Progressive Democrats

Finally, The Physical Infrastructure Legislation Is Passed In The House Of Representatives With Bipartisan Vote!

admin 1 Comment

Finally, overnight, the House of Representatives passed the Physical Infrastructure bill that had passed the US Senate with a bipartisan vote of 69-30 in August.

And happily, there were 13 Republicans who supported the legislation in the House, making the legislation truly a bipartisan accomplishment, with a final vote of 228-206.

This is a major victory for Joe Biden and the Democrats, despite the tortuous delay of more than two months, and the $1.2 trillion of spending on roads, airports, bridges, rail systems, broadband, environmental cleanup, and electric vehicles will advance the American economy dramatically!

The nation desperately needed this legislation, and it will help the Democratic argument to keep them in the majority in the 2022 Midterm Congressional Elections a year from now!

However, with all of the excitement that this legislation engenders, it IS a fact that without the 13 Republicans, including a number who voted to impeach Donald Trump the second time, the legislation would NOT have passed, as 6 “Progressives” voted against it, including

Jamaal Bowman of New York
Cori Bush of Missouri
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

The latter four have been called the “Squad”, and the first two have been considered to be additions to the group by the news media, and seemingly, have indicated they are glad to be part of the group.

Four of the 13 House Republicans who supported the legislation also supported impeachment of Donald Trump in January 2021:

Adam Kinzinger of Illinois (not running for reelection)
Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio (not running for reelection)
Fred Upton of Michigan
John Katko of New York

Even without the other nine Republicans, those four principled Republican House members who did the right thing on both impeachment and the infrastructure bill, basically saved the legislation, as with their votes alone, the legislation would have passed 219-215!

The present House of Representatives has 221 Democrats, and 213 Republicans, so there is a working majority of just three members, although the Democrats have eight more members than the Republicans.

Democrats Lost Because They Failed To Move Swiftly On Infrastructure Legislation

admin 9 Comments

It is not unusual for the party in the White House to lose in elections a year later, and particularly in the Virginia Gubernatorial race.

But the loss of Virginia to Republicans, and the extremely close vote in New Jersey, are a danger sign, a warning sign, to Democrats for the upcoming midterm 2022 elections, when the entire House of Representatives, one third of the US Senate, and 36 gubernatorial elections will take place a year from now.

Looking back, it was a mistake to hold the Physical Infrastructure bill hostage over the Social Infrastructure bill, as the Democrats could not show any actual accomplishment on their agenda.

The progressives can be blamed for this, sadly to say, but now it is urgent that action take place on both bills very soon, so that the Democrats have a record of what they are doing to improve the lives of the American people.

One must remember that Donald Trump and the Republicans took no action on infrastructure, and would not do so on social infrastructure.

So the Democrats need to be able to show they can produce results, and play hardball in the upcoming campaigns.

The nation’s future is at stake, so no time to be depressed, and instead time to move ahead aggressively!

Desire Vs Reality: Democrats At This Point Must Settle For Half Social Infrastructure Ambitions!

admin 1 Comment

Sadly, it is now clear that Joe Biden and progressive Democrats have no choice to but accept a Social Infrastructure bill worth about half of the originally planned $3.5 trillion to help make life better for everyday Americans.

This author and scholar is furious about the impact of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, as well as some moderate Democrats in the House of Representatives.

But this is the reality when we have an evenly divided US Senate and a House of Representatives with a narrow margin of six votes.

But consider that IF Georgia had not elected two Democratic Senators in January—Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff–the first elected African American and first Jewish senators in Georgia history—the Republicans would be running the Senate under Mitch McConnell.

So the goal now is to accomplish what can be done, and try to work in the first half of 2022 for more, or make it the key campaign issue for the Congressional elections coming up next November.

Right now, celebrating what can be done, which advances the American nation, is still a major positive for Democrats, and it still will be the major domestic initiative, along with the financial assistance to deal with the COVID 19 Pandemic, that we have seen since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society nearly sixty years ago.

So let us be happy for what can be done, and work to accomplish more Democratic Senators in the midterms, as there are more Republican seats up for election, and five Republicans are leaving, and more extreme nominees are likely, which, hopefully, will cause a major Democratic edge, despite historical trends, as this is a crisis situation for American democracy!

Democrats In Disarray; Progressives Vs. Moderates—What Is The Future Of “Social Infrastructure”?

admin 1 Comment

It now seems clear that the progressive vs moderate battle in the Democratic Party is making the party look in disarray.

One must realize that with a 50-50 Senate and only a 6 vote margin in the House, this is not the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, or the time of Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society.

If Georgia’s two Senate seats had not been won in a runoff in January 2021, the opposition Republicans would be in charge, and nothing that the Democrats want would be occurring, or have the potential of occurring.

And as much as there is anger toward West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, it would not work to attack them to the point where either might consider switching parties.

So the future of “Social Infrastructure” now seems essential to pare down from the proposed $3.5 trillion over 10 years to, more likely, a figure in the $2 trillion level.

This means some of the programs proposed will have to go by the wayside or be cut back in coverage or years, an unavoidable situation, highly regrettable, but reality must set in, sadly!

The Ultimate Week Of Reckoning For Joe Biden And The Democratic Party Future

admin 2 Comments

President Joe Biden has been in office a week more than eight months, and he has had high public opinion ratings until the last month, with so many issues clashing, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan; the continuing COVID-19 Pandemic debate; and the problems at the Mexico border.

So right now, Biden is backed by only 43 percent in some polls, and the pressure is on to move ahead this week on the domestic policy agenda.

This will be seen as the ultimate week of reckoning for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party future, as debate begins on the Physical Infrastructure bill which passed the Senate with a bipartisan support of 69-30 on August 10, and the House of Representatives will vote on it this week.

The proposed “Social Infrastructure” bill, which would be the most expanded reform program since the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt is more complicated. Progressive Democrats and moderate Democrats are fighting over the price tag of $3.5 trillion over ten years, and the issue also of gaining the support of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who are resisting modifying the filibuster to accomplish the legislation.

The price tag might have to be lowered substantially, and the issue of the order of voting for the two pieces of legislation is also holding up progress, as moderates want the bipartisan bill passed now, and the more progressive “Social Infrastructure” bill to be passed later, while progressives in the party want passage of both at the same time.

Keep Top Leadership Of House Democrats Now, But They Need To Step Aside After Presidential Election Of 2020 For Newer Generation

Ronald 3 Comments

There is a rebellion in the House Democratic majority by newly elected Progressives who want a different House Speaker, House Majority Leader, and House Majority Whip.

This is tempting, but unwise, as it was Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn who brought about the victory of Democrats in the Midterm Elections of 2018, and everyone knows that Nancy Pelosi, despite her faults and shortcomings, was a master at raising money and promoting Democrats across the nation.

We also know that Nancy Pelosi was the best Speaker since Thomas “Tip” O’Neill from 1977-1987, and accomplished the best House performance in 2009-2010 in decades,including getting the passage of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. Her experience and skills are priceless at this time.

On the other hand, all three Democratic leaders will have reached the age of 80 by 2020.

So the solution is let these three leaders who brought about the Democratic revival stay as leaders for the next Congress, but with a declaration that they will groom other younger, progressive types to replace them in the next Congress, the 117th, in 2021-2022, and more influence over legislation

Key committee assignments and other House leadership positions below the top three leaders need to be given to people who have shown their ability to lead, such as Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Karen Bass of California, Joe Kennedy III of Massachusetts, Tim Ryan and Marcia Fudge of Ohio, and others as well.

It is time for the House leadership to agree to their own term limits, but usher in the future with their smart, experienced leadership for now, and groom others for such leadership in two years.

The key thing, above all, is to insure that the House Democrats show accomplishments in the next two years, and are, therefore, able to keep control in 2020, and hopefully, with a winning Democratic Presidential nominee in the 2020 Presidential election, expand their numbers,and elect a new House Speaker, Majority Leader and Majority Whip two years from now, and applaud the efforts of the veterans who made them successful in 2018 and again in 2020.

Hillary Clinton Campaigning As A “Progressive”, Against Husband Bill Clinton’s “Moderate” Presidency!

Ronald 8 Comments

Hillary Clinton is campaigning as a “progressive”, but her husband, while in office as the 42nd President, was far from progressive!

Many would say that Bill Clinton (1993-2001) was a “raging moderate” in so many ways.

Despite being attacked by Republicans incessantly, and being impeached by them as well, Bill Clinton actually cooperated with them on many issues, and was also often quite critical of liberals in his own party.

Witness:

He signed into law the end of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1995.

He signed into law the end of the federal guarantee of welfare in 1996, leaving it to the states to decide levels of support of single mothers and children, and the elderly and disabled.

He signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which was a big step back from the idea of gay equality.  Earlier in 1994, he had promoted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military, backing away from equality for gays.

He signed the Omnibus Crime legislation in 1994, which was a major crackdown on crime, and that allowed the arrest and incarceration of many young people, many of them African American and Latino, on minor drug charges, filling up America’s prisons.

He signed NAFTA into law in 1993, which undermined labor, and caused an influx of foreign goods, due to the low tariffs, now opposed by his wife.

He signed into law a repeal of much of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998,  which led to bank expansion of loans and mortgages, and much larger banks that helped to lead to the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

He called himself a “New Democrat” in 1992, criticized liberalism often, and was involved in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council group.

This does not mean that Bill Clinton did not have some really positive aspects domestically to his Presidency, but he was certainly considered by many to be a “Republicrat”, rather than a Democrat.

He, along with Jimmy Carter, were the least progressive Democratic Presidents, when compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, and also Barack Obama, after Carter and Clinton.

This might be because Carter and Clinton were Southern Democrats, but the point is that Bill Clinton, while good on some issues, was not a progressive, as his wife now is campaigning on against Bernie Sanders!

Does it mean that Hillary Clinton cannot have “learned” from the mistakes  of the 1990s, honestly?  NO, but the point is she is very different as a campaigner than her husband was!

Of course, when one thinks about it, Hillary is running for the Presidency a full generation after her husband won his second and last term, the last time he was facing the voters!