Democrats trying to unseat each other III

[Derec]

Eliot Engel - unseated by Jamaal Bowman
I couldn't find out anything about his post-politics career, if he has one.

Well, he is 76. Might as well retire at that age.
I do hope somebody unseats Bowman though.

 

[Derec]

Opinion | Biden’s Democratic Party is to the left of Obama’s. Thank a progressive. - The Washington Post

Blame a fauxgressive, more like.

Free lunch for all students.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody always ends up paying.

Student loan forgiveness.

I fail to see why that policy, that helps those better off on average anyway, is particularly progressive.

I guess one more reason they are fake progressives, or fauxgressives.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending to increase the use of cleaner energy sources and fight climate change.

One thing I can agree with, as long as you don't exclude nuclear for ideological reasons.

A massive economic stimulus plan that showed little regard for the budget deficit.

A particularly stupid thing. Throwing more money into an already overstimulated economy just drives up inflation.
At least Sinema and Manchin saved us from the full extent of "Bidenomics" (which is, more or less, a slightly watered down Bernienomics).

Specific policies to address the effects of systemic racism.

Like what? And how does Perry Bacon define "systemic racism" anyway? If we want to go by actual meaning of words, and not Demsoc Newspeak, racial preferences fulfill the definition of "systemic racism". And yet Biden and his minions are in full support of indefinite racial preferences.

The removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a major rollback in the use of airstrikes abroad as part of antiterrorism efforts.

The biggest foreign policy blunder of the Biden administration.
So far.

Left-wing tendencies in US politics have been stronger than at any previous time since the Sixties Era, a tumultuous era of reform from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's.

And this is a very bad move.

Left-wing tendencies don't always win, but they are more and more mainstream. "These ideas have gotten traction for two reasons: They were solid on the merits and had a strong political coalition backing them."

Neither. The real reasons is that the younger generations, Millennials and Zoomers, do not really understand what a disaster socialism is.

The rich and major corporations have disproportionate power and wealth in the United States, so sweeping policy changes are necessary to make the country more equitable, particularly along racial lines.

The goal should be equal treatment of individuals regardless of things like race and gender.
Not "equity" which is equal outcomes. And when you push equity along racial lines what you really are saying is that individuals do not matter, only racial averages. It does not matter that Harvard is taking a daughter of a black Fortune 400 company vice president with a 1350 SAT over a white son of a coal miner from Appalachia with a 1550 as long as black is given preference over white.

This general argument has been bolstered both by data and research and by events, most notably the police killings of Black people that have been captured on video.

Vast majority of police killings, including of black people, are completely justified. Even among shootings that have led to protests and riots, many if not most have been justified - Michael Brown, Vonderritt Myers, Keith Lamont Scott, Anton Sterling, Jacob Blake, Winston Boogie Smith, Quanice Hayes, Patrick Kimmons, Rayshard Brooks and many others. All justified, all led to rioting.

Advocates for racial justice need only point to Charlottesville

That was one march with one death. #BLM riots led to orders of magnitude more property damage and also much more loss of life. Including an 8 year old girl in Atlanta. And yet that is being ignored by the fauxgressives who still insist these riots are for "racial justice".

and smartphone videos of excessive force. These are facts that are hard to get around,” said Ganesh Sitaraman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who was one of Warren’s top advisers during her presidential campaign.

LMAO. Fauxachontas' top advisor. She finished third in her home state.

 

[Derec]

Joe Biden is now more left-wing than he was during Jimmy Carter's, Bill Clinton's, and Barack Obama's Presidencies.

That's why I joke that Biden he is like King Theoden of Rohan under the spell of Alexandria Wormtongue and Sandersman the White.
Of course, even Sandersman is just a pale shadow of his 2016 self, before he fell under the Squad influence and became increasingly fond of identity politics and anti-Israel posturing.

Congressmembers and state politicians have also moved leftward. "A party that was very nervous about being too pro-labor, pro-feminist and pro-Black during the Carter, Clinton and Obama eras isn’t as afraid now. This is great news."

That is horrible news, but it should not be about "being afraid" or not. It should be about realizing that far-left policies - irresponsible spending in an already overstimulated economy, radical feminism, black nationalism etc. are bad policies.

Nor is it just politicians. The news media covers inequality much more than before. Universities and major philanthropic organizations are fully on board with racial-justice initiatives, universally condemning the court’s affirmative action ruling even though opinions of Americans overall are quite divided on the consideration of race in college admissions.

Most Americans are against giving preferences just because of somebody's skin color. Not even the people of California voted for reinstating racial preferences. In 2020, best year to attempt that because the country suffered a long bout of temporary insanity on race that we still haven't completely recovered from.
That academia is so far left as to think racial preferences are a good thing just shows the deep crisis of US academia.

And yes, finally somebody on the left acknowledges that mainstream news media is left-wing.

First, neither Biden nor Democratic governors are proposing super-bold policies in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt to dramatically restructure American government. ...

Like AOC's $60-100T Green New Deal with the climate paramilitaries? I guess governors are more practical than congresswomen in ultrasafe districts.

Second, the right is aggressively contesting this new progressivism. ...
Finally, voters haven’t wholeheartedly embraced this progressivism. ...

First point is duh. Of course the right will stand against the left.
Second point is heartening. It is encouraging that these policies are not as popular as fauxgressives think.

The good news is that many great policies are being implemented by the Biden administration, the 17 states run by Democrats and in large cities, which are overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled.

Pro-crime policies by far-left DAs like Alvin Bragg and George Gascon are included in the latter.

The bad news is that this progressive shift is very tenuous. With Republicans in strong opposition, voters lukewarm and even some Democrats not fully on board, the growing support for progressive ideas from 2013 to 2018 and their implementation from 2019 to 2023 could end up being a blip rather than a permanent change.

What I think is happening is that Dems are in danger of overreaching. Although Biden should be on his knees kissing Manchin and Sinema's feet. They saved him from the worst excesses of his Bernie and AOC inspired spending spree. With $3.5T Spendapalooza the inflation would have been in double digits and Fed would have been forced to raise interest rates even more steeply. That would have made any sort of "soft landing" highly unlikely.

America is progressing in a positive direction, but we are still far from a progressive nation in terms of policy.

Most of what Bacon thinks are "positives" are not. Treating blacks differently than whites is not a truly progressive value. Neither is overspending. Or banning domestic energy production and transportation.

Lucky for him and for fauxgressives, Republicans are even more of a mess right now. If ever a party system realignment was needed, it is now. Many of us are disgusted by both parties.
I voted for Biden in 2020 because he positioned himself as a moderate. But he has governed quite differently. I do not think I can vote for him in 2024. Maybe I'll vote for Manchin if he runs.

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | Biden’s Democratic Party is to the left of Obama’s. Thank a progressive. - The Washington Post

Free lunch for all students.

TANSTAAFL. Somebody always ends up paying.

Like paying for your beloved cops.

The removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a major rollback in the use of airstrikes abroad as part of antiterrorism efforts.

The biggest foreign policy blunder of the Biden administration.
So far.

Afghanistan? 20+ years of supporting a corrupt, incompetent regime is just too much. Just like the Soviet Union there and like the US in Vietnam. The previous president also recognized that, with his deal with the Taliban and agreement to pull out of that country.

Drone strikes? If there is no good strategic reason to do so, and no good intelligence on what is worth striking, then it's best not to do them. They are also not much value without some friendly army willing to move in, some boots on the ground. I can think of exceptions, like Israel attacking an Iraqi nuclear power plant in 1981, but those aren't big exceptions.

Left-wing tendencies in US politics have been stronger than at any previous time since the Sixties Era, a tumultuous era of reform from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's.

And this is a very bad move.

How so? What aspects of the Sixties era do you dislike? What reforms from back then do you dislike?

Left-wing tendencies don't always win, but they are more and more mainstream. "These ideas have gotten traction for two reasons: They were solid on the merits and had a strong political coalition backing them."

Neither. The real reasons is that the younger generations, Millennials and Zoomers, do not really understand what a disaster socialism is.

Define "socialism".

The Right likes to use bogeyconcepts without defining them, like "politically correct", "woke", "socialism", "cancel culture", ...

and smartphone videos of excessive force. These are facts that are hard to get around,” said Ganesh Sitaraman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who was one of Warren’s top advisers during her presidential campaign.

LMAO. Fauxachontas' top advisor. She finished third in her home state.

Derec, "Fauxcahontas" is an insult that right-wingers like to use.

 

[lpetrich]

Congressmembers and state politicians have also moved leftward. "A party that was very nervous about being too pro-labor, pro-feminist and pro-Black during the Carter, Clinton and Obama eras isn’t as afraid now. This is great news."

That is horrible news, but it should not be about "being afraid" or not. It should be about realizing that far-left policies - irresponsible spending in an already overstimulated economy, radical feminism, black nationalism etc. are bad policies.

"Spending" that is no worse than the deficit spending of Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, and Donald Trump. Or is deficit spending OK when Republicans do it?

Also, what are "radical feminism" and "black nationalism"?

And yes, finally somebody on the left acknowledges that mainstream news media is left-wing.

It's capitalist.

First, neither Biden nor Democratic governors are proposing super-bold policies in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt to dramatically restructure American government. ...

Like AOC's $60-100T Green New Deal with the climate paramilitaries?

Wherever those numbers are supposed to have come from. Some right-wing rag?

Climate paramilitaries? Derec, I thought that you loved police forces.

Most of what Bacon thinks are "positives" are not. ... Or banning domestic energy production and transportation.

Something out of some right-wing rag.

Renewable-energy development is a form of domestic energy production and improving the electricity grid is a form of energy transportation.

 

[Derec]

Like paying for your beloved cops.

Nobody is saying that law enforcement is a "free lunch".

Afghanistan? 20+ years of supporting a corrupt, incompetent regime is just too much. Just like the Soviet Union there and like the US in Vietnam. The previous president also recognized that, with his deal with the Taliban and agreement to pull out of that country.

Trump made a bad deal that allowed Taliban to get back into power. And Biden fumbled the withdrawal.
I agree mistakes in Afghanistan policy were made under W and Obama as well. That does not mean the withdrawal was either a good idea or that it was competently implemented. Now thanks to Dumb and Dumber (I will let you decide which of them is Trump and which Biden) we have shit like this:
Beauty salon ban in Afghanistan a blow to women's financial freedom

Drone strikes? If there is no good strategic reason to do so, and no good intelligence on what is worth striking, then it's best not to do them.

Drone strikes allow us to take out targets with no risk to US personell.

They are also not much value without some friendly army willing to move in, some boots on the ground.

Depends on the target and the objective. If the objective is to take out a high value target, such as a terrorist, there is no use for boots on the ground.
U.S. drone strike kills ISIS group leader in northwest Syria, defense official says

I can think of exceptions, like Israel attacking an Iraqi nuclear power plant in 1981, but those aren't big exceptions.

That wasn't a drone attack, but a conventional raid using manned airplanes (F16s and F15s).
An Israeli drone attack would be something like this:
Rare Israeli drone strike kills Palestinian militants in West Bank
The drone took out an active terror cell (two terrorists from Islamic Jihad and one from Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades) outside that vipers' nest Jenin.

Left-wing tendencies in US politics have been stronger than at any previous time since the Sixties Era, a tumultuous era of reform from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's.

And this is a very bad move.

How so? What aspects of the Sixties era do you dislike? What reforms from back then do you dislike?

Oh boy. A whole thread could be started on the legacy of the 60s and 70s. So let me try to be brief.
I dislike the radical movements that started during that time. The "tumult" of the era that you mentioned was in no small part due to widespread riots and also to left-wing terrorists like Weather Underground and Black Panthers/Liberation Army.
Even some good ideas like civil rights were perverted by the radical activists by the time we got into the 70s.
As just one topical example, LBJ's executive order on affirmative action only said that people will be hired "without regard" to race etc. But that quickly degenerated into its antithesis - the regime of giving preferences in hiring and college admissions based on race and gender, which has continued for decades, all the way until present day.

Define "socialism".

An economic system where means of production are, in the main, publicly owned.
As capitalist system vary, say between Sweden and US, so do socialist ones. There was a difference between USSR and Yugoslavia, with Yugoslavia having been more liberal both economically and socially.

Now, while somebody like Bernie uses the term "socialism" gratuitously, the largely Millennial "Democrats trying to unseat" establishment figures are often card-carrying members of DSA, and DSA knows what socialism means.

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.

"Economic planning" refers to "centrally planned economy" of actually existing socialist countries.
"Equitable distribution" is just less eloquent language for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

The Right likes to use bogeyconcepts without defining them, like "politically correct", "woke", "socialism", "cancel culture", ...

I have definitions for all these concepts, and I have shared them before. Of course, I am not member of "The Right".

Derec, "Fauxcahontas" is an insult that right-wingers like to use.

Ah yes, the "right-wing" boogeymen under your bed. Everybody who disagrees with you is a "right-winger", right?
Whether or not right-wingers use this moniker for Elizabeth Warren of the Wannabe Tribe, if the moccasin fits, she should wear it. Fake progressive and a fake Indian.
And besides, Trump at least calls her "Pocahontas" without any modifiers.

 

[Derec]

"Spending" that is no worse than the deficit spending of Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II, and Donald Trump. Or is deficit spending OK when Republicans do it?

US already spent a lot of deficit money on the Pandemic (quite rightly in principle, although a lot of it was misspent) which included a lot of economic stimulus and as inflation was already rising due in part to this stimulus, Biden wanted to spend an additional $3.5T on things like breeding subsidies and tax cuts for blue state rich.
I fail to see a comparison with Reagan's spending, much less to that of the other presidents you mentioned.

Also, what are "radical feminism" and "black nationalism"?

What do you mean what are they? They are well known radical social movements, aligned with the hard Left.

It's capitalist.

Corporatist. And there is still a left-wing bias in the reporting, as that Bacon guy that you quoted tacitly acknowledged.

Like AOC's $60-100T Green New Deal with the climate paramilitaries?

Wherever those numbers are supposed to have come from. Some right-wing rag?

Everything that disagrees with your positions is a "right wing" something or other? Give it a rest!
Now, pricing AOC's GND is not easy as it is a relatively vague resolution and not an actual bill, but those have been the estimates I recall seeing at the time, in 2019.
What do you think all the ideas included in the resolution would cost? And btw, if the climate crisis is so pressing, why haven't AOC et al written an actual bill yet? Why do they just keep reintroducing the non-binding resolution?

Climate paramilitaries? Derec, I thought that you loved police forces.

It has nothing to do with police.
It's a joke on AOC's "Civilian Climate Corps" that are part of her GND and that she worked so hard to sneak into B³.
A "Corps" is a military unit (several divisions strong) but the qualifier "civilian" means it's not a proper military unit, so "paramilitary" it is.

Something out of some right-wing rag.
Renewable-energy development is a form of domestic energy production and improving the electricity grid is a form of energy transportation.

Again you with the "right-wing" boogeymen.
I did not say they were against all domestic energy production.
But we will need fossil fuels for decades to come. Coal being by far the dirtiest fossil fuel should of course be phased out as soon as possible. But that means that other energy sources will have to pick up the slack. Including oil and natural gas. We will need both those energy sources well into 2050s, so why not produce more of them domestically instead of having to import them?
But the left-wing of the Democratic Party is ideologically opposed to oil and gas production and also to pipelines, which are the best way to move large quantities of fluids over long distances.
Converging on White House, Progressives Tell Biden to Cancel Mountain Valley Pipeline
Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Lead First-Ever Bill to Ban Fracking Nationwide

 

[scombrid]

The Civilian Conservation Corps was paramilitary?

 

[laughing dog]

Everything that disagrees with your positions is a "right wing" something or other? Give it a rest!

Pretty ironic coming in a response filled with "left wing" or "socialist" boogeymen alarms.

Ah yes, the "right-wing" boogeymen under your bed. Everybody who disagrees with you is a "right-winger", right?
Whether or not right-wingers use this moniker for Elizabeth Warren of the Wannabe Tribe, if the moccasin fits, she should wear it. Fake progressive and a fake Indian.
And besides, Trump at least calls her "Pocahontas" without any modifiers.

While I agree that Ms. Warren's ancestry is not relevant to her credentials or abilities, it is fact that Ms. Warren has Native American ancestry.

While it is par for your course to use a blatant derogatory term to dismiss a woman, the standard of comparison of Donald Trump does not achieve what you think it does - unless you are trying to show you are a MAGA acolyte.

 

[ZiprHead]

Derec, "Fauxcahontas" is an insult that right-wingers like to use.

Don't worry. Derec is not a right winger. He tells us that all the time.

 

[lpetrich]

Like paying for your beloved cops.

Nobody is saying that law enforcement is a "free lunch".

Getting outraged when anyone asks how to pay for police forces -- it figures.

Afghanistan? 20+ years of supporting a corrupt, incompetent regime is just too much. Just like the Soviet Union there and like the US in Vietnam. The previous president also recognized that, with his deal with the Taliban and agreement to pull out of that country.

Trump made a bad deal that allowed Taliban to get back into power. And Biden fumbled the withdrawal.

So what? It costed a lot of money and a lot of people's lives to hold on to that land. It wasn't cost-free.

 

[lpetrich]

(About the news media )

It's capitalist.

Corporatist. And there is still a left-wing bias in the reporting, as that Bacon guy that you quoted tacitly acknowledged.

Corporatist? Seems like a way of saying that the news media is Not True Capitalist.

But we will need fossil fuels for decades to come. Coal being by far the dirtiest fossil fuel should of course be phased out as soon as possible. But that means that other energy sources will have to pick up the slack. Including oil and natural gas. We will need both those energy sources well into 2050s, so why not produce more of them domestically instead of having to import them?

Evidence: {}

 

[Derec]

Pretty ironic coming in a response filled with "left wing" or "socialist" boogeymen alarms.

If you'd actually read the exchange, and not just replied in your trademark kneejerk fashion, you'd perhaps have realized the difference.
This thread, started by lpetrich, is about left-wing challengers to mainstream Democrats. Many of those challengers are self-described socialists. So using these descriptors is perfectly natural in a thread like this. On the other hand, lpetrich was objecting to any challenge to the left wing party line as "right wing" something or other, as if moderate positions do not exist.

While I agree that Ms. Warren's ancestry is not relevant to her credentials or abilities,

And yet she trafficked on her claimed ancestry when she was hired as a "woman of color" at Harvard.

it is fact that Ms. Warren has Native American ancestry.

Possibly a minuscule amount. So what?
And yet she used that to claim her ethnicity as "American Indian" on her Texas BAR registration card.

While it is par for your course to use a blatant derogatory term to dismiss a woman, the standard of comparison of Donald Trump does not achieve what you think it does - unless you are trying to show you are a MAGA acolyte.

I think Warren has fully earned the derogatory terms used for her, just like Trump has. And yet you have no problem using derogatory terms to dismiss Trump and other politicians you dislike.

 

[Derec]

Don't worry. Derec is not a right winger. He tells us that all the time.

No, I am a moderate. Why is using nicknames acceptable for Trump or W but not acceptable for somebody like Warren? Why the double standard?

 

[Derec]

Getting outraged when anyone asks how to pay for police forces -- it figures.

Who is getting outraged? I merely said that nobody thinks of police forces as free.
But law enforcement is a core competency of any government - providing school lunches is not. Especially for those whose parents can easily afford it.

So what? It costed a lot of money

Cost. It cost a lot of money. Not "costed".

and a lot of people's lives to hold on to that land. It wasn't cost-free.

Who said it was cost-free, both monetarily and with regard to human lives? But it is better than the Trump-Biden alternative we got.
And I already agreed with you that there were mistakes made by several administrations in how Afghanistan situation was handled. That does not mean hastily leaving was a good choice.

 

[Derec]

Corporatist? Seems like a way of saying that the news media is Not True Capitalist.

There certainly is too much concentration in the media business to be a free capitalist marketplace. Some antitrust spring cleaning may be in order.

But we will need fossil fuels for decades to come. Coal being by far the dirtiest fossil fuel should of course be phased out as soon as possible. But that means that other energy sources will have to pick up the slack. Including oil and natural gas. We will need both those energy sources well into 2050s, so why not produce more of them domestically instead of having to import them?

Evidence: {}

I have provided plenty of evidence in many threads over the years.
But briefly. For the claim that coal is the dirtiest fuel.

Killer Coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal?
Which is why I think we should phase out coal as quickly as possible, and also encourage (through incentives and provisions in trade deals) for countries like China and India to phase out coal as well. Herschel Walker is a dumbass who couldn't express this point coherently, but it is true that China's bad, polluted air is coming to the US, esp. the West Coast. And of course the CO₂ emissions from Chinese and Indian are raising global CO₂ levels. No use reducing our emissions within 10 years while other countries may emit more or less freely.

That means that other fossil fuels, especially natural gas will be necessary for longer for electricity production. Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants are very efficient and there is no need to discourage them being built to replace coal power plants or, even worse, to demission them prematurely. Thanks to fracking and the shale revolution, coal has been gradually replaced by natural gas for over a decade now.

And yet, many on the left want to ban fracking and oppose all proposed pipelines. In fact, left tends to hate fracked gas more than coal.
We also need to expand nuclear, as it is very safe and very low carbon. But again, there are ideological objections on the left.

As far as oil, most of it is used in transportation. Right now, a small minority of cars are EVs. And cars can easily last 15-20 years. Often you see cars even older than 20 years - it is not unusual to see cars from 90s or even older on the streets around here. That means that even if US as a whole were to ban new passenger cars and light trucks from being gasoline and diesel powered by 2035, and only California and a few other states are proposing such an aggressive timeline in the US, there will be significant number of such vehicles on the road into 2050s. Note, it is unlikely that all states or the federal government will adopt the 2035 timeline, and there is also the issue of heavy trucks and airplanes. Consequently, we will still use oil for a while yet.

What evidence or even reasoning do you have that we can get rid of most fossil fuel use within 10 years like the Green New Deal wants to do? I think that set truly is ∅. I am really curious what you will come up with. I try to be optimistic, although I am afraid you will just be evasive again while muttering about "right wing rags" ...

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | Michigan is offering universal free meals. Democrats should cheer. - The Washington Post

Consider the remarkable concept of “lunch debt,” with which a student is burdened when their parents haven’t been able to put enough money into their school account. When they get to the front of the line in the cafeteria, they might be told that because of their debt, they can have only a jelly sandwich (no hot meal for you, Oliver Twist). In some cases, kids have been forced to wear stamps or wristbands so staff (and their peers) know who they are.

How should we solve this problem? One option would be to take the already complex system through which children in public schools are fed and layer more complexity on top of it. Set up a few new means-tested programs, create funding streams that school districts can apply for, offer some grants.

Or we could just give every kid lunch.

And breakfast too, for those who want it. Imagine: Children just walking into the cafeteria and getting fed. No accounts that parents have to keep up, no time spent assessing families’ incomes or processing payments or running down parents who haven’t paid — no “lunch shaming” — none of that. Kids just eat.

Governor Whitmer says the budget includes historic investment in per-pupil funding and free school lunches
MI is now the 7th state to offer this benefit, joining CA, CO, ME, MN, NM, VT.

Those are all blue states, and this is certainly something liberals are inclined to favor, because it involves a kind of nurturing-through-benefits that liberals love. But it also serves to advance a broader goal that liberals ought to pay more attention to: making government simultaneously more ambitious and simpler.

Which is why every Democrat should advocate it, and make Republicans who disagree explain why they don’t think we should just feed all the children so they can concentrate on learning.

Currently a 3-tier system:
< 130% poverty line ($39,000 for family of 4) -- free meals
< 185% poverty line ($55,500 for family of 4) -- reduced-price meals
More than that -- full-price meals

"Families usually have to apply to receive such assistance, which creates a barrier for those who can’t or don’t want to deal with the paperwork. Then, eligibility has to be verified and tracked, and in the cafeteria itself, payments have to be processed. Many school districts have to employ full-time staff just to administer the system."

We had free lunch meals over the pandemic time, 2020 to 2022. The Admin and many Democrats wanted it to continue, but Republicans objected, and it expired.

“If you take away that paperwork, it’s such a benefit to families and students. And it also speeds up the lunch line,” says Diane Pratt-Heavner of the School Nutrition Association.

 

[lpetrich]

S.1568 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Universal School Meals Program Act of 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] (Introduced 05/11/2023)
17 cosponsors, all original

H.R.3204 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Universal School Meals Program Act of 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5] (Introduced 05/11/2023)
84 cosponsors, 72 original

I recognized lots of familiar progressive politicians among the (co)sponsors. There were no Republicans, however, and Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema was also absent.

States that Have Passed Universal Free School Meals (So Far) - CA, CO, ME, MI, MN, NM, VT (their list updated with MI)

Bills introduced - AZ, CT, DC, HI, IL, LA, MA, MD, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WA, WI

Many of them won't go anywhere, I think. MA, NV have free school meals as extensions of the pandemic program, with discussion of permanent free meals.

Universal free meals bill heads to Illinois governor’s desk and Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB2471

Mentions "Rhode Island Senate also says yes to universal free meals".

 

[lpetrich]

Of the states that passed free school meals, only one has a Republican governor. From the third of my previous post's links:

Vermont

On June 14, 2023, Governor Phil Scott allowed a bill providing universal free school meals to become law, despite opposing it and not signing. Governor Scott opposed the bill because he argued it was unfair to raise taxes to purchase meals for children of wealthy families — the cost of the program will result in a $0.03 increase on the property tax rate. Had Governor Scott chosen to veto the bill, Vermont lawmakers had the support to override the veto.

That's the usual argument for means testing.

Also, the VT legislature is mostly Democrats, and that's why he lost on that issue.

 

[lpetrich]

David Cicilline - Ballotpedia
noting
Cicilline signing off after years of fighting for progressive causes - Roll Call - "Rhode Island Democrat’s last vote will be on debt limit deal"

The seven-term Democrat from Rhode Island’s 1st District announced a little more than three months ago that he’d be leaving Congress effective June 1 to become president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation.

noting
Rep. David Cicilline to resign from Congress - Roll Call - "Rhode Island Democrat, now in his seventh term, will step down in June to head nonprofit"

I checked on his govtrack.us ideology score: 2014 #16 0.16 -- 2016 #36 0.22 -- 2018 #48 0.22 -- 2020 #64 0.22 -- 2022 #60 0.14

As a result,
Rhode Island's 1st Congressional District special election, 2023 - Ballotpedia
Primary election: September 5, 2023.
General election: November 7, 2023


Our Revolution on Twitter: "We're on track to add another member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus - @AaronRegunberg: an environmental lawyer, climate champion, Medicare for All advocate, who also has Bernie's endorsement! (pic link)" / X

Aaron Regunberg Wants To Fight Exxon And Chevron So You Won’t Have To – Blue America

Rhode Island Special Election Coming Down To One Full-On Progressive And One Corporate Moderate – Blue America