prescription drug prices. The U.S. pays the highest prices of any other country for prescription drugs, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) pointed out last month when he introduced a bill that would, similarly to the House Democrats’ request, also allow the government to negotiate drug prices.

    “By prioritizing the inclusion of robust drug-pricing provisions, we can produce enormous federal savings and use it to sustainably expand health coverage, equity, and access,” the lawmakers wrote. They argue that Medicare could save hundreds of billions of dollars by negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies.

    The House Democrats’ letter comes just after Sanders and 16 other Democratic senators also sent a letter to Biden urging him to include similar Medicare expansions. “We have an historic opportunity to make the most significant expansion of Medicare since it was signed into law,” the senators wrote.

    The push by members of Congress for Medicare expansion comes as other progressive groups are launching a $6 million campaign “ahead of President Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plan address, doubling down on its commitment to passing a permanent, national paid family and medical leave policy,” according to Politico.

    The push is led by Paid Leave for All, a coalition of groups that are committed to getting paid medical and family leave passed in the United States. The U.S. is one of only a small handful of countries that don’t have guaranteed paid parental leave. Biden’s plan will call for paid family leave but reportedly calls for less than half of what other Democrats call for in funding for the policy.

    The Biden administration is set to release the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan on Wednesday, which will also contain proposals for making community college free and subsidizing child care costs using funds partially generated through a hike on capital gains taxes for the wealthy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Cori Bush speaks during a news conference to advocate for ending the Senate filibuster, outside the U.S. Capitol on April 22, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Representatives Cori Bush (D-Missouri) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) are leading an effort with nearly 100 of their fellow House members to end the Senate filibuster. The lawmakers join many progressive and Democratic advocates in saying that the filibuster is a roadblock to progress.

    “In today’s hyper-partisan climate, there is simply no avenue for bold legislation that meets the needs of everyday Americans without ending the filibuster,” the representatives wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York). “We must end the gridlock that has become common practice in Washington and govern boldly and transformatively to improve the lives of millions of people, children, and families all across the country.”

    The lawmakers say that getting rid of the filibuster, which forces bills to have 60 votes to be able to pass, is essential to passing things like a $15 federal minimum wage, voting rights bills like the For the People Act, climate bills, and reforms on immigration and gun rights, among other proposals.

    “For too many people in our communities, their very survival is at stake. Republicans are well aware that removing barriers to passing legislation will have a transformational impact on these communities,” the lawmakers write. “It is why they are passing legislation at the state level across the country in an attempt to suppress the votes of Black, brown and Indigenous people. It is also why they are preventing the Senate from advancing critical legislation that can meet the needs of the people we represent.”

    The letter notes that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have tried to get rid of the filibuster before. In fact, lawmakers got rid of the House’s filibuster 130 years ago because it was preventing progress.

    The Senate filibuster, as the lawmakers point out, is a relic of the Jim Crow era and has a history of being used to block civil rights. Advocates have said that filibuster abolition is thus an issue of racial equality and justice.

    “Filibuster reform is critical for advancing racial justice,” said Senior Director of Democracy and Criminal Justice for Color of Change Scott Roberts in a statement. “Democratic Senators who defend the filibuster are protecting a legacy of racism, and are choosing to let an outdated rule block progress that would begin to address the challenges facing Black communities across the country.”

    In more recent times, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has made himself an expert in wielding the filibuster as a weapon against Democrats, as he did under Barack Obama.

    McConnell knows that he can continue to wield that power in his newfound minority; at the beginning of this congressional session, McConnell held up the Senate by insisting on protecting the filibuster. Last month, he threatened to go “scorched earth” if Democrats got rid of the filibuster, saying that he’d make the Senate look like a “100-car pileup.”

    But filibuster abolition faces opposition from both sides of the Senate. Democrats like Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) have opposed getting rid of the filibuster even though it is a significant roadblock to progress. Though Democrats, including President Joe Biden to a small extent, and progressives have been working on changing the minds of Sinema, Manchin and other Democrats about holding on to the arcane rule, they have so far not been very successful in their efforts.

    Bush and Jayapal, along with fellow letter leaders Representatives Jason Crow (D-Colorado) and Sean Casten (D-Illinois), hope that highlighting Democratic policies that are held up by the filibuster can help sway the Senate their way.

    “It’s LGBTQ+ equality or the filibuster. It’s DC Statehood or the filibuster. It’s voting rights or the filibuster. It’s the Dream Act, gun safety reforms, campaign finance reform, and equal pay or the filibuster,” tweeted Jayapal on Thursday. “The choice is clear. We must eliminate the filibuster.”

    Casten highlighted the urgency and timeliness of the matter as Republicans attempt to pass hundreds of voter suppression laws at the state level. “Republicans proposed at least 250 voting restriction laws at the state level. Georgia has already passed a voter suppression bill. H.R. 1 is waiting to be passed in the Senate and it would protect our right to vote,” he wrote. “This is an urgent crisis. We must end the filibuster and pass it.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on April 12, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would make college and university tuition-free for most people living in the United States.

    The legislation would allow for families that earn less than $125,000 in yearly household income to pay zero in tuition costs for students who are going to community colleges or to four-year public colleges and universities — providing free higher education for approximately 80 percent of households across the U.S. The proposal would also allow for no tuition costs at institutions that primarily serve students of color (for example, Historically Black Colleges and Universities).

    In addition to lessening the financial burden of tuition for families, the bill would also double the maximum Pell Grant amount to $12,990, allowing qualifying students to use those grants to pay for non-tuition expenses, including housing. Dreamers, or individuals living in the U.S. who were brought here from other countries as children, would also qualify for free tuition and grants.

    The bill would be financed through taxes on Wall Street imposed via small fees on stock trades and other financial transactions. A 0.5 percent tax would be applied to all stock trades, with a 0.1 percent tax on bonds and a 0.05 percent tax on derivatives to help fund the costs of the program. Overall, it’s expected that such fees could create $2.4 trillion in revenues over the next decade.

    The legislation offered by Sanders and Jayapal goes beyond what the Biden administration is planning to include as part of its infrastructure bill when it comes to educational expenses. Within that bill, the White House is hoping to fund free community college and universal prekindergarten, but it would not make tuition at four-year public universities free.

    Many have called on Biden to also issue an executive order to instantly end student debt for thousands of Americans who are currently struggling with paying for their previous or current higher education costs. Pressure from progressive activists for the president to do so may have had some success, as Biden is reportedly looking into issuing such a directive.

    But Jayapal is urging the president to go further.

    “While President Biden can and should immediately cancel student debt for millions of borrowers, Congress must ensure that working families never have to take out these crushing loans to receive a higher education in the first place,” the Washington congresswoman said in a statement.

    Sanders agreed, stating that, “in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, a higher education should be a right for all, not a privilege for the few.”

    The Vermont senator further explained that granting free tuition to whoever wanted and qualified to go to college would create “the best educated workforce in the world.”

    “It is absolutely unacceptable that hundreds of thousands of bright young Americans do not get a higher education each year, not because they are unqualified, but because their family does not have enough money,” Sanders added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Thousands of refugees could suffer in limbo if Biden doesn’t act to decisively improve Trump-era immigration policy. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) said the Biden administration is currently on track to allow the lowest number of refugees into the US of any president, despite election promises to welcome them.

    This comes after the president announced on 16 April he wouldn’t raise Trump’s 15,000 annual cap on refugees, even though in February he promised to increase the cap to 62,500. However, after criticism he backtracked and said he would increase the cap, except he hasn’t specified by how much. With 100,000 refugees suffering as they wait to enter the US, Biden has been criticised for the confusion. Julián Castro, former housing and urban development secretary, said:

    We can’t allow refugees and asylum-seekers to sit and suffer because of Washington politics.

    Emergency directive

    On 16 April, Joe Biden signed an executive order that extended his predecessor’s 15,000 refugee cap until the end of the fiscal year in September. The order said the cap:

    remains justified by humanitarian concerns and is otherwise in the national interest.

    Instead of removing the cap, he looked to remove “discriminatory admissions categories”. Advocates welcomed this, but said more was needed.

    Refugee advocacy groups and fellow democrats instantly criticised the order for its maintenance of “racist” Trump immigration policies.

    Within the space of a day, Biden announced the administration would increase the cap by 15 May, though didn’t specify by how much.

    Election promises

    In his election manifesto, Biden promised he would “take urgent action to undo Trump’s damage”, welcoming immigrants into the US.

    In February, this led to a commitment to increase the refugee cap to 62,500, and subsequently to 125,000 a year during his first full fiscal year in office.

    Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki acknowledged the policy has been the subject of some confusion. While announcing the increase to the cap she added that the:

    initial goal of 62,500 seems unlikely.

    Refugee advocates remain hopeful the president will at least improve on his predecessor’s work. However, the vow of “urgent action” to reverse Trump’s harmful refugee policies seems far less urgent than Biden initially promised.

    US immigration

    According to the IRC, there are already 35,000 refugees who have passed security screening for US admission. The group warned that waiting to reassess until 15 May could create a:

      needless delay that will have real, tragic consequences on vulnerable refugees.

    Advocates also warned that more than 100,000 refugees at different stages of the immigration process would be affected by the decision.

    And that’s not all…

    While eyes are on the immigration cap, the Biden administration has plans to reopen several migrant detention centres from Trump’s tenure. This includes the Homestead centre, which was shut down in 2019 because of reports of sexual abuse towards children. Reports also accused the facility of overcrowding and “negligent hiring practices”.

    Vice president Kamala Harris promised to shut down the centre while on the campaign trail in 2019.

    With the number of migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border tripling in two weeks, Biden is under increasing pressure to deliver on election promises of a better system for immigrants.

    Featured image via Flickr/Gage Skidmore

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • President Joe Biden makes brief remarks before signing several executive orders directing immigration actions for his administration in the Oval Office at the White House on February 2, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    President Joe Biden will uphold former President Donald Trump’s historically low “refugee cap” despite earlier promises to raise it drastically, he announced Friday.

    Biden’s decision prolongs what Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) have decried as “the Trump Administration’s full-scale assault on refugee resettlement in the United States.” The progressive lawmakers had previously sent a letter to Biden criticizing this “unacceptably draconian and discriminatory” refugee policy and urging him to formally increase the maximum number of refugees that may be admitted to the U.S. each year.

    Though Biden pledged to raise the limit to 125,000 a year and overturn some of Trump’s restrictive policies, Biden delayed signing a presidential determination to formally raise the limit for weeks. Now, with this new decision, the U.S. will continue turning away tens of thousands of refugees, many of whom have already been cleared.

    A recent report found that Biden is set to accept the fewest refugees of any modern president because of the restrictive refugee limit of 15,000 people per year that Trump set during his term. Biden had given Democrats and progressives false hope that he would undo that limit earlier this year.

    “We have all been deeply distressed at the stories of hundreds of refugees who had been cleared for resettlement having their flights cancelled at the last minute, in some cases having already left their residences and sold their belongings.” read the letter led by Omar, Jayapal and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois). “We must keep our promises to people who have fled unthinkably brutal conditions in their home countries and live up to our ambition to provide them a safe haven to re-start their lives.”

    The letter had been cosigned by more than 30 other Democratic representatives as of Friday morning, including members of the progressive squad like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). The lawmakers urged Biden to sign a presidential determination to formally lift the cap “immediately,” because “Lives depend on it.” Biden had delayed signing it for many weeks, presumably because he has now changed his mind on the matter.

    “There is immense and growing urgency on this issue, for the many who have already been approved for resettlement, and for the unimaginable number of people who continue to hold out hope that they can one day rebuild their lives destroyed by climate, conflict, and repression,” the letter from the lawmakers said.

    The lawmakers emphasized findings that Muslim refugees are disproportionately affected by oppressive policies put forth by Trump; Syrian refugees, who were hurt most by Trump’s policies cruelly banning refugees, are especially affected.

    The lawmakers’ letter followed similar demands from humanitarian organizations that have also urged Biden to undo Trump’s cap. Advocates from the International Rescue Committee, a nonprofit humanitarian aid organization, told The Washington Post this week that they were concerned and alarmed about Biden’s delay in signing the presidential determination.

    Some Democratic aides and senior administration officials have offered an explanation for Biden’s decision: The president apparently fears bad optics because of the Republican-driven narrative that Biden has prompted an unusually high number of immigrants to attempt to cross the U.S.’s southern border. In reality, analyses have shown that a slight uptick in border crossings this year is explainable by seasonal patterns and the pandemic.

    Many political commentators have pointed out that Biden’s logic of denying refugees entrance for political reasons is cruel. “So Biden is continuing a profoundly immoral policy that hurts desperate people because he’s worried about Republican fearmongering on a separate issue,” wrote Radley Balko, a Washington Post journalist, on Twitter. “That’s not leadership. It’s capitulation.”

    Democrats and progressives also recently expressed frustration over Biden’s immigration policies when news outlets reported that his administration was still continuing to build Trump’s border wall, despite Biden’s promises that “not another foot” of the wall would be built under his administration.

    Omar said in a press release earlier this month that she is “deeply disturbed by reports that the Administration is considering further construction of Donald Trump’s border wall.”

    She added: “The wall is a monument of xenophobia and hatred that does nothing to address the root causes of migration and asylum claims — violence and unrest in the countries of origin that the United States has often exacerbated.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal puts on a mask

    Reaffirming that “corporations are not people and money is not speech,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Tuesday led 50 members of Congress in introducing a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood, reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and “put power back into the hands of people.”

    The We the People Amendment would establish that “the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only” and that “artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities… have no rights under this Constitution.”

    Furthermore, the proposed amendment states that “the privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the people through federal, state, or local law.”

    The measure follows an election cycle that saw an unprecedented $14.4 billion in total spending on federal contests, with Joe Biden’s presidential campaign becoming the first ever to raise over $1 billion from donors, according to the Center for Responsibile Politics’ (CRP) transparency watchdog OpenSecrets.

    Nine of the 10 most expensive Senate races in U.S. history also occurred last year, and CRP reported a shift to large donation strategies, with the top 10 donors — who mostly gave to political action committees (PACs) unfettered by spending limits under Citizens United — pouring a staggering $640 million into 2020 races.

    “After the most expensive election in American history in which special interests poured millions in dark money into campaigns across this country, the We the People Amendment finally returns the power to the people, ends corporate constitutional rights, reverses Citizens United, and ensures that our democracy is really of the people, by the people — not corporations,” Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Tuesday.

    The We the People Amendment follows the January re-introduction in the House of the Democracy for All Amendment, a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would give states and the federal government the ability to limit how money is raised and spent in U.S. elections. It also grants the states and Congress the power to differentiate between natural and corporate persons.

    The new proposed amendment comes as state and local governments attempt to tackle the problem of corporate campaign spending. In California, Democratic state Assembly members Alex Lee and Ash Kalra recently introduced AB-20, the Clean Money Act of 2021, which would outlaw candidates for state office from accepting campaign contributions from businesses.

    Speaking Tuesday at a Zoom press conference ahead of a San Francisco Board of Supervisors vote on a resolution backing AB-20, Kalra tied the bill to Jayapal’s proposed constitutional amendment, calling the measures “complimentary.”

    “Each individual should have an equal voice in the elections process, but big corporate donations skew the narrative and creates a fracture in our democracy and hurts those of us who don’t have the resources to compete,” he said.

    “Just moments ago, Congresswoman Jayapal introduced a bill in Washington, D.C. to overturn Citizens United and strip away corporate personhood,” Kalra added. “So AB-20 is in alignment with what we need to do as a nation. We can’t just rely on that bill at the federal level without us doing what we need to do at the local level.”

    Press conference host Jackie Fielder — an Indigenous educator and activist who, unlike her opponent, took a clean money pledge in her grassroots-driven yet ultimately unsuccessful 2020 bid for the California Senate — said she strongly supports banning corporate campaign contributions.

    “It was incredibly challenging to face an incumbent who has long taken money from corporations,” Fielder told Common Dreams. “My opponent could call any corporation with business before the legislature and secure ‘max-out’ donations.”

    “In the end, that meant he could be on TV, radio, and several mail pieces while we could only afford a few mail pieces and talking directly to voters,” she added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters demonstrate outside of the New York County Republican Office in New York City on July 5, 2017.

    Two Democratic lawmakers, joined by over 100 cosponsors, introduced a Medicare for All bill on Wednesday, reinvigorating the call for single-payer health coverage in the United States they say is needed now more than ever.

    Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan) introduced the measure while speaking at a virtual town hall event on Wednesday afternoon. The pair of lawmakers noted the need for the proposal was especially evident in light of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. that have occurred over the past year due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    “It was exactly one year ago that every single state across this country had a confirmed Covid-19 case, and in the 365 days since, the case for Medicare for All has never been clearer,” Jayapal said during the live streaming event.

    Those remarks matched ones she made earlier in the week, prior to the official unveiling of the proposed legislation.

    “Everybody is seeing the chaos and the destruction that the pandemic has caused. And it’s really making people look and [ask], could we have had something different had we had a Medicare for All system in place?” Jayapal said on Tuesday.

    In a tweet she wrote on Wednesday, Dingell noted that, in addition to providing health coverage to millions of Americans, Medicare for All would also help alleviate economic burdens for many in the U.S.

    “In the wealthiest country in the world, people shouldn’t be launching GoFundMe pages to pay for lifesaving health care,” Dingell said. “#MedicareForAll will guarantee everyone access to the health care they need without going broke.”

    The bill currently has 109 cosponsors, all Democrats, and a majority of the party’s caucus in the House of Representatives. However, it faces steep opposition and an uphill battle at passage, as it’s likely that every Republican in the House would vote against the measure, and some Democrats would do so as well — and that’s if the bill could even get out of committee, which no Medicare for All bill has done as of yet.

    Supposing the bill could pass the House, it would face even more difficult odds in the divided Senate. Even then, the measure would not likely be signed into law by President Joe Biden, who campaigned in 2020 against similar proposals.

    “Throughout his campaign, the President did not support Medicare for all. He campaigned on his own plan and that is the plan the American people voted for,” a White House official said to The Washington Post regarding the proposal. “He is continuing to pursue his own plan, not Medicare for All.”

    Concerns about the current, for-profit system of health care, however, and how it has functioned during the pandemic, are valid. In fact, a report from the medical journal The Lancet stated last month that the U.S. health care system had contributed to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths in the years prior to COVID-19, adding that employing a system of care similar to what other wealthy nations have could have resulted in 40 percent fewer deaths from the virus.

    Indeed, that same report went on to suggest that the remedy for reducing excess deaths in the U.S. is a single-payer program akin to Medicare for All.

    Such a system of healthcare could “reverse the harmful shift toward the commercialisation of care that began in earnest in the 1980s,” and “could inaugurate a new era of respect for the human right to health and health care,” the report added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal is seen on the House steps of the Capitol during a vote on the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, on February 26, 2021.

    Amid a deadly pandemic that has further exposed the absurdity and immorality of tying health insurance to employment, Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Debbie Dingell are planning to introduce the Medicare for All Act of 2021 this coming Wednesday — exactly one year after the first coronavirus cases were confirmed in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

    The bill’s official introduction, set for March 17, “is an attempt to link the cause of universal care with the devastation wrought by the pandemic,” Politico reported.

    “Mark your calendars!” tweeted Jayapal (D-Wash.), a longtime single-payer advocate who was the lead House sponsor of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, which experts at the time characterized as the gold standard for universal healthcare legislation. The bill proposed a two-year transition to a Medicare for All system that would provide comprehensive healthcare to everyone in the U.S. for free at the point of service.

    Since the coronavirus crisis began last year, millions of people across the U.S. have been thrown off their employer-provided health insurance — the nation’s most common form of coverage — due to pandemic-induced mass layoffs that have persisted in recent weeks. Last week, an additional 1.2 million people in the U.S. filed for unemployment insurance.

    “This past year makes it incredibly clear why we must pass Medicare for All,” said Nina Turner, a Democratic congressional candidate in Ohio’s 11th District.

    While progressives such as Jayapal and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have called for an expansion of Medicare to cover the newly uninsured — and everyone else — for the duration of the pandemic, congressional Democrats went a different route in the newly passed American Rescue Plan, which significantly expands eligibility for Affordable Care Act subsidies and fully covers private premiums under COBRA, an expensive program that lets laid-off workers stay on their employer-provided insurance.

    Speaking to the New York Times last week, Jayapal — the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus — made clear her disagreement with that approach.

    “I don’t think this was the most efficient way to do this,” Jayapal said of the American Rescue Plan’s expansion of private insurance.

    The nearly $2 trillion relief package, which President Joe Biden — a Medicare for All opponent — signed into law on Thursday, also includes funding to incentivize states to expand Medicaid, an offer that’s unlikely to be taken up by Republican governors.

    Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy organization, tweeted in response to the coming introduction of the latest iteration of the Medicare for All Act that “tying healthcare to employment was ridiculous and cruel before the pandemic.”

    “And now, with millions more Americans unemployed, it’s horrific,” the group said. “We must guarantee healthcare as a human right — not as an employment benefit. We need Medicare for All.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Do you remember the promises made by the Democratic Party’s presidential and Congressional candidates on universal health insurance? You can forget their pledges and somber convictions now that your votes put the Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate. The Democrats’ leaders are abandoning their promises and retreating into a cowardly corporatist future.

    Here is the present scene. Leading Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have decided to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the giant health insurance companies like Aetna and United Healthcare to “cover recently laid-off workers and those who purchase their own coverage,” as the New York Times reported. There are no price restraints on the gouging insurance premiums or loophole-ridden policies. That is why giant corporate socialist insurers love the “American Rescue Plan,” which gives them socialist cash on the barrelhead. The law lets insurers decide how and whether they pay healthcare bills with co-pays, deductibles, or grant waivers. All these anti-consumer details are buried in the endless and inscrutable fine print.

    Whatever happened to the Democrats’ (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal, etc.) demand for single-payer – everybody in, nobody out – with free choice of doctors and hospitals instead of the existing cruel, and profiteering industry for which enough is never enough? Senator Sanders often mentioned a Yale study, published on February 15, 2020, that found:

    Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than $450 billion annually….” (See the study: Improving the Prognosis of Health Care in the USA, February 15, 2020).

    Well, House Speaker Pelosi is discouraging House Democrats from supporting Representative Pramila Jayapal’s H.R. 1384, Medicare for All Act of 2019, the gold standard for single-payer. News reports indicate that Representative Jayapal (D-WA) and Representative. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) will reintroduce their Medicare for All bill next week. Speaker Pelosi is telling Democrats in the House to focus instead on the modest expansion of Obamacare with its corporate welfare, utter complexity and seriously inadequate coverage. Almost eighty million Americans are presently uninsured or underinsured – a level that will not be significantly reduced for deprived workers by tweaking Obamacare during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    A modified Obamacare, with no price ceilings, will hardly reduce the tens of thousands of American deaths every year because people cannot afford health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time to prevent fatalities. The Yale study also found that: “ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68,000 lives and 1.73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.” Tweaking Obamacare does little to stem the relentless surge in healthcare prices and profits in our country, which is unique for not placing billing ceilings on medical procedures and drugs. This “get whatever you can” behavior by the vendors is so uncontrolled that healthcare billing fraud and abuse is costing people one billion dollars A DAY! Malcolm Sparrow, who is an applied mathematician at Harvard, estimates medical billing fraud amounts to at least ten percent of all healthcare expenses each year.

    Obamacare does nothing to limit the perverse incentives of a fee-for-service system that includes unnecessary operations, over-diagnosis, and over-prescribing all of which increase the risks of preventable casualties. A Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine peer-reviewed study in 2016 estimates that close to 5000 lives are lost weekly due to such “preventable problems” just in hospitals (see: Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S., May 3, 2016).

    It gets worse. Year after year, the corporate Democrats, along with the Republicans, are facilitating expanding corporate takeovers of Medicare and Medicaid. The giant and widening attack on Medicare is called “Medicare Advantage,” which more accurately should be called “Medicare [Dis]advantage.” Our corporatized government, under both Parties, has been allowing deceptive promotional seductions of elderly people to take Medicare [Dis]advantage – now fully 40% of all Medicare beneficiaries – which is just a corporate insurance plan with multiple undisclosed tripwires.

    Former President Trump worsened what he inherited from the Democrats in outsourcing Medicare. He launched something called “direct contracting” that, “could fully turn Medicare over to private health insurers” declared Diane Archer, former chair of Consumer Reports, in her article on March 8, 2021. Medicare Advantage premiums can be pricey. According to Kay Tillow, Executive Director of the Nurses Professional Organization, “The Medicare Advantage Plans are smiling all the way to the bank. In 2019 each Medicare Advantage beneficiary cost taxpayers $11,822 while those in original Medicare cost $10,813 each – that’s over $1,000 more and over 9% more per person for the for-profit insurers!”

    Where is the outcry among Democratic politicians to reverse completely the corporate takeover of Medicare? Last year, many Democratic candidates pontificated about the need for single-payer health insurance, but now in Congress, we are scarcely hearing a peep about this vital human right. Their campaign rhetoric is just distant memory. Tragically, it is now harder than ever for the elderly to get out of Medicare [Dis]advantage and go back to traditional Medicare.

    Millions of elderly people are deceived by televised marketing lies and slick brochures.  The hapless Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should investigate and end the deceptions. Congressional investigations and hearings are long overdue. As the authoritative Dr. Fred Hyde says about the so-called Medicare Advantage: “It’s not what you pay, it’s what you get.” That is, the corporate health plan works until they get sick, until “they want their doctor and their hospital.” Dr. Hyde was referring to the narrow networks where these companies park their beneficiaries.

    More astonishing in this story of the rapacious corporate takeover of Medicare is that AARP promotes these flawed plans to their members, takes paid ads by big insurers in AARP publications, and derives income from this collaboration.

    Imagine, over 50,000 SEIU retirees are automatically placed by their unions in these Medicare [Dis]advantage traps without first being allowed to choose traditional Medicare.

    This whole sordid sabotage of the nineteen sixties Democrats’ dream, under President Lyndon Johnson, of taking the first step toward universal healthcare coverage for everyone, begs for more exposes. It begs for more clamor by the progressive Democrats in Congress who are strangely passive so far. I’m speaking of Representatives Jayapal, Raskin, Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and the receding “Squad,” as well as Senators Warren and Sanders. If we can’t expect these stalwarts to start the counterattack that will save lives, save trillions of dollars over the years, focus on prevention not just treatment, and diminish the anxiety, dread, and fear, that the citizens of Canada and other western nations do not experience because they are insured from birth on, who is left to defend the American people against the arrogant health insurance corporate barons?

    I’m sending this column to these self-styled progressive Democrats along with a two-page specific critique of corporate Medicare from the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) website. PNHP’s membership counts over 15,000 pro-single-payer physicians. In a comment on the PNHP site, Don McCanne, M.D., says, “Remember, the mission of private, for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers is to make money, whereas the mission of our traditional Medicare program is to provide health care. We are supporting a program that deferentially caters to the private insurers and their interests when we should be supporting a program that is designed to take care of patients. Those being deceived by the private Medicare Advantage marketing materials really do not realize the bad deal they may be getting until they face the private insurer barriers to needed care. Silver Sneakers won’t take care of that.” (See: https://pnhp.org/news/russell-mokhiber-explains-why-private-medicare-advantage-plans-are-a-bad-deal/)

    If you care about this issue, tell your Members of Congress it is time to pass Medicare for All represented by H.R. 1384.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Do you remember the promises made by the Democratic Party’s presidential and Congressional candidates on universal health insurance? You can forget their pledges and somber convictions now that your votes put the Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate. The Democrats’ leaders are abandoning their promises and retreating into a cowardly corporatist future.

    Here is the present scene. Leading Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have decided to spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the giant health insurance companies like Aetna and United Healthcare to “cover recently laid-off workers and those who purchase their own coverage,” as the New York Times reported. There are no price restraints on the gouging insurance premiums or loophole-ridden policies. That is why giant corporate socialist insurers love the “American Rescue Plan,” which gives them socialist cash on the barrelhead. The law lets insurers decide how and whether they pay healthcare bills with co-pays, deductibles, or grant waivers. All these anti-consumer details are buried in the endless and inscrutable fine print.

    Whatever happened to the Democrats’ (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pramila Jayapal, etc.) demand for single-payer – everybody in, nobody out – with free choice of doctors and hospitals instead of the existing cruel, and profiteering industry for which enough is never enough? Senator Sanders often mentioned a Yale study, published on February 15, 2020, that found:

    Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care. Efforts are ongoing to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would exacerbate health-care inequities. By contrast, a universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than $450 billion annually….” (See the study: Improving the Prognosis of Health Care in the USA, February 15, 2020).

    Well, House Speaker Pelosi is discouraging House Democrats from supporting Representative Pramila Jayapal’s H.R. 1384, Medicare for All Act of 2019, the gold standard for single-payer. News reports indicate that Representative Jayapal (D-WA) and Representative. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) will reintroduce their Medicare for All bill next week. Speaker Pelosi is telling Democrats in the House to focus instead on the modest expansion of Obamacare with its corporate welfare, utter complexity and seriously inadequate coverage. Almost eighty million Americans are presently uninsured or underinsured – a level that will not be significantly reduced for deprived workers by tweaking Obamacare during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    A modified Obamacare, with no price ceilings, will hardly reduce the tens of thousands of American deaths every year because people cannot afford health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time to prevent fatalities. The Yale study also found that: “ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68,000 lives and 1.73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.” Tweaking Obamacare does little to stem the relentless surge in healthcare prices and profits in our country, which is unique for not placing billing ceilings on medical procedures and drugs. This “get whatever you can” behavior by the vendors is so uncontrolled that healthcare billing fraud and abuse is costing people one billion dollars A DAY! Malcolm Sparrow, who is an applied mathematician at Harvard, estimates medical billing fraud amounts to at least ten percent of all healthcare expenses each year.

    Obamacare does nothing to limit the perverse incentives of a fee-for-service system that includes unnecessary operations, over-diagnosis, and over-prescribing all of which increase the risks of preventable casualties. A Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine peer-reviewed study in 2016 estimates that close to 5000 lives are lost weekly due to such “preventable problems” just in hospitals (see: Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S., May 3, 2016).

    It gets worse. Year after year, the corporate Democrats, along with the Republicans, are facilitating expanding corporate takeovers of Medicare and Medicaid. The giant and widening attack on Medicare is called “Medicare Advantage,” which more accurately should be called “Medicare [Dis]advantage.” Our corporatized government, under both Parties, has been allowing deceptive promotional seductions of elderly people to take Medicare [Dis]advantage – now fully 40% of all Medicare beneficiaries – which is just a corporate insurance plan with multiple undisclosed tripwires.

    Former President Trump worsened what he inherited from the Democrats in outsourcing Medicare. He launched something called “direct contracting” that, “could fully turn Medicare over to private health insurers” declared Diane Archer, former chair of Consumer Reports, in her article on March 8, 2021. Medicare Advantage premiums can be pricey. According to Kay Tillow, Executive Director of the Nurses Professional Organization, “The Medicare Advantage Plans are smiling all the way to the bank. In 2019 each Medicare Advantage beneficiary cost taxpayers $11,822 while those in original Medicare cost $10,813 each – that’s over $1,000 more and over 9% more per person for the for-profit insurers!”

    Where is the outcry among Democratic politicians to reverse completely the corporate takeover of Medicare? Last year, many Democratic candidates pontificated about the need for single-payer health insurance, but now in Congress, we are scarcely hearing a peep about this vital human right. Their campaign rhetoric is just distant memory. Tragically, it is now harder than ever for the elderly to get out of Medicare [Dis]advantage and go back to traditional Medicare.

    Millions of elderly people are deceived by televised marketing lies and slick brochures.  The hapless Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should investigate and end the deceptions. Congressional investigations and hearings are long overdue. As the authoritative Dr. Fred Hyde says about the so-called Medicare Advantage: “It’s not what you pay, it’s what you get.” That is, the corporate health plan works until they get sick, until “they want their doctor and their hospital.” Dr. Hyde was referring to the narrow networks where these companies park their beneficiaries.

    More astonishing in this story of the rapacious corporate takeover of Medicare is that AARP promotes these flawed plans to their members, takes paid ads by big insurers in AARP publications, and derives income from this collaboration.

    Imagine, over 50,000 SEIU retirees are automatically placed by their unions in these Medicare [Dis]advantage traps without first being allowed to choose traditional Medicare.

    This whole sordid sabotage of the nineteen sixties Democrats’ dream, under President Lyndon Johnson, of taking the first step toward universal healthcare coverage for everyone, begs for more exposes. It begs for more clamor by the progressive Democrats in Congress who are strangely passive so far. I’m speaking of Representatives Jayapal, Raskin, Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and the receding “Squad,” as well as Senators Warren and Sanders. If we can’t expect these stalwarts to start the counterattack that will save lives, save trillions of dollars over the years, focus on prevention not just treatment, and diminish the anxiety, dread, and fear, that the citizens of Canada and other western nations do not experience because they are insured from birth on, who is left to defend the American people against the arrogant health insurance corporate barons?

    I’m sending this column to these self-styled progressive Democrats along with a two-page specific critique of corporate Medicare from the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) website. PNHP’s membership counts over 15,000 pro-single-payer physicians. In a comment on the PNHP site, Don McCanne, M.D., says, “Remember, the mission of private, for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers is to make money, whereas the mission of our traditional Medicare program is to provide health care. We are supporting a program that deferentially caters to the private insurers and their interests when we should be supporting a program that is designed to take care of patients. Those being deceived by the private Medicare Advantage marketing materials really do not realize the bad deal they may be getting until they face the private insurer barriers to needed care. Silver Sneakers won’t take care of that.” (See: https://pnhp.org/news/russell-mokhiber-explains-why-private-medicare-advantage-plans-are-a-bad-deal/)

    If you care about this issue, tell your Members of Congress it is time to pass Medicare for All represented by H.R. 1384.

    The post Perfidy Meets Putty: Congressional Democrats Betray Voters first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Rep. Lauren Boebert attends a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) has called for investigations by the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics into Representatives Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado), Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) for their roles in “instigating and aiding” the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

    Jayapal lays out the Republicans’ social media posts, speeches and known ties to extremist right-wing militant groups in letters to both congressional organizations in order to demonstrate the need for and urgency of the investigation.

    “It is critical for the functioning of Congress — and therefore the functioning of our democracy — that this investigation is conducted,” she writes. “I urge the House Committee on Ethics and the Office of Congressional Ethics to thoroughly investigate Representatives Boebert, Brooks, and Gosar’s conduct, and refer any appropriate findings to the Department of Justice.”

    Boebert, Jayapal points out, tweeted, “Today is 1776” on the day of the attack, and came under fire in the ensuing days for tweeting about the location of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) while pro-Trump militants were breaching the Capitol. Jayapal also points to similar tweets about Pelosi’s location from Brooks. The lawmakers at the time were under strict instructions to not post about the locations of members of Congress.

    Pelosi was a particular target for some of the militants at the Capitol that day, as the impeachment managers in former President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial stated. Boebert has also been facing backlash this week over an anti-Pelosi ad that features a prominent gunshot noise at the end.

    Jayapal lays out Boebert and Gosar’s ties with the far right militant groups the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers. Members of both groups have been charged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for their roles in the attack. Boebert has posed for pictures with Three Percenters and has been seen at a political gun rally with them.

    Gosar, Jayapal writes, has had an even more direct relationship with inciting far right militants into action. “In September 2020, the leader of an Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers said that, ‘We asked [Gosar] flat-out, at that time, do you think we’re heading into a civil war? … And his response to the group was just flat-out, We’re in it, we just haven’t started shooting yet.’” In the months leading up to January 6, the DOJ has found that some members and leaders of the Oath Keepers were keeping a close eye on Trump’s words, waiting for his permission to strike.

    All three lawmakers have made comments publicly, Jayapal notes, that appear to be encouraging action and violence from groups that had been preparing for the attack for weeks or months. “Today is the day that American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” said Brooks at a rally in D.C. on January 6, urging the crowd to go to the Capitol. “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?”

    Jayapal’s letters come days after Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) released a nearly 2,000-page report that reviews the social media accounts of Republican House members who voted to overturn the results of the presidential election during the months surrounding the Capitol breach. “Like former President Trump,” Lofgren wrote, “any elected Member of Congress who aided and abetted the insurrection or incited the attack seriously threatened our democratic government.”

    The report is thorough and features 123 pages of social media evidence of Brooks and 176 pages of evidence of Gosar making statements denying the results of the election, supporting Trump’s efforts to question vote counts, and calling President Joe Biden an “illegitimate usurper.” The analysis spans less than three months. Gosar and Brooks have also been named by one of the right-wing organizers of the mob as figures who helped him plan the attack.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy looks on in the House Chamber during a reconvening of a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    A new report has found that the American Rescue Plan, which passed the House on Wednesday and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden on Friday, will sharply reduce poverty in the country, especially among Black and Latinx people.

    The report, by D.C.-based think tank the Urban Institute, finds that the $1.9 trillion stimulus will reduce the projected poverty rate for 2021 from 13.7 to 8.7 percent overall. It will also shrink the racial poverty gap by reducing poverty among Black and Latinx people by 42 and 39 percent, respectively, the report says.

    The economic impacts of the pandemic have hit Black and Latinx people especially hard, more so than other racial demographic groups. And, as the economy has bounced back over the past months, Black people have not bounced back as much, following the pattern of the fallout of the 2008 recession that left Black households in the lurch for over 10 years.

    The American Rescue Plan, in combination with previous stimulus packages, could also cut the share of people experiencing deep poverty, or people earning under 50 percent of the poverty line, by a third, the Urban Institute report finds.

    The provisions with the biggest impact on reducing poverty, say the report’s writers, are the additional unemployment checks, the extension of food stamp benefits, the $1,400 relief checks and the new expanded version of the child tax credit in the bill.

    Biden’s stimulus package will also be particularly good for children, the report finds, reducing the poverty rate for children by more than half in 2021. This is in large part due to the expanded child tax credit in the bill, which expands upon the existing child tax credit by offering parents up to $3,600 per child over the next year in the form of monthly payments.

    The report’s findings bolster previous reports which have also found that the expanded child tax credit could play a massive role in lowering child poverty, and poverty in general. This includes a Columbia University analysis, which found that the bill will cut child poverty by half (though the Columbia report also included several provisions like the minimum wage raise that didn’t make it into the final package).

    The House passed the bill Wednesday afternoon, and the White House said that Biden will sign the bill on Friday afternoon, two days before key unemployment benefits from the last bill expire. The package passed the House and the Senate with zero Republican votes as Republicans united against the bill.

    Though Republicans oppose the bill, the legislation and its policies enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support among the public. A new poll out Wednesday conducted by CNN finds that 61 percent of Americans support the bill overall. The poll also finds that 85 percent of those polled support the bill’s provisions to expand tax credits, including 95 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans — a far cry from the 0 percent buy-in from congressional Republicans.

    The CNN poll of 1,009 people also finds a 55 percent majority support for the $15 minimum wage proposal that didn’t make it into the final bill.

    Though the bill doesn’t include the vaunted progressive goal of raising the minimum wage, the American Rescue Plan does include provisions that have earned progressive praise. “Because of [the progressive movement’s] support, the U.S. Senate … passed the most comprehensive pro-worker piece of legislation in the modern history of our country,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

    Progressives in the House have also celebrated the package, which Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), the head of the Progressive Caucus, called in a statement, “a truly progressive and bold package that delivers on its promise to put money directly in people’s pockets.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal conducts a news conference in the Capitol on March 1, 2021.

    Progressive Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives have signaled their intention to support a coronavirus economic stimulus package, even after the Senate made several alterations to the bill that was originally passed late last month.

    The $1.9 trillion relief bill, if passed into law, will send $1,400 in payments to most adult Americans, as well as payments in the same amount for each of their dependent children. The bill will also extend the boost to unemployment payments of $300 through the beginning of September this year, as well as provide additional rental assistance to those in need due to the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

    But the Senate version of the economic package has many changes that progressives had pushed for in the language of the original bill passed by the House. New income eligibility limits were added in the Senate version of the bill, phasing out stimulus checks for individuals earning $80,000 or more annually and couples filing taxes jointly who make $160,000 or more.

    Compromises demanded by Republicans and centrist Democrats in the Senate bill also meant that several elements within the original House version of the bill — including an increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, as well as the $400 boost to unemployment benefits that Democrats wanted — are no longer included in the final version.

    The House could vote on the package as soon as Tuesday and no later than Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said. She also expressed hope for some Republicans to support the finalized version of the bill.

    “The House now hopes to have a bipartisan vote on this life-saving legislation and urges Republicans to join us in recognition of the devastating reality of this vicious virus and economic crisis and of the need for decisive action,” she said on Monday.

    In spite of the changes to the stimulus bill made since the House originally passed it, progressive lawmakers have made statements that indicate they intend to vote in favor of its passage. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), described changes to the bill as “relatively minor concessions,” a statement that signals that the 93-member caucus will back the Senate-passed version of the bill when the House votes on it this week.

    “The American Rescue Plan is a truly progressive and bold package that delivers on its promise to put money directly in people’s pockets and decisively crush the coronavirus’s spread, which is responsible for our economic crisis,” Jayapal said over the weekend.

    The altered bill retains “core bold, progressive elements originally proposed by President Joe Biden and passed in the House relief package,” she added.

    Jayapal reiterated her statement of support for the bill in a tweet on Monday.

    “I’m looking forward to sending this relief package to the president’s desk — help is on the way,” she wrote.

    CPC Deputy Chair Rep. Katie Porter (D-California) has similarly expressed support for the bill in its current version.

    “Families at every income level are struggling to pay their bills, and they need relief that meets the size and scope of this crisis,” Porter wrote in a tweet earlier this week. “Congress must move quickly and get the bill to the President’s desk.”

    A number of polls have shown that Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of the stimulus package. Almost two-thirds of respondents (63 percent) in an Economist/YouGov poll published earlier this month said they supported the bill’s passage, with only 30 percent stating that they were opposed to it.

    If passed by the House, the bill will advance to the White House, where Biden is expected to sign it within the week. The president is also scheduled to give a prime-time speech to the nation on Thursday, his first time since taking office, commemorating the anniversary of the national effort to curb the spread of COVID-19, including shutdowns and social distancing measures.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders is seen outside the chamber as the Senate debates the coronavirus relief package on March 5, 2021.

    Progressives are vowing to continue to fight for the passage of a $15 federal minimum wage after the Senate omitted the popular measure from President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, which passed Saturday.

    “If any Senator believes this is the last time they will cast a vote on whether or not to give a raise to 32 million Americans, they are sorely mistaken,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont). “We’re going to keep bringing it up, and we’re going to get it done because it is what the American people demand and need.”

    Though the minimum wage proposal currently faces more opposition in the Senate, progressive representatives in the House echoed Sanders’s sentiment. “I will never stop fighting to make the minimum wage a living wage,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington). “It’s long overdue that we give 32 million workers a raise and lift a million people out of poverty.”

    On Friday, eight Democratic senators drew progressive ire as they voted against the inclusion of the $15 federal minimum wage raise in the American Rescue Plan, Biden’s first coronavirus stimulus package. The proposal was raised by Sanders and was defeated 58-42, with all Republicans voting against it.

    The proposal’s most vocal opponents within the Democratic Party were Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona). But on Friday, they were joined by Tom Carper (D-Delaware), Chris Coons (D-Delaware), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire), Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats.

    Sinema, in particular, drew ire after a video clip showed her seemingly gleeful thumbs-down vote. In response, Sinema’s office claimed that it was sexist to criticize her over her casual body language, but many pushed back against that notion, arguing instead that her vote was sexist since women disproportionately suffer from poverty.

    The Senate passed the stimulus package over the weekend. The bill will now go back to the House for another vote, since it’s slightly modified from when the House approved it. The vote is expected on Tuesday, and if it passes, as expected, it will be sent to Biden.

    The package passed by the Senate included another last-minute concession to centrists: Unemployment checks were cut down from $400 to $300 a week, which was a proposal backed by Manchin and King. Last week, centrists also won further restrictions on the $1,400 stimulus checks.

    Despite these concessions, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Jayapal, was optimistic about the passage of the package. “The Congressional Progressive Caucus worked very hard to ensure that the package that the House passed was as bold as it needed to be,” said Jayapal in a statement. Though the $15 wage was cut from the Senate version of the bill, “We are proud of our efforts and know that had we not passed such a bold package in the House, the resulting bill would have been far worse,” Jayapal said.

    From here, the $15 minimum wage fight faces a tough fight. The proposal’s biggest hurdle is the filibuster in the Senate, which requires most bills to have 60 votes to end discussion or debate on a bill — a virtual impossibility with the Republican Party’s hold on 50 seats.

    Democrats and progressives have been advocating for the abolishment of the filibuster, a move which moderate Democrats like Manchin and Sinema have stood against. However, over the weekend, Manchin said that he’d be open to filibuster reform, giving hope yet to progressives.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.