Monthly Archives: August 2018

2020 Democratic Primary, Democracy

Whether or not she’s running for president, Elizabeth Warren is picking a fight by introducing the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act

The first line of the Boston Herald ’s story about Elizabeth Warren’s introduction of the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act begins, “Warren will announce an ‘anti-corruption’ initiative tomorrow at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. – a move political operatives say looks like another blatant push toward a 2020 run.” (That would be a run for president.)

The Nation ’s opening sentence is, “Elizabeth Warren’s proposed sweeping anti-corruption legislation—which would, among other things, ban members of Congress and White House aides from owning individual stocks—has generated speculation about her plans for 2020.”

The Washington Post doesn’t mention such speculation until the fourth paragraph: “The speech also emphasized Warren’s clout at a time when Democratic bills have little chance of passage but media attention is beginning is beginning to turn to the 2020 presidential race. Reporters sprawled from chairs to the walls of a midsize room, including next to TV cameras that were capturing a six-part government reform agenda.”

Will she run or won’t she? Who knows. What’s clear is that Elizabeth Warren has long been a passionate advocate for shifting the power balance from corporations to consumers, from the abundantly wealthy to folks who work for a living, from richly paid lobbyists to voters stretching to make ends meet. This is a woman who has never forgotten her working-class roots.

The Anti-Corruption and Integrity Act isn’t a campaign ploy; it’s a timely expression of an enduring commitment.

The bill, as Senator Warren describes it, would:

  • Padlock the Revolving Door and Increase Public Integrity by eliminating both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock; locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door; and eliminating “golden parachutes”.
  • End Lobbying as We Know It by exposing all influence-peddling in Washington; banning foreign lobbying; banning lobbyists from donating to candidates and Members of Congress; strengthening congressional independence from lobbyists; and instituting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads.
  • End Corporate Capture of Public Interest Rules by requiring disclosure of funding or editorial conflicts of interest in rulemaking comments and studies; closing loopholes corporations exploit to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest; protecting agencies from corporate capture; establishing a new Office of Public Advocate to advocate for the public interest in the rulemaking process; and giving agencies the tools to implement strong rules that protect the public.
  • Improve Judicial Integrity and Defend Access to Justice for All Americans by enhancing the integrity of the judicial branch; requiring the Supreme Court follow the ethics rules for all other federal judges; boosting the transparency of federal appellate courts through livestreaming audio of proceedings; and encouraging diversity on the federal bench.
  • Strengthen Enforcement of Anti-Corruption, Ethics, and Public Integrity Laws by creating a new, independent anti-corruption agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics laws and by expanding an independent and empowered Congressional ethics office insulated from Congressional politics.
  • Boost Transparency in Government and Fix Federal Open Records Laws by requiring elected officials and candidates for federal office to disclose more financial and tax information; increasing disclosure of corporate money behind Washington lobbying; closing loopholes in federal open records laws; making federal contractors – including private prisons and immigration detention centers – comply with federal open records laws; and making Congress more transparent.

The sweep of these proposals is breathtaking. One is tempted to argue that they may go too far. Here are three reasons to push back on that notion.

First, there is a strong presumptive case for the proposals.

Consider one of the most far-reaching ideas: “banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock.” What if, for instance, a corporate titan decided to run for Congress? I am highly unlikely to be enamored of any such candidates, but my fellow citizens might beg to differ. If, say, Mark Zuckerberg decided he wanted to represent the Silicon Valley in Congress, or California in the U.S. Senate – should we insist that he give up his stock in Facebook in order to serve?

It only takes a moment’s thought to decide: Why, yes! This makes perfect sense if we want to root out corruption, self-dealing, and the failure to represent voters who can’t afford to contribute enough money to ensure ‘access’ and a respectful hearing from their Member of Congress. If the man’s ego or fortune is so closely tied to a corporate stock that divesting himself of it, and settling for investing in mutual funds (or another sound alternative), represents an obstacle to serving in Congress – then he should dismiss the idea of running for public office. He could never be expected to put aside his financial self-interest, or his pride of ownership, to focus on doing his job. The conflicts of interest would virtually ensure that he would forever be doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

And Zuckerberg isn’t the exception; he’s the rule.  Conflicts of interest – between the public good and individual self-interest – are at the heart of corruption in government. Money infects the process. We need tough rules to change this.

Getting rid of these conflicts is essential for responsive representation and meaningful democracy.

Second, the ‘goes too far’ argument looks much shakier when we look at where we are today.

The system is corrupt. Warren’s unforgiving vision is far and away better than the ugly situation we find ourselves in now.  Donald Trump was never serious about “Drain the swamp” (as he acknowledges in this video). He didn’t like the expression, had no interest in what it conveyed, but consistently got huge cheers whenever he said it. So he said it again and again. His voters – and not just fans of an outspoken woman representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate – recognized the endemic corruption in Washington.  With all our tribal divisions, with Red America on one side and Blue America on the other, this is something that Americans have in common: disdain for a corrupt political system.

Once in office Trump, of course, turned to crooks and grifters to staff the White House and fill his cabinet. That’s the ugly situation we find ourselves in. Deeper in the swamp than any time in memory.

In Warren’s words:

There’s no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. But they are not the cause of the rot — they’re just the biggest, stinkiest example of it.

Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington’s got it bad. It’s time for treatment, time to isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government.

This problem is enormous – but we’ve dealt with enormous problems before. We just need some big reform ideas and a willingness to fight for real change.

Finally, Warren’s proposals are a good place to begin the discussion. In an up or down vote in Congress today, this legislation wouldn’t come close to passing in either House (or getting a presidential signature). But – if there are Democratic majorities in the future (won with pledges to usher in reform), and a Democrat in the White House – then we can begin a discussion. That’s the first step. Whatever is deemed to ‘go too far’ can be trimmed back, if that’s what it takes to get something done.

There is general agreement – outside of Washington – that something needs to be done. There is little political will – inside Washington – to do anything. Elizabeth Warren just picked a fight on behalf of the folks on the outside.

 

2020 Democratic Primary, Democrats

Companies shouldn’t be accountable only to shareholders – Elizabeth Warren aims to fix what’s wrong with American corporations

“Corporate profits are booming, but average wages haven’t budged over the past year. The U.S. economy has run this way for decades, partly because of a fundamental change in business practices dating back to the 1980s. On Wednesday I’m introducing legislation to fix it.” – Senator Elizabeth Warren, August 14, 2018

The Financial Times Lexicon offers this definition of corporate responsibility: “Corporations have a responsibility to those groups and individuals that they can affect, i.e., its stakeholders, and to society at large. Stakeholders are usually defined as customers, suppliers, employees, communities and shareholders or other financiers.”

During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in the United States, this precept represented the mainstream view embraced by big business. Although, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” is a misquotation of GM’s CEO, this phrase aptly summed up a paradigmatic theme: when GM – and other big companies – did well, everyone benefited. And the broad benefits were direct and tangible, unlike the phantom ‘trickle down’ prosperity we’ve been promised repeatedly since Ronald Reagan became a Republican icon. In the post-World War II era (which stretched over three decades), the American economy was guided by an economic consensus: from the offices of CEOs and other executives to the factory floor – everyone should share the wealth. They all helped build it; they would all benefit from it. Communities with corporate headquarters and factories would also benefit. We were all in it together. Even government had a critical role in encouraging investment, research, education, health and safety, among other elements of a healthy thriving economy.

In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman’s 1962 offensive against the economic view of the era, he argued that corporations have only one responsibility: to maximize profits for stockholders. He argued against a broader, more inclusive view of corporate responsibility (Chapter VIII – Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor, Social Responsibility of Business and Labor):

“This view shows a fundamental misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.”

Long story short: during the following decades this view took root. Friedman’s vision, which blossomed during the Reagan years, is the economic regime of 21st century America. And actions have consequences. Few Americans – apart from the richest 1% – have reason to celebrate this outcome, as Warren notes:

That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy. In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities. But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders. Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.

In the four decades after World War II, shareholders on net contributed more than $250 billion to U.S. companies. But since 1985 they have extracted almost $7 trillion. That’s trillions of dollars in profits that might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them.

Before “shareholder value maximization” ideology took hold, wages and productivity grew at roughly the same rate. But since the early 1980s, real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise. Workers aren’t getting what they’ve earned.

Accountable Capitalism Act

Her solution – to ensure that “giant American corporations should look out for American interests” – is strikingly simple in concept: The Accountable Capitalism Act would require all corporations with more than one billion dollars in annual revenue to get a federal charter. Currently, companies are incorporated by the states, which creates a ‘race to the bottom’ landscape featuring a surfeit of corporate privileges and a dearth of social responsibilities. With this requirement, we could level the playing field.

Second, the legislation would require that corporate boards consider the interests of all principal stakeholders in making decisions.

Senator Warren notes that ‘benefit corporations,’ authorized in 33 states and the District of Columbia, provide a rough working model for her plan. (Some readers may be familiar with B-Corps, closely related – though not identical – to benefit corporations.) The prevailing approach (as articulated by Friedman) excludes consideration by corporate boards of any goals apart from maximizing shareholder value. As a Silicon Valley attorney explains on the American Bar Association website:

This real or perceived duty to maximize stockholder welfare often becomes the core guiding principle.

The benefit corporation changes the game because it turns the corporation into a dual-purpose entity with the twin purposes of optimizing stockholder welfare and creating general public benefit. It expressly authorizes corporations to provide a material positive effect on society and the environment while pursuing profits as usual. The legal architecture of the benefit corporation allows ethical corporations to put the full power of corporate law behind their social and environmental values and higher purposes.

Essentially, benefit corporations broaden the fiduciary responsibilities of corporations beyond stockholder value; our experience with benefit corporations demonstrates that the model Warren proposes has a measure of practical grounding.

Worker participation

Warren’s proposal provides for two significant changes in corporate governance – relating to worker participation and political spending – that would amplify the voices of rank and file corporate employees:

“My bill also would give workers a stronger voice in corporate decision-making at large companies. Employees would elect at least 40% of directors. At least 75% of directors and shareholders would need to approve before a corporation could make any political expenditures.”

The first change would put one of the principal stakeholder groups at the table when corporate decisions are made. Employees – who have a strong stake in the success of the company they work for – would have a voice in the company’s decisions.

Matthew Yglesias cites evidence that worker participation (‘codetermination’) in corporate decision-making has positive effects in Germany, where it is well established:

“Studies from Germany’s experience with codetermination indicate that it leads to less short-termis in corporate decision-making, and much higher levels of pay equality, while other studies demonstrate positive results on productivity and innovation.”

Those are broad, significant benefits, though the presence of employee directors undoubtedly would lead to lower share prices and much less generous compensation for CEOs – hardly welcomed by everyone.

Political reform

The second change, requiring 75% approval for the use of corporate dollars to fund political messages, would have far reaching effects on our political environment. Corruption in Washington is rampant. The Trump administration has brought a wrecking crew to environmental and financial regulation. And ideologues forming a growing majority on the Supreme Court have ushered in a political epoch where corporate dollars – given in secret, often without accountability to candidates or parties, much less to voters – can flood into political campaigns and, after candidates beholden to big business are elected, ensure ‘access’ to elected officials who craft legislation and who can impede enforcement of rules and regulations.

Recall Friedman’s comment about a corporation maximizing profits “so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.” This prerequisite is phony if corporate money – shielded from public view – sways elections and buys access. Corporations – and rich stockholders – are rigging the rules of the game.

This simple 75% rule could be a game changer.

Persons under the Constitution

Though Mitt Romney said, “Corporations are people, my friend,” they are not. They were created by government to advance a public purpose. As Teddy Roosevelt put it: “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the  creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”

Louis Brandeis suggested, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Dissenting in a 1933 case before the Supreme Court, he endorsed the race to the bottom theory and argued that corporations were created by the state and the state could regulate them to ensure public benefit. Large corporations threaten to monopolize free markets, to infringe on individuals’ liberties and opportunities, and to quash workers’ rights. Most dangerous of all: “Through size, corporations, once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct of private business have become an institution—an institution which has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state.”

Senator Warren asserts the right to make corporations accountable. This is long overdue.

Trampling individual rights

Citizens United unleashed corporate money into our political system with a shrug from Justice Anthony Kennedy that “independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.” Hobby Lobby ruled that corporations can trample on the rights of women – that is to say, of human beings. As Adam Winkler notes, “the rights of employees have to give way to the rights of the corporation.” And, “the data show that the Roberts Court is the most business-friendly Supreme Court in nearly a century.”

Professor Winkler concludes:

So while a business corporation can’t go to church, fast on Yom Kippur, or travel to Mecca for Ramadan, it can still go to court and, on the basis of religious freedom, demand to be exempted from the law that applies to everyone else. Today, women are the victim. Tomorrow, it could be LGBT people. Indeed, after Hobby Lobby, every person is at risk. Everyone, that is, except the corporate person, my friend.

Republicans, Tribalism

GOPAC memo – Language: A Key Mechanism of Control – Gingrich’s declaration of war against civil debate and respect for opponents

Written by Newt Gingrich, poll tested by Frank Luntz, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” was distributed to Republican legislative candidates throughout the country in 1990. GOPAC, a political organization founded in 1978, provided video tapes to train Republican candidates how to run for office. The memo provides “contrasting words,” a grab bag of rebukes and insults, which can be directed at opposing candidates, and “optimistic positive governing words” to describe oneself and ones vision.

This memo comprises one element of the strategic plan Gingrich brought to Congress when he was first elected. He sought to characterize political opponents as though they were enemies, making both civil discussion and comity among law makers impossible to sustain. Gingrich openly embraced  this strategy as a means of undermining public trust in Congress and impairing the institution’s effectiveness. In this 1990 memo, he spread his divisive plan to the state and local level.

Many people, across the political spectrum, bemoan the lack of civility in our political discourse. And in survey after survey, public regard for Congress is at meager levels. Neither of these things is a result of happenstance. We did not arrive here due to an unfortunate, unforeseen turns of events. This was by design.

Here is the text of the memo (from a Wake Forest University archive):

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that “language matters.” In the video “We are a Majority,” Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used at intraining sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: “I wish I could speak like Newt.”

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Pos[i]tive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

While the list could be the size of the latest “College Edition” dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Pos[i]tive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the pos[i]tive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, active(ly), we/us/our, candid(ly), humane, pristine, provide, liberty, commitment, principle(d), unique, duty, precious, premise, care(ing), tough, listen, learn, help, lead, vision, success, empower(ment), citizen, activist, mobilize, conflict, light, dream, freedom, peace, rights, pioneer, proud/pride, building, preserve, pro-(issue): flag, children, environment; reform, workfare, eliminate good-time in prison, strength, choice/choose, fair, protect, confident, incentive, hard work, initiative, common sense, passionate

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay, failure (fail) collapse(ing) deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, “compassion” is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists, endanger, coercion, hypocricy, radical, threaten, devour, waste, corruption, incompetent, permissive attitude, destructive, impose, self-serving, greed, ideological, insecure, anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs; pessimistic, excuses, intolerant, stagnation, welfare, corrupt, selfish, insensitive, status quo, mandate(s) taxes, spend (ing) shame, disgrace, punish (poor…) bizarre, cynicism, cheat, steal, abuse of power, machine, bosses, obsolete, criminal rights, red tape, patronage.

(End of memo text.)

Image (of pages one and three) from Internet Archive, which is also displays all four pages of the memo.

Democrats, Donald Trump

Women are leading the Resistance to Trump and focused on generating a Blue Wave in November

In a previous post I suggested that the greatest threat to a Blue Wave this fall was sky high Republican turnout on behalf of a president with historically low approval ratings. Trump’s campaign strategy is to gin up his base by stoking division, including (as Paul Ryan has observed) straight-up trolling his perceived enemies. Thus far, his base is sticking with him as measured by his “own party” approval ratings. He is also able to sway a huge swath of Republican primary voters.

But of course the Trump onslaught can’t help but rile up his opponents as well. What reasons do we have for believing that a Blue Wave will crest on Election Day?

First, a brief aside to consider several views of what a ‘wave election’ is. Nate Cohn tweets:

Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report, looking at the elections Cohn references – 1994, 2006, and 2010, provides a bar graph illustrating the number of seats needed by the out-party in each case plus the number of additional seats they actually won:

(Click for link at Cook Political Report and scroll down to view larger image.)

“By this metric,” she writes, “a gain of 35 seats by the Democrats should be considered a wave.”

Alexi McCammond at Axios points to a report by Ballotpedia, which begins with this definition: “We define wave elections as the 20 percent of elections where the president’s party lost the most seats during the last 100 years (50 election cycles).” Based on this criterion, Democrats would need to win 48 House seats for it to constitute a wave.

The bottom line, of course, isn’t whether the Democratic margin of victory hits a designated historical benchmark – though the political impact will be amplified as the margin of victory increases – it’s whether or not the Democrats win working majority in the House. At this stage, we don’t know, but if it happens, what will drive that victory?

“Reports from journalists and academics describe grassroots organizational activity by left-of-center citizens and groups that is unequalled since Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, and disproportionate political engagement among women that may have been last matched during the push for the Equal Rights Amendment four decades ago,” writes David Hopkins at Honest Graft, who believes this is the underreported story of 2018, receiving only “a small fraction of the media coverage that was directed to the Tea Party movement in advance of the Republican victories of 2010.”

Hopkins argues that because the media loves conflict and – unlike the Tea Party, which aggressively challenged the Republican establishment – the grassroots movement opposing Trump hasn’t fractured the Democratic Party, created anti-Washington fervor, or given rise to ideological purity.

“We are left, instead, with a picture of millions of Americans arrayed from the political left to the center, disproportionately well-educated, suburban, and professional, who are simultaneously captivated and repulsed by the day-to-day behavior of Donald Trump.”

Theda Skocpal, a scholar who studied the Tea Party and has looked more recently at the opposition to Trump, notes that while activists from both groups sound surprisingly similar (“I used to vote. Now I realize my country could be lost, and I have to do more.”), the resistance to Trump is a center-left phenomenon led overwhelmingly by women. Skopal estimates that 70% of Indivisible participants, for instance, and most of its leaders, are women.

“These are middle-class women’s networks, with some men in them. They turned around public opinion on the Affordable Care Act. They were behind Conor Lamb’s victory, along with the unions. They’re everywhere, and they have made a real difference. They’re likely to be the key to congressional victories, if they happen.”

Tea Party activists were clustered on the ideological far right and infused with anti-establishment fervor. The Resistance looks different. She notes that it is not being driven by Bernie Sanders’ followers, nor the left-most stalwarts in the Democratic Party. Instead, they are as likely to occupy the middle of the road as the far left.

“They’re not likely to be highly ideological. They care about good government, health care, education, decency toward immigrants and refugees. A lot of them got involved through church networks…..

A lot of them are progressive, but they’re also pragmatic. They don’t insist on the leftmost candidate. They’ll get behind any reasonable Democrat.”

Will the anti-Trump movement push Democrats to the House majority in 2018? There are powerful obstacles to overcome. The most prominent, as George Packer puts it: “Democrats have a habit of forgetting to vote between Presidential elections.” And the demographic groups that boast the highest level of support for Democrats – such as young people, black and Latino communities, and working class folks – are the most likely to forget.

At this stage, though, the wind is at the Democrats’ backs. A study released at the beginning of this week, revealed a surge of Democratic enthusiasm, as measured by turnout in 2018 primary elections: up 84% compared with 2014. In comparison, Republican turnout is up only 14% relative to 2014.

But the bottom line is that votes cast, not increased turnout, will carry the day on November 6. And in many of the House districts that Democrats need to flip, Republicans outnumber Democrats. Plus, Republicans are simply more reliable voters.

Consider: among the most talked about House seats that Democrats are targeting nationally are a number of California districts, seven of which have been on the Democrats’ Red to Blue wish list for more than a year. They are: CD 10 (Jeff Denham); CD 21 (David Valadao); CD 25 (Steve Knight); CD 39 (Ed Royce – retiring); CD 45 (Mimi Walters); CD 48 (Dana Rohrabacher); and CD 49 (Darrell Issa – Retiring).

In six out of these seven districts, Republicans on the June 2018 primary ballot received more votes than Democratic candidates did. The only exception was CD 49, where 92,837 votes were cast for Democrats and 89,839 votes for Republicans. Representative Issa, alone among the Republican Congressmen from these seven districts, narrowly avoided defeat in 2016. The Cook Political Report rated (as of August 9) CD 49 as ‘Lean Democratic,’ though there is a slight Republican registration edge, with a Cook Partisan Voter Index (PVI) rating of ‘R+1.’

But, while Republicans turnout more reliably, more Democrats get out to vote for general elections than for primaries. With a ballot for California’s Governor and the U.S. Senate in November, Democratic turnout will dwarf what we saw in June. So Democrats can expect to be highly competitive, if not quite favored. Cook rated four of these races ‘Republican Toss Up’: CDs 10, 25, and 39, which all have a PVI rating of ‘Even,’ along with CD 48, which has a PVI of ‘R+4.’ Cook rated CD 45 as ‘Lean Republican’ (PVI: ‘R+3’) and CA 21 as ‘Likely Republican’ (PVI: ‘D+5’).

If Democrats flip the House in November, credit a diverse group of activists throughout the country, but count on middle-class women to drive the change. As Theda Skocpol describes the movement to resist Trump, “This will not look like a far-left reinvention of Tea Partiers or a continuation of Bernie 2016. It will look like retired librarians rolling their eyes at the present state of affairs, and then taking charge.”

Photograph: editor’s photo of January 20, 2018 Women’s March in Los Angeles.

 

Democracy, Donald Trump

National security officials at odds with President regarding ongoing Russian attacks on democracy

“”In Helsinki, I had a great meeting with Putin. We discussed everything. I had a great meeting. I had a great meeting. We got along really well. By the way, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. That’s a really good thing. Now we’re being hindered by the Russian hoax — it’s a hoax, OK?” – Donald Trump (at 1 minute, 20 seconds into the video by CBC).

This dismissal of “the Russian hoax” came only hours after the White House presented a briefing from the administration’s top national security officials underscoring a pervasive, ongoing, 24/7 effort by Russia to weaken American democracy and disrupt the 2018 elections.

“The reality is, it’s going to take all of us working together to hold the field, because this threat is not going away.  As I have said consistently: Russia attempted to interfere with the last election, and continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day.

This is a threat we need to take extremely seriously, and to tackle and respond to with fierce determination and focus.”– Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

“The intelligence community continues to be concerned about the threats of upcoming U.S. elections, both the midterms and the presidential elections of 2020.

In regards to Russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to try to weaken and divide the United States.” – Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence

“Our democracy itself is in the crosshairs.  Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, and it has become clear that they are the target of our adversaries, who seek, as the DNI just said, to sow discord and undermine our way of life.” – Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security

When reporters asked Mr. Coats about the substance of the Helsinki meeting – 17 days earlier, which the President boasted about in the video above, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he was not privy to what was said: “I’m not in a position to either understand fully or talk about what happened at Helsinki.”

Photo: screen grab from C-SPAN.

2020 Democratic Primary, Democrats

Senator Kamala Harris introduces Rent Relief Act to help 13.3 million working families

California Senator Kamala Harris, who has been talked about as a Democratic candidate for president, has introduced legislation to provide refundable tax credits to benefit 13.3 million rent-burdened families. ‘Refundable’ means they would receive cash, even if they owed no taxes.

In many urban areas – including in Senator Harris’s home state of California and especially in places with booming economies, such as the Silicon Valley – the lack of affordable housing constitutes a crisis. The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordability as “the extent to which enough rental housing units of different costs can provide each renter household with a unit it can afford (based on the 30-percent-of-income standard).” The National Low Income Housing Coalition, which accepts this standard, has documented a significant national gap between wages and rents.

“A full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 needs to work approximately 122 hours per week for all 52 weeks of the year, or approximately three full-time jobs, to afford a two-bedroom rental home at the national average fair market rent. The same worker needs to work 99 hours per week for all 52 weeks of the year, or approximately two and a half full-time jobs, to afford a one-bedroom home at the national average fair market rent.”

The Rent Relief Act would provide tax credits for renters across the country with limited incomes who pay more than 30% of their incomes for rent and utilities. Below $25,000, the subsidy would be 100% of the cost of rent that exceeds 30% of income. In very expensive areas, the income ceiling would be $124,999, which would yield a 25% subsidy of the excess. (That’s not a lot of spending power for a family of four in some cities.)

This proposal certainly represents a bracing expansion of federal policy related to renters (though the tax code is strewn with ample benefits for homeowners). Irony watch: while this is more grist for the mill in talk of the Democratic Party’s move to the left, and chatter about democratic socialism, especially since the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – the Rent Relief Act is actually a revision of a proposal introduced by Representative Joe Crowley, the old guard Democrat whom Occasio-Cortez defeated.

It’s easy to find fault with this approach to high rents based on the principle of supply and demand: if there is a shortage of affordable houses and apartments, then the obvious solution is to build more. As the supply goes up, prices will come down. Instead, in cities with the most expensive rental rates, restrictive zoning laws, minimal parking requirements, and opposition by residents to denser housing in their neighborhoods (and in the neighborhoods through which they commute each day), ensure that the supply of affordable housing is severely restricted where it is most needed (including in prosperous cities in blue states, such as California). So local regulations and neighborhood opposition quashes the development of new housing.

The virtue of Harris’s proposal is that it is straightforward in concept: rents are too high for wage earners, so give them money to pay the rent. Whether refunding taxes or providing subsidies, the federal government is capable of dispensing money.

The most successful anti-poverty program in history is Social Security. As complicated as the rules are, it’s simple in concept, and that’s one reason for its success. Folks need not be well-versed in Social Security rules to understand that they (and their employers) support the program with taxes, and when they retire, they draw monthly benefits.

In my view, Living Wage Ordinances (locally) or expanded Earned Income Tax Credits (nationally) would make more sense. Why line the pockets of landlords with rental subsidies? With increased EITC funding, the government could provide additional income – unrestricted – so folks could decide how to spend the money: food, clothes, education, transportation – whatever – not just housing.

Of course conservatives will object to creation of another ‘entitlement.’ Where will the money come from? Kevin Drum has an idea – or rather eleven (each with a footnote) – on places to adjust the budget to come up with the cash.

It’s all a matter of priorities. Do we help low-wage workers struggling to pay the rent, or do we dish out more tax reductions to the rich?

Photo: Senator Harris on Twitter.