This week in progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of progressives focused on their home turf. Let me know via comments or Kosmail if you have a favorite state- or city-based blog you think I should be watching.
Inclusion of a diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement or endorsement of its contents.
At Eclectablog of Michigan, LOLGOP writes—The Solyndra loan program shows government at its best:
What if I told you that everything Republicans have told you about Solyndra is dangerously and embarrassingly wrong? […]
In a new exposé for Politico Magazine, Grunwald winds us through the netherworld of “The (Real) Bank of America” to show us how the government dishes out trillions of dollars, often with little vision and less accountability. After a few thousand words — which are well worth reading for Grunwald’s deft comic turns and sense of how the conservative notion that we shouldn’t invest in the economy has turned many of our investments into loans that are often improperly vetted and accounted for—the author gets to Solyndra.
This is when you’re supposed to boo. But cheer instead.
The Solyndra loan, derided by Republican campaign ads in 2012 as a crazy handout that reflected Obama-era “crony capitalism,” was nothing of the sort. The Bush administration originally selected Solyndra for the first federal clean-energy loan over 142 other applicants. It was an exciting solar startup that had raised $1 billion from savvy private investors like Richard Branson and the Walton family, and a slew of probes have failed to turn up any evidence of wrongdoing on its Energy Department loan. The firm’s downfall was a free fall in solar prices, which sparked a solar buying frenzy but destroyed Solyndra’s sell-high business model. Such is life in a free-enterprise economy. Government loans don’t guarantee success. |
To read additional excerpts from progressive state blogs, travel below the orange gerrymander.
At Blue Virginia, lowkell writes—Is "Kathleen Murphy's victory a bad omen for Virginia Republicans?"
Fascinating analysis by a self-desribed "political consultant and web developer for pro-life female candidates and elected officials in DC, Maryland, and Virginia" and "a political independent":
The special election for the 34th District seat in the Virginia House of Delegates was on Tuesday, January 6, 2015. Turnout was anticipated to be and was indeed low. There was also a freak snowstorm.
All this should spell doom for the Democrat Kathleen Murphy against the Republican Craig Parisot in a toss-up district, correct?
Except it didn't. Kathleen Murphy defeated Craig Parisot 51% - 48%. What was even more telling was that Murphy only lost to Parisot by 3 votes in Loudoun County, which was expected to carry the day for Parisot.
Are Democrats poised to make significant gains in Virginia in 2015 after capturing all statewide offices in 2013? … Does that fact that Kathleen Murphy came within 3 votes of capturing Loudoun County with an almost nonexistent Loudoun County Democratic Committee mean that the demographic tidal wave has swept Virginia in such a way as to mitigate the DPVA's ineptitude outside of the big 3 jurisdictions? If low turnout and bad weather hurts Democrats as both parties would agree, does Kathleen Murphy's victory in a toss-up district bode well for Democrats in the 2015 general election where turnout is expected to be higher?
|
I ran this by a few Dems I respect. Their reaction was cautious, mostly "we'll see," with one adding: "if Republicans take their chances for granted in safe-ish seats, then yeah, this is a harbinger." I'd also note that a few other factors have changed recently: 1) Republicans now control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, meaning they can no longer even semi-plausibly argue that everything's the Democrats' fault; 2) the economy has really improved, with economic confidence into positive territory (according to Gallup) for the first time since they started tracking this in early 2008; 3) President Obama's approval ratings are up, with Gallup pegging them at 46%-48% as of yesterday; and 4) Republicans now control both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly, which means that Virginians will get to see just how extreme they are.
At
Left in Alabama,
country cat writes—
Dinner With The Dean Brothers: DFA Contest & The 2016 Presidential Race:
Democracy for America (DFA) recently announced the results of its Democratic presidential primary survey: over 85% of DFA supporters who responded want Elizabeth Warren to run for president. Together with MoveOn.org, they're sponsoring a "Draft Warren" movement called "Run, Warren, Run."Dinner with the Dean Brothers
Jim Dean is chair of DFA, a million-member organization that actively works to promote progressive candidates and train the next generation of progressive activists. Many of the LIA community have attended the DFA Campaign Academy training sessions hosted around the state.
His brother, Howard Dean, founded DFA and is a former candidate for president. As DNC chair, he created the "50 state strategy" to build the party from the grassroots up and leave no office unchallenged. Ahem ... that's not working so well in Alabama, but other state parties embraced it and are actually building strong progressive coalitions and supporting candidates.
The brothers have a lot in common, but differ on something big: who should be the Democratic nominee in 2016? Howard supports Hillary Clinton and Jim supports Elizabeth Warren.
If you'd like to hear the reasons, DFA is giving you the chance to have dinner with both Dean brothers. […] To be automatically entered in the contest, make a contribution to DFA in any amount by January 31. You can also enter without donating to DFA. Here are the official contest rules.
At
SC Prog Blog of South Carolina,
Becci writes—
2014: it was a big year for the Network!
For the SC Progressive Network, 2014 was busy and our work ambitious. We organized an Enough is Enough rally in January to welcome legislators back on the first day of the new session. We sustained a months-long and aggressive lobbying campaign to pressure the General Assembly to expand Medicaid. Our Truthful Tuesdays campaign culminated in 39 arrests of peaceful protestors who, over three days, blocked the entrance to the State House garage. Charges were later dropped. We organized a Healthy Democracy Road Show, taking our message across the state.
In 2014, we marched, we paraded, we knocked on doors, we registered voters. We helped South Carolinians navigate the ACA’s insurance marketplace, with 10 trained navigators and dozens of volunteers in Charleston and Columbia. We held two statewide conferences (spring and fall). We published a booklet about human rights activist Modjeska Simkins, and we threw a party on her birthday, as we do every year. We celebrated marriage equality in South Carolina. We grew our membership base and online visibility. All in all, it was a productive year.
We are excited about 2015, when we focus on the Modjeska Simkins School for Human Rights, the Network’s new organizing school. We hope you will join us!
At
Keystone Politics of Pennsylvania,
Jon Geeting writes—
The Littlest Leadership Crisis Befells Pretend Government:
The top two officials of a 1300-person borough passed away within two weeks of one another, and now the borough is now in the throes of the cutest littlest leadership crisis you ever did see.
1300 people is much smaller than the territory covered by my neighborhood organization in Philly. Most of Pennsylvania’s governments are just glorified neighborhood organizations with essentially part-time security guards (who get military-grade weapons from the feds), volunteer firefighters, and thousands of teensy little pension funds that are investing in ???
This is like the Tea Party’s ultimate end-game for governance in America. I don’t understand why the state lets them play pretend government.
At
South Dakota Madville Times,
caheidelberger writes—
Gov. Brown Offers Visionary Education, Energy Policies; Gov. Daugaard Plays It Safe:
That darned liberal Jerry Brown took away one of Dennis Daugaard's talking points when he erased California's budget deficit two years ago. What's California's governor up to now? Just like Governor Daugaard, Governor Brown has a balanced budget. Like Daugaard, Brown is urging restraint. But here's what "restraint" looks like in Jerry Brown's California:
• A 39% increase in state aid to education over four years. (Governor Daugaard's proposed $414 million in state aid to K-12 schools is 22.4% more than his FY2012 budget.. but remember, that was the austerity budget. Compared to five years ago, Daugaard's FY2016 budget increases state aid to education by 9.9%.)
• A new Local Control Funding Formula that directs more money to districts with more "students from foster care, low-income families and non-English-speaking parents" to address the primary factor affecting academic achievement, economic disparities. (Governor Daugaard continues to fund schools on flat headcount, only adjusting for sparsity/economies of scale.)
• A successful cap-and-trade carbon market that is helping California meet its goal of getting one third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
New policy goals of increasing renewable energy to 50% and reducing vehicle petroleum use by 50%.
• A new focus on producing distributed energy and creating more resilient micro-grids to power towns when regional power systems go down (hey, Steve Hickey! How about including micro-grids in your "Long Economic Winter" planning?)
|
Governor Jerry Brown laid out big stuff in his fourth inaugural address, visionary stuff. Maybe Governor Daugaard will surprise us with his second inaugural address this weekend or his State of the State Address to open the 2015 Legislature on Tuesday. But so far, Daugaard has given us a care-taking vanilla budget.
At
HorseAss.Org of Seattle, Washington,
Carl writes—
Again, Why 2/3?:
I can’t find the press release mentioned in this article online, so I’ll pass doing the full metacommentary on it. But Senators Mike Baumgartner and Doug Ericksen are pushing to change the rules in the GOP controlled Senate so that it would take a 2/3 vote to pass tax increases.
It’s a terrible idea, of course. On top of being an anti-democratic copycat of an unconstitutional idea, it assumes that tax increases are somehow a different category than spending cuts. But things being terrible ideas never stopped the GOP from having them. […]
Could the Democrats as stridently do that sort of nonsense? Could we require a 2/3 vote for — I don’t know — tax breaks for major corporations in the state House? Or for renewing unproductive tax cuts? Or for spending cuts? Or for spending money on counties over what they send back to the state?
And not to sound like a broken [record] but why 2/3? What’s magic about that particular fraction? I realize several unconstitutional 2/3 initiatives passed, but is it really appropriate to say that some number Tim Eyman pulled out of his ass is the right thing? It’s just so arbitrary.
At
Blue Oregon,
T. A. Barnhart writes—
Civil disturbances:
Sen Ron Wyden’s staff was not prepared for what happened at his annual Multnomah County Town Hall, held at SCC Southeast on Saturday afternoon. When "Hands Up Pdx" demonstrators took over the meeting and stopped the Senator from taking questions, his staff scrambled for a way to regain control and let the town hall proceed.
They failed.
In the end, the town hall was abandoned. The Senator met privately with anti-TPP activists; Rep Alissa Keny-Guyer, who was supposed to have served as moderator but was relegated to observer, noted the iron of those folks getting a more direct opportunity to share their concerns with Wyden than they would have otherwise. After most attendees had left, a number of protesters and activists gathered together in what amounted to a singing-to-the-choir (as most public demonstrations tend to be).
No one got to ask a single question of the Senator. I’m not sure anyone’s mind was opened or changed. Some were angry with the protesters; one woman was angry that Wyden didn’t respond to the “organic” nature of the moment and turn over the microphone to the protesters to let them speak. He did, actually, for far longer than I think many United States Senators might have done.
At
Scrutiny Hooligans of North Carolina,
Tom Sullivan writes—
Thank you for not voting your best interests:
At a party over the weekend, a couple of guests asked the question I hear time and again from friends frustrated that so many working-class people vote Republican: Why do they vote against their best interests?
It’s a question that honestly perplexes and frustrates them as much as this particular verbal tic frustrates me. It’s obvious to them how conservative policies hurt working people and undermine the middle class. Yet, people continue to vote Republican. But you know this.
Well, first off, people don’t vote their interests. They vote their identities. This is standard Lakoff stuff. People vote for candidates they believe share their social views, not necessarily their economics. People vote for candidates they feel they can trust. People wanted to have a beer with recovering alcoholic, George W. Bush, for godssakes.
Second, step back from that question a moment and look at “voting your best interests” dispassionately. Do we really want our neighbors to go into the voting booth and vote what’s best for No. 1? For their bottom lines?
Seriously. Is that who we are? Is that the kind of country we want? Does that reflect our values?
Because by posing the same question over and over, and by using it as an accusation against working-class, white voters, are we not sending the message that that is exactly how we think people should vote? Bottom line? Every man for himself? […]
And while we may think it a legitimate, innocent question, family members, coworkers, and conservative sparring partners hear it as arrogant and condescending — a liberal dog whistle. “You’re voting against your best interests” sounds like a snooty, intellectual’s way of saying, “You’re stupid.” If we’re looking for reasons they don’t vote with us, we may have found one.
It’s godawful messaging. I wish we would stop it.
At
NH Labor News of New Hampshire,
NH Labor News writes—
Progressive NH State Rep To Propose Minimum Wage Increase To $14.25 And Eliminating The “Tipped Minimum Wage”
After a four-year absence from the New Hampshire General Court, newly-returned Barrington representative Jackie Cilley announced that her first piece of legislation—and her chief priority in the coming session – is to give New Hampshire’s struggling workers a raise with an increased minimum wage paired with the elimination of the so-called “tipped minimum wage.” This legislation would mark a return to a state-based minimum wage and move tipped workers into the economic mainstream with a raise from the current rate of $2.90.
Cilley, whose legislation would raise the minimum wage to $14.25 per hour over a three year-period and eventually tie the tipped minimum wage to the same figure, argues the move from both a matter of fairness and economic common sense.
“Most of use want to get paid what we are worth, what we contribute to the companies and organizations for whom we work,” notes Cilley. “If the minimum wage had actually kept pace with worker productivity, it would be $21.72 today. Instead, workers’ wages peaked decades ago because of partisan divide.”
At
Bold Nebraska,
Jane Kleeb writes—
Pipeline Fighter Update:
Keystone XL helps Canada get their dirty tarsands to the export market and will employ about 35 folks full-time to help operate the pipeline. If the GOP actually cared about good-paying, union jobs (since this is the only time we have seen the GOP embrace the unions), then they should support renewable energy bills and allocate funds to fix our bridges and water pipelines.
The GOP does not care about unions or clean energy, all they care about is throwing red meat to the radical wing of their base and having one-liners they can use in campaign ads for the 2016 election cycle.
Senate Democrats have stated they will add some amendments to this flawed bill. While we think no amendments is better than playing the GOP games, we understand Democrats desire to have a discussion on renewable energy, USA steel and exports as Republicans push the risky pipeline.
It is a fact that TransCanada uses foreign steel.
It is true Keystone XL is an export pipeline.
It is true more American jobs can be created with renewable energy than dirty tarsands.
President Obama has said in the past he would veto any bill that tries to take away the long-established process for cross-border pipelines. This is not the first time Congress has approved Keystone XL. And, this will not be the first time Pres. Obama vetoes a Keystone XL bill. You would think Congress would have learned the lesson last time around when they tried this stunt.
At
MN Progressive Project of Minnesota,
Dan Burns writes—
MN-06: Newbie Emmer rebuffed, just a little:
Well, few of us get everything we want, in life. And I don’t suppose Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) can just sue, either.
The Delano Republican has additional responsibilities with his spots on the House agriculture and foreign affairs committees…
He hadn’t expected the foreign affairs appointment. He had initially requested assignment to committees overseeing financial services and transportation, an issue that was a cornerstone of his campaign. So over the next few weeks, he will be attending intensive briefings on foreign policy covering everything from North Korea to Iraq and Afghanistan and the battle against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.
(St. Cloud Times)
|
If this is tickling your memory about ridiculous-looking committee assignments, Emmer’s predecessor, Michele Bachmann, was on the Select Committee on Intelligence. That one lent itself to a lot of amusing, if at times quite unkind, remarks. Crazy Michele has been talking about wanting a position with a foreign policy “think tank,” where her comprehensive expertise and insight would be invaluable. I’m not making this up. And a place that is aware of what a help her presence can be for fundraising, might well give her a job, despite the credibility hit outside of the base. Most conservative propaganda mills have zero credibility anymore outside of the base, and corporate media, anyway.