Tag Archives: Cory Bush

Political Rants

Making The case for Postal banking.

Leave a comment

The end of the eviction moratorium this past week and the response by the Squad says a lot about the limitations of the administrative state. Mass evictions should not be a problem. The large COVID relief package passed last year included something like $40 billion in rental assistance, distributed to the states. As of now, only about $3 billion has been allocated to the people who need the help. That’s maybe 8%.

What the fuck? Why is it that when we go through the ridiculously baroque process of applying federal funds to a problem like this, the money often doesn’t get spent? David Dayen talked about this a bit on the Majority Report on Monday. Put simply, after decades of neoliberal attack on the administrative state, the means of getting government aid to people are sclerotic and dysfunctional.

Loudest voice in the room

There’s a reason why we have such an atomized, ineffective system for helping poor and working people. Ordinary people don’t have armies of lobbyists at their disposal. The eviction moratorium is a good illustration of this. The 7 to 11 million people who were at risk of homelessness as a result of the moratorium’s end are underrepresented. Their landlords, by and large, are anything but.

The difference this time around was that a formerly un-housed person became a member of the House of Representatives. Cory Bush, along with some of her allies, became, in effect, lobbyists for renters. And, amazingly, they were successful. Though I know the thought of it is intensely painful to many armchair leftists on Twitter, we should celebrate this small victory, because it is significant. In so doing, however, we must bear in mind that money still talks very, very loudly.

Why we need postal banking

What do we do about a system that easily transfers billions to corporate bankers but can’t seem to manage rent relief for people in trouble? Well, we need some method for delivering direct payments to Americans in a reliable, low-friction way. In my humble opinion, that method is setting up postal banking.

As many of you may know, postal banking is not a new idea. In fact, the Postal Service offered banking services back when I was a little shaver. The idea I prefer is one that is a bit broader than the old version. My preferred version is this: Every American – and I mean every one – gets a postal banking account. Just like getting a Social Security number, they open an account for you when you are born and you have it all your life. It would be a free, interest bearing account that allows for savings, electronic transfers, etc.

My personal preference would be that the Federal Government deposit some amount, say fifty bucks, as a little birthday gift for every newborn. But whether or not that comes to pass, your postal bank account would serve as the deposit account for any federal benefit payments. Now, if you prefer to use a private bank account, you can always transfer your funds to that bank, even set up auto transfers. But no matter what, that account would be there for you.

Put some bank in the reconciliation bill

I think this is an idea whose time has come. It would make the transfer of that $40 billion in rental assistance dead simple. It would give poor and working people access to banking services. It would, in short, make an enormous difference, and help float our beloved Postal Service as well.

Let’s put it in the reconciliation package, people! Call your reps!

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

For the squad.

Leave a comment

I want to preface this post with a simple confession: I’m old. And yes, I am a baby boomer, albeit a late-stage one, so feel free to issue the usual “Okay, boomer” eye-rolls, I totally get it – my generation has had plenty of opportunity to get things right, and we totally blew it. So let me simply say that, as with most of my content, I am speaking for myself, not my fuck-up generation, a goodly portion of which showed promise early on but whose best potential was not ultimately realized. (In truth, only about a third of boomers were on what might be termed as the political left during their youthful prime, so what potential there may have been was not broadly shared.)

That said, as someone who has been watching Congress since his teens, I can vouch for the fact that we have seen progress over the past forty years in increasing representation of the left in the House of Representatives. Yes, we have a long way to go before we can hope to move legislation in a more unapologetically radical direction, but for the first time in my longish life, we have a solid caucus of progressive Democrats who actually support a leftist agenda in both legislation and oversight. What’s more, there are opportunities to expand this caucus in the coming years if progressives and leftists in this country organize and engage in coalition-building between movements, regions, and organizations.

Let me be clear. I do not expect Congressmembers to agree with me on every issue. I am pretty far to the left politically, and if I withhold support from candidates until I find one that aligns with me on every issue, I will end up supporting no one. Forty years ago, the closest I could come to a House member that held views similar to mine was Ron Dellums. Shirley Chisholm was good, as well as a handful of others, but there were typically very serious trade-offs, and the overwhelming majority of Congresspeople back then were older white men. In the 90s and 2000s, Barbara Lee (who started as an aide to Dellums and succeeded him in his seat, I believe) was the only serious progressive in the House, and my expectations were pretty low regarding the Democratic caucus at that time. For instance, I was glad when Nancy Pelosi took over leadership of Congressional Democrats after the drubbing they took in the 2002 election, only because she was slightly more progressive than her predecessor in leadership, Dick Gephardt. (Again …. very limited expectations.)

Compare that with today. Now we have the recently-expanded “squad” – AOC, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Talib, Jamaal Bowman, and Cory Bush, all of whom are way, way to the left of where Congressional progressives were in the 1990s and 2000s. We’ve got solid progressives like Ro Khanna (whose foreign policy views are as nuanced as I’ve ever heard from a sitting Congressmember), Pramila Jayapal, Mondaire Jones, Katy Porter (best interrogator in the House), Dan Kildee, and elders like Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, Mark Pocan, etc. There are others as well, like Jamie Raskin, who have strong progressive tendencies on key issues and could lend support on legislation.

Now, admittedly, there is a broad range of views represented by the folks I named above. But overall, the caucus is further to the left than it has ever been throughout my lifetime. And while there’s much left to do, much further to go, this is like a base camp on the side of this mountain we’re climbing. It’s something we can build on from this point forward, if we work together.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

No shortcut.

Leave a comment

There’s been a lot of push back from the left this week on the Biden Town Hall, and with good reason. While he presents as an affable old grandpa, his conception of policy is locked into the 1990s in a lot of ways. When he thinks he’s leaning to the left, he means the “left” of three decades ago – the liberal cohort that thinks in terms of community policing, mild reforms, drug rehabilitation programs, etc. Whereas even the mainstream Democratic party has moved on from many of these centrist notions of change, the leftward movement appears to have escaped the notice of President Biden. For the time being, he is riding on a wave of relief that Donald Trump is no longer (a) President, (b) in our faces every single day, or (c) on Twitter. I’m sure millions of people are happy that the current president is not ordering an angry racist mob into the Capitol building. But that, while necessary, is of course far from sufficient.

His position on student debt illustrates this insufficiency to a tee. Biden keeps confusing, probably deliberately, the temporary suspension of interest payments (which he has ordered) with elimination of interest on student debt (which he has not ordered). He vaguely promises $10K in debt relief, but both he and his spokesperson keep suggesting that this is something Congress should take up. To be clear, he has the authority to do this himself. And if he can do $10K, he can do more. But Biden seems to think that there’s a fairness issue involved here. He tends to couch it in terms of not wanting rich people to get the benefit, which brings us back to Biden’s (and most centrist Democrats’) preference for “targeted” programs. In other words, we need a new, overly complicated, dedicated administrative infrastructure to achieve the recapture of funds that our already-existing tax system could accomplish with very little adjustment.

Of course, this problem is more about us than it is about Biden. We’ve got Biden as president – and lackluster officeholders all the way down the line – because we didn’t organize enough people and ultimately bring them around to supporting progressive, even radical, change. In a very real sense, we get the politicians we deserve, and we shouldn’t expect better if we’re not doing the hard, long-term work of building change from below. Organizing is about more than electing people, obviously, but one of the by-products of successful organizing is a better grade of politician. I think we’ve seen that in some of the more progressive Congressional candidates, like Rashida Talib, Cory Bush, AOC, and others. I’m pleasantly surprised when candidates of their stripe are successful, largely because I know that in my own area of the country very little organizing is taking place – that’s why we now have the return of our erstwhile Republican Congressmember, Claudia Tenney, who beat out Anthony Brindisi by a mere 109 votes. Brindisi was part of the “problem-solver” conference and there were few Democratic members farther to the right, but in the end it wasn’t enough.

You see, a little more organizing would have given us those 110 votes to return a centrist to Congress. And a lot more organizing might have resulted in sending an actual progressive to Congress, to say nothing of actual mutual aid benefits for the people in our district. So, what are we waiting for?

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.