December, 16 2021, 07:28am EDT
Report Targets "Progressive In Name Only" Members of Congressional Progressive Caucus
They "often act more like corporate centrists—and many deserve primary challenges."
WASHINGTON
A national progressive organization with more than 1 million online supporters today released a detailed report revealing that many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have voting records that are far from "progressive."
The report, released by RootsAction.org, evaluated members of the Progressive Caucus on the basis of key votes, campaign donations, congressional testimony, and other records. The research shows that many members of the caucus are "progressive in name only"--or, PINOs. "On core progressive policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, cutting military spending, robust civil liberties, and more, these caucus members function more like corporate centrists--opposing significant challenges to the status quo and protecting corporate power along with endless war."
The report "identified six especially problematic PINOs who are not living up to their progressive pretenses: Reps. Madeleine Dean (PA-4), Donald Norcross (NJ-1), Joe Morelle (NY-25), Jimmy Panetta (CA-20), Brenda Lawrence (MI-14), and Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE-at large)."
A few highlights from the report:
- Congresswoman Madeleine Dean: "Representing a Democratic-leaning district in southeastern Pennsylvania, mostly in suburbs of Philadelphia, Dean is the only CPC member who scored a full 100 percent wrong on core progressive issues in our review. Now in her second term, Rep. Dean has already disappointed some of her supporters, including labor activists demanding she take stronger stands on healthcare."
- Congressman Donald Norcross: "Norcross represents a heavily Democratic congressional district that includes the impoverished city of Camden and New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia. ... While Norcross supported the COVID-vaccine waiver, he has often failed to back progressive priorities. Norcross has not co-sponsored either Green New Deal measure, and he voted for legislation in 2018 to boost natural gas exports."
- Congressman Jimmy Panetta: "Following in his father's footsteps, Jimmy Panetta represents the same Central California Coast district--overwhelmingly Democratic--that elected Leon Panetta for nine terms. ... Panetta seems to have inherited his father's hawkish tendencies, voting to reauthorize the misnamed USA Freedom Act, backing military spending increases, and opposing Rep. Pocan's and AOC's modest attempts to rein in the military budget. Panetta also signed the letter undermining a renewed Iran nuclear deal."
- Congressman Joe Morelle: "Elected in 2018 to replace the late Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter, Joe Morelle represents New York's 25th District, centered in Rochester. This strongly Democratic district cast a 60 percent vote for Biden in the 2020 general election (and 59 percent for Morelle's reelection). When the CPC endorsed Morelle for reelection in 2019, it called him "a true champion of the progressive values CPC stands for." Unfortunately, on a host of key progressive values, Morelle has often acted more like a corporate centrist. Though Morelle supported the COVID-vaccine trade waiver, he has not sided with progressive leadership on much else."
- Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester: "While Delaware is a blue state (D+6, choosing Biden by 58 percent in 2020), Blunt Rochester has consistently been one of the most conservative members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. ... Blunt Rochester has not supported Jayapal's Medicare for All legislation. Notably, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is among her top campaign contributors this cycle. ... Blunt Rochester also failed to support either Green New Deal measure, and did not back the COVID-vaccine TRIPS waiver push. ... Strikingly, Blunt Rochester was one of only two Progressive Caucus members who voted with Republicans in 2018 to weaken banking regulations in the Dodd-Frank Act, the Democrats' fairly limited 2010 Wall Street reform law."
- Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence: "She supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair in 2017, saying: 'he's progressive.' Yet despite representing Michigan's most Democratic district--a shade bluer than Rashida Tlaib's district--Lawrence scored 75 percent wrong on progressive legislation, failing to cosponsor either Green New Deal measure, while backing military spending increases and opposing Rep. Pocan's modest 10 percent military reduction in 2020 (though she favored a nearly identical measure this year). ... Lawrence signed the March 2021 AIPAC-organized letter undercutting efforts to revive an Iran nuclear deal--and voted to reauthorize the USA Freedom Act, which further expands the surveillance state and diminishes civil liberties."
The heavily-documented report, written by award-winning journalist Christopher D. Cook and edited by RootsAction co-founder Jeff Cohen, also bestowed a "Dishonorable Mention" on seven other Progressive Caucus members.
"Our research shows that many caucus members don't actually legislate like progressives," Cook said today. "How can we achieve these critical reforms when some so-called 'progressives' refuse to challenge the status quo? Some of these folks in strongly Democratic districts seem ripe for a serious progressive primary challenge, if not this coming year then certainly in 2024."
Cohen added: "Our report suggests that a more unified and cohesive CPC, a caucus with more genuine progressives and fewer PINOs, would be a much more formidable force on Capitol Hill, and a better ally with progressive movement activists across the country."
The full report--Meet the PINOs: "Progressive In Name Only"--can be read at: https://progressivehub.net/meet-the-pinos-progressive-in-name-only
RootsAction is dedicated to galvanizing people who are committed to economic fairness, equal rights for all, civil liberties, environmental protection -- and defunding endless wars. We mobilize on these issues no matter whether Democrats or Republicans control Washington D.C.
LATEST NEWS
Trustee Reports Show Medicare, Social Security Must Be Defended From Trump
"The future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress," said one campaigner.
May 06, 2024
Advocacy groups, congressional Democrats, and U.S. President Joe Biden's reelection campaign on Monday pointed to new government reports on Medicare and Social Security as proof that the key programs must be protected from Republican attacks.
The annual trustee reports show that Social Security is projected to be fully funded until 2035, a year later than previously thought, while Medicare is expected to be fully funded until 2036, five years beyond the earlier projection.
Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November, "proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office, he's said repeatedly he would cut them, his allies openly plan to target them, and just this weekend he dismissed them as bribes," noted James Singer, a spokesperson for the Democrat's campaign.
"Let's be clear, Donald Trump will steal the hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits Americans have been paying into their entire lives and he'll use it to fund tax cuts for rich people like him," Singer warned. "President Biden keeps his promises. He has and will continue to protect Social Security and Medicare from MAGA Republican efforts to cut them—Donald Trump won't."
"No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Monday that "current and future American retirees should feel confident about both Medicare and Social Security, which [are] stronger due to the robust economy under President Biden. But the future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress."
Fiesta highlighted that Biden's latest budget "calls for strengthening" the programs whereas Trump recently said that "there is a lot you can do... in terms of cutting" them and "the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes around 80% of House Republicans, stands ready to make cuts as well."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, similarly declared that "today's report shows that our Social Security system is benefiting from the Biden economy. Due to robust job growth, low unemployment, and rising wages, more people than ever are contributing to Social Security and earning its needed protections."
"That said, Congress should take action sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security's modest benefits," she argued, noting various plans from Democrats in Congress that "are paid for by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share."
Unlike Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., "Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people," Altman said of federal lawmakers and the former president. Additionally, "Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in."
"The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth at the wealthiest moment in our history. We can use that wealth to protect and expand Social Security, or to provide yet more tax handouts to billionaires," she concluded. "This report is a reminder that the next decade is a crucial one for Social Security's future. Americans should vote accordingly this November."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, also asserted that "Congress must act NOW to strengthen Social Security for the 67 million Americans who depend on it. We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983."
According to Richtman:
No doubt we will hear cries from so-called 'fiscal conservatives' that Social Security is going 'bankrupt,' supposedly requiring Draconian measures—which couldn't be further than the truth. Revenue always will flow into Social Security from workers' payroll contributions, so the program will never be 'broke.' But no one wants seniors to suffer an automatic 17% benefit cut in 2035, so Congress must act deliberately, but not recklessly. A bad deal driven by cuts to earned benefits could be worse than no deal at all.
We strongly support revenue-side solutions that would bring more money into the trust fund by demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered legislation that would do just that—by maintaining the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well—and dedicating some of high earners' investment income to Social Security. Rep. Larson's bill also would provide seniors with a much-needed benefit boost.
Larson was among the lawmakers who responded to Monday's Social Security report by demanding urgent action. The Democrat also called out his Republican colleagues for pushing cuts and trying to "ram their dangerous plan through an undemocratic and unaccountable so-called 'fiscal commission,'" which critics have dubbed a "death panel."
"The Social Security 2100 Act is co-sponsored by nearly 200 House Democrats and would improve benefits across the board while extending solvency until 2066, while Donald Trump and House Republicans continue their calls to slash Americans' hard-earned benefits!" Larson said. "By contrast, President Joe Biden and Democrats are working to strengthen Social Security, not cut it."
Co-sponsors of Larson's bill include Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
"Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program in history, and ensuring its solvency for future generations has been one of my top priorities in Congress," Boyle said Monday, promoting the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, his bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "Unfortunately, while Democrats and President Biden want to protect Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have made clear they want to tear them down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'War Criminals': IDF Strikes Rafah After Hamas Agrees to Cease-Fire
"Why?" asked Israeli lawmaker Ofer Cassif. "Because killing Palestinians is more important for the Israeli government than saving Israelis."
May 06, 2024
Israel on Monday launched long-awaited strikes on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip despite Hamas publicly confirming it agreed to a cease-fire and hostage release proposal from Egyptian and Qatari mediators.
The Israel Defense Forces said on social media that "the IDF is currently conducting targeted strikes against Hamas terror targets in eastern Rafah," the city to which over a million Palestinians have fled since October 7, when Israel launched a retaliatory war that has already killed at least 34,735 people in Gaza and wounded another 78,108.
Earlier Monday, the IDF had dropped leaflets directing residents and refugees in that part of Rafah to relocate to a strip along Gaza's coast, ignoring warnings from the international community and humanitarian groups that a full-scale Israeli attack on the crowded city would further endanger civilians and relief efforts.
"It is obvious Netanyahu wants this genocidal war to continue indefinitely so that he can remain in power."
In addition to sparking outrage around the world, the Israeli government's Rafah attack and rejection of the Hamas-backed proposal was met with criticism from people across Israel. The Associated Pressreported that "thousands of Israelis rallied around the country Monday night calling for an immediate deal to release the hostages still held in the Gaza Strip."
Ofer Cassif, a member of the Knesset who was almost expelled by fellow Israeli lawmakers earlier this year for backing South Africa's ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), again called out his own government.
"Israeli tanks and infantry enter east Rafah while planes bomb from above, just hours after Hamas' decision to accept the hostages/prisoners exchange deal," Cassif said Monday. "Why? Because killing Palestinians is more important for the Israeli government than saving Israelis. War criminals!"
The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that "the War Cabinet unanimously decided this evening Israel will continue its operation in Rafah, in order to apply military pressure on Hamas so as to advance the release of our hostages and achieve the other objectives of the war."
Along with the prime minister, Israel's War Cabinet includes Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz, former IDF chief of the general staff, along with three observers.
Netanyahu added that "while the Hamas proposal is far from meeting Israel's core demands, Israel will dispatch a ranking delegation to Egypt in an effort to maximize the possibility of reaching an agreement on terms acceptable to Israel."
Reutersreported that "an Israeli official said the deal was not acceptable to Israel because terms had been 'softened.'"
According to the news outlet, the first part of a three-phase plan that Hamas—which has controlled Gaza for nearly two decades—agreed to includes a 42-day pause in fighting, the release of 33 hostages held by the group and some Palestinians in Israeli jails, a partial IDF withdrawal, and free movement in the besieged enclave.
Phase two would be "another 42-day period that features an agreement to restore a 'sustainable calm' to Gaza, language that an official briefed on the talks said Hamas and Israel had agreed in order to take discussion of a 'permanent cease-fire' off the table," Reuters detailed. This phase also includes withdrawing most Israeli troops and Hamas releasing some soldiers and reservists.
The third phase would involve the exchange of bodies; reconstruction of Gaza overseen by Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations; and ending the complete blockade on the strip, the outlet added.
Shortly before Israel's Monday night strikes on Rafah began, Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, said that the U.N. chief "reiterates his pressing call to both the government of Israel and the leadership of Hamas to go the extra mile needed to make an agreement come true and stop the present suffering."
Expressing concern about the then-imminent Israeli operation in Rafah, the spokesperson said that "we are already seeing movements of people—many of these people are in desperate humanitarian condition and have been repeatedly displaced. They search safety that has been so many times denied. The secretary-general reminds the parties that the protection of civilians is paramount in international humanitarian law."
Other U.N. officials have been warning of what an assault on Rafah will mean for the over 1.4 million Palestinians there, among them 600,000 children. So have humanitarian and political leaders, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who on Monday urged President Joe Biden to stand by his earlier position that attacking the city was a "red line" and "end all offensive military aid to Israel."
Council on American-Islamic Relations national executive director Nihad Awad issued a similar call Monday evening, warning that "the Israeli government is hellbent on using American financial, military, and diplomatic support to ethnically cleanse what remains of Gaza and commit another massacre."
"President Biden must stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu and take concrete action to end the genocide now," Awad continued, nodding to the Israeli leader's legal trouble. The prime minister faces not only potential consequences on a global scale for what the ICJ has deemed a "plausibly" genocidal war on Gaza but also a corruption trial in his own country.
"It is obvious Netanyahu wants this genocidal war to continue indefinitely so that he can remain in power, avoid jail, and fulfill his racist, far-right Cabinet's demands for the complete destruction of Gaza and the massacre of its people," Awad said. "It is long past time for President Biden to end our nation's complicity in this 21st-century genocide."
Biden spoke with Netanyahu by phone ahead of the IDF strikes on Monday and "reiterated his clear position on Rafah," according to a White House readout. They also discussed the hostage negotiations, humanitarian aid, the Holocaust, and antisemitism.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, also suggested that the Israeli prime minister wants the bloodshed in Gaza to continue for personal reasons.
"Netanyahu does not want an end to the war because the moment the war ends, his political career ends as well. And his prison sentence will commence," said Parsi. "Yet, Biden has for seven months deferred to Netanyahu."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pulitzer Snubs Palestinian Journalists' Gaza Coverage
The Pulitzer Prize Board avoided "naming the brave Palestinian journalists who did the reporting and filming and died in record numbers," said one journalist.
May 06, 2024
In recent years, the Pulitzer Prize Board has given special recognition to the journalists of Ukraine and Afghanistan for reporting from war zones, honoring their "courage, endurance, and commitment to truthful reporting" and their ability to tell their communities' stories under "profoundly tragic and complicated circumstances."
On Monday, no such recognition was given to Palestinian reporters in Gaza, at least 92 of whom have been among more than 34,000 Palestinians killed in the enclave since Israel began its bombardment in October.
The annual journalism and literature awards included a special citation for "journalists and media workers covering the war in Gaza"—but didn't differentiate between those around the world who have spent the last seven months telling the story of Israel's escalation from the safety of far-off countries, and those struggling to report on the destruction of their own home under the constant threat of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacks.
"The missing word is—is always—Palestinian," said Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG). "Palestinian journalists and media workers deserve, if nothing else, this recognition; and half of them are dead."
Public health writer Abdullah Shihipar noted that in 2022, the board awarded the special citation to the "journalists of Ukraine." In 2021, it recognized "women and men of Afghanistan," saying that from "staff and freelance correspondents to interpreters to drivers to hosts, courageous Afghan residents helped produce Pulitzer-winning and Pulitzer-worthy images and stories."
This year, said Intercept journalist Jeremy Scahill, giving a special citation to "'media workers covering the war in Gaza' is a way to avoid naming the brave Palestinian journalists who did the reporting and filming and died in record numbers."
Many of those killed, Scahill added, might not have been had it not been for U.S.-made weapons sold to Israel.
The Pulitzer Prize for international reporting was awarded to The New York Times "for its wide-ranging and revelatory coverage of Hamas' lethal attack in southern Israel on October 7, Israel's intelligence failures, and the Israeli military's sweeping, deadly response in Gaza."
One of the Times' most explosive articles about Israel and Gaza, "Screams Without Words," about the alleged sexual assaults of Israeli victims of the October 7 attack, was not among those submitted for consideration. The article has come under scrutiny because of the anti-Palestinian bias expressed by one of the freelance reporters who worked on it, and questions about its veracity.
WAWOG, which has started a website titledThe New York War Crimes, posted on social media that the Times should have instead been awarded the Pulitzer for "manufacturing consent."
By honoring the Times for its international reporting this year, said City University of New York sociology professor Heba Gowayed, the Pulitzer Prize "lost any credibility it ever had."
The prize is administered by Columbia University, where students have been protesting for weeks against U.S. support for the IDF and against the school's investment in companies that contract with Israel.
Last week, the university called on the New York Police Department to forcibly remove student protesters from a school building; police told student journalists they would be arrested if they left Pulitzer Hall to report on the incident. Student journalists are reportedly still being barred from campus.
Columbia, said Jack Mirkinson of The Nation, announced the Pulitzers "at the exact same time it is clamping down on the press freedom of its own students. You couldn't make it up."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular