( – promoted by David Dayen)

Our Progressive Coalition: A Reason to Believe

By Brad Parker
11/19/07

When we were formulating our strategy timeline for the “Progressive Plan” – published by the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party in August 2006 – we called for a coalition meeting of all outside the Democratic Party Progressive groups with all Progressive Caucuses inside the state Democratic Parties in the fall of 2007. Up until two weeks ago it looked as though this strategic prognostication might not be realized as the rest of the timeline has been. As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving we can be thankful that in two significant ways this call to coalition has not only been realized but in mysterious and stimulating ways.

First – a move to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein for her votes to confirm Leslie Southwick and Michael Mukasey, that began in the Executive Board of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP, caught fire across California, resulting in a spirited effort to do just that at the CDP Executive Board meeting in Anaheim this past weekend. Mal Burnstein – Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP – first brought the resolution of censure to the caucus board. It was unanimously passed.

Then, it began to be moved and passed at Democratic Clubs and County Central Committees. That was concurrent with an all-out and energetic promotion by the Courage Campaign. Before long the censure movement was joined by MoveOn, PDA, local DFA and Wellstone chapters and more than 30,000 Californians. Even though the Resolutions committee of the CDP voted to stifle debate and not hear the resolution – the Progressive, Women’s and Irish-American caucuses passed it. California was on fire again.

Less heralded – but just as important – was the announcement of an Immigration Town Hall to be held at the 2008 CDP Convention in San Jose this March. This initiative also originated in the Progressive Caucus Executive Board. Over the last six months, the Labor caucus embraced it, as did the Women’s and African-American caucuses, finally receiving the impramatur of CDP Chairman Art Torres at this weekend’s CDP meetings. It is a bold idea to bring together representatives of all of the caucuses in the Party who choose to participate and discuss an issue central to the upcoming 2008 campaigns in a setting that encourages listening, dialogue and mutual respect. A coalition of seemingly disparate groups within the Party to form a consensus is also a feature of the “Progressive Plan” strategic timeline and was slated for the 2008 CDP Convention, where it will now come to fruition. Where the members lead, the leaders must follow.

Bound up in the drama surrounding these policy and action determinations has been the question – “Who is a Democrat?” and “What does the Democratic Party stand for?” While there are as many answers as there are registered Democrats, both questions taken together point toward a larger phenomena that we are all participating in – futuring the Democratic Party.

Broadly speaking there are two forces that might be categorized as: the progressive membership (inside and outside of the Party – the activists) and the current leadership (both Party leaders and elected officials) who are debating these questions and pointing to their divergent philosophies for answers. Current leadership seems to be embattled and demanding unity behind incumbents and campaigns as well as established Party funding, endorsement, rules, resolutions and platform procedures. Progressive membership is rallying for more openness, access to decision-making apparatus, accountability of electeds (and their voting records), transparency in financial decisions, disbursement of campaign funds to all candidates and open debate of all issues. It may appear that these two camps are antithetical but that is not necessarily so.

Current leadership claims that critique of Democrats by Democrats leads to Republican victories. Progressive membership counters that lack of critique by Democrats of both Democrats and Republicans leads to inertia, capitulation and complicity in Republican malfeasance. So, what can bring the apparently opposed views into consilience? How can the Democratic Party develop improved strategies for advancing the Liberal Ideal? What is the best way to bring about and end to Neo-Con social policy and Neo-Liberal economic policy? When do Democrats do best at winning elections? The answer is simple and profound; give the citizens of America a “reason to believe”.

In a nation mired in scandal – political, business and religious – people have lost hope. When Party leaders are incommunicado from the citizenry. When elected officials are enjoying fine wine, luxury travel, substantial healthcare and pension plans yet the citizens have none. When politicians tell you to trust them and yet they betray their own families – in public. When the first consideration on any vote is how will it help an elected to get reelected. When too many people are dying for no reason in an illegal war of intervention in a foreign land. When there’s too much cash from Crony contributions spilling out of the campaign accounts of electeds and the working stiffs have nothing then the people become mired in despair and the Constitution gathers dust in a forgotten corner. Our job as Progressives is now, has always been and will remain to give people a reason to believe again.

While we are dispatching the Republican Anarchy Collective – and we are getting there – we must take on the Crony corruption in the Democratic Party. The source of the corruption – besides primal greed and narrow self-interest – is the theoretical premise foisted upon our Party by the DLC. Their premise was and is; money and business are the primary concerns of the Party along with aggressive national security. Of course this thesis was always false but with a salesman like Bill Clinton the Party couldn’t resist. Now twenty years of devastating electoral losses later the membership has woken up and begun to swarm around the Progressive movement. In the end money was not the way to win but the way to lose. Even the current leadership and electeds are beginning to tire of carrying the Clinton/DLC machine around on their backs.

So, our job as a Progressive coalition remains the same. We are here to give the people, the sullen citizens, a reason to believe; a reason to believe that their vote will be counted as cast, a reason to believe that the Liberal Ideal is not dead, a reason to believe that principles win elections not big donors, a reason to believe that they should be active civically, a reason to believe that the Democratic Party is different from the Republican Party, a reason to register as Democrats and vote for Democrats. In short – the Progressive membership’s emphasis on principles is the cure for what ails the body politic. Our forming swarming coalition is the reason to believe.

This past weekend showed that everyone, members, leaders, activists and electeds alike could and should find a way to work together for the enlightened self-interests of all. It put a fine note on the reality that only the freedom of “dissent” can lead to the “consent” of the governed. It also proved that accountability and standing for something is not only possible but also essential to being a Democrat and the future of the Democratic Party. Most importantly – the Progressives inside the Party acted with decorum and civility – allowing the strength of our ideas and our tough-mindedness to carry our message while many in the opposition lost their cool and relied on bellicose belligerence to defend their derisory obfuscation. Our principled ideas and actions are our strength and speak louder for us than emotional outbursts ever will.

If Democrats want to win again then they only need to stand up, show up and speak up for the principles we all hold dear rather than the large donor’s pet projects. Our Progressive Coalition not only stands for all Americans but is the positive force forging a reason to believe while creating  – E Pluribus Unum. To paraphrase Hubert Horatio Humphrey – I’m as pleased as punch to be part of this historic citizens movement of the Twenty First Century. I can’t wait for another wild weekend!

Test Data

test

Nancy Pelosi appointed two of our own – Congresswoman Hilda Solis and Congressman Jerry McNerney – to the newly created Select Committee on Global Warming.  More below.

Two Calif lawmakers appointed to new global warming panel

Friday, March 9, 2007

(03-09) 09:54 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) —

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has tapped two House members from California to serve on a new committee tasked with offering recommendations on global warming.

Reps. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, and Hilda Solis, D-El Monte, will sit on the panel along with seven other Democrats and six Republicans, Pelosi announced Friday.

There are no California Republicans on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which was approved by the House 269-150 on Thursday over objections from Republicans who said the panel was unnecessary or its budget could be better used elsewhere.

The committee, to be chaired by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., will hold hearings and recommend legislation. In a concession to existing committees, it will not write legislation and will exist for only two years.

Pelosi is intent on getting legislation to combat global warming through the House now that Democrats run Congress. It’s also a priority in the Senate, where Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is taking the lead.

http://sfgate.com/cg…
http://www.house.gov…
http://www.house.gov…

The Progressive Action Coalition urges all registered Democrats who live in the 42nd Assembly District of California (Hancock Park, Beechwood Canyon, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Hollywood Hills, Beverly Glen, Bel Air, Brentwood, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Valley Village) to vote at the 42nd Assembly District Democratic Party delegate elections on:

Sunday, January 14 2-4pm
Beverly Hills Library Auditorium
444 N. Rexford Drive
(a $5 fee may be charged to pay for the facility)
You are permitted to vote without staying for the event program.

The Progressive Action Coalition, a group of Progressive activists including  members of the CDP Progressive Caucus, Labor groups, Stonewall Democratic Club, West Hollywood Democratic Club, Valley Grassroots for Democracy, Sherman Oaks Democratic Club, Action Democrats, San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Los Angeles County Young Democrats, Stonewall Young Democrats  and Drinking Liberally, are proud to announce a joint coalition to fight for Progressive Values in an inclusive way, working with others instead of dividing ourselves, concentrating on action instead of merely giving opinions and organizing to keep the California Democratic Party’s dedication to Progressive values strong, but united.

Here is what we believe in:

  * Fair Public Financing of Elections,
  * Immediate beginning of withdrawal from Iraq,
  * Comprehensive investigations of the Bush administration (which may lead to  impeachment),
  * Living wage
  * Universal health care for all

The Progressive Action Coalition urges you to support:

ANDREW LACHMAN – Executive Board Representative – He is the current E-Board Rep for the 42nd AD and has been key in helping and mentoring Progressives as a member of the Progressive Caucus, the SoCal Grassroots Steering Committee and working with groups such as Democrats for Israel, Stonewall Young Democrats and the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley.  He is endorsed by Paul Koretz and members of ADA, Kitchen Table Democracy, Westside Grassroots and many others.

Male Delegates:

NORMAN CHRAMOFF – Member of the Progressive Caucus and Stonewall Dem Club, he is an area coordinator for the 42nd AD Permanent Precinct Organization.  He has worked with unions such as UTLA and serves as West Hollywood Facilities Commission Chair.

JOSH ENGLANDER – Former field representative for Paul Koretz, the author of California’s impeachment resolution.

VINCENT JONES – Former field representative for U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer , Executive Director of United for Health Justice and organizer of the Los Angeles chapter of Drinking Liberally.

ELI LIPMEN LIPSCHULTZ – Treasurer of San Fernando Valley Young Democrats and Public Affairs Director of a noted Progressive Jewish organization.

J.W. MOORE – Local IATSE member and organizer with the LA Labor Federation, Moore lives in West Hollywood and is a member of the West Hollywood Democratic Club.

MICHAEL VORNDRAN – Vorndran was a member of LA Out for Dean, is past President of Stonewall Young Democrats and currently serves as Stonewall Democractic Club’s Communications Director.

Female Delegates

ADRIENNE BURK – Is a current delegate for the 42nd AD and was a co-founder of Kitchen Table Democracy, a progressive salon.

DORIS DENT – Doris is a member of Valley Grassroots for Democracy and was a precinct captain in 2004 and 2005.

LEE FRANK – a retired teacher, Lee is a member of the CDP Progressive Caucus and Action Democrats.  She is a precinct area coordinator in Sherman Oaks.

HELEN HARTMAN – Is a member of Assemblyman Mike Feuer’s Health Advisory Committee, where she supports SB 840 (Universal Single Payer Health Care).  She is an active senior who is part of the Sherman Oaks Dem Club and the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley.

SUSANNE SAVAGE – Works for the Courage Campaign and is chair of Democracy for America Los Angeles (DFALA).  She worked for the Alliance for a Better California and City Councilman Eric Garcetti.

These people are dedicated to advocating Progressive values through organization, action and inclusion.

Please help them make the California Democratic Party a party we can be proud of.

This past week, much to everyone’s surprise, Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to slip a proposal to increase the minimum wage into a bill funding the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

Faced with the specter of having to vote against increasing the wage floor from its current embarrassing level of $5.15 to $7.25 by Jan. 1, 2009, Congressional Republicans snapped into action and pulled the bill.

This is what these brave souls do in election season when they don’t want to have to go back to their districts and answer questions as to why it’s ok to cut hundreds of billions in rich people’s taxes but deny the working poor a boost.

Well, I say: “Not so fast, guys.  Let’s chat about this for a few minutes.”

Not let me get this straight.  Last month, you passed $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains.  When tax cuts target investment income, the benefits flow to the wealthy, and these cuts are exhibit A: they reduce millionaire’s tax payments by $43,000, and those of middle-income families by $20.  Sorry, that’s not a typo.  It’s what you get when you put the YOYOs in charge of fiscal policy.

Wait a second, where you going?  I’m not done.  Set a spell…

After you finished that master stroke, you came alarmingly close to repealing the estate tax, a gift to the Paris Hilton’s of the world that would have cost $1 trillion over 10 years.  A few stalwarts blocked you, but you’re sure to be getting back to this one first chance you get.

Other than that, let’s see…you made a lot of noise about gay marriage and flag burning, and you guys in the House just passed the Iraq War Resolution supporting the administration on Iraq and rejecting the setting of a date for troop withdrawal.

Oh, and you raised your own pay by $3,300.  In fact, you’ve raised your own salaries by about $35,000 since the last minimum wage increase.

But when it comes to raising the minimum wage, you pull the bill.

Let’s review a few facts.  The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 since September 1, 1997.  Come this December, you will tie the longest spell on record for ignoring the labor market’s wage floor (i.e., the Reagan years, from 1981 to 1990, when Bush I signed an increase).  And since it is not adjusted for inflation, its buying power has eroded by 25% since then.

That’s why the current minimum wage, in real terms, is at its lowest value since 1955.  Compared to the average wage, it’s at 31%, the lowest level on record going back to 1947, meaning those stuck at or near the minimum wage are falling further behind the rest of us.

As always, your rationale for not raising the minimum is that it would hurt low-wage workers, whose employers would have to fire them when the wage mandate priced them out of the labor market (one can’t help but note that this concern doesn’t come up when you mandate your own pay hikes).

That would be a plausible argument, were it not for the fact that tons of careful research has disproved it.  The federal minimum wage has been raised 19 times by Congress since its introduction in 1938.  Eighteen states, covering about half of the national workforce, have minimum wages above that of the Federal level.  And over 100 cities have living wages—a higher minimum that applies to workers on city contracts or at firms with local government subsidies. 

In other words, more than any economic policy, we’ve had hundreds of “pseudo-experiments”—rare in economics—that allow us to test the impact of wage mandates on various outcomes.  These experiments allow us to compare before and after, or, even better, compare nearby places that face similar economic conditions but have different minimum wage laws.

The question that has received the most scrutiny is whether increases in the minimum wage lead employers to lay workers off.  You probably don’t want to hear the results from me, but here’s how Nobel laureate in economics, Robert Solow, put it: “The main thing about this research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small.”

A great example comes from the last Federal minimum wage increase, back in 1996-97.  The usual suspects predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase from $4.25 to the current level of $5.15.  Instead, low-wage workers experienced the strongest job market in 30 years.  Poverty fell to historic lows, particularly for the most disadvantaged workers, such as less-skilled minorities and single-mothers. 

On the other hand, there no such body of evidence supporting your claims that cutting taxes for the rich actually accomplishes anything beyond distributing wealth up to the scale.  Did I mention that profits as a share of national income are at a 39-year high?

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not implying for a nanosecond that an increase in the minimum wage would offset the damage you guys have done over the past few years.  In that scheme of things, raising the pay of about seven million low-wage workers by less than two bucks is a token gesture which you will hopefully be forced to make so you can show your faces again in public.

But it would make an important difference to those workers, so you should do it.  The fact that I even have to argue with you about it is what’s so painful.