Read his speech here, or watch it below (John McDaid of Hard Deadlines has a great piece on it here):

501c(4) a not-for-profit designation that is supposed to be used for educating people about “social welfare” but what they do as a practical matter is advocate for a political agenda.

The Washington Post has a good explainer video here, most important to know that you don’t get a tax break for donating to these groups, Instead, donors get something perhaps far more valuable: anonymity.

It’s why it took a Wall Street Journal reporter to uncover that some of the money behind pension politics came from an Enron hedge fund manager and why we still don’t know who paid for the rest of it.

It’s why the Providence Joural always referred to anything Ocean State Action touched as being “labor-backed.”

It’s why we have little idea who is paying Mike Stenhouse and Justin Katz to be the public faces behind a far-fetched proposal to eliminate the state sales tax. (Well, we know a little bit, thanks to the diligent research of Mike McDonald.) By the way, when Katz testified for this bill yesterday he did so for the 501c(3) wing of his anti-government group, not the 501c(4).

WASHINGTON — God will not save us, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) declared in a Senate floor speech on climate change Wednesday that sounded more like a sermon than a political appeal.

It’s great not only because because it’s pretty undeniable logic – “If we believe in an all-powerful God, then we must then believe that God gave us this earth, and we must in turn believe that God gave us its laws of gravity, of chemistry, of physics,” he said – but also because it turns the entire debate around:

“Hope for a nanny God, who will with a miracle grant us amnesty from our folly — that’s not aligned with either history or the text of the Bible. How arrogant — how very far from humility — would be the self-satisfied, smug assurance that God, a tidy-up-after-us God will come and clean up our mess?”

You can watch the whole speech below, but make sure you read and/or watch MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tie Sheldon’s speech in with the GOP effort to block Obama’s appointment to head the EPA.

Hailed as one of Wall Street’s worst nightmares and the intellectual godmother of Occupy Wall Street, Warren told me that public investment in education and infrastructure is the top priority for progressives in Congress. She also said the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is looking at ways “to get more people of moderate income to be able to build their own pensions so they have something in addition to Social Security when they retire.”

Here’s the video:

Through a translator, Bernardo Chimoro, of Central Falls, tells Kate Brewster, of the Economic Progress Institute, and congressmen David Cicilline and Jim Langevin why raising the minimum wage would help him and others in his community. (Photo by Bob Plain)

If corporate America was still run by businessmen like Henry Ford, we probably wouldn’t need to have a minimum wage law.

Ford, said Congressman Jim Langevin recently, “wanted his workers to earn a wage that was sufficient for them to buy an automobile that he produced. He recognized with a strong middle class, with a strong working class, that the economy does better, and his company did better.”

Of course, somewhere along the way the business ethic of Henry Ford was subverted by that of the Koch brothers – making a meaningful minimum wage more important than ever to the American economy.

“Raising the minimum wage is trickle down economics that actually works,” Langevin said.

He and his colleague Congressman David Cicilline are both co-sponsors of a bill that would gradually raise the federal minimum wage from $.725 to $10.10 by 2015. Here’s why:

Cicilline said raising the minimum wage would have a direct affect on the small businesses economy in Rhode Island.

Kate Brewster, of the Economic Progress Institute, said raising the federal minimum wage would benefit 72,000 Rhode Islanders. She dispelled the oft-repeated myth that most minimum wage workers are teenagers saying only one in five is younger than 20.

Brewster also echoed Cicilline’s point about how it would boon for local small businesses saying, “Putting more money in the pockets of workers will put more money in the cash registers of local business, which will help to create jobs here in Rhode Island.”

And in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Ralph Nader even showed how raising the minimum wage can lower our taxes:

Corporations pay their workers such low wages that the workers can’t afford to buy the food, pay the rent, or get the health care they need. Consequently, these employees increasingly turn to the taxpayer-funded government safety net via food stamps, Medicaid, the earned income tax credit and housing-assistance programs. Taxpayers end up footing the bill for the unconscionably low wages paid by profitable corporations.

Wal-Mart, which grossed $318 billion in the U.S. last year, provides its workers with technical advice about how to apply for this public assistance. For responsible businesses to subsidize the low wages of their larger competitors is a complete perversion of capitalism.

Corporations like Wal-Mart have no problem making profits while paying the higher $10.25 minimum wage in Ontario, Canada, just across the border from Buffalo, N.Y.

In short, raising the minimum wage is good for workers, communities, economies, small businesses and good government. On the other hand, it will mean less massive profits for McDonalds and Walmart.

Almost 15% of Rhode Islanders live in poverty, close to 155,000 of our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers, our daughters and sons.  According to the 2013 RI Kids Count Factbook, “[t]here are 39,900 poor children in Rhode Island, 17.9% of all children.”  One out of ten RI seniors lives in poverty.  In a civilized society that is supposed to take care of the less fortunate among us, this should be totally unacceptable.  In today’s America, this is just another day in paradise…

There is a lot of discussion about the “middle class,” and about how to “strengthen” it.  But there is generally little discussion about poverty, its causes, consequences, and solutions (yes… solutions).  When there is discussion about the plight of the poor, it is generally to blame them, either indirectly or directly, for their circumstances.  This is not only offensive to the many, many folks who live their lives every day struggling to make ends meet, it completely ignores the economic realities facing the country and the social bases that perpetuate inequality and inter-generational poverty.

A Google News search for “poverty” yields 149,000 results.  The same search for “deficit” brings back over 1.2 million results.  I’m not sure why this is the case, but I feel the lack of discussion about poverty in the public realm perpetuates the problem, making poverty less visible and therefore “ignorable.”  The closest thing to a full public debate on poverty in recent years was John Edward’s campaign theme of “Two Americas” leading up to the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.  And while that was particularly striking to me given the state of electoral politics, it was no Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” ad.

To this point, I am glad that Dem Whip Steny Hoyer recently announced the Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, if for no other reason than to bring additional attention to a persistent and growing problem.  Equally, I am glad that Rep. David Cicilline has been appointed to it as he is one of the most vocal in Congress about poverty and has been working on his plan for two years to further boost American manufacturing.

These manufacturing jobs would be in sharp contrast to the low-wage work, particularly part-time work, that has been the norm during America’s economic malaise that many people call a “recovery.”  When almost 60% of the total number of jobs created after the recession officially ended is low wage occupations, should we even call it a recovery?  Moreover, the recession’s effects on employment highlight the need for non-employment based programs to reduce poverty.  Focusing only on programs to enhance the income of those who are working, while important, does nothing to help those who are unemployed.  And the longer folks lack a job, the harder it is for them to find another.

Empirical research shows that the loss of a good job during a severe downturn—the job-loss pattern of this downturn—leads to a 20 percent earnings loss lasting 15 to 20 years.  Earnings losses are more severe for long-term unemployed workers who run a greater risk of dropping out of the labor force and falling into poverty.

It’s important to understand that the policies and programs focused on reducing poverty actually work…, you know, when they’re allowed to work.  There are things that can (and should) be done to alleviate poverty in this country, especially in times like these.  When the economy was destroyed by those who have everything but wanted more, forcing misery and destitution on millions of Americans through no fault of their own, the most important thing to do is help ensure people can improve their lives.

I hope this task force will help find more creative solutions to reducing poverty, showing the same sense of seriousness and urgency that prompted Lyndon Johnson to push the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 through Congress.  They could start by raising the minimum wage, increasing the EITC benefit, prosecuting wage theft, making it easier to join a union, and truly helping the unemployed with job training, entrepreneurship assistance, long-term unemployment benefits, stimulus spending, and even subsidized work.  Maybe then we’ll see another significant decline in poverty as was seen throughout the 1960s.

This agenda also includes a bill that I have introduced, the Make it in America Manufacturing Act, that establishes a competitive block grant program that provides small to medium-sized manufacturers with resources to retool their factories and retrain their workers to compete in a global economy.

I believe strongly that if we want to get our economy back on the right track, we have to start making things again in this country. That’s why, yesterday, I spoke on the House floor and highlighted the importance of Congress working to pass the commonsense proposals that are included in the Make it in America plan – a video of my speech is embedded below.

I hope you’ll join me in working to make sure that Congress acts soon on these pragmatic, progressive ideas for getting America back to work. Click here to visit the official Make it in America website and learn more right now.

When Barack Obama proposed cuts to Social Security in his current budget, progressives were horrified.  Fortunately, in the First District of Rhode Island, we have a congressman who opposes this dangerous unraveling of the New Deal.  David Cicilline has signed the Grayson-Takano letter, formally committing to never voting for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security (act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_ss_grayson/#fullletter).

This is a critical move.  As American family budgets continue to be squeezed, and retirement savings continue to dwindle, Social Security is more important than ever.  We cannot afford to lose this fight.

As a member of the Budget Committee, Congressman Cicilline is in a strong position to help defend these core Democratic achievements.  But he needs allies.  Let’s hope more congressmen follow Cicilline’s lead.

All four members of the delegation have signed onto letters asking President Obama to award Fred Ross Sr. a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

“For nearly half a century, Fred educated, agitated and inspired people of all races and backgrounds to overcome fear, despair and cynicism. He was a pioneer who fought for racial and economic justice,” reads a letter that Congressman David Cicilline and Jim Langevin signed onto along with 60 other members of the House. Here’s a copy of the letter Senators Reed and Whitehouse sent to the president.

Ross is best known for mentoring Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta. But he’s also a real-life connection between the “Grapes of Wrath” and the grape boycott by the United Farm Workers. In the 1930′s, Ross ran the Arvin Migratory Labor Camp in Central California – the government-run unemployment camp made famous by Steinbeck’s classic novel as the alternative to oppressive private sector camps where the Joad family and others suffered. Then, in the 1960′s he was instrumental in helping Chavez and Huerta organize a nation-wide grape boycott that led to better working conditions for migrant farm laborers.

ABC News has a great profile on Ross and his legacy, with this photo gallery.

Congressman David Cicilline challenges Paul Ryan’s facts.

Congressman David Cicilline’s office confirmed he hasn’t signed the Grayson-Takano pledge to oppose “every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits” and that he is “leaning” against supporting the progressive Back to Work budget proposal being supported by the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives. (Instead he may support the more moderate House Democrat proposal being voted on today.)

But Cicilline spokesman Rich Luchette wants progressive Rhode Islanders to know that these tough votes don’t necessarily mean that David is no longer fighting for us.

“You don’t sign every letter or bill you agree with,” Luchette said in an email. “That’s just not how the House works.”

He sent this statement that he wanted me to share with progressive RI:

It is absurd to suggest that David is anything other than 100% committed to protecting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits

In February 2013, David co-signed a letter from Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Congressman Keith Ellison and Congressman Raul Grijalva that pledged to oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits as part of a deal to avert sequestration.

In December 2012, David co-signed a letter pledging to oppose any budget proposal that included chained CPI to calculate COLAs for Social Security.

David voted against the Ryan budget in April 2011.

In August 2011, the Rhode Island Alliance for Retired Americans presented David with the Social Security and Medicare Hero’s Award thanking him for his work to protect Social Security and Medicare.

In July 2011, David co-signed a letter to Leader Pelosi expressing support for her strong advocacy during debt ceiling negotiations to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

He called on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in October 2011.

“Rep. Cicilline draws the line on protecting Social Security, Medicare benefits.” – The Hill, October 2011,

David spoke on the House floor and voted against the Ryan budget in March 2012 because it would end the Medicare guarantee for seniors.

In both of his terms, he co-sponsored the Preserving Our Promise to Seniors Act, legislation that would strengthen the finances of the Social Security Trust Fund and improve how cost of living adjustments (COLAs) are determined by using a new Consumer Price Index (CPI) that more accurately tracks changes in the cost of goods and services purchased by seniors.

He also co-sponsored the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act in both terms – legislation that would authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices of prescription drugs for beneficiaries of Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage, which could save taxpayers billions of dollars while also reducing drug prices for seniors.

Just last week, he fought for these priorities during the Budget Committee markup of the Ryan proposal.

Congressman Cicilline introduced an amendment that would have included language in the budget resolution expressing the House’s opposition to the privatization of Social Security. Due to Republican opposition, the amendment failed by a vote of 22-17.

Congressman Cicilline co-sponsored, and spoke in favor of an amendment offered by Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA) that would have formally affirmed our commitment to not ending Medicare as we know it. Due to Republican opposition, this amendment also failed by a vote of 22-17.

Congressman Cicilline co-sponsored an amendment offered by Representative Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D-NM) to restore Medicaid assistance to cover the costs of nursing home care or home and community-based services for seniors. Due to Republican opposition, this amendment also failed by a vote of 22-17.