 |
The Census: A Democratic Party Leadership Debacle
SHORT TAKES: The Good And Bad In Biden's Speech; Wage Theft Retaliation Fund; The Unequal "SheCession"; Drug Prices Rip-Off; The Fed Is Doing Right; Will Greens Run Germany?
| Jonathan Tasini | Apr 29 |
LONG TAKE
I was going to explore a new trendy fraud— “inclusive capitalism”— but that will have to wait another week thanks to the hand-wringing, and misplaced focus, about the numbers released Monday by the Census Bureau that determine which states gained and lost Congressional seats in the once-every decade redrawing of the district lines that will be in place until the next census in 2030.
Top-line: this is *potentially* a disaster long in the making for millions of regular people but not as big a problem—and, praise be, actually a boon!—for the Democratic Party leaders, operatives and consultant leeches who no matter what happens will continue to make oodles of money.
To back-up: to be sure it matters how many seats each state will have come next year—and it really matters in a state that loses a seat because at least one incumbent Congresscritter is soiling his or her pants at the prospect of being out of a job.
But, what *really* matters is who has the power to draw the lines of the new districts. And that is a bleak picture for the Democratic Party. Some facts, courtesy of the National Council of State Legislatures:
Republicans have full control of 23 states (both legislative bodies plus the executive branch) including in AZ, FL, TX, GA, OH & NH. That means in those states they have virtually no obstacle preventing the party from fashioning districts anyway they please and, short of (likely) lawsuits to challenge the lines (typically, based on civil rights arguments), Republicans have the final say in close to a majority of states;
Republicans control 62 percent of all state legislative chambers so even where they don’t have full control, they have great influence on how lines are drawn. For example, Wisconsin has a Democratic governor but Republicans control both state houses, and will, thus, have effective veto power in that state, as they will also have in Minnesota by virtue of controlling the state Senate;
Even in states where Democrats have apparent full control, it’s not all smooth sailing. In Maine, Democrats control the governorship but are short of the two-thirds majority in the legislature to pass a redistricting map.
The disaster for people is perhaps quite obvious, and goes beyond the power in Congress, and so whether there is a shift of a few seats one way or the other is really not the main point. Effectively, we have two countries when it comes to trying to pay the bills—not to mention other non-economic issues.
Take the state minimum wages: in half the states—generally speaking “Blue” states—the state minimum wage is at $15-an-hour or targeted to rise to that level in the near future; in the other half of the states—generally speaking, “red” states—the minimum wage is stuck around the poverty-level federal rate of $7.25. I am not suggesting, by the way, that $15-an-hour is sufficient. It isn’t. Yet, more than doubling your hourly income does mean something.
So, how did we get here? The short version (which will be part of a much longer forth-coming treatise about the woeful state of the party):
The long-running complaint from progressives about the party can, ironically, be seen right now: Joe Biden continues to be popular precisely because he’s talking about wildly popular ideas (see below in “Short Takes”) that rest upon a fundamental idea: government is a force for good and, in a post-pandemic era, expanded government is a force for good to fix the deep holes exposed by COVID-19, and these fixes should be paid for in good part by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy (though the hike in taxation levels proposed by Biden are too low, as I’ve written before).
Contrast that with the mantra that began with Bill Clinton, proclaiming that the “era of big government is over”—a mantra that ceded huge swaths of the country to Republicans, on policy and on rhetoric, for three decades by embracing policies that hurt lots of folks: “free trade”, de-regulation, media concentration, and a spectacularly failed health care gambit that simply continued the dominance of Big PHARMA and the insurance industry thieves, to mention just a few. How else do you explain losing elections to lightweights (again, being charitable) like George W. Bush and Donald Trump?
Protests to the contrary, the national Democratic Party hasn’t cared much about winning state-level races as long as it had the illusion of power in Washington, D.C. Evidence: during Barack Obama’s two terms, the party lost well over 900 state legislative seats which set the stage for the current redistricting nightmare. The consequences are quite tangible for people, separate and aside from the redistricting calculation—when you don’t control a state’s government, especially in a state without a ballot initiative option, people are not going to see a higher state minimum wage. They will go hungry.
This, however, isn’t about glorifying state parties as the Oracles of wisdom and dynamism: a majority of state and local party organizations are a mess, run by petty tyrants who use the party operations to build their own political power bases by doleing out favors and jobs, which also means keeping the circle tight and stiff-arming challengers. This isn’t simply a “red state” phenomena: Just look at the New York State Democratic Party—both at the track record of hacks, bullies, and convicted felons who have had a hold over the party for decades AND the slow, but sure, erosion of the tyranny at the top largely because a sea of activists are storming the palace in the face of stiff opposition from those holding on for dear life (a very slow process and one that has more failures than victories—to this point). Your premier, most recent example: the NY Democratic Party state chair, Jay Jacobs, uses his position to viciously attack, in unhinged rhetoric, a primary challenger of a long-time incumbent—what message does that send to people about the openness and vibrance of the party? You know the answer.
Think about it: when was the last time you heard a relatively politically-engaged person point to the local Democratic party as a source of inspiration or a place to turn to, rather than an obstacle or, at best, unreliable? And I was just describing the relatively competent party operations! Way too many are just shells, steered (charitably speaking) by people who have no particular interest in opening the doors to new blood because new blood might take out the old-time leaders.
The Census outcome is a big boon for some: piles of money will be dumped into redistricting fights that will enrich the same coterie of losers, especially campaign consultants, who have ceded power to Republicans, election cycle after election cycle, yet, Phoenix-like, the same losers rise from the ashes of every defeat, unscathed, ready to produce reams of new polling, “deep thinking”, “new messaging” and new “strategies” to keep the rivers of donor money flowing into a tight little circle. I distinguish “consultants” from the campaign organizers who are tied to, and committed to, the growth of a union or a political organization with community roots.
Consultants like the game the way it is, win or lose—as long as there is a ton of money being spent, which just doesn’t happen in most state legislative races because the real money consultants make is by taking a percentage of the TV ad buys, and big TV ad buys just aren’t common in state legislative elections. Consultants often charge high basic fees but each useless expensive campaign mints many more millions for the media consultants: take as two recent examples Jaime Harrison’s burning through $100 million in an entirely pointless 2020 campaign—other than to raise his profile—against Lindsey Graham or the even dumber campaign by Amy McGrath against Mitch McConnell, which also set upwards of $100 million on fire. These were foolish campaigns once you consider how that money could have been better spent to win local races and/or build lasting local political organizations.
By the way, winning is not a criteria for continuing to feed at the trough. You can tick off the repeat losers—Guy Cecil (who pockets obscene amounts of cash to run a super PAC) and the spectacularly incompetent Robby Mook come to mind—who just emerge again and again for one reason only: they cultivate rich donors and/or political patrons who either really don’t understand campaigns (that’s true of most donors who probably have never knocked a single door of an actual voter) and/or simply appreciate people who kiss the ring in exchange for access, money and jobs. Hey, it’s human nature.
Important caveat: I am not suggesting that redistricting is destiny. Good organizing and good candidates will make a difference. But, it shouldn’t even be a close call—if there was a party, over several decades, that wasn’t in the grips of bad policy and even worse operatives.
SHORT TAKES
The Speech…It was too long… but, on policy, there was a lot of good stuff, and progressives should grab on to what was good and help make it happen. Hell, Biden made Barack Obama look like the true centrist he was!
The good:
The underlying idea that government can be a force for good.
The explicit repudiation of trickle-down economics from the House podium—that gives license to a broad re-thinking of economic orthodoxy on taxes and other policies that Democrats have been too afraid to challenge, and even embraced in many cases.
The explicit calling out of rich people who don’t pay taxes and the obscene wealth accumulation by billionaires during the pandemic.
The outreach to transgender people… “I want you to know that your president has your back”. I mean, seriously, my jaw dropped hearing the humanity coming from Biden. Bravo!
The commitment to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices—that’s a shift, I believe, from the murmurings that the Administration would not back such a move. That’s not only huge for millions of people—it also means a crap load of money gets saved for taxpayers.
And, of course, the child care, leave and other policies—enacting those ideas will make the lives of lots of people a whole lot better.
The not-so-good:
The failure to embrace Medicare For All, which is a next logical step after promising to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices—it’s the same economic argument, really.
Endorsing the idea that it’s ok for billionaires to exist and for people to make fabulous fortunes at the expense of everyone else.
The continued embrace of “American Exceptionalism” as a reason to compete against other nations: the very seeds of global conflict and climate disaster over many decades.
The specific anti-China vibe—a bad omen.
Screwing workers on the job is just a small cost of doing business for most companies: the penalties for breaking whatever worker-protection barebones laws are on the books is minuscule—and never comes out of the CEOs pocket and only very, very rarely ends up with jail time (“rarely” as in you could count one hand the number of times over the last 20 years an executive spent even a day in jail for breaking worker-protection laws).
Here’s one idea worth considering: a retaliation fund. From Laura Huizar of the National Employment Law Project, a retaliation fund:
…would allow workers to quickly access meaningful financial support when they have reported wage theft and subsequently lost their job or faced a pay cut due to retaliation. By offering some relief from retaliation when workers need it most, this fund would help fill the urgent gap in the current enforcement landscape that forces workers to remain silent or risk everything by speaking up.
Her whole explanation is here.
It’s a fairly established fact that women have been hit especially hard in the pandemic-driven economic collapse. It’s been dubbed, then, the “SheCession”. But, there’s some nuance on the hurt felt by women, as this report explores:
The “shecession” has not been evenly distributed, and women whose employment and labor force ties were already under strain have been especially hard hit. Women-dominated industries have suffered more profound job losses throughout the crisis, and many of the remaining working-class jobs were on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic; over 70 percent of the frontline workforce meets our definition of working-class compared to just over 65 percent of the workforce as a whole. Most jobs in these industries are not compatible with remote work, which poses a particular challenge for working-class mothers, many of whom have seen their care-giving responsibilities increase amid school and day care closures. The paucity of affordable childcare in the era of remote schooling is especially problematic for working-class parents whose jobs require them to physically leave their homes. In-person work during the pandemic also comes with an increased risk of exposure to a deadly virus, despite the fact that many working-class jobs do not offer paid leave.
You won’t be surprised by this: drug prices are outrageously high. How high? At the behest of Bernie Sanders, in the context of his drive to pass legislation empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices (which the Biden Administration, under pressure from Big PHARMA, opposes), the General Accountability Office took a look at this. Highlights via Sanders press statement:
the U.S. paid 4.36 times more than France, 4.25 times more than Australia, and 2.82 times more than Canada for the selected drugs, which represent a sample of the drugs with the highest Medicare Part D expenditures and use.
The cash price of Epclusa (28 tablets), which treats Hepatitis C, or an infection that attacks the liver, is $36,743 in the U.S. but $17,023.63 in Canada.
The cash price of Harvoni (28 tablets), which also treats Hepatitis C, is $46,570.33 in the U.S. but $19,084.54 in Canada
The cash price of Xarelto (30 tablets), which treats blood clots, is $558.33 in the U.S. but $85.44 in Canada
The cash price of Incruse Ellipta Inhalation Powder (30 inhalations), which treats chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or a group of lung diseases which block airflow and make it difficult to breath, is $411.33 in the U.S. but $53.31 in Canada
The cash price of Anoro Ellipta Inhalation Powder (30 inhalations), which also treats COPD including bronchitis and emphysema, is $514.33 in the U.S. but $84.99 in Canada
There is a lot to not like about the Federal Reserve Board as an institution, not the least of which it’s run by bankers. But, strike me dead, it’s worth saying that, during this pandemic crisis, the Fed folks, and specifically, the chair of the Fed, Jerome Powell, have made the right moves—at least to date. I watched Powell’s press briefing Wednesday afternoon (and this is why you know I have a jolly social life) and he repeatedly said the right things. He said:
Inflation is NOT a problem. You will hear this chatter coming up, and it’s driven entirely by bond holders and Wall Street: “the sky is falling, prices are going up!” Well, duh, after a rapid economic collapse and, then, a recovery that was entirely about beating a pandemic (i.e., wasn’t some problem with core economic issues), there will be transitory price increases. Some of that, Powell said, will have to do with bottle necks in supply—logically, people will be out there wanting to spend but you can’t just flip a switch to turn on long global supply chains that were put in suspended animation for a full year so those bottle necks will create shortages and, because of the shortages, prices will go up for some goods—but that will pass.
The Fed’s inflation target is 2 percent. You may recall, actually, that, pre-pandemic, there was some concern that inflation was so non-existent that the real threat was DEFLATION and the Fed was focused on getting inflation a little higher. When I hear a target of 2 percent and these fucks on Wall Street worrying it might be a bit higher for a short period of time (“transistory” in Fed-speak), I think: inflation is dead as an economic threat if you are counter-posing that to the inflation of the late 70s-early 80s which reached almost 15 percent in the spring of 1980—almost entirely driven by the oil crisis/embargo (another reason to get rid of fossil fuels, as an aside). So, we should not let the cries of inflation undercut the need to do the big fiscal spending proposed by Biden (which some of the inflation pearl-clutchers will say will “overheat” the economy together with the monetary policy of the Fed).
He talked about the main goal of getting people back to work, and, especially, emphasized the unequal effect of the pandemic economic collapse on low-wage workers and workers of color.
To bring employment back, the Fed will continue to keep rates low and continue to add to its balance sheet by buying $80 billion a month in assets.
There is a decent shot that when Germany conducts its national election in September, voters will choose the candidate of the Green Party, Annalena Baerbock, to replace Angela Merkel as chancellor. Baerbock is polling just a few points behind the fractured conservatives (Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union and the CDU’s ally in Bavaria, the Christian Social Union) who may lose partly because of an often bungled response to the pandemic. Even if Baerbock falls just short, it’s almost a certainty that the Greens will have a role in creating a coalition.
Why does this particularly matter? Germany has a first-among-equals role in dictating economic policy throughout the European Union—largely because of the power and strength of the Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank. For most of her tenure Merkel embraced economic austerity and was an uber deficit hawk—which meant that poorer countries in the EU essentially bore the brunt of Merkel-style austerity as a price to pay for access to loans and trade, a price that millions of workers paid with low wages and harsh economic conditions imposed by national governments who did the bidding of the financial elites (a good, if very long, look at a slice of this story is Yanis Varoufakis’ “Adults In The Room” which tells his story of serving as Greece’s finance minister in a putatively progressive government during which he had an insider’s peek how the boot of Wall Street, billionaires and Merkelism was brought down on his people).
To be sure, the Greens in Germany are nothing like the Green Party in the U.S. Meaning, in Germany, Greens actually win and are competent—and have held power, and are part of ruling coalitions in 11 of Germany’s 16 states (yes, it matters that Germany has a parliamentary system; but it also matters that the Greens here are just hopeless).
Don’t expect radical shifts—the Greens of Germany today are not the Greens of the 1970s (alas); today’s party gets along just fine with business. But, certainly, in the area of climate change, Greens having a stronger position politically in Germany will make for better climate change policy in Europe as a whole.
If you liked this post from Working Life Newsletter, why not share it?
POBox 11094, Portland, OR 97211
