The Left won't stop if Joe Biden is elected President

[lpetrich]

After saying "Democrats don’t really run as a party.", Saikat Chakrabarti had strong words about many downballot Democrats' campaigns.

I never really saw a message of, “You should vote us all in, because we will do X.” It was more like everyone had their own individual race. And unfortunately, in a lot of those races — in the middle of an economic depression, where millions of people are without jobs — candidates didn’t talk about the economy. It’s insane. It’s campaign malpractice. So many of these candidates in moderate districts ran against Trump, rather than saying anything about what they would do. And when you don’t campaign on what you’re going to do, then all kinds of kind of sideshows take the take the spotlight — like in 2016, when Hillary’s emails became the spotlight, or this or that anti-Trump or pro-Trump conspiracy theory.

It’s encouraging that Biden ran toward the economy in a big way and didn’t lose on an issue where Trump was supposedly still stronger than him. General Democratic politicking has this idea that if there’s some issue where the Republicans are leading, let’s go talk about something else rather than trying to win on that issue. Biden didn’t follow that strategy, and that’s encouraging.

His interviewer asked him about primarying moderate Democrats in the Senate.

Yeah. If the definition of “moderate” is you don’t want to do anything right now, in the middle of a depression, then I absolutely hope so. One hundred percent. You get elected to Congress to do stuff. If you don’t want to do anything, go retire. It’s just unacceptable.

However, he won't name names. "I’m giving everyone the benefit of the doubt." (laughs)

 

[lpetrich]

Joe Biden Wears a ‘Kick Me’ Sign - POLITICO
The article starts off with a scenario of JB acting much like Trump, enraged that anyone should ever challenge his administration and threatening to sic his Attorney General on critics like Bernie Sanders and AOC.

This highlights an important psychological difference between the parties. The conservative mind typically has a natural deference to authority, making Republicans more likely to respond positively to the notion of a president laying down the law and punishing dissenters. The liberal mind typically has a natural skepticism toward authority, and a natural sympathy to the grievances and demands of its own special-interest constituencies, especially when these are groups that historically have faced prejudice. This is generalizing, of course. But the generalities have enough validity that it is virtually impossible to imagine a Democratic president bullying his party the way Trump has bullied Republicans.

Alas, as Biden is showing, it is not so hard to imagine the opposite phenomenon: Democrats bullying their president.

"In recent days, POLITICO compiled a list of stubbed toes in the transition as Biden’s team sought to navigate conflicting demands from interest groups" with AOC saying about the result that “You have an individual appointment here, an individual appointment there. What is the overall message from the big picture in this entire Cabinet put together?”

She hasn't gotten into any trouble with JB's staffers, any more than Sen. Bernie Sanders has when he complained about the appointees' "cautious ideological tilt" (article quote) and Rep. Jim Clyburn about their "insufficient racial diversity".

That is far from new. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton grumbled about “bean counters” who were playing “quota games and math games” when they complained about his employees not having enough women and minorities.

 

[lpetrich]

Elizabeth Warren's next chapter - POLITICO

The Massachusetts Democrat is a member of Schumer’s leadership team and is working closely with the Senate minority leader on a policy priority that could fuel the first intra-party fight with President-elect Joe Biden.

A few months before the election, Warren asked Schumer to join her effort to cancel $50,000 of student loan debt for millions of Americans. The president can do it without Congress, she argues. The New York Democrat, who is up for reelection in 2022, was “immediately interested.”

...
Along with a seat at Schumer’s leadership table, Warren now has a presidential run under her belt plus a progressive record that includes hard-fought battles both with her own party and the GOP.

She even secured language in a critical defense bill to rename bases honoring Confederate soldiers over President Donald Trump’s opposition; his veto is on the verge of being overridden for the first time of his presidency. It’s not Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, but she says it exemplifies what Democrats can accomplish during divided government: “It’s the right side of history.”

Yet Warren warns her party needs to act quickly on things like student loan debt to make sure anti-Trump voters don’t see Democrats running a gridlocked Washington that does little to improve their daily lives. Biden’s view on this is less clear: he recently told several newspaper columnists that it was “pretty questionable” that he has the authority to cancel all that debt.

“Democrats need to deliver,” Warren said. “No matter what. We have to use every tool, and we need to use it early, boldly, confidently, and unapologetically.”

I agree. What's the point of governing unless one tries to do something? It will also help Democrats in the midterms. The President's party usually loses seats, but there have been some exceptions, like 1934 -  Party divisions of United States Congresses

 

[lpetrich]

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Progressives in the House have won a rules change ..." / Twitter

Progressives in the House have won a rules change that would allow Medicare for All, a Green New Deal or other big ticket agenda items to be exempted from paygo. This was a necessary step in opening the way for it.

Paygo is short for “pay as you go,” which Democrats proposed in the 80s to get clever with Reagan, whose tax cuts and defense spending drove up the deficit. Since then it has been used to hamstring progressive policy. Last time Pelosi won this fight

The value of changing the rules, even though they don’t yet have the votes for M4A, is that it is easier to defend the rules as they are than fight for changes.

Also it applies to things this term that can actually pass, like more checks, Medicaid and Medicare expansion etc

Here’s my newsletter from 2 years ago that went into the politics of this fight the last time progressives lost it (which you might as well sign up for since it’s free)

Also it’s too early to call it a victory. It has to get approved on the House floor, but getting it into the package is big

2019 Jan 2
Nancy Pelosi Rams Austerity Provision Into House Rules Package
"The pay-go rule makes it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, while Republicans are free to blow big holes in the tax code."
Paygo Pelosi and the austerity brigade - Bad News

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Progressives in the House have won a rules change ..." / Twitter

Progressives in the House have won a rules change that would allow Medicare for All, a Green New Deal or other big ticket agenda items to be exempted from paygo. This was a necessary step in opening the way for it.

Paygo is short for “pay as you go,” which Democrats proposed in the 80s to get clever with Reagan, whose tax cuts and defense spending drove up the deficit. Since then it has been used to hamstring progressive policy. Last time Pelosi won this fight

The value of changing the rules, even though they don’t yet have the votes for M4A, is that it is easier to defend the rules as they are than fight for changes.

Also it applies to things this term that can actually pass, like more checks, Medicaid and Medicare expansion etc

Here’s my newsletter from 2 years ago that went into the politics of this fight the last time progressives lost it (which you might as well sign up for since it’s free)

Also it’s too early to call it a victory. It has to get approved on the House floor, but getting it into the package is big

2019 Jan 2
Nancy Pelosi Rams Austerity Provision Into House Rules Package
"The pay-go rule makes it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, while Republicans are free to blow big holes in the tax code."
Paygo Pelosi and the austerity brigade - Bad News

In other words, they don't need to fund it, they can just run up the deficit. Bad idea.

 

[lpetrich]

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Progressives in the House have won a rules change that would allow Medicare for All, a Green New Deal or other big ticket agenda items to be exempted from paygo. This was a necessary step in opening the way for it. (link to text)" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "One of the 1st votes I ever cast ..." / Twitter

One of the 1st votes I ever cast broke w/ my party over House rules that strangled transformative legislation for working people + climate. It was honestly terrifying.

Now, CPC has pushed these critical rule changes in House negotiations. Grateful for @RepMcGovern’s leadership

One of the first deep lessons I learned in the House that process IS policy. If you pass M4A, GND, etc w/ messed up process/rules, then it can be weaponized into austerity leg by rules requiring it to have insane tax hikes or service cuts tied to it that aren’t applied to others. So these rule changes are a big deal - & not only on healthcare. They are structural changes in the House that level the playing field for a full SUITE of flagship legislation, locks in that field for the next two years, & establishes precedents for after.

This was not easy.

And to be % honest, it was hard during this to be targeted+marred as some sellout-enemy of the people over a late tactical disagreement over 1 floor vote.

Also a bummer to see figures excuse comments like “f- her and f- anyone who protects her.” That’s not tone, that’s violence.

On one hand, I am no stranger to abusive rhetoric and know that taking knocks comes w/ being an elected official.

But as someone who prioritizes movement-building and winning, creating something joyful that people actually want to be a part of is an impt organizing principle.

BUT, let us celebrate this achievement! We need the energy of celebration to keep pushing!

These rule changes are a bfd. Breaking austerity mindset + rules, esp on climate, is a major tenet of the Green New Deal.

We will learn, build, uplift & advance together. Happy new year.

She has a good sense of strategy. She pays attention to behind-the-scenes stuff that affects how well she and her friends can do in Congress.

 

[lpetrich]

I first heard of a "PAYGO" rule from then-President Obama a decade ago, though I forget exactly when. He was speaking on what to do to recover from the big financial crash of 2008, when he stated that rule. That seemed to me like tying oneself down so one can barely move. Especially when his Republican predecessors, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, were shameless deficit spenders.


Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "End of Nov, the Progressive Caucus decided on a set of progressive rules reform priorities: Paygo reform and MTR reform ranked high on that list.

So grateful to Chairman @RepMcGovern for helping us secure these reforms and setting the stage for us to push for bolder agenda." / Twitter

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "Advocating for progressive values in Congress is hard if you can’t get over the procedural hurdles that exist. Passing these reformed rules is step one in our fight for progress.

I am optimistic about what we can accomplish in the 117th Congress, if we stay focused & strategic." / Twitter

Jamie Zahlaway Belsito on Twitter: "@IlhanMN @RepMcGovern @RepMcGovern is one of the best legislators this country has." / Twitter

Ilhan Omar on Twitter: "@JZBMA06 @RepMcGovern He is also compassionate and caring lawmaker, so honored to serve with him and on his Human Rights Commission." / Twitter


Ayanna Pressley on Twitter: "Take note that progressives came to fight for the people who sent us.

Gratitude to @McGovernMA for securing these long overdue rules changes that have been a barrier to policies that meet the scale of the crises we face. #M4A #GND #COVID19" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

David Roberts on Twitter: "Hey, something cool & good! (Thread.) ..." / Twitter

Hey, something cool & good! (Thread.)

As per standard procedure, the House of Representatives has just adopted rules for the upcoming session (the 117th Congress). There are several interesting changes, but one in particular jumped out at me. So, PAYGO is a requirement that Dems place on themselves when they run the House; it says all new legislative spending must be "paid for," ie, that it cannot increase the deficit. This is -- and it cannot be emphasized enough -- BONKERS. Total self-own. I don't want to get diverted into a whole rant about PAYGO, but it's just really bad. The GOP doesn't give a shit about deficits when they're in charge. And they shouldn't! Money is cheap! We're well short of full employment! There's no f'ing inflation! Total self-own by Ds. Anyway, the new rules for the 117th Congress carve out specific exemptions to PAYGO. One is for "measures to prevent, prepare for, or respond to economic or public health consequences resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic." Sensible. The other is "measures to prevent, prepare for, or respond to economic, environmental, or public health consequences resulting from climate change." Oh hell yes! Spend that climate money you MFers! Anyway, congrats to @RepMcGovern & the Rules Committee for this small but extremely significant reform. Let's hope it gets tested out in practice.

Here's a plain-language summary of this & the other rule changes:

Plain-language summary of changes

Full text:
H. Res. 5—Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and for other purposes. | House of Representatives Committee on Rules

 

[lpetrich]

David Dayen on Twitter: "In the House rules package, there are specific exemptions to PAYGO for Covid measures and also climate mitigation! ..." / Twitter

In the House rules package, there are specific exemptions to PAYGO for Covid measures and also climate mitigation!

(there's also statutory paygo, but that tends to only be important if the OMB director pays attention to it.)

There used to be a rule that the House would have to keep the staff of a former speaker on the payroll. (!!) That's gone.

The rules re-emphasize the ability for committees and subcommittees to issue subpoenas, a kind of nose-thumbing at the outgoing Trump administration.

The motion to recommit language is I believe designed to prevent partisan motions from being offered. This tool has become a way for the minority party to force difficult or embarrassing votes on the majority.

The provision forcing members to pay for their own discrimination settlements has been continued.

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Basically Josh Gottheimer so thoroughly abused the MTR that Dems abolished it" / Twitter

MTR = Motion to Recommit

 

[bilby]

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Progressives in the House have won a rules change ..." / Twitter

Progressives in the House have won a rules change that would allow Medicare for All, a Green New Deal or other big ticket agenda items to be exempted from paygo. This was a necessary step in opening the way for it.

Paygo is short for “pay as you go,” which Democrats proposed in the 80s to get clever with Reagan, whose tax cuts and defense spending drove up the deficit. Since then it has been used to hamstring progressive policy. Last time Pelosi won this fight

The value of changing the rules, even though they don’t yet have the votes for M4A, is that it is easier to defend the rules as they are than fight for changes.

Also it applies to things this term that can actually pass, like more checks, Medicaid and Medicare expansion etc

Here’s my newsletter from 2 years ago that went into the politics of this fight the last time progressives lost it (which you might as well sign up for since it’s free)

Also it’s too early to call it a victory. It has to get approved on the House floor, but getting it into the package is big

2019 Jan 2
Nancy Pelosi Rams Austerity Provision Into House Rules Package
"The pay-go rule makes it more difficult for Democrats to pass a host of liberal agenda items, while Republicans are free to blow big holes in the tax code."
Paygo Pelosi and the austerity brigade - Bad News

In other words, they don't need to fund it, they can just run up the deficit. Bad idea.

That "bad idea" is the only way that society has ever advanced.

Usually it takes a war to persuade 'conservatives' to stop being fucking stupid, and allow deficit spending for infrastructure. But whatever the justification, deficit spending remains essential if any society is to advance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In other words, they don't need to fund it, they can just run up the deficit. Bad idea.

That "bad idea" is the only way that society has ever advanced.

Usually it takes a war to persuade 'conservatives' to stop being fucking stupid, and allow deficit spending for infrastructure. But whatever the justification, deficit spending remains essential if any society is to advance.

While I agree that borrowing for infrastructure spending is acceptable this isn't infrastructure.

 

[bilby]

In other words, they don't need to fund it, they can just run up the deficit. Bad idea.

That "bad idea" is the only way that society has ever advanced.

Usually it takes a war to persuade 'conservatives' to stop being fucking stupid, and allow deficit spending for infrastructure. But whatever the justification, deficit spending remains essential if any society is to advance.

While I agree that borrowing for infrastructure spending is acceptable this isn't infrastructure.

Nor are wars. But the massive deficit spending inherent in wartime causes an economic boom despite the fact that much of the production is simply destroyed.

Deficit spending is good, even if it produces very little in the way of goods or infrastructure; It's even better when it generates major infrastructure as well as achieving its main benefit - redistribution of wealth.

During wartime, wealthy people pay higher taxes; Buy war bonds; And generally get forced to hand over sums of cash to the government. This is a necessary step to avoid the otherwise hugely inflationary effect of giving ordinary people full employment at decent wages. The effect is massively beneficial, even if the workers whose high wages drive the economic boom are employed making ships that get sunk, tanks that get blown up, and munitions that create nothing but widows and orphans amongst enemy states.

Ideally, we can achieve even better results by building roads, power grids, generating stations, railways, internet and communications networks, water and sewerage systems, levies and storm mitigation structures, etc., etc.

But these are just the icing on the full employment at decent wages cake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I agree that borrowing for infrastructure spending is acceptable this isn't infrastructure.

Nor are wars. But the massive deficit spending inherent in wartime causes an economic boom despite the fact that much of the production is simply destroyed.

Deficit spending is good, even if it produces very little in the way of goods or infrastructure; It's even better when it generates major infrastructure as well as achieving its main benefit - redistribution of wealth.

During wartime, wealthy people pay higher taxes; Buy war bonds; And generally get forced to hand over sums of cash to the government. This is a necessary step to avoid the otherwise hugely inflationary effect of giving ordinary people full employment at decent wages. The effect is massively beneficial, even if the workers whose high wages drive the economic boom are employed making ships that get sunk, tanks that get blown up, and munitions that create nothing but widows and orphans amongst enemy states.

Ideally, we can achieve even better results by building roads, power grids, generating stations, railways, internet and communications networks, water and sewerage systems, levies and storm mitigation structures, etc., etc.

But these are just the icing on the full employment at decent wages cake.

Of course there's a boom after war--consumer spending has been depressed during the war, there's a catch-up afterwards. That doesn't say that wasteful spending is a good thing.

 

[lpetrich]

The Sunrise Movement is an early winner in the Biden transition. Now comes the hard part. - CNNPolitics

The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate activist group, has quickly announced itself as one of the most influential progressive forces in the formative days of President-elect Joe Biden's incoming administration.

As Biden builds out his White House senior staff and Cabinet, the climate movement has notched a series of high-profile victories, one of the few divisions of the Democratic left to successfully embed a number of its top allies -- and ideas -- into the new government's upper echelons. But the promise of today, before Biden has even taken office, will soon be met by the grinding realities of governing in divided Washington.

But Sunrise's young leaders say that, after two years of pitched battles across the country, they are prepared for the fights to come.

So they aren't stopping. So far so good.

 

[lpetrich]

People for Bernie on Twitter: ""Let me just be very clear as the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee: Remember what happened in 2010. Democrats got wiped out. They had the power, but they did not deliver for the American people. We must have an aggressive agenda." @BernieSanders #ChairmanSanders https://t.co/QOB7rWwPrS" / Twitter

Yes, Bernie Sanders is now head of the Senate Budget Committee.

 

[lpetrich]

Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "Need a recap of week one? Here are the bills I've cosponsored and cosigned ..." / Twitter

Need a recap of week one? Here are the bills I've cosponsored and cosigned

1⃣@IlhanMN's Impeachment Articles
2⃣@RepCori's Resolution to hold GOP members accountable for inciting violence
3⃣@RepBowman's COUP Act to investigate ties between white supremacists & Capitol Police
4⃣@RepCicilline, @RepRaskin and @RepTedLieu's Impeachment Articles to ensure President Trump never holds office again
5⃣@RepHankJohnson's Resolution censuring President Trump
6⃣@rosadelauro's FAMILY Act to address the paid family and medical leave crisis
7⃣@RepSarbanes' For the People Act to expand voting rights
8⃣@RepSpeier's bill to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution
9⃣@EleanorNorton's Washington, D.C. Admission Act to make #DCStatehood a reality

We're only just getting started...

 

[lpetrich]

Donna Imam on Twitter: "Send the $2,000 check.
Break this promise to deny millions of Americans urgently needed cash relief and Sen Joe Manchin will cause 2022 congressional seat losses.

And forget turning Texas blue. (image link)" / Twitter
From the Washington Post

Biden push for new stimulus checks runs into roadblock from key Democratic senator

President-elect aims to move quickly on stimulus plan as economy sheds jobs, but already faces divisions within party

President-elect Joe Biden's plans for a major new economic relief package boosting stimulus payments to $2,000 ran into possibly fatal opposition from his own party Friday as Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) said he would "absolutely not" support a new round of checks.

With economic conditions deteriorating, Biden wants to get a new relief package passed as quickly as possible after his Jan. 20 inauguration. Biden has made new stimulus checks a central promise, specifically telling Georgia voters that they would be getting $2,000 payments if Democrats won Senate elections in the state this week.

Democrats did win those races, clinching a majority in the Senate and unified control of Washington for the first time since the start of the Obama administration. Following the Georgia wins, incoming Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) also pledged that the $2,000 checks would be an early priority.

 

[lpetrich]

Bhaskar Sunkara on Twitter: "Much better rhetoric than the Obama-Biden admin line in 2010: “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.”" / Twitter
Looks like Biden doesn't want to repeat Obama's big mistake back then.

Sahil Kapur on Twitter: "A very significant statement from Joe Biden: "We should be investing in deficit spending in order to generate economic growth." ..." / Twitter

A very significant statement from Joe Biden: "We should be investing in deficit spending in order to generate economic growth."

He notes that borrowing rates are low and says there's a need for an economic infusion now.

Biden is taking a sharply different approach than President Obama, who in 2010 conceded to the austerity push with this line: "Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."

Fuller remarks from @JoeBiden on the economic package he plans to lay out next Thursday and his theory of the case on swift investments vs. deficits:

Then an image clip:

"We're gonna be proposing an entire package... unemployment insurance, being able to continue with rent forbearance, a whole range of issues... The price tag will be high. But as I said, made reference to in my opening comments: The overwhelming consensus among leading economists left, right and center is that in order to keep the economy from collapsing this year and getting much much worse we should be investing significant amounts of money right now, to grow the economy. And that's a pretty wide consensus... So it is necessary to spend the money now. The answer is yes, it will be in the trillions of dollars, the entire package. But I'll be here next Thursday laying out in detail how that package is going to go. But the basic story is simple: That if we don't act now things will get much worse and harder to get out of the hole later. So we have to invest now. Secondly we're going 0 have to meet the emergency needs of the American people. I mean people are having trouble just putting food on the table... There's a dire, dire need to act now... Thirdly we're going to have to invest in infrastructure and health care and a whole range of things that are going to generate good-paying jobs. With interest rates as low as they are, with the Fed having had its power sort of taken away in terms of what they could do to help this administration, like last, it's important - across the board, every major economist thinks we should be investing in deficit spending in order to generate economic growth."

Seems welcome, but let's see what happens with that.

 

[Derec]

People for Bernie on Twitter: ""Let me just be very clear as the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee: Remember what happened in 2010. Democrats got wiped out. They had the power, but they did not deliver for the American people. We must have an aggressive agenda." @BernieSanders #ChairmanSanders https://t.co/QOB7rWwPrS" / Twitter

Yes, Bernie Sanders is now head of the Senate Budget Committee.

Bernie thinks the Dems lost in 2010 because they did not too far left enough?

 

[lpetrich]

People for Bernie on Twitter: ""Let me just be very clear as the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee: Remember what happened in 2010. Democrats got wiped out. They had the power, but they did not deliver for the American people. We must have an aggressive agenda." @BernieSanders #ChairmanSanders https://t.co/QOB7rWwPrS" / Twitter

Yes, Bernie Sanders is now head of the Senate Budget Committee.

Bernie thinks the Dems lost in 2010 because they did not too far left enough?

By your standards, yes.