8/12 NOTA, News, & OT

The Progressive Wing Posted on by

With Kamala Harris as Biden’s VP pick, Newsom has a chance to appoint history-making senator

With California Sen. Kamala Harris now cemented as Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate, Gov. Gavin Newsom could soon face the politically perilous decision of whom to select as her replacement in the U.S. Senate.
The appointment promises to be one of the most consequential of his political career, both in California and in regard to any ambitions the Democratic governor may have for the White House. And it puts him at risk of upsetting some of the most powerful forces within his party no matter what he decides.

During a time of national reflection over the pervasive inequities and injustices suffered by Black Americans, Newsom will face significant pressure to appoint a Black woman to replace Harris. Harris is only the second Black woman in the nation’s history to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Conversely, an open seat would provide Newsom an opportunity to make history by appointing California’s first Latino senator. Though Latino public officials have ascended to other positions of power in California over the last two decades, the state’s most coveted political prizes — its two U.S. Senate seats and the governor’s office — have remained elusive.

“There are so many factors that go into a decision like this for Newsom. Fundamentally, it’s about his legacy,” said Democratic strategist Rose Kapolczynski, who ran campaigns for former California Sen. Barbara Boxer for two decades. “At this moment in time, there is going to be a lot of pressure to appoint a person of color. The dynamics may be somewhat different in November and December, but I don’t think this national reckoning on racial justice is going away.”

Democratic insiders and strategists interviewed by the Los Angeles Times provided their thoughts on those who might be in Newsom’s top tier. They asked not to be identified in order to more freely discuss the merits of Harris’ potential successors.

That list includes: Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Katie Porter of Irvine and Karen Bass of Los Angeles, who was also short-listed as a possible vice presidential nominee for Biden. Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a longtime political ally of the governor, also is at the top of the list, and Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia appears to be gaining steam.

Newsom might reach back to his political roots in the Bay Area, a wellspring of political power that has produced California’s last three senators and the last two governors, by tapping Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf or San Francisco Mayor London Breed. The governor could also decide to shore up his support in Southern California by selecting Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis, who served as U.S. Labor Secretary during the Obama administration, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank or state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego.

Or he could stick to a politician who recently won statewide office, evidence of the ability to defend the Senate seat when the post comes before California voters in the 2022 election. Along with Padilla, that short list includes Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, Controller Betty Yee and Treasurer Fiona Ma. Picking a statewide-office holder would also give Newsom a twofer since he would then have to appoint a replacement for the remainder of that person’s term in office.

Whomever Newsom selects would serve the balance of Harris’ term in the Senate, which ends in January 2023, if the governor decides not to call a special election.

A spokesman for Newsom also said the governor wouldn’t even consider the possibilities until after the November election.

“It’s the furthest thing from his mind,” said Nathan Click. “The governor is squarely focused on leading the state’s response to COVID-19 and helping Californians during this global pandemic.”

Padilla, a former Los Angeles City Council president and state senator, has been one of Newsom’s most loyal political allies over the past decade, and chaired Newsom’s ill-fated run for governor in 2010. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate has for years been mentioned as a possible successor to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who gave Padilla his first major break in politics when she hired him as a staff member.

Mindy Romero, director of the USC Center for Inclusive Democracy, said Padilla would be a top contender if Newsom filled any Senate vacancy — including one that could occur if Feinstein decided to retire before the end of her term in 2024. Not only has Padilla won two statewide races for secretary of state, he also is California’s top Latino elected official in a state with the largest Latino population in the U.S. About 30% of California residents who are eligible to vote are Latino.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 31, 2020, for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. (AP Photo/ Jacquelyn Martin)

“It would be incredibly significant, and I think he will be under pressure to appoint a Latino. It’s a long time coming in this state,” Romero said. “It’s a blue state. You put a Democratic senator in office and they do a good job, they will likely stay in office for decades. In that way it’s like the Supreme Court.”

That wasn’t the case the last time a California governor made a Senate appointment. Republican Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991 chose little-known moderate Republican state Sen. John Seymour of Orange County to succeed him in the U.S. Senate, which Wilson left when he was elected governor. Wilson saw Seymour as an ideological reflection of himself and praised the legislator’s prodigious fundraising abilities. A year after his appointment, however, Seymour was pummeled in the 1992 general election by Feinstein, who won by a 16-percentage-point margin.

The political landscape is even more treacherous today for the GOP. The percentage of Republican registered voters in California declined from 37% in 1992 to 24% this year. During that time, the percentage of Democrats dropped from 49% to 45%. Californians forgoing any partisan affiliation and registering as “no party preference” or “decline to state” increased from 10% in 1992 to 25% this year, putting them ahead of the GOP.

No Republican has won a statewide election in California since 2006.

State Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) said she was hopeful that Harris’ replacement in the Senate would be a woman, adding that women continue to be underrepresented in every level of government across the country. Currently, women account for just 26 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate — only 57 women have ever served in the upper chamber.

Correcting that glaring inequity is essential for the wellbeing of all Americans, Mitchell said, because women elected to political office elevate the importance of issues such as workers’ rights, child care, poverty and affordable housing.

“People who are impacted by those issues seem to fare better when more women are in office,” Mitchell said.

Mitchell said that, as a Black woman, Harris had also provided an essential voice in the Senate, speaking out on pay equity, the tragedy of Black men and women dying at the hands of police, and adequate healthcare. Mitchell hopes Newsom will replace that voice in the Senate.

For that and other reasons, Newsom would be hard pressed not to seriously consider Bass, who in recent months rocketed into national prominence as a potential vice presidential candidate. Bass, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is a seasoned legislator who served as speaker of the California Assembly before her election to the House of Representatives in 2010.

Before entering politics, Bass worked as a community organizer in Los Angeles in the 1980s and ’90s, joining a cauldron of activism that included young civil rights leaders who went on to become the heart of L.A.’s political establishment — including former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo.

“Of course you would have to consider Congresswoman Bass, along with everyone else,” Durazo said. “Gov. Newsom would have an enormous pool of talent to pick from in California. There’s no shortage, and that’s a great thing.”

Though not well known throughout most of the state, the mayor of Long Beach would also be a history-making pick for Newsom. Garcia, 42, who is the youngest mayor elected in Long Beach, is an immigrant from Peru and is gay. He also was one of the most prominent Latino leaders in Southern California to endorse Newsom for governor during the 2018 race.

Wouldn’t it be a kick if it were Ro Khanna.

I’m still traveling in Colorado, where it is beautiful every day at present, and I’m in either off roading, walking, or riding bikes. But to give one an idea where I stand, NOTA at the moment. (None of the above) But I remain hopeful for a more progressive legislative body.

More news, tweets, videos in the comments section. This serves as an open thread.

8/10 Trump Dumps with EO’s; News Round-up & OT

The Progressive Wing Posted on by

Good morning birdies! Let’s get the day going!

Trump’s Social Security payroll tax holiday is the first shot in a class and generational war

President Trump’s memorandum to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin ordering that he suspend Social Security taxes for some employers and their employees for the rest of this year makes no sense if the goal is to offset economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic.

But it makes a lot of sense if it is to undermine Social Security and stir up class and generational warfare, which is clearly the goal of both Trump and his close ally, Stephen Moore, who has railed against the whole idea of Social Security for years.

FAQ: What is in Trump’s four executive orders

Step back and look at the big picture — and listen to Trump say that he’ll eliminate Social Security tax next year should he be reelected — and you realize that if Trump prevails, it would likely mean the end of Social Security as we’ve known it.

“What President Trump has been calling a Social Security ‘tax holiday’ can easily turn into a permanent vacation,” says William Arnone, chief executive officer of the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Let me explain.

Trump originally pitched the idea of including a Social Security tax cut in the upcoming stimulus package to help people who’ve suffered economic damage because of the coronavirus pandemic.

As many people from across the political spectrum (including me) kept saying, this made no economic sense. The reason is obvious — if you’re one of the millions of Americans who’ve lost your job because of covid-19, you’re not paying Social Security tax. Therefore, eliminating that tax doesn’t put any money in your pocket.

But if your idea is to undermine Social Security by turning it into just another federal spending program rather than a program funded by a dedicated payroll tax and a $3 trillion trust fund, eliminating Social Security taxes for some employees and employers for the rest of this year and beyond makes a lot of sense.

In a Fox TV appearance Sunday, Mnuchin said the Treasury would make “an automatic contribution” to the Social Security Trust Fund to offset the loss of payroll tax revenue. And presumably if Trump got reelected and eliminated both the employee and employer portions of the Social Security tax permanently, the Treasury would make up for those losses, too.

What Mnuchin said is clearly designed to reassure people that Social Security is safe now and for future generations. But that’s not the case, because having Social Security funded out of general tax revenue would make it immensely vulnerable to political and financial pressures.

The way the system works now, Social Security takes in 12.4 percent of an employee’s income up to $137,700, split evenly between employer and employee.

Even though Social Security is currently paying out more money than it takes in, it’s not increasing the federal budget deficit, for technical reasons that we won’t go into here.

But if you permanently pay for Social Security out of general tax revenue — which is what would happen under Trump’s “if I’m reelected” scenario — that would greatly increase the federal budget deficit.

It would also turn Social Security from a self-funded intergenerational transfer program — my Social Security taxes paid for my late parents’ benefits, my adult children’s Social Security taxes are paying for my benefits — into just another federal program.

Trump’s proposal is far different than previous temporary Social Security tax cuts, including those for two years during the Obama presidency.

Yes, like Trump’s proposal, the Obama program used general revenue to compensate Social Security for its lost tax payments. But a two percent, two-year cut is a whole different thing than a through-the-end-of-the-year — and possibly forever — “tax holiday.”

That’s why I didn’t criticize the Obama program, but I’m criticizing the Trump program.

Trump’s payroll tax cut is a bad idea

Now, let me show you the class warfare part of what Trump is proposing.

His memorandum covers people earning $104,000 or less in salary, and their employers as well.

The majority of those people are paying more in Social Security tax — including the employer’s portion — than they pay in federal income tax.

Mainstream economists assume that the employer’s 6.2 percent portion is money that employees would otherwise get. That could well be true in the long run — but it’s not true in the short run in a situation like the one we’re in now, where jobs are scarce.

But Trump’s pitch is obvious. He’s implicitly promising what his order calls “the American workers most in need” a 12.4 percent immediate raise because they won’t have to pay their 6.2 percent Social Security tax, and their employers will give these workers the 6.2 percent Social Security tax that they will no longer have to pay.

I suspect that some businesses that want to kiss up to Trump may do this — but I can’t imagine that 6.2 percent migrating to employees from employers anytime soon.

The generational warfare would pit retirees and near-retirees who badly need Social Security against younger people, who think that the program won’t survive long enough to pay them and would rather have money in their pocket today than the prospect of getting Social Security in the future.

I hope I’m wrong about all of this, because I revere Social Security, which has allowed tens of millions of Americans — including some of my family members — to stay out of poverty in their old age and keep their self-respect.

More news, tweets, videos in the comments. See you there!

Please sign onto the complaint in defense of Stephen Donziger, the lawyer so viciously attacked by Chevron and the judicial system. Thank you.

The Progressive Wing Posted on by

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdMVafPa4Bj78L38QQoMDyNzX2E1tX15nKpXKsaYbu0xRzjrg/viewform

This above link should take you to the signature page. If not, I hope I bolded the link below. Here’s the email. Lauren is a local whom i have volunteered under and with many times. Lauren Regan CLDC.

Please excuse the length.

On Aug 6, 2020, at 1:30 PM, Lauren Regan wrote:

Dear colleagues in the public interest plaintiff bar—I (Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center) am one of the lead trial lawyers defending Steven Donziger pro bono. As you may know, human rights lawyer Steven Donziger has been SLAPP’d by Chevron after winning a 9 billion dollar judgment against the fossil fuel tyrant for poisoning the Ecuadorian Amazon. That SLAPP suit, which included outrageous RICO charges, bribes to witnesses by Chevron, and a district judge who is a former tobacco industry defense lawyer who just hates plaintiff do-gooders has been going on for years.

In fact today (Thursday) will mark the one year date of his pretrial home detention for the criminal contempt charge he faces as a result of appealing a decision made by Judge Kaplan ordering him to turn over his attorney client privileged documents and records that would imperil his indigenous clients and give his litigation strategy to Chevron. Steven did the right thing by informing the court that he disagreed with the order and was going to follow the proper process of filing an appeal of the decision to the 2nd circuit b/c you can’t ‘unring the bell’ once the info was turned over. Normally that would have been the end of the story. But this was is not normal, and the judge himself drafted criminal contempt charges and brought them to the US Attorneys office for prosecution. The US Attorneys refused to prosecute so Kaplan appointed a private law firm to be a private prosecutor instead. And several months ago we uncovered that the private firm, Seward & Kissel has Chevron and Chevron affiliates as clients. The audacity of this fossil fuel giant goes on and on….see links below for more details

It is important to remember—if they come after one of us, they come after all of us. And as Martin Niemoller once said:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Please sign on to this letter below:
and feel free to reach out to me if you would like.
In solidarity,
Lauren

Dear All,

On August 6, 2020, environmental human rights Lawyer Steven Donziger will have spent one year under house arrest facing charges of criminal contempt initiated by Chevron Corporation and ordered by Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York. The charges stem from Mr. Donziger’s objections to an order to turn over all of his electronic devices to Chevron Corporation, revealing all of his communications, including privileged communications. His objections are on constitutional and freedom of association grounds. This order is a culmination of a ten year battle by Chevron to discredit the Ecuadorian judgment to provide funds to clean up the oil pollution of Chevron’s predecessor, Texaco, in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Chevron’s attack on this judgment is to discredit the lawyers who brought it, particularly Mr. Donziger. This is a dangerous precedent, chilling legal representation.

In response, a dedicated group of human rights lawyers, initiated by the National Lawyers Guild and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, reviewed the record in the case and came to believe Judge Lewis A. Kaplan violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct in his handling of the case and facilitating Chevron’s attacks on Mr. Donziger and the Ecuadorian judgment and that his actions with respect to the criminal contempt charges are evidence of his misconduct.

The way Judge Kaplan has instituted and allowed lawyers who represent Chevron and the oil and gas industry to prosecute Mr. Donziger, has been criticized by two retired federal judges, Nancy Gertner and Mark Bennett as excessive. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ac2615b8f5130fda4340fcb/t/5f0dc3fd6a8632767c2de633/1594737663061/2020-07-13-law360-gertner-bennett.pdf

Complaints of judicial misconduct may be filed by anyone concerned with this conduct. Your signature on this complaint will assist in making the reviewing judges realize the importance of this case to the community of lawyers and lawyer/jurist/bar associations. This complaint is five pages and can be read at the attached link. This complaint is supported by a long Appendix and exhibits supporting the allegations in the complaint. It is available upon request.

View the full text of the complaint at this link: https://bit.ly/donzigerjudicialcomplaint

To sign on to the complaint, please visit this link: https://bit.ly/judicialcomplaintkaplan

The judicial complaint alleges that the “statements and actions of Judge Kaplan over the last ten years show him to have taken on the role of counsel for Chevron in these cases rather than that of a judge adjudicating a live controversy before him. By these actions, he has violated his duty of impartiality under the canons of judicial conduct.” It alleges that Judge Kaplan’s misconduct in this case has violated the Judicial Canons of Conduct and calls for the Second Circuit Court to appoint a special investigation committee and/or transfer the case to another circuit for further proceedings.

> We are asking for your support for this important judicial complaint. All legal and human rights organizations, lawyers, legal workers, and law students in the United States and internationally are invited to sign on to add your support for the complaint, which will be submitted to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

We ask for your signatures by 5:00 pm Pacific time on Monday, August 10, 2020.

To sign on to the complaint, please visit this link: https://bit.ly/judicialcomplaintkaplan

For further background on the Donziger case, please see:
· 475 international lawyers and human rights organizations support Steven Donziger in Chevron case: https://iadllaw.org/2020/05/over-475-lawyers-legal-organizations-and-human-rights-defenders-support-lawyer-steven-donziger/
· Amicus brief filed by the NLG and IADL in Steven Donziger’s mandamus case: https://iadllaw.org/2020/06/iadl-and-nlg-file-amicus-brief-in-donziger-case-highlighting-corporate-impunity-and-human-rights-violations/
· Article by distinguished retired federal judges Hons. Nancy Gertner (D. Mass.) and Mark Bennett (S.D. Iowa), “Criminal Contempt Charges In Donziger Case Are Excessive:” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ac2615b8f5130fda4340fcb/t/5f0dc3fd6a8632767c2de633/1594737663061/2020-07-13-law360-gertner-bennett.pdf

Thank you for your consideration on this important matter.

“One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. Today, our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change,” Reverend Martin Luther King, 1968.