America's Future Now!

#AFN on Twitter

Terrance Heath — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:15:43 -0700

One particularly fun part of America's Future Now 2009 was joining conference attendees and others in "tweeting" the conference. Here are some of our favorites from Twitter.

OurFuturedotorg Everybody who was at our #afn conference in DC - thanks! Working now on big follow-up plans. Let's stay in touch! #followfriday

~~~

tzfoley had a great time at america's future now.. met a ton of awesome progressive leaders/activists.. anyone know marcy wheeler's email? #afn

~~~

fedor4pa #afn very impressed and I'm energized to mobilize to revolutionize america. Who's w me?

~~~

jengon74 @#afn was a great success. Thanks to all the attendees, volunteers and staff that made it happen!!

~~~

JUSTECO1 #AFN so great to see so many fellow Progressives, no back to work...

~~~

sayhar was at a panel in #afn bout the future of the media. i think local news will be driven by the partisan press & outraged bloggers/citiz ...

~~~

CarmenSpinDiego Just finished the last day of americas future now conference it was incredible #afn

~~~

zdry http://twitpic.com/6jj9l - Erica Williams, Campus Progress, repping our folks at the closing session of #afn

~~~

ahynes1 RT CarmenSpinDiego: There's no reason except greed that the unted states doesn't have universal healthcare-leo gerard #afn

~~~

KagroX Pleased to have heard a great speech by @ericawilliamsdc at #afn !

~~~

itseddie naomi klein, you are amazing. erica williams, you are inspiring. #afn

~~~

addiestan #afn Gabriela Sanchez, winner of the Maria Leavey Award, gave a moving presentation that combined speech and song.

~~~

tzfoley Leo Girard: I'm tired of Wall Street throwing up in my shoes #afn

~~~

JUSTECO1 #AFN Erica L. Williams for President!

~~~

JFierce RT @zdry Erica Williams quoting Hemingway: the world breaks everyone, and afterwards some are stronger in the broken places. #afn

~~~

Adriennemaree RT @JFierce: There's no such thing as a transformative president- you can't have that without transformative movements. - Naomi Klein #AFN

~~~

NobleFreshEnerg RT @wellstoneaction: Keith Ellison: no "allies" in global warming fight- we ALL have skin in that game, at America's Future Now, DC #afn

~~~

JFierce The President will be okay- we need to have the backs of people, of folks on the ground- Naomi Klein #AFN

~~~

ahynes1 #afn Representative Keith Ellison rocks the final luncheon

~~~

zdry If we could make Nixon pull out of Vietnam and create EPA, what can we make this president do? Rep Keith Ellison #afn

~~~

digitalsista digital divide & broadband was mentioned about the fact that those voices are still not included b/c they can't afford $65 a month #afn

~~~

Phillyberg @digitalsista exactly! and their towns are rural and don't have wireless. #afn

~~~

digitalsista fundamental shift of media for minority is a loss to that community that gets hits the hardest in this economy #afn

~~~

zdry We must work together to defend our civil rights even when it means pushing our friends. (Vagins) #afn

~~~

DCBadger RT @jephilip: Brandon Silverman making great points abt online organizing on a budget. invest in a microphone u don't need an hd video #afn

~~~

zdry Targeted universalism recognizes that our fates are linked - these issues will spill into all of our lives if not fixed (powell) #afn

~~~

ahynes1 @digitalsista I am at the New Media Session at #afn Good turnout. Starting off interactively.

~~~

jephilip Great turn out for Progressive Majority session on new media. Still have seats if you want to join us in the senate room.

~~~

zdry Insurers say competition is good - until they have to do it. (Sen. Sharod Brown on a public option) #afn

~~~

tzfoley brown: clean water, medicare, etc none of these battles won because politicians are kind-hearted.. came from pressure from progressives #afn

~~~

ahynes1 #afn Collaborating on Ideas for the Long-Term has great brainstorming session on progressive headlines in ten years.

~~~

The Next Fight: Immigration Reform

Sara Robinson — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:06:09 -0700

Republicans have been running on immigration as a signature issue for the past several elections, so it's ironic that progressives are the ones with the most to gain from solving the immigration problem. But before we can do that, we need to understand—and agree—on what the problems are, and what can and should be done.

That was the conclusion drawn by the four speakers at the "The Politics of Immigration: Workers, Justice, and Immigration Reform" panel at America's Future Now! on Tuesday afternoon.

Moderator Gabe Gonzales of the Center for Community Change tipped his hat to the GOP for their role in galvanizing the Latino vote in recent years. He noted that the pro-immigrant demonstrations in 2006 brought over three million people out into the streets. "The Republicans have done something that hasn't happened in 30 years, " he reflected. "When they started making generalized attacks on Latino immigrants, everybody came together in self-defense. When this panel is over, I'm going to take up a collection for a statue of Pete Wilson and James Sensenbrenner -- they're the Number One and Number Two Latino organizers in the country."

Still, it's not going to be easy, especially as long as progressives themselves remain divided on the issue of immigration.

VIDEO

Watch the June 2 immigration reform panel discussion at the America's Future Now! conference.

The Politics of Immigration at America's Future Now! from AmericasFuture on Vimeo.

Angelica Salas of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles opened the discussion by describing the specific problems immigrants face in dealing with the US Government. Strikingly, an estimated 40 percent of undocumented immigrants do have an application for legal status pending. They're in the system, and following the law; but processing takes so long (upwards of a decade in many cases) and the system is so chaotic that their cases simply haven't been resolved.

Others have been through the process, and been denied—often for purely bureaucratic reasons. A 1996 overhaul in immigration law penalized people who waited too long after their arrival to start the application process. If you wait over six months, you can't file an application for three years; and if you wait a year, you need to wait ten years to apply. In effect, this rule means that these people can't apply for legal status at all.

And while they're waiting, these immigrants have no protection against employer abuse, discrimination, or exploitation. Since they're forced to live in the shadows, their ability to fully integrate into the mainstream of American culture is compromised, too. Immigrant parents with American-born children can be deported in an instant, forced to leave their children behind. And, Salas makes clear, as long as we tolerate this situation, these immigrants will be a perfect right-wing scapegoat that can be blamed for everything from a decaying health care system to falling wages to labor issues. Having these immigrants in our economy gives conservatives a too-perfect excuse for their failure to address a great many issues.

Empowering these immigrants can also be a major win for progressives as a movement. "Immigration will matter as long as labor issues matter," said Eliseo Medina of SEIU, which organizes more immigrant workers than any other union in the country. He stressed that we cannot solve one issue without also addressing the other -- and the way we solve both has serious implications for how we address our larger economic problems as well.

Even before the recession, said Eliseo, we were struggling with huge numbers of people without health care, growing income inequality, the erosion of pension plans, a shrinking middle class, and an increasing disregard for labor laws that drained away the size and political clout of unions. But in attacking Latino immigrants, he noted, the right wing has awakened a giant. They underestimated the number of Latino-American citizens, citizens who are now unified and voting in numbers never seen before.

"They've learned what it is to participate and win," said Medina. "And they're going to be a force going forward." He pointed out that about two-thirds of Latino voters voted for Obama. Reforming immigration will put 12 million currently undocumented people on the path to citizenship, which will further expand the coalition of progressive voters.

"Will we win?" asked Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum. "Yes." Noorani pointed out that last year, 20 out of 25 House races in swing states -- and five swing state Senate races -- were won by candidates who stood for comprehensive immigration reform. In North Carolina -- not exactly a progressive stronghold -- Liddy Dole spent half her war chest on anti-immigrant ads...and lost anyway.

Noorani noted that the right wing has no real coherent answers to the problem of immigration. They're mostly interested in beefing up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and deporting immigrants and their families. Real reform involves a much broader solution that brings the immigration system back under control; restores stability and responsibility; adds structure to the system; makes application for legal status mandatory; reunifies families; gives immigrants access to due process and the courts; and builds an enforcement system that's efficient, effective, and humane both at the border and in the interior. And it needs to create a pathway that allows immigrants to integrate, and succeed.

"This is not the silver bullet to the economic crisis, but it's a critical part of it," Noorani said. Undocumented workers are a "trap door in the wage floor," exploited by crooked employers. When we let immigrants slide through that door, we're also leaving it open for those same crooked employers to exploit African-American workers, then white workers. "We close that trap door, and everybody can compete for a job on a level playing field, for a living wage."

And, said Noorani, this fight begins right now. Next Monday, President Obama is convening Congressional leaders to start the push for an immigration reform bill, which he wants to get passed this year. The goal is to get 279 votes in the House, and 60 in the Senate. The fight will continue through the summer and fall, so this is the moment our representatives really need to hear from us.

What will that fix look like? Noorani offered three hard criteria for any successful bill. First, it must create a pathway for quick legalization of existing undocumented workers, so they can stop living underground and be counted. Second, it has to continue America's tradition of family reunification. Point systems encourage solitary immigrants, who arrive without any community or personal support infrastructure. When families arrive together and join up into immigrant communities, they're far more successful, and ultimately assimilate more smoothly. Third, it needs to be viable over the long run: if it doesn't allow us to process future immigrants in a sane, reasonable, timely way, we're going to keep having this conversation over and over in the future.

We also need to oppose any proposal to eliminate the Constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship; recognize border-wall proposals as the boondoggles and gimmicks that they are; and reject any bill that makes undocumented workers into instant felons—a move that would drive them even further underground.

Ray Marshall, who was Jimmy Carter's labor secretary and is now teaching at the University of Texas, concluded the panel with a positive vision what the world could look like if reform succeed. He sees immigration reform as an integral part of a larger shared prosperity, because our immigrants would be fully empowered to succeed and contribute to America's culture and economy. And it's the necessary first step to improving protections for native-born American workers as well.

But first, Marshall continued, we need to convince the other side that maintaining the status quo is no longer an option—and that if they oppose it, they will be overridden in Congress. "We will have more immigrants in five years. The question is: on what terms, and how do we use the immigration process to support our shared prosperity agenda? We need a system that's fair, transparent, and in the best interest of the country."

Furthermore, said Marshall, we need to think globally. Five or ten years on, we might include Canada and Mexico in this "shared prosperity agenda," harmonizing the labor and immigration laws of all three countries in ways that discourage immigration from Mexico. "And then the world would be talking about the North American miracle, about how shared prosperity set a new standard of living for the entire hemisphere."

As the panel ended, the panelists and audience reflected on how much more useful it is for progressives to organize around ideas and goals, instead of cultural identities. Salas talked passionately about the importance of finding strength in your own identity -- but then reaching out beyond that to join with others to create a progressive vision we can all share. We all want the same things for ourselves and our children -- but because our issues are all so deeply interwined, we can only get those things by working together.

Supporters of immigration reform are encouraged to text 69866 justice to sign up for updates from the immigration action network.

Progressives Draw The Line On Health Care

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:53:58 -0700

Most people attending the America's Future Now conference are clear about one thing when it comes to health care: They are not prepared to compromise away the choice of a public health care option in order to get other reforms.

In a straw poll at America's Future Now! done jointly by Democracy Corps and the Campaign for America's Future, 63 percent said they agreed with the statement that "including a public option is the only way to hold the insurance companies accountable and force them to bring down costs. I can't support a health care plan that does not include the choice of a public option."

Only 24 percent said they "could support a health care plan that does not include a public option as long as it expands affordable coverage to all Americans and prevents insurance companies from denying coverage."

That should send a clear signal to Capitol Hill that progressive activists will not stand for having the public health insurance option being used as a political bargaining chip. It is a core demand.

There were disturbing signals in the Senate that a deal is being worked out with the Obama administration that a public plan option would be subject to a "trigger" that would only fire if private insurance companies fail to meet some yet-undetermined goals that they would presumably use their clout in Congress to set. Progressive health-care activists have already made it clear that such a bargain is unacceptable, and the grass-top activists at the conference largely agree.

Health care reform was considered one of the top two priorities of the country by 70 percent of participants, with 43 percent considering it a number one priority. Ranking second was alternative energy policy, with 32 percent ranking it in the top two priorities.

Some other key results from the poll:

Ninety percent on poll participants said they generally support President Obama and the job he is doing, while 10 percent disapprove.
The administration's most important accomplishment so far has been Congressional passage of a budget framework that allows for energy and health care reforms, 41 percent of participants said.
Eighty-one percent would like to see an investigation of Wall Street excesses that contributed to the financial crisis. Such an investigation is authorized in legislation recently signed by President Obama. Another 67 percent would like to see an investigation of Bush administration alleged illegalities with regard to the handling of terrorist subjects, which the Obama administration opposes.
On the question of whether progressives should focus on helping President Obama accomplish his legislative goals or whether progressives should be more independent and focus on pushing him to be bolder, 48 percent said they preferred the latter.

The Politics of Immigration

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:40:32 -0700

Gabe Gonzalez of the Center for Community Change leads a panel discussion on how progressives can forge common ground on an immigration reform strategy. The panel includes Angelica Salas of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum, former Labor secretary Ray Marshall and Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union.

Awards Gala

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:40:32 -0700

Three people on the front lines of the fight for social and economic justice—John J. Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO; Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change—were honored Tuesday night at the America's Future Gala Awards Evening. Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., a rising progressive leader in Congress, was master of ceremonies.

Building The Progressive Road

Digby — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:57:53 -0700

One of progressive politics' greatest challenges is to continue to evolve and expand even as its allies in government are in power. All the incentives change and motives and direction get complicated. It's a nice problem to have, but it's a problem nonetheless.

This AFN conference is a study in how that's developing and it's looking pretty good. People are starting to adjust to being out of purely oppositional mode and beginning to create institutions and mechanisms to push the progressive agenda from the outside in. Yesterday, I attended a fascinating discussion featuring Adam Green, Progressive Change Campaign Committee,Mike Lux, author, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be and Progressive Strategies, LLC, Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), Stephanie Taylor, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Darcy Burner, Progressive Change Campaign Committee. This talk was basically about how new groups like the PCCC are going to go about making the Democratic party more responsive to progressives.

Periello and Burner, both having run tough campaigns as progressives in red districts shared their experiences and had a lot of excellent pointers for candidates. Burner, who lost her race and is now working in DC on creating some new progressive networking capabilities, said that progressive candidates need to have their own ecosystem and work together and also create feedback with the movement itself for a multiplier effect. Periello said that you have to make the progressive case during the campaign, and Lux said you have to be willing to wage a fight.

These things all seem fairly obvious when you see them written down, but what was interesting was their stories about how difficult it was to actually do those obvious things. Progressivism has been so marginalized in mainstream politics that there has literally been no road to run on.

Luckily that seems to be changing. With the work of institutions like CAF, which provides an important issue forum for progressives to draw upon and new groups like Adam Green's PCCC, which seeks to give practical guidance on the ground to progressive candidates so they can do all those things that Periello and Burner found to be valuable in their campaigns, the progressive movement is entering a new phase. It's going to be an interesting and rewarding time if it all comes together.

War Without End

Digby — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:01:00 -0700

Marcy Wheeler hosted a panel on torture at the AFN conference featuring Rep. Jerry Nadler and Christopher Anders of the ACLU, in which Nadler set forth a couple of ideas that are illuminating about the thinking among political players on the subject.

Marcy writes about one of them here:

Yesterday, Jerrold Nadler announced he will hold a hearing on state secrets on Thursday.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, will chair a legislative hearing on H. R. 984, the State Secret Protection Act of 2009, his bill to reform the state secret privilege. This hearing will examine the standard of review for what qualifies as a state secret and how best this privilege should be reformed. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 4th at 2:00pm in Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2141, Washington, D.C.

The state secret privilege allows the government to withhold evidence in litigation if its disclosure would harm national security. The purpose of the privilege is to protect legitimate state secrets; but if not properly policed, it can be abused to conceal embarrassing or unlawful conduct whose disclosure poses no genuine threat to national security. Nadler's bipartisan bill, the State Secret Protection Act of 2009, co-sponsored by Rep. Thomas Petri (WI-6), would ensure meaningful judicial review of the privilege and prevent premature dismissal of claims. The bill aims to curb abuse of the privilege while protecting valid state secrets.

As it happens, at the same time they announced this, Nadler was speaking on a panel with me about accountability for torture (I'm looking for video--but it may take a while to find it). And he focused closely on state secrets.

Interestingly, he was speaking of state secrets as a means of accountability for not just torture but (obviously) illegal wiretapping.

Mind you, Nadler is also pushing for an independent prosecutor on torture, so he's not proposing lawsuits as the sole means for accountability. But he's thinking of it as a means for accountability.

It seems there are a few problems with that. First, timing. Yes, if state secrets were changed, Binyam Mohamad's suits could move forward. But for others, a lawsuit would just begin to wend its ways through the courts, but take years and years to resolve.

Furthermore, it's not just state secrets that protects the wrong-doers. It's also protections of federal employees from suit. While a lawsuit might expose the wrong-doing of the Bush Administration, it's not going to land Dick Cheney in jail.

Nadler is a stalwart fighter of the good fight on these issues, so this isn't critical of him. It seemed to me to be a reluctant acceptance that the only place where we can probably expect any kind of accountability --- and clearly not any kind of criminal liability --- is in the civil courts. It's a damning admission of the uselessness of the congress in these matters but I think it's sadly realistic.

I was also struck by Nadler's commentary about the prospect of preventive detention. As a civil libertarian he is obviously not in favor of such a thing, but his solution was somehat odd. He claimed that the Guantanamo prisoners should be considered POWs, even though they weren't captured wearing a uiform, which at first blush sounds reasonable. After all, if they are captured on a battlefield shooting at soldiers in what both sides consider a war, they should be prisoners of war and according to the Geneva Conventions could be held for the duration.

The problem is that there's no mechanism for "winning" this war --- or surrendering. If bin Laden emerged from a "spidey hole" tomorrow, it would be meaningless for this purpose. There's no land to occupy and no one with whom to negotiate a settlement. We could just theoretically declare the "war" to be over, but I would guess that's about as likely as declaring that Swedish is the new official language of the US. All of this just adds up to POW status being indefinite detention by other means.

It's a thorny problem no matter how you look at it, unless the government just simply decides to take their chances that these people can be convicted before an American jury, which if the recent trial of the clearly tortured Jose Padilla is any example, shouldn't be that difficult. My suspicion is that most officials are more afraid of what will come out in a trial rather than the outcome. In Nadler's case, that clearly isn't the aim, but legalizing the prisoner's status to conform to the Geneva Conventions can't solve the problem if the "war" has no mechanism for conclusion. Indeed, the one thing such a thing will do is legalize the notion that the country is permanently at war. And when you think about it, hasn't that been true pretty much since WWII?

And that may be the biggest elephant in the room of all and the one thing nobody wants to talk about --- can America not be at war?

Honors For Three Fighters For Economic And Social Justice

Isaiah J. Poole — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:02:56 -0700

A theme that seemed to run through the three acceptance speeches of the award recipients at the America's Future Now! gala dinner Tuesday night was that people who have been left out or left behind in the move toward the American Dream are due their chance for prosperity, and now is the time for the progressive movement to take the lead in making that happen.

All three Gala Award recipients—John J. Sweeney, outgoing president of the AFL-CIO; Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change—know a lot from first-hand experience about the left out and left behind. Sweeney, before leading the nation's largest labor federation, grew up in a working-class family in New York City, where his father was a bus driver and transit union member. Lee was a single mother on public assistance when she went to Mills College in Oakland, Calif., and began getting active in the area's left-wing political scene. Bhargava has for more than nine years made organizing low-income people, people of color and immigrants his life's passion.

All three used their gala speeches to challenge progressives to ensure that the movement works to have a substantive impact on the daily lives of working families.

One of the worst aspects of the conservative era is that "poverty and racial justice were not only not addressed, but were actively taken off the table," said Bhargava, the winner of the Paul Wellstone Leadership Award.

Now that we are at the beginning of a new political era, progressives have to move beyond merely pressing for legislation and ensure that low-income people and people of color have a voice and are empowered, "This is the moral test of progressive politics," he said.

Lee, in accepting her Progressive Champion Award, spoke of "the progressive promise," which she said includes a
commitment to economic justice, peace, empowerment of the disenfranchised and "equal justice for all." She added that wherever there are disparities between the well-being of the society as a whole and hat of people of color, "progressives and people of color must come together to eliminate those gaps."

"Serving working people is the biggest honor I could have," said Sweeney, the recipient of the Lifetime Leadership Award. During his remarks, he recalled a recent visit to the White House in which he was able to reflect on how he, a son of Irish immigrants, found himself in the presence of two other children of immigrants: President Barack Obama and his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. It is a positive sign, he suggested, of how far this nation has come.

Sweney, who will soon retire from the AFL-CIO to become "a labor activist at large," quickly pointed out the struggles ahead for the movement to better the lives of workers—specifically singling out "health care for everyone and the ability of every worker to join a union"—but he did it with a note of optimism. "We will turn around our economy and make it work for everyone," he said.

Making Change: Progressives in the Obama Moment

Robert Borosage — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:53:45 -0700

President Obama has deep and strong support from progressives. But in Washington, the media is increasingly focused on areas where Obama's base is disappointed or restive In recent weeks, we seen the uproar over his retreat on preventive detention and military tribunals, dismay over the dallying on "don't ask, don't tell," growing opposition to the bailout of Wall Street, increasing doubts about the escalation in Afghanistan, and fears that compromises with conservative Democrats could cut the heart out of the progressive reform agenda that the president has proposed - as illustrated by the ability of the banking lobby to enlist enough Democrats to block any lid on interest rates out of credit card reform.

Now, as progressives gather in Washington at the America's Future Now! Conference (the annual event formerly known as Take Back America) sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future (which I co-direct, program and sessions available here), the mainstream media wants to know: Are progressives still supporting Obama or are they pushing him?

Surely the answer to that choice is "yes." Progressives are both supporting him and challenging the limits of the current debate.

We're on the verge of the greatest era of progressive reform since the 1960s. The crises we face - the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the unprecedented and accelerating deterioration of the environment - leave no choice. We can't simply recover and go back to the old economy. We have to build a new economy from the ruins of the old. (for a longer version of this argument, co-authored with Katrina van den Heuvel of the Nation Magazine, go here)

Obama gets this. He has eloquently called upon us to rebuild our economy on the rock of a new foundation, not the shifting sands of the old. And the pillars of that foundation are the structural reforms that progressives have championed: new energy for good jobs, comprehensive health care, investing in education from pre-K to affordable college, empowering workers to organize, and immigration reform.

We've got Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, but not progressive majorities. With Republicans largely committed to pure obstruction, focus immediately fixes on conservative Democrats, particularly in the Senate, and the endangered specie known as moderate Republicans, who have the votes needed to pass the reforms.

For all the talk of cooperation, these reforms face entrenched opposition from corporate and special interest lobbies. They understand the threat they face, so the more sophisticated play a double game. They hire largely Democratic lobbyists to help delay, defer, dilute the reforms on the inside, while painting themselves as embracing reform. They then fund swift boat operations on the outside, to run Astroturf and air war campaigns to frighten Americans about reform. And of course, they spread their political contributions around, with more money going to Democrats now that they control the action.

So the hospitals and insurance lobbies meet publicly with Obama to issue a vague promise to make significant cuts in the rising costs of health care. At the same time, former hospital CEO Rick Scott, whose company was fined a princely $1.7 million for overbilling state and federal medical plans, is spending over 30 million on ads designed to scare Americans about the takeover of their health care system, ads coordinated by the very firm that did the "swift boat" attacks on John Kerry in 2004

On each of these signature battles, active progressive coalitions have been built to help define the reform, drive the debate, expose the lobbies, and mobilize support in key districts and states. Here progressives and the Obama administration are largely together. While there may be differences in tone and tactic - these are independent coalitions after all - the goal is the same. Difficulties arise, of course, when deals are cut and compromises made. Progressive groups, often part of the negotiations, have to decide if the product is worth supporting. Environmentalists, for example, split over the compromises in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, with some - Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace - questioning whether it would weaken rather than strengthen existing laws.

Many activists see Obama as one of us, with his background of community organizing. The young believe, correctly, that they helped elect him president and are ardent enthusiasts. That provides him with an enormous benefit of the doubt, even in areas like the banking bailout, Afghanistan, and more where there is growing consternation at the course the administration is following.

In these major areas, progressives need to be building and independent argument and movement to challenge the limits of the current debate. These issues go to the larger questions of remaking America.. The bailout goes to Wall Street's hold on our economy and politics. Obama has forcefully stated that finance needs to get smaller, and be more regulated, but thusfar his policies have been to subsidize the big banks, not to reorganize them. The contrast between the treatment of Citibank and Chrysler, or Bank of America and General Motors, and between the bankers and the autoworkers and dealers and suppliers is stark. A populist movement challenging Wall Street is essential to create the space for reform.

Afghanistan reflects the military dominated global strategy that remains in place. Obama has taken on some Cold War weapons systems, but still projects military budgets that are as large as the rest of the world's combined. He has not questioned the commitment to policing the world that Americans have never supported and can no longer afford. Obama has already faced conservative pushback on the modest changes he's made in the war on terror. It will require an independent movement to have any hope of changing our priorities and challenging a terror strategy that serves to elevate rather than isolate our enemies.

America can't go back to borrowing $2 billion a day from abroad, largely from the Chinese and Japanese central bankers. Obama's energy policy and the aggressive efforts to salvage GM and Chrysler suggest the beginnings of a new industrial policy, fitting his pledge that we have to consume less and export more. The dialogue begun with China on moving from export led growth to more internal demand is central to a new policy. But at the same time, the administration is promoting the old trade accords, and is unclear at best about its global economic strategy. This is understandable given the firm, but outmoded establishment consensus on trade. Again, an independent movement, grounded in labor but far broader, will be vital to help drive this debate.

No one should forget the lessons of the 1930s and the1960s. The Second New Deal - the New Deal we remember with Social Security, the Wagner Act, Fair Labor Standards that gave us the weekend - came in reaction to growing labor unrest, the rise of Huey Long and the Townsend Movement, all of which gave FDR incentive and excuse to move. The Voting Rights Act came after Selma, when the sacrifices of the civil rights movement transformed public opinion and enabled LBJ to deliver the Senate.

Progressives want Obama to succeed, to be a transformative president. He has put big reforms on the table which citizens are organizing to support. And at the same time, we need to expand the agenda, challenge the limits of the debate, and move excluded alternatives into discussion.

States Are On the Frontlines In Dealing With the Recession

Bernie Horn — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:47:20 -0700

Progressives tend to focus on federal policy. Yet, a lot more legislating occurs at the state level. Every year, state legislatures consider 150,000 bills and enact 75 times as many laws as the U.S. Congress. And most domestic spending is directed by states—including bedrock programs such as public education, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, transportation, and public safety. So how are our states dealing with the impact of the recession?

This was the subject of a fascinating panel discussion at the America’s Future Now conference with Georgia State Senator Nan Grogan Orrock, Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (author of the new book Unite and Conquer: How to build coalitions that win—and last), Ned Lamont who in 2006 ran for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, and Nathan Newman who serves as executive director of the Progressive States Network.

A little background about progressives in the states. Before the 2006 election, Republicans controlled 20 state legislatures, Democrats led 19, and 10 were split. In 2009, Democrats control 27 legislatures, Republicans hold 14, and 8 are split. In little more than 2 years, Democrats tied for control of the Alaska Senate, and won majority control of the Arizona House and Senate, Delaware House, Indiana House, Iowa House and Senate, Michigan House, Minnesota House, Nevada Senate, New Hampshire House and Senate, New York Senate, Ohio House, Oregon House, Pennsylvania House, Virginia Senate, and the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate.

Some of these victories are historic. The last time Democrats held the governor’s mansion and both houses of the New York legislature was 1935. Every legislative body from Maine to Maryland, with the sole exception of the Pennsylvania Senate, is now Democratic. Every legislative body on the west coast, plus Nevada, is Democratic. And the Midwest is halfway there, with Democrats controlling Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and picking up one legislative house in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.

Clearly, progressives have a real opportunity. But just as Democrats have taken control of state governments, the Bush recession has left states with a tremendous fiscal crisis. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

At least 47 states faced or are facing shortfalls in their budgets for this and/or the next year or two. Combined budget gaps for the remainder of this fiscal year and state fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are estimated to total more than $350 billion.

President Obama’s Recovery Act provides $140 billion over two years for fiscal relief to states—only about 40 percent of the states’ budget shortfall. This is what we’ve seen:

First, because states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, they’ve been forced to cut spending and/or raise taxes. So far at least 36 states have implemented budget cuts. This is not only devastating to state residents—especially people with lower incomes—but it’s also bad for the overall economy. It’s awfully hard to grow America’s economy when states are implementing hundreds of billions of dollars in job cuts.

It’s also difficult to pull the nation out of recession when some conservative governors refuse to accept funds from the Recovery Act. (Although Bobby Jindal of Lousiana and Sarah Palin of Alaska said they would refuse the money, but ultimately backed down and accepted it.)

There are two overall solutions to the crisis. One is to increase federal funding to the states. We need another federal stimulus bill that protects state-funded jobs and services. The other is to ensure that stimulus funds are spent in ways that actually stimulate the economy—saving and creating jobs.

You may be interested in an existing effort—a website at acountablerecovery.org—that holds state and local governments accountable in the implementation of the Recovery Act, making sure the funding projects are transparent, accountable, fair and effective. For much more about progressive state policy, visit our friends at the Progressive States Network.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People”.