Steven Medema know more about the history of the Coase theorem than many of us know about our spouses. So whether you are distantly or intimately familiar with the idea, you are likely to pick up some insights in his article, "The Coase Theorem at Sixty" (Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58:4, pp. 1045-1128, subscription required).
In the 1960 article by Ronald Coase, "The Problem of Social Cost," the Coase "theorem" was not actually a theorem, nor does it seem to be the main point of the entirely verbal essay. Coase was working on various questions of regulatory economics, which might be summarized as the question of the appropriate government reaction in situations where market don't perform well. For example, it had been recognized since the 1920s and the work of A.C. Pigou that some economics activities might involve "externalities," where social costs were imposed on others who were not part of the market transaction. Pollution is an obvious example. The common policy prescription was that the government should estimate the value of this additional social cost, and then impose a "Pigovian tax" so that the firm producing the externality would face the actual social cost of its action--in effect, it would no longer be able to dump its pollution garbage into the environment for free.
Coase approached the problem of social cost from a different angle. Medema writes:
The article makes three basic points. First, externalities are reciprocal in nature. Yes, A's actions impose costs on B, but to restrain A in favor of B imposes costs on A. The economic problem, Coase emphasized, is to avoid the more serious harm. ... Second, if the pricing system works costlessly and rights are assigned over the relevant resources, agents will negotiate a solution that maximizes the value of output, and this outcome will be reached irrespective of to which party those rights are assigned—the idea that came to be known as the Coase theorem. ... In the frictionless world of welfare economics circa 1960, the negotiation result shows that Pigouvian remedies are completely unnecessary for an efficient resolution of externality problems. Third, in the real world of positive transaction costs, all coordination mechanisms—markets, firms, and government—are costly and imperfect, meaning that there is no route to the optimum. The best that we can do is to choose among imperfect alternatives ... Comparative institutional analysis, then, becomes the method of choice, and the goal, from an economic perspective, is to select the coordination mechanism that maximizes the value of output for the problem under consideration.Here's how I tried to convey the Coase "theorem" insight in an article I wrote last summer about "Are Property Rights a Solution to Pollution? (PERC Reports, Summer 2020). In my words:
In one famous example, Coase discussed the hypothetical situation of a railroad running beside a farmer's field. Sparks from the train would sometimes start fires in the crops. How should this external cost—a kind of pollution "externality"—be addressed?
For non-economists, an obvious answer is for the government to pass a law. For example, the government might require that the railroad company install spark arrestors on the smokestacks of its locomotives, use a different blend of fuel or a new engine, leave a buffer zone beside the field, or relocate the rails altogether. Alternatively, the government might declare that the farmer should build a fence to protect the field, install a sprinkler system, change crops, leave a buffer zone, or perhaps even relocate the farm.
Rather than viewing anti-pollution efforts in terms of how governments should choose which rule to impose, Coase took an altogether different approach. He pointed out that the problem could be rephrased in terms of property rights—in other words, who has what rights? For example, the government could say that the railroad company had a right to emit sparks, in which case the farmer would have to figure out the most cost-effective way of protecting the fields. Alternatively, the government could say that the farmer had a property right not to have sparks land among his crops, in which case the railroad would have to figure out an answer—which might include installing spark arrestors or other technology to prevent fires from occurring, or even just paying the farmer to put up with the annoyance.
In Coase's approach, the question of how to respond to problems of pollution such as unwelcome railroad sparks did not need to be delegated to a government vote or board of experts. Nor did the problem of pollution, in Coase's view, need to be solved by regulators imposing a Pigouvian tax to account for the "externality" imposed. After all, governments or any outside groups will inevitably possess much less detailed and hands-on information about the range of possible options—and how those options might be tweaked or combined—than railroads and farmers. Moreover, any choice of specific government regulations will be affected by politics and lobbying. Instead, Coase argued that once property rights were clearly defined, then one party or the other would have an incentive to seek out the most cost-effective way of reducing this form of "pollution."
Coase's work often pushed back against a common assumption (common both then and now), that direct government actions and mandates are the appropriate answers to problems with markets. He emphasized that governments often lacked both detailed knowledge of how to resolve issues with markets, and also that government acting under political pressure might lack the incentive to resolve such problems appropriately. Instead, the role of government could be to set up a system in which the economic actors themselves would use their detailed private information to reach a better decision.
In other classic examples, Coase argued in the 1950s that when it came to allocating spectrum rights, it was better for the government to auction those rights rather than to allocate them by an administrative decision-making process. Such auctions would cause private actors to reveal their true preferences, rather than just deploy their lobbyists. In another paper, Coase argued that although economists often invoke lighthouses as an example of where markets can't work well, as a historical fact many lighthouses were built by the private sector once the government gave them the right to collect tolls.
It's perhaps useful to note that Coase is certainly not claiming that real-world markets are perfect, and that private negotiations will resolve any issues. His prescriptions often involve the active intervention of government: for example, in setting the rules over whether railroads or farmers are responsible for dealing with sparks, or setting up auctions for spectrum rights, or giving lighthouse builders a right to charge tolls. Coase is arguing against "blackboard economics," as he later called it, where market problems and government solutions are sketched out in a classroom like a solved problem. Instead, Coase favored of a comparative institutional economics, where the specific details of situations take on a central role and thus it becomes important to think about details of information and incentives is possessed by the actual parties involved.
Coase did not refer to his result as a theorem: instead, this label was bestowed by George Stigler a few years later. Medema writes: "[T]he Coase theorem is neither prediction nor testable hypothesis nor descriptor nor policy prescription. It is, and can be nothing more than, a benchmark—a generator of predictive, testable, descriptive, and policy insights."
Medema describes in detail the unfolding of the Coase result over time, as the issues of potential problems, involved parties, information, and incentives have been explored in many contexts--including contexts outside of economics. Here, I'll close with Medema's overall summary of this process.
The Coase theorem is, by any number of measures, one of the most curious results in the history of economic ideas. Its development has been shrouded in misremembrances, political controversies, and all manner of personal and communal confusions and serves as an exemplar of the messy process by which new ideas become scientific knowledge. There is no unique statement of the Coase theorem; there are literally dozens of different statements of it, many of which are inconsistent with others and appear to mark significant departures from what Coase had argued in 1960. ...
The theorem has never been given a generally accepted formal proof; yet it has been the subject of scores of attempts to "disprove" it in a stream of analysis and debate that continues to this day. It has been labeled a "tautology" and the "Say's law of welfare economics" (Calabresi 1968, pp. 68, 73), an "illuminating falsehood" (Cooter 1982, p. 28), and even a "religious precept" (Posin 1993, p. 810). Halpin (2007, p. 339) calls the theorem "theoretically degenerate … and ideologically charged." Usher (1998, p. 3) bundles these various charges together, claiming that the theorem is "tautological, incoherent, or wrong," with the specific verdict resting upon to which version of the theorem one subscribes. ...
The nature of the theorem's underlying assumptions is often said to make its domain of direct applicability nil; yet, it has been invoked, criticized, and applied to legal-economic policy issues in thousands of journal articles and books in economics and law ... as well as in journals spanning fields from philosophy (Hale 2008) to literature (Minda 2001) to biology (Frech 1973a). Indeed, the Coase theorem may be the only economic concept the use of which is more extensive outside of economics than within it.
State attorneys general (AGs) have been getting more and more involved in defending workers' rights, including bringing wage theft cases, suing companies such as Uber and Lyft for misclassification, and fighting non-compete and no poach agreements.
Their evolving labor-enforcement role was the topic of the "State Attorneys General as Protectors of Workers' Rights" webinar hosted by the Economic Policy Institute and the Harvard Law School Labor and Worklife Program on December 3, 2020, that included insights from bureau, division, and section chiefs who lead labor rights work in their state attorneys general offices.
They talked about some of their cases, and shared thoughts about how state AGs select cases, how they decide whether to proceed civilly or with a criminal prosecution, and how they've worked, sometimes behind the scenes, to safeguard workplace safety and health during the pandemic. The webinar followed up on an August report on this topic issued by EPI and the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program.
Here is a Q&A based on some of the follow-up questions asked during the webinar. They delve into everything from setting up a labor unit in the AG's office to AGs' authority to address workplace safety matters.
Regarding case selection: What about AG's deciding "not to get involved?" That seems a productive question that slightly adjusts the "How do you 'get cases' question."
Several of the panelists discussed how they select cases, which are primarily based on impact litigation criteria: offices try to focus on cases with a pattern or practice that violates the law, and in which handling the case can help to bring broader change in an industry or regarding a certain practice. Offices also consider the number of workers involved, egregiousness of the violations, and strength of the evidence (including documentary evidence as well as worker witnesses), among other things. What cases they decide not to get involved in is driven by these same considerations. A case involving a few workers, working for a small employer, with de minimus violations and weak evidence is likely to be unappealing.
Do you do outreach to labor unions? Do you reach out to those who are not represented by unions?
A number of state AGs engaged in this work do considerable outreach to unions, worker centers, worker advocacy groups, community-based organizations and others, as detailed in the August report. If your state AG is not engaging with worker organizations, it's a good idea to reach out and begin the conversation.
Do AG offices get involved in enforcing Families First Coronavirus Response Act expanded leave benefits?
AG office jurisdiction varies considerably: some may have authority to enforce it, others may not. Regardless, offices can always do outreach and know-your-rights education about these rights, as the D.C. AG's office has done; such outreach is important given the general public's lack of knowledge about these laws.
How does preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) shape your work, especially where there could be disagreement about whether violations are within the scope of the NLRA?
There is broad preemption of state action by the NLRA. However, states retain their police powers and are not preempted from enforcing general laws unrelated to collective bargaining. So for example, if restaurant workers organizing a union also file a complaint about subminimum wages, and they are subsequently discharged in an arguably retaliatory termination, the NLRA would not preempt a state AG's office from taking action (investigate and if warranted, sue) to address the retaliation because it stems, at least in part, from the subminimum wage complaint.
Is there an AG national organization?
The National Association of Attorneys General is a nonpartisan national organization of state AGS. Another resource is the website www.stateag.org. In addition, James Tierney, former Attorney General of Maine and a Lecturer at Harvard Law School has developed an open source casebook which can be consulted for more detailed background on attorneys general.
I work in a state that has a state Department of Labor (DOL) opposed to worker rights but an AG's office that may be more sympathetic. Is the ability for state AGs to handle labor cases just a question of state law typically?
Yes and no. Ideally, state AGs would have direct and explicit jurisdiction to enforce state workplace laws. Some AG offices have gotten this authority through legislation in recent years, including D.C., Illinois, and Minnesota. But other offices have brought labor cases using more general authority to bring cases to protect the people of their jurisdictions. The California AG's office has used an unfair competition law as the basis for jurisdiction to enforce these laws, and the New York AG's office has long brought labor cases using a law granting the AG authorityto address repeat or persistent fraud or illegality in the running of a business. Prior to its grant of jurisdiction, the Illinois AG office used a creative combination of approaches, including bringing cases under parens patriae authority. Washington State's AG brought a noncompete case under an anti-trust theory.
But even without any explicit jurisdiction, state AG offices can use a range of other tools to protect workers: gathering information and issuing reports, proposing legislation, joining multi-state actions, writing amicus brief, holding town halls, referring cases to other agencies, conducting outreach and know-your-rights presentations, and more. In addition, state AG offices have the important role of representing the state Department of Labor (or its equivalent) in court, and in states with worker-friendly labor departments, the AG office may be able to collaborate closely with that agency in aggressively pursuing employers with egregious violations. Finally, some state AG offices have criminal jurisdiction, and may be able to pursue wage theft, payroll fraud, and other workplace violations through criminal prosecution, if the facts warrant this approach.
Do you have any info about red states' AGs?
As profiled in the report, some Republican attorneys general have taken action to protect workers. For example, in 2020, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey helped secure over $1 million in owed paid time off and other benefits for workers whose employer, a hospital, had abruptly closed; the settlements covered a range of workers including certified nurse assistants, support nurses, support staff and cafeteria and maintenance workers. In 2019, Montana Attorney General Tim Fox obtained a guilty plea from the owner of a construction company for failing to pay workers' compensation insurance, among other things. And at the start of the pandemic, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich issued a press releaseinforming workers of their rights under the state's paid sick leave law.
How are AGs acting to protect educators and others who must work in school settings during the pandemic? The desire to educate kids and limit remote school is strong, but the risks to these front-line workers is increasingly serious.
The Vermont AG's office issued guidance regarding reasonable accommodations during the pandemic for schools, school districts, educators, and support staff. In addition, the Illinois AG's office sued to enforce the state's mask mandate in a school context. (Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and memorandum from case).
How and who generally sets up the labor units in the AG's office? Is that something decided by the AG, or by statute, or is that a legislative or governor-based decision? In other words, how does one encourage a state to develop the position and the office? And what was the state labor department's position?
This is generally something decided by the AG. In offices with labor units that have started since 2015, the AGs decided that workers' rights would be a priority within their offices. In some cases, this meant moving positions from other bureaus when there was turnover or attrition. For example, if a consumer division had 25 lawyers, and one departed from the office, the AG might use that position to start a labor unit, leaving the consumer division with 24 lawyers (96 percent of its prior staffing) and create a whole new labor unit starting with just one lawyer. In fact, in several offices, labor units started with only one attorney, and later grew. In addition, as noted above, state legislatures recently granted AG offices jurisdiction on these matters in D.C. (2017), Illinois (2019), and Minnesota (2019); the legislation in Illinois also established the AG's Workplace Rights Bureau by statute, so that its continued existence would no longer be a matter of discretion of the officeholder.
Regarding the state labor department, in state AG offices with dedicated labor units, there are generally collaborative and synergistic relationships. Labor departments have welcomed the additional and complementary involvement of the AG's office in the shared mission of protecting workers. Of course, this is not a foregone conclusion; one could imagine a situation in which ideology or concerns about turf might lead to a less collaborative approach.
Are progressive worker protection units structured so that they can survive changes in AGs and shifting priorities? If not, what could the public do to ensure survival and effectiveness?
As a matter of practice, AG offices often retain the same general bureaus and structure even when there are changes in administrations. This is part of the value of institutionalizing the work in a dedicated bureau, division, or unit. One approach to ensuring the continuation of such units would be to enshrine its existence in statute, as occurred in Illinois.
State AGs have been involved in addressing misclassification in various ways. As discussed in the webinar, the Massachusetts and California AGs both sued Uber and Lyft for misclassification (although California's efforts for injunctive relief are impacted by the passage of Proposition 22 in that state). The Massachusetts AG also reached settlements with two placement agencies that required reclassification of workers as employees (they involved staff placed in dental offices and schools). Also, state AGs often deal with misclassification of workers in their role representing state agencies; for example, the New York AG office represented the state labor department in a case in which the state's highest court upheld a determination that a Postmates worker was an employee, not an independent contractor, for the purposes of unemployment insurance. The New York AG also recently filed a brief urging the state's appellate court to uphold a similar determination regarding Uber drivers.
Some state AGs have used criminal prosecution authority extensively to pursue employers, but it has generally focused on cases of wage theft, failure to pay unemployment taxes and workers' compensation fraud. However, the Maine AG's office recently charged a roofing company in a workplace fatality case, and the New York AG's office brought child labor prosecutions in the case of a teenage restaurant worker whose arm was severed and a 14-year-old killed while operating heavy equipment on a farm.
There are, however, numerous examples of district attorney offices (or their equivalents), who often have broader prosecutorial authority than AGs, that have brought charges against employers in relation to workplace fatalities, including in Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, and elsewhere.
The labor chiefs who were panelists on the webinar surely have personal opinions on some of these topics, like many of us do, but their role is not primarily policymaking; it's enforcing the laws that are on the books. State AGs do have the ability to affect policy in various ways: they have proposed state legislation, testified in Congress, written reports, authored op-eds, issued opinion letters, filed amicus briefs, and of course their affirmative litigation, such as cases against the federal government, can lead and has led to policy changes. However, the lawyers overseeing enforcement do not generally have a formal role in policymaking in the way lawyers in nonprofits, think tanks, or legislative offices might. (They also would typically be unlikely to speak publicly about their policy opinions, since there is usually a chain of command in government agencies that would require approval before offering such responses.)
Offices with labor units will likely expend fewer resources opposing proposed federal rules or suing to block enacted ones. Given the dire situation of workers in the U.S., however, this is clearly an all-hands-on-deck moment, with ample reasons for state AGs to continue their active and growing engagement in this work.
Please note that the next AFL-CIO Dispatch will be sent on Jan. 7. On behalf of everyone at the AFL-CIO, we wish you a safe and happy holiday season. |
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT |
|
President-elect Biden is living up to his word to forge a bold new direction. But his hand will be immeasurably strengthened by winning the two U.S. Senate seats in Georgia. Georgia shocked the nation in 2020. And America's labor movement will be the reason Georgia flips the Senate in 2021. Early voting began this week. The election is on Jan. 5.
Our opponents are expecting us to slow down as the year comes to a close. We can't give that to them because that's how they win. If you are participating in our postcard program, send your cards to Georgia as soon as possible. If you have not signed up to drive calls into Georgia, it's not too late. If you are already driving calls into Georgia, please make more.
Our Workers First Agenda is on the line. Jon Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock can deliver a pro-worker Senate majority and usher in the PRO Act, which would change the game in union organizing. We need to leave it all on the field. |
THE SEASON OF GIVING: LABOR AND THE HOLIDAYS |
|
All across America, working people are preparing for the holidays as best we can amidst the pandemic. But for some families, this holiday season will not be as bright as those in the past because of the loss of income through no fault of their own. The labor movement is joining together with renewed purpose to do what we can to support our communities this holiday season. Labor bodies, local unions and United Way agencies are all getting in on the holiday spirit of giving back.
West Central Florida Labor Council's annual holiday toy drive is officially underway, according to labor council President Shawn McDonnell (IBEW). Every holiday season, the council partners with the Children's Home Society to run a toy drive. In previous years, the labor council would collect thousands of toys for donation. This year, because of COVID-19, it is collecting donations for a virtual gift card drive.
In Illinois, dozens of members of the Bloomington-Normal Trades and Labor Assembly turned out on Saturday for the labor council's annual holiday event for families in need. For the past 38 years, the labor council has sponsored a Children's Christmas Party for low-income families. The unions provide the volunteers and logistics; the local Chamber of Commerce brings volunteers and raises the funds. Traditionally, the event is held at Bloomington High School, featuring a morning of games and a visit from Santa, with about 350–375 children participating. Because of COVID-19, this year's event was shifted to a drive-thru event staged at the Midwest Food Bank in Normal. Some 856 children from 318 families were served.
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, local unions are also doing their part. Members of the Cheyenne Professional Fire Fighters/IAFF Local 279 in Wyoming held their annual bike drive. The union said it has raised $1,000 and collected some 60 bikes so far to distribute to families this holiday season. The local also sold 150 Christmas trees with the proceeds to be donated to charity. In Boston, Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 103 held its annual toy drive in partnership with Mayor Martin Walsh (LIUNA).
And community service agencies are coping with increased demand from more people than ever. AFL-CIO Community Services Agency, based in St. Joseph, Missouri, is pushing ahead with its annual Adopt-A-Family program to bring holiday joy to families in need. The program pairs donors with families who might otherwise go without Christmas celebrations this year. The United Way chapter said last week that it is halfway toward meeting its goal of adopting some 400 families this year.
Working people are doing what we always do: deliver for our communities. That's especially true this holiday season. The AFL-CIO thanks all those taking part in charitable efforts this season and throughout the pandemic. Your efforts are what make our labor movement so important to our communities. |
LABOR PROTECTED OUR DEMOCRACY—EVEN AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER |
|
After winning the presidential election and securing the vote count, union members continued to be on the front lines of defending our democracy across the states by making sure vote results were certified. The Michigan State AFL-CIO continued coordinating with our coalition partners, making certain that union members were a critical part of ensuring the will of voters was upheld in Michigan. The state federation has maintained its UnionsDefend.org website with links to important information, events and digital activism in which union members can participate.
The Michigan State AFL-CIO collected and helped drive formal comment submissions from union members to the Michigan Board of State Canvassers in support of vote result certification before the meeting to certify the results. Board Chair Jeannette Bradshaw (pictured above), the secretary-treasurer of the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO and the recording secretary of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 58, eventually presided over the certification of Michigan's vote results.
And on Monday, the Pennsylvania delegation of the Electoral College met in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to cast the commonwealth's 20 electoral votes for President-elect Joe Biden. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Rick Bloomingdale (AFSCME) was proud to serve as an elector and secretary of the Electoral College. Labor leaders Ryan Boyer, business manager of Laborers (LIUNA) District Council of the Metropolitan Area of Philadelphia and Vicinity, and Daisy Cruz, Mid-Atlantic District leader of 32BJ SEIU, also served as electors.
The officers of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, President Bloomingdale and Secretary-Treasurer Frank Snyder (USW), issued the following joint statement: "Our Democracy has been tested at every step throughout this process. Our State Supreme Court, the federal judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Court have all upheld the results of our free and fair elections. And now we move even closer to ringing in a new year and a new White House."
After all the Electoral College votes were counted, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (UMWA) said, "We can now say with certainty what we've known since early November: Joe Biden will be sworn in as our next president on Jan. 20. This didn't happen by accident. Workers voted in overwhelming numbers and union members came out in the weeks that followed to defend our votes and make sure our voices were heard." |
TWU MEMBER PURSUES URBAN PLANNING DEGREE WITH HELP OF UNION PLUS SCHOLARSHIP |
|
This past fall, Transport Workers Union (TWU) member Gregory Harasym began a master's program in city and regional planning with a concentration in transportation. He intends to examine alternative transportation methods to address community-level health and social injustices; and he hopes to eventually be a specialist in this field, focusing on policy for the Department of Transportation. His career direction changed in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which deeply impacted his community and left him passionate about helping communities become resilient to future disasters.
Harasym's father, a New York City transit worker, died when he was 16 and the TWU pension made it possible for his mother to raise him and his younger brother. "My passion for public service has led me to pursue a master's degree in urban planning, and my TWU membership and my father's [membership] have afforded me the ability to do so," Harasym said.
The Union Plus Scholarship Program awards scholarships based on outstanding academic achievement, personal character, financial need, and commitment to the values of organized labor. Union Plus Scholarship awards are granted to students attending a two-year college, four-year college, graduate school, or recognized technical or trade school. Visit UnionPlus.org/Scholarship for applications and benefit eligibility. The application deadline is Jan. 31, 2021. |
WE DO THE WORK |
|
Patrick O'Meara (TNG-CWA) is one of our secret weapons in the AFL-CIO's Economic Power & Growth (EPG) Hub. He's a radical certified public accountant and our double agent of corporate finance. Patrick knows how to follow the money in order to understand companies better than they understand themselves. And he uses his superpowers to inform campaign strategies in support of worker organizing. How awesomely subversive is that? Patrick came to the EPG after years in the Advocacy Hub and continues to do work at the intersection of advocacy and organizing. Every year, he compiles the popular AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch feature promoted on our website and he often supports the federation's capital strategies work. He led our analysis of the CARES Act's payroll protection program and is currently focused on monitoring and analyzing the emerging offshore wind industry, supporting the AFL-CIO's recent model agreement between North America's Building Trades Unions and Ørsted, and looking ahead, to establishing union standards throughout this sector. |
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ believes the Democratic Party needs new leadership, telling The Intercept in an interview that it's time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to go. But the left, she said, currently has no plan on how to fill the subsequent leadership vacuum.
"If you create that vacuum, there are so many nefarious forces at play to fill that vacuum with something even worse," she told Jeremy Scahill during an interview aired Wednesday on Intercepted this week. Pelosi cruised to reelection in a virtual caucus vote last month and will face a full House floor vote for the speakership in January. She's expected to remain speaker but has almost no room for error, after a disastrous performance in the general election cost the caucus at least a dozen seats. With a single-digit majority, she can only afford to lose a handful of Democratic votes on the House floor or else she'll be short of the required 218, which would then throw the contest back to the caucus.
The rest of Pelosi's octogenarian leadership team, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn, has held these top positions for over a decade and won their slots without any opposition. On the Senate side, Schumer won reelection unanimously.
Ocasio-Cortez argued that there are no viable alternatives for House or Senate leadership at the moment because the caucus's current leaders spent a number of years concentrating power without any "real grooming of a next generation of leadership."
"A lot of this is not just about these two personalities, but also about the structural shifts that these two personalities have led in their time in leadership," Ocasio-Cortez said. "The structural shifts of power in the House, both in process and rule, to concentrate power in party leadership of both parties, frankly, but in Democratic Party leadership to such a degree that an individual member has far less power than they did 30, 40, 50 years ago."
This dynamic is what pushes the "really talented members of Congress that do come along" to leave or run for statewide office instead. But Pelosi has also indicated that this upcoming term could be her last, "and the left isn't really making a plan for that either," Ocasio-Cortez added. "So I do think that it's something that we really need to think about."
If progressives do threaten to withhold their support from Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez said, their demand shouldn't be merely for a floor vote on Medicare for All, which is sure to fail. Instead, she believes, progressives should fight some of the bigger structural obstacles in the way of Medicare for All, like pay-go, an austerity provision that makes it difficult for Democrats to pass more ambitious policies, or replacing conservative Democratic Rep. Richie Neal as head of the Ways and Means Committee. "We are currently negotiating to get and work towards real material concessions for the left that can move things into place, to help build power for the next two years," she said.
The New York congresswoman shot down the possibility of running for the position any time soon. "The House is extraordinarily complex and I'm not ready," she said. "It can't be me. I know that I couldn't do that job."
Asked about President-elect Joe Biden bringing in hawkish members of the Obama administration, as well as officials from companies like Goldman Sachs and McKinsey, Ocasio-Cortez said: "It's horrible."
"And I think it's also part of a larger issue that we have right now, which is … the Biden administration is bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, which depending on where you are in the party, may sound nice, I guess," she said. "But I think what a lot of people fail to remember is that we now have a Biden administration that's bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, but when Obama was making appointments, he was bringing back a lot of Clinton appointees."
Dozens of people, including some from Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Facebook, and Google, have quietly been added to the Biden transition team in recent weeks, Politico reported on Monday.
This same cast of characters and their way of doing things, she added, is "a huge reason why we got Donald Trump in the first place. In addition to just the racism that was waiting to be reanimated in this country, [there] was just an extreme disdain for this moneyed political establishment that rules Washington."
She also expressed frustration with congressional inaction on coronavirus relief and the failure to provide aid for those who are struggling, pointing to both the GOP's "barbarity" and the Democrats' strategic blunders. Ocasio-Cortez was the only Democrat in Congress to come out against the CARES Act, opposing it for both strategic and policy-related reasons. Democrats lost nearly all their leverage in pandemic relief negotiations, she argued, because the massive bailout gave Wall Street, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the Trump administration everything they wanted. It was the party's "rage-inducing" hypocrisy on the issues, from military spending and mass surveillance to right-leaning economic stances, that led her to run for office in the first place.
"For me personally, it was when I was waitressing and I would hear Democrats talk about why the Affordable Care Act was so amazing all the time and how this is the greatest thing ever and the economy is doing wonderfully," she said. "Frankly, it is the same trick that Trump pulls, which is, you know, people touting the Dow as a measure of economic success when we're all getting killed out here."
