Democrats In Congress Want To Have A Quiet Friendly Little Talk With Barack Obama... Before His Jobs Speech

This afternoon, the chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus-- who seem to be speaking for over half the Democrats in the House-- have asked for a meeting with the president before the joint session-- although with more and more Republicans declaring they're not going to even bother to attend, I'm not sure how joint a session it really is shaping up to be. Here's the letter the chairmen sent over to the White House today:

September 6, 2011
 
The Honorable Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500
 
Dear Mr. President:
 
As chairs of the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus representing more than half of the Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives, we are requesting a meeting with you regarding your upcoming speech to the nation on job creation. With unemployment at 9.1% nationally-- approaching 12% in the Hispanic community, 16.7% in the African American community and with Asian American and Pacific Islanders remaining unemployed for longer periods than any other group-- we are in a national crisis. We have learned throughout American history that big, bold action is required to put people back to work and promote economic growth.
 
Throughout the month of August, we heard repeatedly from our constituents and neighbors that their primary concern is the state of the economy and chronic unemployment. The American people want us to pass emergency jobs legislation that puts our nation back to work now. Further, Americans know we cannot cut our way to prosperity. The best, most effective way to tackle our debt problem is to put people back to work.
 
We can stem the tide of mass unemployment and meet our long-term national commitments by being bold now. The chairs of the CBC, CAPAC, CPC, and CHC look forward to an opportunity to talk with you about proposals we would like you to consider before you address the nation this week.
 
Sincerely,
 
Emanuel Cleaver, II, Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus                

Judy Chu, PhD., Chairwoman, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
                                 
Keith Ellison, Co-Chair Congressional Progressive Caucus                        
 
Charles A. Gonzalez Chairman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus  
                
Raúl M. Grijalva, Co-Chair Congressional Progressive Caucus

               
If I were a congressman I'd be doing the same thing... trying to talk Obama into facing reality and making him understand that you can't have civic engagement with nihilists bent on your-- and, more important, the country's-- destruction. It hasn't done any good to meet these fascists half way. In fact, it has done irreparable damage. But I'm not a congressman and I'm done listening to Obama. I don't want to hear him any longer. I've heard enough. Let me know if he does something. Until then, I'll assume he's going to lose his reelection bid and I'll be working my ass off to help elect worthwhile progressives to the House and to the Senate. (Take a look; see if there's anyone you'd like to get behind.)

I just saw this post by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. Looks like we're on the exact same Obama track:

Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has started doing again what he does best-- play the part of a progressive. He's good at it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and ordinary people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely make up his inner circle.

I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to listen to him.

Who's For Us-- Who's Against Us... The Battle Inside The Democratic Caucus Over Social Security

Yesterday it was with regret, but not surprise, when we recounted newly elected Democratic hack Janice Hahn's pathetic response to a simple question about protecting Social Security and Medicare. This would have once have been a softball question and an opportunity for a Democratic politician to assure seniors and working families that they're in good hands with the Democrats. Instead, Hahn-- who won her tough primary because she was heavily backed by self-serving but extremely short-sited unions-- used the opportunity to appeal to conservatives:

"Americans want us to get together and come up with common sense solutions... If compromises need to be made, I will certainly follow the lead of the President."

Not a good first impression. This will haunt her forever. Progressives have a very different approach. The biggest Democratic Party congressional caucus in the House is the Progressive Caucus, led by Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Here's the letter they sent to Nancy Pelosi this week:

We write in strong agreement with your unwavering defense of the Democratic programs that form the bedrock of America’s middle and working classes, and which are overwhelmingly popular.

On July 7, you made very clear that “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” and that “we do not support cuts in benefits” for vital safety-net programs. We agree completely.

Especially in these tough economic times, we should not be cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of our constituents paid into and depend on. Such benefit cuts should be off the table in current debt discussions.

Our Republican colleagues should be embarrassed by their insistence that unless Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are cut, the nation will default on its debts. Middle-class families have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.

We are united as Democrats in saying that it’s time to stand up to the Republican hostage-taking. We will not be forced to vote for a “final agreement” that we do not agree to-- and that the American people do not agree to.

We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side.

Obama (and Hahn) are more than ready to “balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” and "support cuts in benefits” for vital safety-net programs. It's what separates progressives from conservatives inside the Democratic Party and it's why it's so important to pay attention to primaries. Do you think Debra Bowen or Marcy Winograd would be talking about sacrificing seniors and vulnerable families to corporate avarice? And on the first day after election? It's why Blue America urged voters in CA-36 to turn out for Bowen and why we regretted Winograd's willingness to fall into the trap set for her by sleazy Hahn operative Joe Trippi to split the progressive vote and let Hahn slip in as the Democratic nominee so that the contest would be between a conservative and a reactionary rather than between a progressive and a conservative. There are races for Congress just like this shaping up all over America. Aside from our normal candidates page, we have a page dedicated to progressives facing conservative Democrats, Send the Democrats A Message. Right now, our candidates on that page, Wenona Baldenegro (D-AZ) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) are both proven progressives who are battling two former House members with egregiously right-wing records, respectively Ann Kirkpatrick and Ed Case, two of the worst Members of Congress in our lifetimes, each of whom made a habit of reflexively voting with the GOP at every opportunity.

That letter Grijalva and Ellison sent Pelosi already has over 60 co-signers, Members willing to stand up to the Conservative Consensus that has an iron grip on power Inside-the-Beltway and certainly includes not just the Republican Party and the Blue Dog caucus but even President Obama. Former Blue Dog and current chairman of the DCCC, Steve Israel (D-NY), who could normally be counted on to push the conservative consensus positions on anything and everything told members at a private meeting that entitlements cuts would be damaging politically to the party, and could even hurt candidate recruitment.

All Blue America-endorsed candidates back the letter and Blue America won't be endorsing any incumbents who don't sign on. Needless to say, Janice Hahn will have as much chance of earning Blue America support as Eric Cantor and John Boehner do. So far, the Members who have signed on to Grijalva's and Ellison's letter include:
Sam Farr (D-CA), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Jim McGovern (D-MA), John Lewis (D-GA), David Wu (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Bob Filner (D-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Danny Davis (D-IL), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), John Tierney (D-MA), Lucille Royabal-Allard (D-CA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Joe Baca (Blue Dog-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Elijah Cummings (D-MI), Mark Critz (D-PA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), John Olver (D-MA), Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and Al Green (D-TX).

It will be interesting to see how many of them fold when the White House starts screaming and when they throw in a bone-- probably an unemployment extension. Meanwhile, none of the Democrats who have consistently voted more freuqnetly with Boehner and Cantor than with their own caucus, has signed on the protect Social Security and Medicare. Clearly, right-wing Democrats like Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA), Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN), Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY), Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC) and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)-- the bottom of the barrel-- may not support Obama on anything else, but will back him to the hilt if he sets out to fulfill the conservative dream of gutting Social Security and Medicare.

Does Raising Taxes On The Rich And On Corporations Hurt the Economy?

Always a big mistake to let fascists set the rules of the field. When will President Obama ever learn that? As Chris Cillizza pointed out in the Washington Post earlier, Obama's "grand bargain" with GOP fascists means defeat for the American people and defeat for his own political party.

The news that President Obama is privately urging congressional Democrats to consider major changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of a so-called "grand bargain" on the federal debt has considerable political implications.

For months Democratic strategists have pointed to the House vote in favor of a budget proposal put forward by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan that would transform Medicare into a voucher program as their silver bullet heading into the 2012 congressional election.

"Our three most important issues: Medicare, Medicare and Medicare," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said recently when asked how her party could reclaim the majority in 2012.

So, might Obama's decision to put Medicare on the table rob his party of a prized political issue heading into the next election? There's an active debate within the party on that very question.

Democratic strategists are cautiously optimistic that such a scenario won't come to pass, insisting that making changes to strengthen Medicare-- if that comes to pass-- is a very different thing from what they describe as a drastic overhaul of the program being proposed by Ryan.

...The thinking among [progressives-- as opposed to Democratic Party careerists and hacks] is that voters won’t delve deeply enough into the specifics of the Medicare proposals to differentiate between what the Obama White House wants and what Ryan pushed.

"A grand bargain on Medicare will let Republicans who support the deal off the hook on their Ryan budget vote," said one senior Democratic operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy. "If attacked on the Ryan budget they can easily counter they voted for the same thing Obama supported. Poof."

No matter where you come down on this particular debate, it does highlight an important political reality: what's good for the president is not always what's good for his party in the House and Senate.

That's why Obama is thick as thieves with the likes of Wall Street slime like Tiny Tim Geithner and Rahm Emanuel-- and why he doesn't give a hoot what people like Paul Krugman or Van Jones (see the video above) have to say. Today we've heard some of the initial reactions to Obama's "grand bargain" strategy. Corporate whores like Third Way, of course, are tickled pink. Bernie Sanders, Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, AARP and the members of MoveOn are fuming. Even Nancy Pelosi says Democrats will not support Obama on this crazy jag right. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse adds, "It's time for a shared sacrifice. We need to unequivocally declare that benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare are off the table. We cannot solve the deficit crisis on the back of our seniors. We need all Americans to pay their fair share."

And two dozen House progressives-- Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Mike Capuano, Judy Chu, Hansen Clarke, John Conyers, Danny Davis, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Marcia Fudge, Luis Gutierrez, Mike Honda, Sheila Jackson Lee, Hank Johnson, John Lewis, Jim McGovern, Jerry Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Chellie Pingree, Ed Pastor, Pete Stark, Bennie Thompson, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey-- sent Obama a letter laying out their demands that any final budget deal generate significant revenue and avoid cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

First, any cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be taken off the table. The individuals depending on these three programs deserve well-conceived improvements, not deep, ideologically driven cuts with harmful consequences... Second, revenue increases must be a meaningful part of any agreement. Tax breaks benefiting the very richest Americans should be eliminated as part of this deal... These points are essential for any deal on the debt ceiling, but more work to rebuild the economy will remain after these negotiations have concluded... We stand ready to work with the Administration responsibly to increase the debt ceiling. The middle class has experienced enough pain during the last three years. Republicans are willing to inflict even more. We will not join them.

Needless to say, California Blue Dog Mike Thompson would never sign on to a letter like this. And it now looks like redistricting will put him down into Lynn Woolsey's old district (Marin and Sonoma), where he'll be facing progressive champion Norman Solomon. We asked Norman, who has been endorsed by Blue America, where he stands on this debate between progressives and conservatives. Like all the Blue America candidates, he would certainly have signed on to the letter to Obama, plans to join the Progressive Caucus and told us:

Contrary to myth, Social Security is solvent-- and many of the proposals to fix what isn't broken would actually 'save' Social Security by doing irreversible damage. For instance, the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security is already too low, yet now we're seeing a big push to cut COLA-- which would have devastating effects, especially harming women and low-income families. Let's keep in mind that about one-third of Social Security recipients depend on it for more than 90 percent of their income. The Obama administration should be protecting seniors and the most vulnerable among us, not using them as pawns in budget negotiations. The Republicans in Congress are out to destroy Social Security and Medicare-- while many Democrats in Washington, including the president, are putting those essential programs on the chopping block. This is outrageous. I will fight to protect Social Security and Medicare to my last breath.

Nick Ruiz, the Blue America-backed candidate in central Florida sees this much the way Norman does and thinks Democratic candidates need to speak out and speak out loudly.

"America's liberalism should never be one of fear and denial. Ours should be a liberalism of lions. There is an old wisdom that to lead one must often follow. But Barack Obama is following the wrong people. The citizen-voters that put him in office, did so because they believed he symbolized a change in the status quo, an opportunity to expand upon the great American event that is the New Deal.

It cannot be the case that the progressive citizens of America must be made to pass through the filter of the President. It must be the other way around. We embody what the majority of Americans desire for their country - and literally every survey confirms it.

Democracy requires not the mechanical reproduction of the status quo. It requires that truth challenges falsity. It requires that we challenge any leader that betrays our principles. Obama has not yet earned the Democratic nomination for 2012. Until he does he should be challenged. Who will rise to the occasion on behalf of the majority of Americans?"

I also heard from another Blue America-backed House candidate, Ed Potosnak (D-NJ), a very loyal Democrat who was astounded by Obama's connivance with the Republicans on the entirely manufactured debt ceiling "crisis." He told me this morning, sadly I think, that "our duly elected officials are turning their backs on one of our most vulnerable groups, our seniors, when what seniors really need is someone to fight for them. I am extremely disappointed the President has chosen to target struggling seniors in an attempt to reduce the deficit. Trillions of dollars and countless lives have been lost in recent unfunded wars. When I am in Congress I will fight against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and will work to significantly reduce military spending (currently 63% of our nation's discretionary spending)."

You can support Norman's, Ed's and Nick's campaigns here, on a page dedicated to candidates who put American families first, not narrow partisan interests, let alone the demands from Wall Street and Big Business which drive most national politics. John Laesch, a union carpenter who hastened the political demise of then-Speaker Denny Hastert, hasn't declared his candidacy yet-- but he's likely to. When he does, Blue America will endorse him... the same day. I always turn to him for advise on matters of importance to working families. This morning he voiced profound disappointment in President Obama:

It is reprehensible that Republicans and President Obama want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits on those who have played by the rules and paid into the system their whole lives. “Cutting” or even “saving” Social Security does nothing for senior citizens who are facing escalating costs for food, prescriptions and rent. If we want to get serious about protecting the most successful safety net program in American history, one thing we absolutely need to do is lift the cap on high income earners who make more than $106,800 per year.

The decision by Republicans and President Obama to shrink benefits from senior citizens who are already struggling on fixed incomes signals that a page has been turned in the painful saga known as the war on the middle class. During this recession-turning-depression, working people are taking it on the chin again, and again, and again while those who created the economic crisis are making out like bandits. It is wrong. It is un-American. It needs to be stopped.

That brings us to two final items: Bernie Sander's inspiring speech yesterday on the Senate floor (below) and Paul Krugman's late-in-the-day column for the Times. He thinks Democrats need to be very worried about Obama's sell-out to the Republicans and their-- and, let's be honest, his-- Big Business financiers.

On Thursday, President Obama met with Republicans to discuss a debt deal. We don’t know exactly what was proposed, but news reports before the meeting suggested that Mr. Obama is offering huge spending cuts, possibly including cuts to Social Security and an end to Medicare’s status as a program available in full to all Americans, regardless of income.

...It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth.

One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

That’s three of the right’s favorite economic fallacies in just two sentences. No, the government shouldn’t budget the way families do; on the contrary, trying to balance the budget in times of economic distress is a recipe for deepening the slump. Spending cuts right now wouldn’t “put the economy on sounder footing.” They would reduce growth and raise unemployment. And last but not least, businesses aren’t holding back because they lack confidence in government policies; they’re holding back because they don’t have enough customers-- a problem that would be made worse, not better, by short-term spending cuts.

In his brief remarks after Thursday’s meeting, by the way, Mr. Obama seemed to reiterate the Herbert Hooveresque view that deficit reduction is what we need to “grow the economy.”

People have asked me why the president’s economic advisers aren’t telling him not to believe in the confidence fairy-- that is, not to believe the assertion, popular on the right but overwhelmingly refuted by the evidence, that slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy will magically create jobs. My answer is, what economic advisers? Almost all the high-profile economists who joined the Obama administration early on have either left or are leaving.

Nor have they been replaced. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, there are a “stunning” number of vacancies in important economic posts. So who’s defining the administration’s economic views?

Some of what we’re hearing is presumably coming from the political team, whose members seem to believe that a move toward Republican positions, reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” in the 1990s, is the key to Mr. Obama’s re-election. And Mr. Clinton did, indeed, rebound from a big defeat in the 1994 midterms to win big two years later. But some of us think that the rebound had less to do with his rhetorical move to the center than with the five million jobs the economy added over those two years-- an achievement not likely to be repeated this time, especially not in the face of harsh spending cuts.

Anyway, I don’t believe that it’s all political calculation. Watching Mr. Obama and listening to his recent statements, it’s hard not to get the impression that he is now turning for advice to people who really believe that the deficit, not unemployment, is the top issue facing America right now, and who also believe that the great bulk of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. It’s worth noting that even Republicans weren’t suggesting cuts to Social Security; this is something Mr. Obama and those he listens to apparently want for its own sake.

Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it?

Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.

Some claim that this whole dust-up is just more Obaman 18 dimensional chess and that he knows the Republicans will never sign off on their end of the "grand design" (tax increases on millionaires)... but, on a brighter note, let's take our fate into our own hands, leave Obama to his own, and help elect actual progressives who will fight for us not for Wall Street. More like this guy:

Speakout for Good Jobs Now: A "listening tour" sponsored by ProgressiveCongress.org

With an update from Howie (see below)



"The Speakout for Good Jobs Now tour will feature stops in numerous cities across America giving Americans the chance to speak out about how the economy is affecting them. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus will listen to what everyday Americans have to say and take that back to Washington with them as they continue to fight to reinvigorate the American Dream -- the ability to put in a day’s hard work for good wages and benefits so we can provide our children with a better future."

-- tour sponsored by ProgressiveCongress.org,
kicking off this Saturday, June 18, in Minneapolis

by Ken

During the 2010 election campaign, it was widely noticed by people not connected or in thrall to the official Democratic Party organs (emphatically including the White House, although come to think of it President-elect Obama made them one and the same, didn't he?) that one thing there was hardly any of in the official messaging was mention of jobs. The electorate noticed.

The administration has noticed and now frequently mentions the word jobs. Unfortunately, even as the message seems to be penetrating the political wing of the operation that the 2012 election is likely to turn on economic performance, mentioning the word seems to be about the limit of the administration's engagement with the issue. Meanwhile, from the Republicans comes the traditional Republican chant: tax cuts and now increasingly spending cuts. Of course the kinds of tax cuts the Republicans want won't produce jobs, in large part because they aren't designed to. (They're designed to benefit the rich and superrich, and also, in the case of the payroll tax cuts, to make Social Security, which has always funded itself, dependent for the first time in its history on the congressional budget process.) And the spending cuts, apart from the devastating effects they'll have on the people who needed the programs being crippled, will of course result in substantial job losses. (Did anyone ever expect consistency from right-wing ideologues?)

Into the breach now are stepping the Congressional Progressive Caucus and ProgressiveCongress.org, which today announced a 12-city Speakout for Good Jobs Now tour, in which the hope is to gather and share stories of people's needs and solutions and to share and gather more solutions. I've pulled some basic information out of the website in its current state. As you can see, there's still location and guest-speaker information to be filled in, and no doubt the information listed currently will be subject to change. The online event information page will presumably be updated as new information becomes available, and also contains instructions for requesting texted reminders for each event.


ATTEND A LOCAL EVENT

June 18: MINNEAPOLIS, 2-4 pm
Wesley Church, 101 E Grant St.

Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva (MN and AZ, CPC cochairs) and Jared Polis (CO), during Netroots Nation 2011

June 27: DETROIT, 6-8pm
Historic King Solomon Baptist Church, 6100 14th St.

Reps. Keith Ellison (MN, CPC cochair), John Conyers (MI), and Hansen Clarke (MI)

June 28: MILWAUKEE, 6-8pm
Vincent High School, 7501 N Granville Rd.

Reps. Raúl Grijalva (AZ, CPC cochair), Gwen Moore (WI), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Jan Schakowsky (IL)

June 30: NEW YORK CITY, 6-8pm
Hostos Community College, 500 Grand Concourse, Bronx

Reps. Charlie Rangel (NY) and Jerrold Nadler (NY)

July 16: MIAMI
Time and location information to come

Reps. Raúl Grijalva (AZ, CPC cochair) and Lynn Woolsey (CA)

July 18: PITTSBURGH, 6-8pm
Kinsley Association, 645 Frankstown Ave.

Reps. Raúl Grijalva (AZ, CPC cochair), John Conyers (MI), and Mike Doyle (PA)

July 19: PHILADELPHIA
Time and location information to come

Reps. Raúl Grijalva (AZ, CPC cochair), Bob Brady (PA), and Chaka Fattah (PA)

July 20: BOSTON
Time and location information to come

Rep. Jim McGovern (MA)

July 21: HOUSTON
Time and location information to come

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX)

July 22: PORTLAND, Oregon
Schedule and guest information to come

July 23: SEATTLE, 12-2pm
Brockey Conference Center, South Seattle Community College, 6000 16th Ave. SW

Guest information to come

August 16: OAKLAND
Schedule and guest information to come

TELL YOUR STORY

Are you a single mom struggling to make ends meet? Are you a young college graduate working a part-time, minimum wage job? Are you unemployed or under-employed? Tell us about your situation and why you believe we need to make it easier to help Americans earn a fair wage for a hard day's work. You can also, using the appropriate box below, submit the link to a YouTube video where you tell us your story via video. Be sure to tag your video with "SpeakOut."

SIGN ON TO THE PLEDGE

See link above.


UPDATE FROM HOWIE: Second Bill of Rights

I'm glad Ken decided to write up the Congressional Progressive Caucus "Speakout for Good Jobs Now" listening tour. It sounds an awful lot like they're finally trying to fulfill the promises Franklin Roosevelt made to America in his 1944 State of The Union address, a list of promises the far right and their media allies have done all they could to bury.

FDR was proposing "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed." Conservatives reacted as violently against FDR's second Bill of Rights as they reacted against the original Bill of Rights. This is what Roosevelt promised-- and as you read it, recognize how successful the right has been in making sure none of it has come to be. Democrats have been wasting their time putting their hops in the hands of Wall Street/Big Business shills like the Blue Dogs and corporate whores like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Yeah, yeah... they're "better" than Republicans but what have they done to help move this agenda forward?

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Let's make sure that next time we get to pick a Democratic nominee, it isn't someone like Clinton or Obama or Biden, but someone with a record of having fought for the second Bill of Rights.

#