E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—Hillary Clinton’s bet and challenge:
Hillary Clinton is tied as closely as a candidate can be to two Democratic administrations past. But she intends to wage her presidential campaign around a rich menu of policies and plans that are about the future.
She confronts a political discourse drenched in the cliches of political positioning — about moving left or right, “rallying the base,” “recreating the Obama coalition.” But like her husband before her, Clinton is trying to forge a new consensus and is unashamed to pile up policy proposals: on family leave, child care, college affordability, incentives to employers for higher wages, immigration reform, clean energy and limits on the power of wealthy campaign donors. [...]
Saturday was an occasion for her brand of political jujitsu. Clinton’s Republican foes cast her as the candidate of the past, but it was the GOP, she insisted, whose ideas come from long ago and far away. Her Beatles reference — “They believe in yesterday” — may have been corny, but it made her point.
Megan Carpentier at
The Guardian writes—
Hillary Clinton knows no woman is an island. Now she needs to act on it:
Obama made people feel as though his win would be theirs, as if they were part of something bigger then themselves in a really tangible way. Many, many Clinton voters felt that way in 2008—especially women of her generation, who saw so much of themselves and their ambitions for all of us in her. She has picked up more younger fans in the years since. But she needs to convert her supporters to stans, transmogrify her followers into proselytizers willing to preach the Gospel Of Hillary, and she needs to do it fast and by dint of her own charisma.
Because, after all, the criticism is coming, both from the conservatives who have always hated her and the kinds of progressives who would rather lose a race than concede their support to any kind of policy centrism. In the weeks and months ahead, as the various other candidates sling manure at her to try to knock her off of the top, Clinton’s going to need an army of shield-bearers to talk to their friends and their neighbors and anyone who will listen about how much we need her to be our next president.
At the rally today, she asked people to volunteer to knock on doors. What she needs to be is so exciting as a candidate that people just can’t shut up about her.
More punditry can be found below the orange thingamabob.
Paul Krugman at The New York Times writes—Democrats Being Democrats:
On Friday, House Democrats shocked almost everyone by rejecting key provisions needed to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement the White House wants but much of the party doesn’t. On Saturday Hillary Clinton formally began her campaign for president, and surprised most observers with an unapologetically liberal and populist speech.
These are, of course, related events. The Democratic Party is becoming more assertive about its traditional values, a point driven home by Mrs. Clinton’s decision to speak on Roosevelt Island. [...]
On one side, the success of Obamacare and related policies — millions covered for substantially less than expected, surprisingly effective cost control for Medicare — have helped to inoculate the party against blanket assertions that government programs never work. And on the other side, the Davos Democrats who used to be a powerful force arguing against progressive policies have lost much of their credibility.
I’m referring to the kind of people — many, though not all, from Wall Street — who go to lots of international meetings where they assure each other that prosperity is all about competing in the global economy, and that this means supporting trade agreements and cutting social spending. Such people have influence in part because of their campaign contributions, but also because of the belief that they really know how the world works.
As it turns out, however, they don’t.
Larry Summers at
The Washington Post writes—
Rescuing the Free-Trade Deals:
[T]here needs to be a balancing of the political costs of legislating trade agreements against those of other forms of internationalism. If a small fraction of the U.S. political capital that has been devoted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership had instead gone to support reform of the International Monetary Fund and adequate funding for international financial institutions and the United Nations, these objectives could have been attained–and with greater benefits […]
a generation ago […] trade agreements that encouraged the adoption of market institutions in developing economies and enhanced those countries’ access to the industrial economies were crucial to creating a truly global economy. Today, we have such an economy […] Our challenge now is less to increase globalization than to make the globalization we have work for our citizens […]
Trade diplomacy […] must be only one component of a broader approach that has as primary stakeholders not just global companies but also those concerned with economic equity, protection of the environment, opportunities for workers to migrate and financial stability.
Well, yeah, welcome aboard. Some of us have been talking about this for 25 years. Maybe a mention should also have been made (in the margins at least) of the overly militarized approach the U.S. has taken to trade since the black ships arrived in Japan more than a century and a half ago.
Alex Abella at the Los Angeles Times writes—California, it's time to dump the Bear Flag:
One hundred and sixty nine years ago in a frontier town, a band of thieves, drunks and murderers hoisted a home-made flag and declared themselves in revolt from a government that had welcomed them. Instigated by an expansionist neighboring power, the rebels aimed to take over completely and impose their language, culture and mores on the land. The revolt succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.
That frontier town was Sonoma, the land was California, and the rebels, American settlers spurred on by promises of help from U.S. Army Captain John Fremont. The rebel standard, the flag of the so-called California Republic, became the California State Flag. It's time California dump that flag, a symbol of blatant illegality and racial prejudice. Like the Confederate cross of St. Andrew, the Bear Flag is a symbol whose time has come and gone.
When the Legislature voted to adopt the rebel standard as the state flag in 1911, California was in the grip of a racist, jingoistic fever. The measure was sponsored by Sen. James Holohan from Watsonville, a member of the Native Sons of the Golden West. This was an organization whose magazine, the Grizzly Bear, declared in the very issue in which it announced the introduction of the bill, “Close the public school doors to Japanese and other undesirables NOW! Close the doors through which aliens can legally own or lease the soil of California NOW!”
The obvious intent of the measure was to glorify the Bear Flaggers, who were hailed as wholesome patriots. But that was far from the truth.
Matt Bruenig at
The New Republic writes—
Bernie Sanders's Family-Friendly Agenda Crushes the Competition:
Earlier this week, Vermont senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders released his Family Values Agenda, a package of policy proposals aimed at expanding employees’ rights to paid time off. The agenda, which includes paid leave for sickness, vacations, and newborns, is the only program of its type announced so far by any candidate in the nascent presidential contest. If implemented, it would represent a significant leap forward for the United States—but only take us halfway to where we need to be. [...]
While paid leave from work is an integral part of healthy family life, much more must be done to support the needs of working families. Specifically, a robust family benefit regime should include the smoothing over of child-rearing costs, which are enormously high and hit families the hardest early in their careers when they are least able to afford them. In practice, this means extending child-care benefits to all parents of children below school age and providing families with a monthly per-child cash benefit.
One of the fundamental problems of modern capitalist economies is that they provide families the least amount of market income when they are at peak fertility. The average woman gives birth to her first child at age 26, which is just one year into what economists refer to as the prime working years (ages 25-54). This means that families of young children are at the bottom of the career ladder right at the time as they are saddled with $10,000 or more in annual child-related costs. In some states, day care alone can cost that much.
John Collins at
In These Times writes—
West Coast Grange Wars: A Reborn Farmers’ Movement Takes on Corporate Agriculture:
As more and more grocery shoppers refuse to write-off the origins of their food as some unsolvable whodunit, a network of sustainability minded, locally oriented farmers are working to connect those people to calories from known sources. For such farmers, and those in the communities that support them, the local Grange is a well-established ally.
Jay Sexton is Master at Mary’s River Grange #685 in Philomath, Oregon. A member of that Grange for six years, he is also the current director of the Oregon State Grange Agriculture Committee, working to advance Grange policies and promote agriculture awareness. Reminding the general public that we all depend on agriculture for the food we eat has been no small part of the organization’s mission for the last 148 years.
“The Grange has an interesting history,” says Sexton, “not just with the ups and downs of membership, but with how closely it’s been tied to big agriculture.”
In recent years, a rift has emerged between some state and local Granges and the national organization. New farmers with progressive ideas regarding the future of agriculture—organic farming practices, an end to the use of GMOs, environmentally beneficial land use—are clashing with the National Grange over its support of industrial agribusiness.
Like many advocacy organizations headquartered in Washington D.C., the National Grange is politically cautious. In the Beltway, severing ties with large, technology-driven farming operations—biting the hand that feeds—is a tough sell.
Ruth Conniff at
The Progressive write—
Scott Walker’s Toxic Contempt for Women:
One of the most striking themes to emerge from the current, destructive era in Wisconsin government is a pervasive and toxic contempt for women.
It was the backdrop to Governor Scott Walker’s initial attack on public employees, including teachers, who are, by and large, women.
Lots of people, including Matt Damon and Jon Stewart, both of whom have teacher moms, struck back at the sheer meanness of the suggestion that teachers are lazy and overpaid, appealing to a common feeling of warmth and appreciation for the women who helped raise us.
But the attacks didn’t end there. Walker and other politicians followed up with more cuts to teachers’ pay and benefits, an attack on the dignity of the profession that strips away teacher certification requirements, and a proposal that will ratchet up stress in the classroom by threatening to fire teachers if they don’t raise the test scores of underperforming students. This targets in particular teachers who work with low-income kids and English language learners.
Shami Chakrabarti at
The Guardian writes—
Let me be clear—Edward Snowden is a hero:
Who needs the movies when life is full of such spectacular coincidences? On Thursday, David Anderson, the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, condemned snooping laws as “undemocratic, unnecessary and—in the long run—intolerable”, and called for a comprehensive new law incorporating judicial warrants—something for which my organisation, Liberty, has campaigned for many years. This thoughtful intervention brought new hope to us and others, for the rebuilding of public trust in surveillance conducted with respect for privacy, democracy and the law. And it was only possible thanks to Edward Snowden. Rumblings from No 10 immediately betrayed they were less than happy with many of Anderson’s recommendations—particularly his call for judicial oversight. And three days later, the empire strikes back! An exclusive story in the Sunday Times saying that MI6 “is believed” to have pulled out spies because Russia and China decoded Snowden’s files. The NSA whistleblower is now a man with “blood on his hands” according to one anonymous “senior Home Office official”.
Low on facts, high on assertions, this flimsy but impeccably timed story gives us a clear idea of where government spin will go in the coming weeks. It uses scare tactics to steer the debate away from Anderson’s considered recommendations—and starts setting the stage for the home secretary’s new investigatory powers bill. In his report, Anderson clearly states no operational case had yet been made for the snooper’s charter. So it is easy to see why the government isn’t keen on people paying too close attention to it.
The Editors at
Bloomberg View write—
Congress, Pay Attention to This Carbon Tax Bill:
The challenge to prevent climate change is daunting for its scale. How can society change human behavior widely enough to stop the accumulation of atmosphere-warming gases—without swelling the government or ruining the economy?
That's why a bill introduced Wednesday in Congress is important, even if its odds of becoming law in the current Congress are slim. The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, would impose a tax on almost every ton of carbon emitted in the U.S., with the revenue going back to the public through tax breaks and other rebates. [...]
Finally, using part of the revenue to cut corporate taxes may be a good way to win support from Republicans, but that doesn't make it good policy. Because the brunt of the carbon tax would be borne by households in the form of higher prices, using the revenue to lower corporate taxes would amount to a tax transfer from people to companies. An ideal law would distribute the benefits more fairly according to the costs.