INDIVISIBLE Lambertville NJ / New Hope PA

Category: Congress

  • Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope Applauds National Organization’s Endorsement of John Fetterman and Ashley Ehasz for 2022 Pennsylvania Election

    Constituents of Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope are cheering the national endorsement of two candidates in critical races in Pennsylvania. John Fetterman, running for U.S. Senate, and Ashley Ehasz, congressional candidate for PA 01, received endorsements from the national Indivisible organization. 

    “The national Indivisible organization recognizes that John Fetterman and Ashley Ehasz are truly ‘for the people’ and who will fight to make the lives of Pennsylvanian families better,” said Cindi Sternfeld, president, Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope. “Their endorsement is a meaningful signal that flipping Pennsylvania is important to the future of our democracy, and all of us at Indivisible Lambertville New Hope are thrilled to be working to help get them elected.”

    In May, Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope endorsed Fetterman and Ehasz at the local, Bucks County level, and nominated the two candidates for the national organization’s endorsement. The decision to endorse candidates follows completion of an extensive questionnaire that focuses on issues important to Indivisible, including: voting rights, climate change, immigration, healthcare, economic justice and workplace safety and fairness. Indivisible organizations provide its communities with the resources, power, and opportunities that encourage and enable ​sustained engagement in all levels of democracy.

    Indivisible is a progressive grassroots movement of millions of activists across every state, fueled by a partnership between thousands of autonomous local groups like Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope and a national staff. Locally, Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope works to educate, motivate and activate constituents in the work to restore, preserve and extend democratic rights for all citizens. Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope seeks to provide our communities with the resources, power, and opportunities that encourage and enable ​sustained engagement in all levels of democracy. Both are 501(c)4 organizations. 

  • New Jersey Indivisible Chapters Applaud National Organization’s Endorsement of Tom Malinowski for Congress

    Two local Indivisible chapters in New Jersey Congressional District 7 – Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope and Indivisible Long Valley together applaud the endorsement of Congressman Tom Malinowski by the national Indivisible organization. 

    Malinowski, a visible and vocal advocate for the people in his district as well as New Jersey,  is running for a third term in the House of Representatives. Since winning his first election, Malinowski has sponsored or co-sponsored numerous bills and been instrumental in getting funding for major infrastructure projects, including the Gateway Tunnel and Portal Bridge. New Jersey residents have benefitted from his efforts to secure quality affordable healthcare, reproductive rights, common sense gun legislation, and reduce the effects of climate change among many other issues in which Congressman Malinowski has actively engaged. 

    Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope and Indivisible Long Valley endorsed Congressman Malinowski at the local chapter level, and subsequently nominated him for the national endorsement. 

    “Over his four years in office, Congressman Malinowski has proven he truly understands what it means to be a public servant. We often hear about this candidate or that “working tirelessly” but I can say with absolute confidence that Tom Malinowski lives and breathes to care for and improve the lives of those he represents,” said Cindi Sternfeld, leader, Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope. “We are extremely pleased that Indivisible’s national leadership agrees with us and has thrown their support to Tom as well.”

    “Re-electing Tom Malinowski is the right choice for our district and our country. He is committed to securing voting rights, equal rights, climate action, and economic policies that help working families, small businesses and family farms in NJ.” said Brenda Sheeder Nast, Indivisible Long Valley. He will continue to deliver the resources our communities need while protecting our freedoms and our elections from MAGA Extremists.”

    Indivisible Lambertville/New Hope and Indivisible Long Valley endorsed Congressman Malinowski at the local chapter level, and subsequently nominated him for the national endorsement. Those selected for a national endorsement must complete a questionnaire evaluating their position on a number of issues important to Indivisible constituents, including voting rights, climate change, immigration, healthcare, economic justice and workplace safety and fairness. Indivisible organizations provide its communities with the resources, power, and opportunities that encourage and enable ​sustained engagement in all levels of democracy.

  • Filibuster, Schmilibuster

    Contributed by Deb Kline.

    There’s a noticeable increase in the volume of calls to end or reform the filibuster, even in light of President Biden’s stated preference to leave it as is. While Biden’s position is a bit of a head scratcher, other Democratic senators resisting elimination range from Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Their reasons mostly center on the ability for Democrats to use the tool when they are in the minority. But now, we have two years to get work done, and the opposition from across the aisle is strong and ruthless. 

    We already know very few Congressional Republicans will agree to any legislation that could bring big benefits to the people and which would be credited to the Biden administration. Laughably, they decry a lack of bipartisanship while they throw up ridiculous roadblocks to slow legislation that they know they’ll vote against anyway. The filibuster as it is now is one more tool in their kit to hold onto political power over much needed progressive reforms. 

    Replay: A filibuster permits a senator to stop popular legislation. Initially, it required a senator to hold the floor by refusing to stop talking, which took many, many hours and was exhausting, so it was a last resort to stop something that otherwise would pass (and was almost always used to stop civil rights legislation). To stop a filibuster, the majority needs 60 votes – something that could be hard to come by in a 50-50 split in the Senate. 

    Currently, a Senator only needs to threaten a filibuster to create the roadblock that stops legislation. That means they don’t actually have to do the work of the filibuster – unlike we saw when Mr. Smith went to Washington, but simply to refuse to entertain action. 

    Say what? 

    Therein lies one option for keeping the filibuster but modifying requirements: Return  it to its original form. Those opposed to a popular measure would not be able to simply register their disapproval in order to take it off the calendar, but actually to hold the floor to talk a measure to death. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) agrees that, “The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful.” Once the filibusterer gives up, the measure can pass by a simple majority vote.

    Would endless hours of droning on really discourage truculent Senators from engaging the tactic? Maybe. We saw that even after calling for a full reading of the 600-page American Rescue Plan, few if any showed up to listen. Absent full elimination or returning to the original format, there are other possibilities for filibuster reform: 

    • Flip the way the Senate does business: Instead of requiring 60 votes to proceed on a bill, require 41 (or more) votes to block it. A bill could advance with a simple majority unless 41 senators were at hand to vote “no.” This would require 41 opponents to stay close to the Senate floor lest the bill slip through when their numbers are below the blocking threshold. 

    • Add exceptions to the filibuster rule There are currently exceptions to the 60-vote requirement for budget reconciliation and, as of recently, presidential nominations. More exceptions could be added. Exceptions that have been suggested include votes to raise the debt limit, expand voting rights (HR1, for example) or fund the federal government. Ad-hoc exceptions are an inelegant approach, but might be necessary.

    • Lower the filibuster threshold – The number of votes needed to break a filibuster was previously reduced from 66 votes to 60. It could be further reduced. If one thinks that there are Republican senators who might break from their party to support some Democratic priorities, reducing the threshold to 52 or 53 votes would address the concern of passing legislation with no Republican support, while not requiring more than the couple of centrist Republicans to join.

    There are also other opponents who aren’t necessarily centrist but are still skeptical of getting rid of the filibuster. Some senators, steeped in Senate tradition, believe a process slowed by the filibuster is the best path to good lawmaking. They might be assuaged by the “ratchet” plan, proposed by former Sen. Harkin, which allows a simple majority to pass legislation with a longer process to get there. 

    Others, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, have expressed concern that when the Republicans have control, they, too. would find their agenda easier to pass if the filibuster were eliminated. The counterargument is that Democrats should have confidence that if both parties could pass their agendas, revealing their impact on the public, that Democrats would win more elections. Still, there is an answer to such a concern: allowing the filibuster only by senators who represent a majority of the population.

    There are a number of reasons Democratic centrists might be willing to support one of these compromises. The more modest measures would be a useful shot across the bow of Republicans to pressure them to engage in the bipartisan compromises the centrists so desire: There is an implicit threat to the Republicans that, if they don’t play, the centrists will further weaken, or eliminate, the filibuster. 

    Reluctant Democratic senators might also start to feel pressure as the calls to eliminate the filibuster gain volume. Although they are from moderate states, they count on progressive votes to win elections, and resisting any changes in the filibuster might prove politically untenable.

    The bottom line is that we need to have a Senate that can pass a full range of important legislation. None of the options described here would eliminate the filibuster, but they would all make it easier to pass legislation favored by the party that won the presidency, won the House and whose senators represent states with many more people than their Republican counterparts — which is what we need for the country to truly move forward.

    1. Michael Ettlinger is the founding director of the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire.

    Sources: 

    Heather Cox Richardson, March 8, 2021  

    https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/end-senate-filibuster/

    https://www.vox.com/22238630/filibuster-reform-senate-manchin-ideas

  • Civics 101: United States Postal Service

    Contributed by Maddy Berlin.

    How often have you worried or complained about the US Postal Service (USPS) over the past months, or year….or years?  How often have you heard others complain or negatively comment about service in recent times?  

    Probably a lot. 

    The USPS came starkly into view with the increase in anxiety over the impact to mail-in voting during the COVID pandemic, when the post office chose that particular time to curtail service, or to announce confusing messages about stamped vs. non-stamped ballots and delivery issues.  Rumors were flying, and trying to understand the facts seemed daunting. 

    We got through the November election, but then packages and letters were delayed or not arriving at all. Many of us have personal stories about holiday cards and packages going undelivered or arriving weeks late, or social security, disability and pension checks not arriving or mail order meds never showing up. 

    The USPS is so important to us, and as much as we may like to complain about it, the USPS is the service we love and want sustained. So what is going on?  

    At the top of the mess is the current Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy, a Trump appointee with a mandate to cut costs and improve efficiency; he actually seems intent on crippling and disabling the agency – probably in support of a Republican plan to privatize the service. Within one month of his May 2020 appointment, he implemented rapid fire change by slashing overtime hours, prohibiting late and extra mail delivery trips, setting stricter delivery schedules and removing mailboxes and sorting machines. More than 7.5 percent of the first-class mail was late in the five weeks that followed, and experience tells us that it probably became even worse. 

    So, fire him, I said. Not so simple, I was told. I decided to do some research about how the USPS is structured, how it’s governed and to take a look at what ails it financially and what can be done.  Here, in a nutshell, is what I learned.

    In 1971, Congress replaced the Post Office Department, a Cabinet position, with the United States Postal Service, an independent entity within the Executive Branch. The USPS is normally operated by a 11 person Board of Governors – the Postmaster General, Deputy Postmaster General and nine governors. The President appoints the nine governors, with Senate approval for seven year terms, and the Board appoints the Postmaster General  who acts as the CEO. The Deputy Postmaster General is appointed by the Board and the Postmaster General. Currently there are six governors, all Trump appointed. There are four vacancies: three governors and the Deputy Postmaster position all need to be filled.

    Financially, the USPS receives no taxpayer money and relies solely on revenue from postage and other services.  While it’s worth noting that Covid-related revenue shortfalls have impacted the USPS’s financials, other factors have plagued the post office as well.  In 2006 Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act during a lame-duck session. Under this law, the USPS was required to pre-fund 75 years worth of retiree pension and health care benefits in the span of roughly 10 years! This is utterly absurd, no other entity has this requirement. The USPS generates enough revenue to cover its operating costs but those funding expenses mean the agency has been operating at a loss for years with little hope of digging themselves out without assistance.

    The USPS Fairness Act, passed in the House in 2019 and stalled in the Senate, has been re-introduced and is gaining momentum (interestingly, PA Rep Brian Fitzpatrick is a co-sponsor). The bill would forgive the debt the USPS accumulated while trying to comply with the imposed pre-funding obligation.

    Back to firing DeJoy: this is not a clean-cut process.  As noted, the President does not have the power to remove the Postmaster General. Only the Postal Service Board of Governors has the power to do so.  DeJoy continues to have the support of the Trump-appointed board and has stated he plans on staying in his position and moving ahead with his plans. Some lawmakers want Biden to take drastic action by firing the entire board. In fact, New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell (D) wrote a letter to President Biden asking for the entire Board of Governors to be fired. The Board can be fired for “cause,” but it’s possible that process could be difficult or tricky.  The President has not responded to that request to date.

    President Biden does have the power to nominate members of the board, however, and to send them to the Senate — now led by Democrats — for confirmation, so there’s another strategy.  As noted, there are three vacancies plus one member who is serving a hold-over term which means the President can replace him at any time so there are a total of FOUR seats Biden can fill with Democrats. There is an excellent chance his nominees would be approved in the current Senate. If Biden can fill four seats that would flip the Board to a 5-4 Democrat majority and they could remove DeJoy.  

    USPS Factoids.

    • The First US Postmaster General was Benjamin Franklin, appointed by the Second Continental Congress in 1775. 
    • The Pony Express was never part of the US Postal Service
    • 182 million pieces of first class mail are processed and delivered everyday 
    • There are more than 7.3 million postal service employees
    • The USPS has the largest robotic system in the world

    CALL TO ACTION:  Let our MOC’s know we support the USPS Fairness Act. Let the Office of the President and our MOC’s know that we are in favor of turning over the USPS Board of Governors either by firing them or by urging President Biden to fill vacancies ASAP.

  • Capitol Hill Riot Spotlights Flaws in American Democracy

    Contributed by Amara Willey.

    The riot on Capitol Hill last week and the storming of the legislature’s building underscores what happens when the players in democratic societies do not follow their prescribed roles.

    True democracy is consensus-based, but that isn’t a viable form of governance in a large population, so we turn to the vehicle of voting, leaving us with winners and losers. Each of these groups has a role to play in a voting-based democracy.

    Uri Friedman wrote in the Atlantic in October of 2016, before the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, “Winners and losers of elections have essential responsibilities in functioning democracies. Winners do not exact revenge on their opponent by, say, abusing the powers of their office and jailing that opponent, as the Republican candidate threatened to do at the second presidential debate. Losers do not refuse to accept the results of a vote judged free and fair by a country’s governing institutions.”

    This sentiment was echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the hours following the riot on January 6. “A fundamental rule of democracy is that, after elections, there are winners and losers. Both have to play their role with decency and responsibility so that democracy itself remains the winner,” Merkel said.

    The tacit understanding that our country’s continued democracy is dependent on requires that the majority respect and include the minority’s views and that the minority respect the institution of democracy and the dissenting role that it plays. This is how every level of government is intended to work, from the Supreme Court to local government.

    There have been other elections when one candidate or the other has had to act based on what was best for the country even when it wasn’t what was best personally or for their party. For example, regarding the 2000 election, Gore chose to concede for the good of the country. “Instead of making a concession speech, [I could have] launched a four-year rear guard guerrilla campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, and to mobilize for a rematch,” he told The Washington Post in 2002. “There’s so much riding on the success of any American president and taking the reins of power and holding them firmly, I just didn’t feel like it was in the best interest of the United States, or that it was a responsible course of action.”

    So here we are four years after having elected a “disrupter” president, with what a number of politicians, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are calling “a failed insurrection.”

    “While lots of attention, money, and power flows to the winners, it is really the losers who are key to keeping democracy healthy,” writes Shaun Bowler, professor of political science at the University of California Riverside and a co-author of Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. “Graceful concessions by losing candidates constitute a sort of glue that holds the polity together, providing a cohesion that is lacking in less-well-established democracies.

    It’s just this danger that Bowler warned against that prompted the unprecedented attack on the legislative branch and begs the question, how do we shore up our democracy after Trump?

    World leaders have condemned the riots and Trump’s part in them, including Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, saying, “The electoral system in the United States is archaic; it does not meet modern democratic standards, creating opportunities for numerous violations, and the American media have become an instrument of political struggle. This is largely the reason for the split in society now observed in the United States.”

    Nick Ottens wrote in the Atlantic Sentinel in October of five steps that Democrats must take to protect democracy. These include abolishing the electoral college and the power monopoly the Democrats and Republicans hold, putting Congress first, making it easier to remove the president, and creating states of the federal territories that are not represented in the Senate: American Samoa, the American Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and Washington DC, which would help to balance the less populous states that are included in Senate representation.

    Fixing a broken system will take time and may not be the first concern of President-Elect Joe Biden as he enters office amid an out-of-control pandemic and economic chaos. But perhaps the very difficulties the country faces will give America the opportunity to strengthen its democracy and unite its lawmakers.

    Writing in the Toronto Star, Nomi Claire Lazar called the riots “the last, best hope for American democracy.” An associate professor of politics at Yale-NUS College in Singapore and at the University of Ottawa, Lazar explained that Trump’s actions that incited the mob gave Republicans cover to eschew Trump and his politics. “Republican politicians needed and were desperate for some politically viable means of returning to the centre [sic]. They needed an excuse to separate themselves from Trump. And the siege of the Capitol provided just this chance,” Lazar noted.

    This sentiment was born out as several Republican senators, sheltering in place with Democrats in the hours between the breach of the Capitol building and the final electoral college vote, eventually removed their opposition to certification.

    Lee Drutman, senior fellow in the Political Reform program at New America, suggested in an opinion piece, “Democrats need to support these pro-democracy Republicans, whatever that might mean — perhaps giving them leadership roles on committees, or opportunities to introduce legislation, or roles in the crafting of spending bills that could help them with their re-elections,” citing those Republicans such as Utah Senator Mitt Romney and Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who have criticized Trump and his tactics.

    What happened in Washington, DC last week was a spotlight on the disfunction of our democracy, and that is not going away on January 20th when Joe Biden is inaugurated. We need to stop thinking in terms of sides, of winners and losers, and work towards the idea that our government represents all Americans, or at least the 150 million voters who turned out in November.

    As President-Elect Biden said in response to the events on January 6, “The work of the moment and the work of the next four years must be the restoration of democracy — of decency, honor, respect, the rule of law, just plain, simple decency. The renewal of the politics that’s about solving problems, looking out for one another, not stoking the flames of hate and chaos.”

    Sources: