Connect with us

Published

on

“I have this habit of taking my tool kit and refusing to unpack it as I go from mission to mission,” he said.

Gaspard’s current mission will be to take the reins of an entity that finds itself with newfound power inside a political system that’s proven increasingly dysfunctional. CAP has fed more than 60 officials into the Biden administration, many in critical roles. It has helped shape some of the legislative initiatives and executive actions that the president has pursued on topics ranging from immigration to inclusivity in government agencies.

But it hasn’t universally cheered Biden’s moves. Recently, there have been organizational concerns over the composition of the president’s bipartisan infrastructure deal; particularly, the absence of investments in climate and care initiatives. And like other liberal institutions, CAP is adjusting to a political climate in which its domestic priorities are being stymied by institutional hurdles, chiefly the Senate filibuster.

CAP’s founder and board member, John Podesta, has obliquely called for changing the rules of the Senate, but the think tank itself has not formally endorsed ending the filibuster. Gaspard did not either. Instead, he offered Biden-eques optimism for overcoming congressional gridlock.

“This is not my first trip in the back of the turnip truck,” he explained. “Some of us are old enough to remember Newt Gingrich and that moment in America and it wasn’t exactly easy to come to agreement on legislation back then. Think tanks like CAP still manage to put points on the board on issues that matter.”

The current climate, Gaspard conceded, was more tribal and rife with disinformation than years past — a climate in which his service at Soros’ foundation won’t just be fodder for conservatives but will likely feed conspiracy theories about the Democratic megadonor. But he and other Democrats were more clear-eyed, too. They’re also acutely aware that their window of power could be close with the midterm elections in 2022.

“There is a way in which we took our foot off the organizing accelerator,” Gaspard said of the first two years in the Obama White House, which led into the big election defeat Democrats suffered in 2010. “The Biden administration is, in many ways, the most surprising presidency in my lifetime, surprising in that there are so many challenges being met in a fulsome way and a way that can only be described as future forward, progressive in a broad sense, and inviting the participation of the full spectrum of the left and the center of the party.”

Launched in 2003, CAP was conceived by Podesta and others as a bulwark against Bush-ism and an incubator for progressive ideas and governance. It is formally nonpartisan. But it quickly became a massive player in the Democratic Party landscape, which had, to that point, relied on single-issue advocacy organizations and think tanks rather than an all-encompassing clearinghouse.

Along the way, it scored real wins: shifting the tide of opinion against the Iraq War, helping lay the foundations for health care reform in the lead up to Obamacare’s passage, innovating in the world of advocacy media and feeding personnel to institutions throughout D.C.

Combined with its policy and advocacy arm — the Center for American Progress Action Fund — CAP currently has a staff of 287 and an operating budget of $64 million for 2021, according to numbers it provided. Podesta said that while it’s generally true that it’s easier to raise money when a Republican president is in power, Gaspard is coming to CAP at a time when the organization has “a very good balance sheet and finances and with the reputation [for donors] that it’s a place that if you invest in you get good results.”

But the size and scope of the think tank has created problems too. CAP has accepted sizable donations from corporations such as Walmart and Google, and foreign governments such as the United Arab Emirates, leading to accusations that its work product on issues like antitrust and U.S.-Saudi policy is unduly influenced.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Follow us on Parler For Uncut Raw uncensored content!

“I am going to take stock of all of this as I come in, but let’s look at the track record. We’ve been a leading advocate on much higher tax rates for corporations and a more robust anti-trust agenda for tech,” Gaspard said of the critiques. He said corporate donations to CAP represent less than 3 percent of the organization’s budget. “It’s hard to see how this is creating some inflexibility.”

CAP has also been accused of shunning — if not outwardly working against — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his wing of the Democratic Party. During the 2020 primary, the Vermont senator penned a fiery letter to the CAP board, accusing Tanden of “maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas” after its now-defunct website, ThinkProgress, produced a video suggesting he had softened his demand for millionaires to pay more in taxes after becoming one himself.

Gaspard described the frictions as “a good, healthy and natural outcome of any campaign and contest of ideas” — one that should be expected.

“Let’s first start with the shocking notion that the progressive world is not monolithic and there is not a single organization that can possibly speak for the entire community,” he said. “That being said … CAP has been a more than credible convener across the spectrum because leadership on Capitol Hill appreciates that leadership at CAP has had its finger on the pulse [of] where the movement is and has established real credibility with activists and scholars.”

At the heart of much of the Bernie-CAP animus was Tanden, who, while running CAP, was prone to engage directly with his supporters, as well as her critics on the right. She also delivered searing tweets that went after members of Congress. At CAP, she had fierce defenders who credited her with putting together much of the intellectual and organizational framework to help push back against the Trump administration and preserve Obamacare. She was a frequent presence on cable news who was lauded for her policy chops and forged a close bond with Biden chief of staff Ron Klain.

But her highly personalized style of politics ultimately came back to bite her. In her first confirmation hearing to serve as the head of the Office of Management and Budget, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) cited tweets in which Tanden “wrote that Susan Collins is the worst, that Tom Cotton is a fraud, that vampires have more heart than Ted Cruz” and called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “Moscow Mitch and Voldemort.”

She ultimately withdrew her nomination, one of the first political defeats for the Biden White House.

Her withdrawal, Podesta conceded, forced the think tank to take a couple days to pause the search for her replacement as the possibility existed that she would return to CAP. But Biden soon made it clear he would bring Tanden into the fold as a senior adviser, and the search resumed. Podesta said they had many qualified candidates but none that fit the organizational directives and demands like Gaspard did.

“His experience in global philanthropy also fits where we see some of the challenges facing the United States growing around the globe, particularly the growth of right-wing authoritarianism,” said Podesta.

As for his own future, Podesta said he would remain on the CAP board to help the think tank transition to a new leader. But his time there may not be long term.

“I’m an old guy, so at an appropriate point I will fade off into the sunset,” he said, “a year or so.”


Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

News

Garland pauses federal executions as DOJ reviews policies

Published

on

By

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday paused federal executions as the Department of Justice reviews its death penalty policies and procedures.

“The Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal justice system is not only afforded the rights guar anteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is also treated fairly and humanely,” Garland said in a statement. “That obligation has special force in capital cases.”

Advertisement

Advertisement
Follow us on Parler For Uncut Raw uncensored content!

Legal battles over the traditional three-drug protocol for carrying out execution by legal injection, and a shortage of sodium thiopental — one of the drugs — led to a two-decade lapse in federal executions. But then-Attorney General Bill Barr ordered federal prisons to resume executions in 2019, after making changes to the federal execution protocols.


Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

New York Assembly OKs subpoenas in Cuomo impeachment probe

Published

on

By

Additionally, members have taken the technical step of issuing a commission to the law firm of Davis Polk, which the Assembly has retained to handle much of the probe. That step “allows our independent counsel to take testimony under oath,” Lavine said.

The Assembly launched its investigation of Cuomo in March. It is probing a litany of allegations made against Cuomo on subjects ranging from sexual harassment to the governor’s $5.1 million book deal.

State Attorney General Tish James is examining several similar issues. She started issuing subpoenas in March.

James said last week that she does not “share information” with the Assembly investigators. But Abinanti said on Wednesday that the granting of a commission to Davis Polk opens up that possibility, “because now they are authorized to subpoena the same information the attorney general’s office is subpoenaing … so I would assume the attorney general’s office would feel more comfortable cooperating with our counsel.”

Advertisement

Advertisement
Follow us on Parler For Uncut Raw uncensored content!

Wednesday’s meeting was notable as the Assembly’s first mostly in-person committee meeting since state government shut down in March 2020. Since Cuomo ended New York’s state of emergency last week, the Legislature is now fully subjected to the Open Meetings Law, and the public was allowed into the room in the state Capitol for five minutes. The remainder of the roughly two-hour gathering took place in executive session.

Does the issuing of subpoenas mean that the investigation of Cuomo is nearing an end?

“Oh no, not yet, no no,” Abinanti said. “Let’s face it, we’ve given [Davis Polk] a huge task. There’s a lot of issues for them to look at.”


Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Opinion | Republicans Shouldn’t Sign on to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

Published

on

By

The conventional wisdom is that the Senate has to prove that it can work, and the test of its functioning is how much of Biden’s spending Republicans endorse.

This is a distorted view of the Senate’s role, which shouldn’t be to get on board a historic spending spree for which Biden won no mandate and which isn’t justified by conditions in the country (it’s not true, for instance, that the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling).

Besides, if bipartisan spending is the test, the Senate just a few weeks ago passed a $200 billion China competition bill by a 68-32 vote. It used to be that $200 billion constituted a lot of money, but now it doesn’t rate, not when there’s $6 trillion on the table.

The infrastructure deal lurched from gloriously alive to dead when Biden explicitly linked its passage to the simultaneous passage of a reconciliation bill with the rest of the Democratic Party’s spending priorities in it.

Then, it revived again when Biden walked this back, and promised a dual track for the two bills.

The fierce Republican insistence on these two tracks doesn’t make much sense and amounts to asking Democrats to allow a decent interval before going ahead with the rest of their spending—Democrats are going to try to pass a reconciliation whether the bipartisan deal passes or not.

At the end of the day, then, there’s only one track: Democrats are going to spend as much money as they possibly can. The bipartisan deal might shave some money off the hard infrastructure priorities (according to Playbook, the White House says it doesn’t want to double dip, on say, electric cars or broadband by getting some money for them in the deal and then getting yet more in the reconciliation bill). But the emphasis is going to blow out spending across the board.

The calculation of Republicans supporting the bill is that a significant bipartisan package can take some of the heat off of Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in their resistance to the filibuster.

A deal that passes and is signed into law will certainly be a feather in their caps, but it’s hard to believe they’d change their minds on the filibuster if the deal fell apart.

They are both so extensively and adamantly on the record in favor of the filibuster that a climb-down would be politically embarrassing and perilous. They may be sincere in believing that the filibuster is important institutionally to the Senate. But the politics also work by allowing them to brand themselves as a different breed of Democrat.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Follow us on Parler For Uncut Raw uncensored content!

If they flip-flip on the filibuster, they release the brake on the left-most parts of the Democratic agenda and find themselves taking a lot of tough votes on priorities dear to the Democratic base.

Republicans supporting the deal also think that it will make passing the subsequent reconciliation bill harder. First, the parts of infrastructure that have the widest support—roads and bridges—will be in the deal and not in the reconciliation bill. Second, the unwelcome tax increases excluded from the bipartisan deal will be in the reconciliation bill.

This isn’t a crazy calculation, although it’s not clearly correct, either. The higher the top-line number is for the reconciliation bill, the harder it is to pass. By allowing Democrats to cleave off some of their spending into a bipartisan deal, the overall number for the reconciliation bill gets smaller. In other words, the bipartisan deal could make the partisan reconciliation easier rather than harder to pass.

If this is true, the deal is bipartisanship in the service of a partisan end.

It not as though Biden is fiscally prudent on all other fronts, except in this one area which he considers a particularly important national investment with unmistakable returns. No, he’s universally profligate. His reckless spending on all fronts (except defense) makes it more imperative for Republicans to stake out a position in four-square opposition.

It’s not as though the bipartisan bill is exemplary legislation, by the way. It resorts to all the usual Beltway gimmicks to create the pretense that it’s paid for, when it’s basically as irresponsible as the rest of the Biden spending.

Bipartisanship has its uses, but so does partisanship. Joe Biden wants to be known for his FDR- and LBJ-like government spending, believing that it’s the key to political success and to an enduring legacy. Fine. Let him and his party own it.


Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Most Popular

Copyright © 2020 King Trump Fovever.