The way you know a movement is starting to have an impact is when the powers that be start to respond to it. This has been happening for quite a while now with the 99er Movement (it’s Occupy but a lot more than Occupy). Republican politicians have been lashing out, and corporate and Republican insiders have been starting to worry and plotting strategy to respond. Democrats have been responding cautiously but more positively than not, and have sure been noticing and watching with a lot of interest.

Now, though, even more tangible — and more positive — responses are starting to pop up. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) leadership has introduced a bill this week that is about as direct a response to the flowering 99er movement as a piece of legislation could be, from its name to its messaging to its content: the Restore the American Dream for the 99 Percent Act.

Check out the materials and messaging from the press conference: this is all-99 percent, all the time. The content flows from the movement as well: it taxes Wall Street and the 1 percent to pay for more than 5 million jobs for the 99 percent. The 99 Percent Act includes every economic provision from The Contract for the American Dream, which was crowd sourced from hundreds of thousands of Americans. Tonight, the leaders of the CPC will be talking about what the bill does on this webcast that is worth checking out as well.

This legislation could turn into a big deal. The conventional wisdom will be that a bill introduced by progressives in the minority party in the House doesn’t matter because it can’t pass, and of course as long as the Republicans control the House it won’t. But the 99er Movement is rising, and I think there will be a lot of interest in this bill by the movement — groups like Rebuild the Dream, MoveOn.org, and the AFL-CIO are pretty excited about this bill. If there is a push by those groups, I think it could easily pick up enough co-sponsors over the next few months to have a solid majority of Democratic House members, and a majority of the candidates challenging Republicans endorsing it as well. If the Democrats retake the House (which is not at all out of the question), a solid majority of the new House caucus is supporting this bill, and the Democrats have won sounding as populist as they are sounding today, the 99 Percent Act will be at the center of the economic debate at the start of 2013. That would be a pretty impressive achievement for this movement given where the political and legislative dialogue the first 11 months of this year has been.

There are a lot of important rumblings going on in American politics right now. People have taken to the street, bank lobbyists and Republican operatives are nervously trying to figure out how to respond to the 99er message, and a lot more Democrats are even beginning to sound like Democrats again. On issues I am working on like the bank settlement talks, I am seeing policymakers far more nervous than they have ever been before about looking they are cutting sweetheart deals with Wall Street. And can I just say something? It’s about freakin’ time. Census numbers came out today showing that half the country is now considered poor or low-income. The middle class in this country is being crushed, and God help any young or poor person trying to climb their way into it.

Politicians who just operate on the business-as-usual model are making a huge mistake. The ones who are bold and respond positively to the 99 percent are making a good bet. Now is the time to respond to the tide that is rising.

(Above video via email: In this MSNBC news clip from earlier today, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, calls on President Obama to take a bold economic recovery plan directly to the American people in his upcoming speech.)

So the Democratic officials on the ground must be hearing a lot about the unemployment crisis, because it sounds like they're going to try to communicate a sense of urgency to the president before he makes his Thursday speech:

The chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and of the three caucuses of black, Hispanic and Asian members of the House would like a word with President Obama before his Thursday jobs address.

In a Tuesday letter provided by a source, the leaders, who speak for a majority of House Dems, sought to make sure that Obama keeps his eye on the jobs crisis, which has disproportionately hit minority groups.

"With unemployment at 9.1% nationally-- approaching 12% in the Hispanic community, 16.7% in the African American community and with Asian American and Pacific Islanders remaining unemployed for longer periods than any other group-- we are in a national crisis. We have learned throughout American history that big, bold action is required to put people back to work and promote economic growth," the chairs write.

"The chairs of the CBC, CAPAC, CPC, and CHC look forward to an opportunity to talk with you about proposals we would like you to consider before you address the nation this week."

These guys have to be worried about getting reelected when the administration isn't pursuing aggressive policies to help the unemployed. Personally, I don't think Obama will pay much attention to them. If he decides not to even meet with them, it's probably because the proposals are too weak to defend.

I'm hearing from Hill sources that he's about to propose a package that won't do much: $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending with over half of that made up of continuing the payroll tax "holiday" that's weakening Social Security, extending federal unemployment benefits, less than $50 billion for infrastructure, tax credits for hiring the unemployed, and extending the current provision that allows businesses to fully write off new equipment in the first year.

In other words, just enough spending to maintain the current economic situation without actually making it better.

UPDATE: John Amato: More possible bad news from Ezra Klein:

Getting less attention in the media is the follow-up speech the White House is planning, which will lay out a specific deficit-reduction agenda that not only meets the $1.5 trillion goal of the “supercommittee,” but exceeds it and pays for the new jobs spending. These proposals will look quite similar to the grand bargain the White House offered Speaker John Boehner, and liberal groups are grimly preparing for the administration to call for raising the Medicare eligibility age.

If he does offer up raising eligibility ages then he's going to have an even more serious problem with the entire Democratic Party and not just the ones that have been unhappy for a long time. Count me included in the latter category. Dems have already won special elections based on Paul Ryan's Medicare destruction bill that the House Republicans passed so this strategy makes no sense at all, especially since their debt ceiling negotiations only made independents angrier than before. What's the definition of insanity again?

Progressives are steamed at the news of a possible sellout on Social Security cuts, so let's look at the politics of such a deal. If progressives block it, and the Republicans force the federal government into default, Democrats, the White House and the media will blame the progressives, not the Republicans. Remember how that worked with the public option? "Are you going to be the ones who stop this historic healthcare reform?" Much pressure was brought to bear.

This time, it might be different. (For one thing, the caucus has new leadership.) If pissed-off Democrats let the members of the Progressive Caucus that we'll have their backs if they stand up to Social Security cuts, our support may give them the cover they need. Time to hit the phones!

We won't know for a while what, if any, deal will emerge on the debt ceiling. Or what, if anything, that might mean for Social Security and other entitlement programs. But this much is clear: Liberals are livid that President Obama even raised the possibility of touching them, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Two examples from today: Sen. Bernie Sanders reminded all that then-candidate Obama rebuffed John McCain's proposal to hit Social Security. "The American people expect the president to keep his word," said Sanders. Moveon.org, meanwhile, warned that Obama would have trouble drumming up volunteers for his 2012 run if he didn't keep that promise.

Negotiators better not dismiss such opposition, writes Nate Silver at the New York Times. The debt deal vote is a rare instance in the 112th Congress in which the liberal vote could sway the outcome. John Boehner will have trouble enough getting a majority of Republicans to approve any deal. By Silver's reckoning, he also will need at least 12 of the 80 or so members of the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus to go along. That makes a big deal on entitlement programs unlikely. In this case, "the views of liberal Democrats are far more than a token issue."

We saw how the caucus got in line for the health care bill. This time? Not so easy. We'll see.

This is completely unacceptable. The co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is throwing her support behind a Blue Dog named Jane Harman for reelection in 2010, and who happens to be the representative in my own district in California. I've been thinking of running against her because I'm so upset at Harman's actions in Congress, but for Woolsey to be holding fundraising events for a known Blue Dog should be a firing offense for the CPC.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva has been excellent for the CPC, but obviously Lynne needs to go. The idea is to grow the CPC and progressives in Congress, not support odious Blue Dogs who obstruct progressive legislation and take this country to the far, far right. This is a complete betrayal.

I'm calling for the CPC to remove her as the co-chair immediately.

Howie Klein has more:

Harman supports a wide range of Republican policies that Woolsey has always opposed-- from the Iraq War, the anti-family/pro-bankster bankruptcy bill, and abolishing the estate tax to warrantless wiretaps (except the ones that expose her as an Israeli spy) and offering "special treatment" to defense contractors. She is widely considered to be the least trustworthy and most disliked Democrats in the House by her fellow Democrats. And Lynne Woolsey understands that completely.

Is this how the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus builds a progressive movement? Marcy Winograd is in a tight primary race against Harman. It may be too much to expect Woolsey to campaign for Winograd, but endorsing the Blue Dog who is consistently voting against -- and working behind the scenes against -- everything the Progressive Caucus is supposed to stand for? Then they wonder why no one takes them seriously? Woolsey should be relieved of her position as co-chair...

Please have your phone in hand and start calling. Please be polite-- and firm:

Washington DC Office:

202-225-5161

Fax: 202-225-5163

District Offices:

Marin Office:

1050 Northgate Drive

Suite 354

San Rafael, CA. 94903

Ph.: 415-507-9554

Fax: 415-507-9601

Sonoma Office:

1101 College Avenue

Suite 200

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Ph.: 707-542-7182

Fax: 707-542-2745

I had a dream.

I've been reading and listening to all the arguments made who are for and against the supposed new Senate health-care compromise bill that Harry Reid has sent to the CBO to be scored before they present it to us. Even as we see the Senate shut down because politicians don't want big PharMa to take a hit, thanks to an amendment being pushed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to allow for the reimportation of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada.

I've talked to a few sources myself and Greg Sargent's account comports with what I've heard as well. It's confusing because it's been kept secret, and so staffers didn't know what had transpired at the end of the day. I have heard from sources today who said it's not as bad as was first thought, but the bottom line is that we'll know soon enough. Harry Reid knows it will be impossible to spin it when it does surface so why the chicanery? Anyway, the process is still a long way from being over and Congress should not take a single day off until they have a great bill finished before the New Year. They can at least act like working Americans for once instead of crying about working weekends. This new bill is not the final bill that will eventually be voted on to reform our health care system. The House is very much in play although the Senate seems to think that they alone are the Guardians of the Gate and they have to weigh in and not let it get watered down into a bag full of beans.

The committees have to be appointed by Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid as they head to conference and now it will fall on them to finalize the health care bill that will be voted on.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a champion of the public option has said he will not vote for the Senate bill as it now stands while Americans still favor the public option by a wide margin in the newest polls. Howard Dean has found some comfort in the idea of expanding medicare to cover people fifty five years old.

It appears that committee heads George Miller, Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel of the House probably will be part of the conference coming out of the House, and I say let them do their part to strengthen the bill against the pressure from the Senate side so that when it comes out of conference the ConservaDems like Baucus, Landrieu, Conrad and Lieberman will be faced with two choices. Either act like our elected politicians that are representing Americans or be exposed as health insurance shills and if the bill is to go down then put it on the shoulders.

Let President Snowe use her fantasized veto pen to sign away our health care. Let Lieberman have to cast the vote that will kill a historic day in American politics.

Let Ben Nelson get in front of the cameras and explain to people like the thousands who were being treated at the Kansas City free clinic, with the incredible help of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann who had nowhere to go for care and tell them that he had to kill health care for them because he valued the profits of the health care industry over the well being of their families.

Let the ConservaDems go down in flames and burn to ashes with the bill if they choose to abandon the campaign promise that President Obama ran on and the mandate they rode in on with his victory in November.

We will keep fighting to make this bill a better because it won't be us that abandon the American people.

It will be the members of the House of Lords who value their positions of power over the less of us, the same as us and the more of us that inhabit this great country. It it by their pettiness that America regresses. It is with their utter contempt for the people that elected them that health care reform will fail. And all of America will know you because we shall speak. And all of America will despise you because they will know. Even those that oppose you will begin to suffer as the months go by and they too will realize that your cowardice has hurt their families even in their blindness to reality.

A Scarlet Letter will forever be burned into your foreheads for all to see.

I'm always happy to see the progressives step up and demand what they want - you know, instead of falling into the fetal position. Greg Sargent from The Plumline:

At a private meeting at the White House yesterday, top House liberals urged President Obama to more aggressively throw his weight into a public campaign on behalf of the public option, a leading House progressive said in an interview.

Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, says that this point was made “emphatically” to the president in the meeting yesterday with House liberals, and that his help was urgently needed in bringing centrist Dems on board.

“We need the full engagement of everybody in this discussion — that includes the White House,” Grijalva said in characterizing the message that was delivered to the president. Grijalva described the meeting in an interview with Democracy Now.

Dems have largely refrained from making such a blunt case publicly, not wanting to appear critical of the president. But Grijalva appears to have no qualms about making it.

“We really do feel that engagement from the leader of this nation is vital if we’re going to end up with anything that approaches a robust public option,” Grijalva said.

Strong stuff. I’ve asked Grijalva’s office what the president’s response was, and will update you if I learn more.

DOWNLOADS: (1161)

PLAYS: (1821)

Embed

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chair of the largest caucus in Congress -- the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- refuted Fox's daylong talking point, that President Obama somehow took the public option off the table in his speech last night health-care reform, earlier today on Fox with Jon Scott:

Woolsey: I applauded, because ... public option is on the table. There's no question about it.

Scott: It's on the table, but it didn't seem to have his -- you know, it wasn't his ... He didn't say it's got to be there.

Woolsey: Well, he knows that 84 members of the Progressive Caucus, and many, many members besides ourselves are absolutely intent on the public option being part of the House health-care reform bill.

Scott: What's your chief argument for why you think it's got to be there?

Woolsey: Because it's the best way to cut costs and bring competition into the program, and actually to bring security for those who are already covered by health care, and might lose their jobs or want to change jobs, and want to have a choice. And one of those choices could be the public option.

Scott: You don't think that the free market would be the more efficient way to deliver that?

Woolsey: Well, has it been? Fifty years, private health-care insurance companies have not been able to do the job. Why would we think they could do it now?

Scott: What about Medicare and Medicaid? Are they examples of well-run, you know, government programs for dispensing medical care?

Woolsey: They're very popular programs, sir, as is the Veterans Administration and the military health care. Those are government programs that run well, they run at an overhead of less than 5 to 7 percent, versus 30 percent for the private health care insurance companies.

Funny that Scott should bring up precisely the programs that prove that "government run health care" can be a good thing. Woolsey hit that meaty pitch right out of the park.

Hopefully, she's right about the public option, too.