Category: National
Why are Americans so angry?
| February 3, 2016 | 10:11 pm | Analysis, National, political struggle | Comments closed

Why are Americans so angry?

Man shouting in front of an American flagImage copyright iStock

Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November’s presidential election now well under way, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either “very angry” or “somewhat angry” about “the way things are going” in the US.

And the same proportion – 69% – are angry because the political system “seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington,” according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November.

Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month – particularly Republicans (61%) and white people (54%) but also 42% of Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.

Candidates have sensed the mood and are adopting the rhetoric. Donald Trump, who has arguably tapped into voters’ frustration better than any other candidate, says he is “very, very angry” and will “gladly accept the mantle of anger” while rival Republican Ben Carson says he has encountered “many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch the American dream slipping away”.

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says: “I am angry and millions of Americans are angry,” while Hillary Clinton says she “understands why people get angry”.

Here are five reasons why some voters feel the American dream is in tatters.

1. Economy

“The failure of the economy to deliver real progress to middle-class and working-class Americans over the past 15 years is the most fundamental source of public anger and disaffection in the US,” says William Galston, an expert in governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.

Although the country may have recovered from the recession – economic output has rebounded and unemployment rates have fallen from 10% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 – Americans are still feeling the pinch in their wallets. Household incomes have, generally speaking, been stagnant for 15 years. In 2014, the median household income was $53,657, according to the US Census Bureau – compared with $57,357 in 2007 and $57,843 in 1999 (adjusted for inflation).

There is also a sense that many jobs are of lower quality and opportunity is dwindling, says Galston. “The search for explanations can very quickly degenerate into the identification of villains in American politics. On the left it is the billionaires, the banks, and Wall Street. On the right it is immigrants, other countries taking advantage of us and the international economy – they are two sides of the same political coin.”

2. Immigration

Image of US population projections 2015-2060

America’s demographics are changing – nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the US since 1965, not all of whom entered the country legally. Forty years ago, 84% of the American population was made up of non-Hispanic white people – by last year the figure was 62%, according to Pew Research. It projects this trend will continue, and by 2055 non-Hispanic white people will make up less than half the population. Pew expects them to account for only 46% of the population by 2065. By 2055, more Asians than any other ethnic group are expected to move to US.

“It’s been an era of huge demographic, racial, cultural, religious and generational change,” says Paul Taylor, author of The Next America. “While some celebrate these changes, others deplore them. Some older, whiter voters do not recognise the country they grew up in. There is a sense of alien tribes,” he says.

The US currently has 11.3 million illegal immigrants. Migrants often become a target of anger, says Roberto Suro, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California. “There is a displacement of anxiety and they become the face of larger sources of tensions, such as terrorism, jobs and dissatisfaction. We saw that very clearly when Donald Trump switched from [complaining about] Mexicans to Muslims without skipping a beat after San Bernardino,” he says, referring to the shooting in California in December that left 14 people dead.

3. Washington

US Capitol BuildingImage copyright Getty Images

When asked if they trust the government, 89% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats say “only sometimes” or “never”, according to Pew Research. Six out of 10 Americans think the government has too much power, a survey by Gallup suggests, while the government has been named as the top problem in the US for two years in a row – above issues such as the economy, jobs and immigration, according to the organisation.

The gridlock on Capitol Hill and the perceived impotence of elected officials has led to resentment among 20 to 30% of voters, says polling expert Karlyn Bowman, from the American Enterprise Institute. “People see politicians fighting and things not getting done – plus the responsibilities of Congress have grown significantly since the 1970s and there is simply more to criticise. People feel more distant from their government and sour on it,” she says.

William Galston thinks part of the appeal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is down to frustration with what some see as a failing system. “So on the right you have someone who is running as a ‘strong man’, a Berlusconi and Putin, who will get things done, and on the left you have someone who is rejecting incrementalism and calling for a political revolution,” he says.

Ted Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses in Iowa, is also running as an anti-establishment candidate. “Tonight is a victory for every American who’s watched in dismay as career politicians in Washington in both parties refuse to listen and too often fail to keep their commitments to the people,” he said on Monday night.

4. America’s place in the world

Barrack Obama, Xi Jinping and Vladimir PutinImage copyright AFP

America is used to being seen as a superpower but the number of Americans that think the US “stands above all other countries in the world” went from 38% in 2012 to 28% in 2014, Pew Research suggests. Seventy percent of Americans also think the US is losing respect internationally, according to a 2013 poll by the centre.

“For a country that is used to being on top of the world, the last 15 years haven’t been great in terms of foreign policy. There’s a feeling of having been at war since 9/11 that’s never really gone away, a sense America doesn’t know what it wants and that things aren’t going our way,” says Roberto Suro. The rise of China, the failure to defeat the Taliban and the slow progress in the fight against the so-called Islamic State group has contributed to the anxiety.

Americans are also more afraid of the prospect of terrorist attacks than at any time since 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll. The American reaction to the San Bernardino shooting was different to the French reaction to the Paris attacks, says Galston. “Whereas the French rallied around the government, Americans rallied against it. There is an impression that the US government is failing in its most basic obligation to keep country and people safe.”

5. Divided nation

Republican and Democrat signImage copyright iStock

Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically polarised than ever. The typical (median), Republican is now more conservative in his or her core social, economic and political views than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% in 1994, according to Pew Research. The median Democrat, meanwhile, is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.

The study also found that the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party has doubled, and that the animosity is so deep, many would be unhappy if a close relative married someone of a different political persuasion.

This polarisation makes reaching common ground on big issues such as immigration, healthcare and gun control more complicated. The deadlock is, in turn, angering another part of the electorate. “Despite this rise in polarisation in America, a large mass in the middle are pragmatic. They aren’t totally disengaged, they don’t want to see Washington gridlocked, but they roll their eyes at the nature of this discourse,” says Paul Taylor. This group includes a lot of young people and tends to eschew party labels. “If they voted,” he says, “they could play an important part of the election.”

Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine’s email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

Bernie Sanders: Anti-Russian Propaganda and “Vermont Socialism”

28.06.2015 Author: Caleb Maupin

 
 http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/28/bernie-sanders-anti-russian-propaganda-and-vermont-socialism-to-strengthen-empire/

bernie_0The presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders — an anti-Russia, Israel-supporting politician from Vermont — revives an archaic feud among leftists. The old debate about “sewer socialism” is back.

In the early part of the 20th century, there was a broad movement of people in the United States who advocated the overthrow of capitalism. Among them were many revolutionaries like Eugene Debs, William Z. Foster, Lucy Parsons, and Paul Robeson.

However, there was another current of people who called themselves “socialists” but had no interest in revolution. They were called “sewer socialists.” The term originated in reference to Victor L. Berger, a “socialist” who ran on a platform of improving the city’s sewer system and eventually became the mayor of Milwaukee. The sewer socialists did not want to overthrow capitalism, but simply to be elected to local public office and improve government policy. They wanted to make a global system built on exploitation of people all over the world a little more comfortable for those living within the western economic centers.

The battle between these two poles of the left movement – with the revolutionary and anti-imperialist wing of socialism on the one hand and the “sewer socialist” wing on the other — played out on a global level. Commenting on the debate, Russian socialist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin described the trend this way: “The bourgeoisie of an imperialist ‘Great’ Power can economically bribe the upper strata of ‘its’ workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million… this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, ‘labour representatives’… labour members of War Industries Committees… labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions…”

In the modern United States, it isn’t sewer socialism but “Vermont socialism” that plays the role of the ‘Labor Ministers.’ US Senator Bernie Sanders is running for president, and openly describes himself as a “socialist.” Despite using this word to describe himself, with many well intentioned anti-capitalist activists supporting him, Sanders’ platform in reality articulates a strategy for strengthening global monopoly capitalism and its expanding militarism.

Big Oil’s Campaign Against Russia

Currently, Wall Street is doing all it can to suppress Russia, a rising competitor on the global markets. US oil and natural gas corporations in particular want to attack and isolate the Russian Federation, as hydraulic fracking floods the market and drives down oil prices and profits. As Russia stabilizes and expands, continuing to export more and more natural gas, big business desperately needs to purge the country’s oil from the global market.

In service of the western oil and natural gas cartels, US agents overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. The orgy of street violence in Kiev that deposed Yanukovich was conducted with the direction of the CIA and billions of dollars in US funding. In Ukraine, the intervention of the United States has pushed a formerly peaceful country into civil war and installed a fanatically anti-Russian government. Russia now faces a hostile, US-aligned regime directly on its doorstep. Civil war is unfolding as the peoples of eastern Ukraine have taken up arms against it.

US-funded terrorists are waging a campaign of death and destruction in Syria, another Russian-aligned country. Hundreds of thousands have already been killed. The US and its allies in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan continue to pour money into the so-called “Free Syrian Army” — a group that openly tortures, kidnaps, and beheads innocent people, and has a history of collaborating with ISIS.

Despite giving demagogic anti-corporate speeches, Sanders brags that he is even more in line with big oil’s anti-Russia campaign than President Obama. “The entire world has got to stand up to Putin. We’ve got to deal with sanctions, we’ve got to deal with freezing assets,” he declared in a TV interview with FOX news host Bill O’Reilly.

In the same interview, he declared: “You’ve got to totally isolate them politically. You’ve got to totally isolate them economically… You freeze assets that the Russian government has all over the world… International corporations have huge investments in Russia, you could pull them out…”

A “Socialist” who Loves War and Israel

Sanders is very much a friend of the military industrial complex. In his home state of Vermont, Sanders “rarely misses a photo opportunity with Vermont National Guard troops when they are being deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq.” While criticizing Bush’s invasion of Iraq, Sanders consistently votes for the massive US military budget. In fact, Sanders is vocally very supportive of Obama’s drone strikes program, and has worked to bring US military research corporations into his home state to set up facilities.

As a highly rated ally of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, Sanders has consistently voted and spoken out in support of Israel. When criticized for it, he often replies with standard Israel lobby talking points, saying things like, “Hamas is sending missiles into Israel… some of those missiles are coming to populated areas…” Other than vaguely saying that Israel may have “overreacted,” he blatantly supports and defends Israeli military policy.

Sanders openly believes that the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation is “terrorism,” and that the existence of a “Jewish state” on Palestinian land is somehow ethical. In his 2013 interview with Playboy, he declared: “The Palestinians must fulfill their responsibilities to end terrorism against Israel and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

A Friend of the Rising Police State

As a loyal ally of military corporations, he not only supports their war against people in Ukraine, Syria, and Palestine, but also their profitable activities at home. Big business is making huge profits from a prison industrial complex as well as the rapid expansion of the role of police in US society. As police patrol the halls of elementary schools, and “stop and frisk” people on the streets without probable cause, it is young African-Americans who are their primary targets.

Sanders has never been an opponent of the prison industrial complex or the rising incidents of police violence. In Michael Moore’s 2009 film “Capitalism: A Love Story,” Moore interviewed Sanders and asked him to explain what it meant to be a socialist. Sanders responded with a vague, populist rant in which he portrayed the police as victims: “We’ve become very religious in worshipping greed. We put on the front pages of magazines guys who have made millions of dollars, we ignore the cops… who every day are doing so much in improving the lives of people.”

More recently, in response to the massive uprising against police brutality and mass incarceration in the United States, Sanders has declared: “Look, the issue here is…. I was a mayor for eight years, and being a cop is a very, very difficult job. But the word has got to get out that when police act inappropriately, and of course in this case there has to be a thorough investigation.” Sanders gives standard, Obama-style talking points on the issue, saying he supports “body cameras” and wants more community cooperation and involvement with police departments.

Inevitably, whenever the issue of police brutality is raised, Sanders changes the subject to economics. In response to the Baltimore uprising after the killing of Freddie Grey, Sanders declared, without ever even mentioning Grey’s name: “In the neighborhood where this gentleman lives, as I understand it, the unemployment rate is over 50 percent, over 50 percent. What we have got to do as a nation is understand that we have got to create millions of jobs, to put people back to work, to make sure that kids are in schools, and not in jails…. so they’re not hanging out on street corners.”

No one can deny that unemployment is a huge problem, especially for Black and Brown communities in the United States. However, Eric Garner wasn’t choked to death by a bill collector. The direct issue at hand is the fact that police officers have essentially been given a “license to kill” by the courts, and routinely face no penalty after blatantly and intentionally killing people of color.

By diverting the conversation to economics and not calling out the police in harsh terms, and then using racially loaded phrases like “hanging out on street corners,” Sanders is essentially saying: “If only Black people had more economic opportunities, they wouldn’t be worthless, low-life criminals who the police have to kill.”

A Bigger Slice of Empire?

Often Bernie Sanders is asked what it means to be a socialist. He does not respond with a call for public management of the economy, “workers’ control of the means of production,” a workers and farmer’s government, or any of the definitions of “socialism”  used by socialists historically. Instead, he talks about Norway, Sweden, and other US-aligned imperialist countries. He emphasizes that these countries have a national health service, and provide free university education.

Vermont itself is a good example of such policies existing in practice. Vermont has single-payer health insurance for its residents. Same-sex marriage is legal, as is smoking marijuana.

Vermonters, 95% of whom are white, according to the US census, live a little more comfortably than most people in the United States. As they enjoy their legalized pot and single-payer healthcare, the US military is testing its drones over their heads, flying them across the “Green Mountains” of Vermont. The state’s well funded public universities, where Vermonters pay much lower tuition, are contracted to conduct research into how to make these imperialist killing machines more effective.

Sanders’ political viewpoint, based on his experience of decades in governing his home state — where only 1.2% of the population is Black — has been: “If we give white middle class Americans a bigger slice of the pie, they will be far more willing to line up with Wall Street against Russia, China, Iran, and the Palestinians.”

Lenin accurately described leaders like Sanders as “opportunists and social-chauvinists,” saying, “They are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers…” Back in 1916, Lenin urged his followers to “go down lower and deeper, to the real masses… teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution.”

The following year, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were victorious. Capitalism, along with its mischievous and demagogic defenders like Bernie Sanders, was overthrown in Russia. That was nearly 100 years ago. How this battle will play out among 21st-century leftists remains to be seen.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/28/bernie-sanders-anti-russian-propaganda-and-vermont-socialism-to-strengthen-empire/

Traitor vs. Patriot

Traitor vs. patriot

 

By James Thompson

 

Much has been made in the right wing, bourgeois media, about who is a traitor and who is a patriot in the United States today. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other bourgeois cheerleaders connect the dots by declaring that communists/socialists are traitors and the right wing fringe of the GOP are patriots.

 

Before we examine this proposition, it is important to clarify the definition of the terms.

 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a traitor as:

 

“a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy”

 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a patriot as:

 

“a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country”

 

The bourgeois media sidesteps these definitions when identifying traitors or patriots. They also failed to clarify who constitutes a “country.”

 

When examining these concepts, it is important to keep in mind that a “country” is composed of its residents. In the United States, the populace is composed of very diverse groups who have different interests. There are many ethnic groups in the United States to include Anglos, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and many others. People also belong to various socio-economic strata to include bourgeois and proletarians, in other words owners of the means of production and workers. Another way to put it is wealthy and poor.

 

Some people have drawn attention to the fact that the 1% owns the vast majority of the wealth in the United States and the rest is divided among the 99%. Many people have pointed to the vast inequality in personal wealth in the United States.

 

When examining the concepts of traitor and patriot, it is important to keep in mind which socio-economic sector of the population to which the individual is loyal. It is also important to consider the policies advocated by the individual in question and how these policies apply to the interests of the various sectors of the population.

 

For example, Sen. Ted Cruz, who just announced his candidacy for the position of President of the United States, has taken very strong positions from the starting line. He has made clear that he favors shutting down the US government, especially the IRS. He has also taken an uncompromising anti-immigrant stance, even though he, himself, is an immigrant. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

 

Let us examine Sen. Cruz in terms of the traitor/patriot dialectic.

 

What would it mean to the people of the United States if the federal government was shut down? It would mean that all social programs to include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Federal Bureau of prisons, Federal Aviation Administration to include air traffic controllers, federal highway programs, public health service, the military, Bureau of Indian affairs, to nothing for the executive branch of the government, legislative branch and judiciary. Also, the border patrol would be shut down. This element of his policies is particularly contradictory. In other words, Sen. Cruz advocates chaos. It should be remembered that the IRS is the agency that provides the funding which makes it possible for this country to function as a sovereign nation.

 

Most working people with any understanding of the functioning of the United States easily understand that the eradication of the federal government would result in extraordinary hardship for workers and their families. Meanwhile, the people in the 1% would benefit tremendously from the eradication of the federal government. It would mean lower taxes and lower labor costs. For the working class, the eradication of the federal government would mean lower wages and lower social benefit programs. In other words, only the wealthy would be able to afford education for their children, only the wealthy would be able to afford healthcare, the criminal justice system would be reduced and travel would become very difficult or impossible if one was not extremely wealthy. Discrimination against immigrants also benefits the 1% because both immigrant and citizen workers can be manipulated to accept lower wages

 

So, Sen. Cruz’ positions would clearly define him as a patriot to the 1% and a traitor to the 99%.

 

Conversely, for example, Sen. Bernie Sanders who advocates an expansion of social programs and a reduction in the inequality of income could be considered a traitor to the 1% and a patriot to the 99%.

 

In the coming elections, it will be important for people to ask themselves the question “Which side are you on?” and vote accordingly.

Chuy Garcia and the right to a city
| March 27, 2015 | 7:54 pm | Analysis, National, Party Voices, political struggle | Comments closed

assets/Uploads/_resampled/CroppedImage6060-sam.jpg

jesuschuygarcia520x300

Chicago is abuzz these days as incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel is in an unexpected and fiercely competitive election runoff with challenger and longtime progressive Latino leader Jesus “Chuy” Garcia. What was supposed to have been a waltz into a second term for Emanuel has turned into a fight for his political life.

Garcia got a late start, is behind in the polls, has nothing close to the deep pockets or name recognition of Emanuel, and is up against the city’s political establishment and “Gold Coast,” but – and this is what makes the Windy City’s elites lose sleep at night – he is gathering momentum and support from many unions and community leaders and organizations. And it is entirely possible that he comes out on top when the ballots are counted on April 7.

Here’s why.

Cities are increasingly turning into battlegrounds, where different models – people versus neoliberal (corporate-elite friendly) – and their associated political coalitions clash. In recent years, The neoliberal model, of which Emanuel is a zealous advocate, is more and more encountering stiff and broad-based resistance. The few dissenters of yesterday are turning into the many today.

A telling example of this trend was the election of Bill de Blasio in New York’s mayoral race in the fall of 2013. De Blasio, who unhesitatingly described himself as a progressive, decried the city’s widening income inequality, gentrification, and the rise of two New Yorks – one living in grand style, the other struggling to make ends meet. He also opposed racist “stop and frisk,” policing, the shrinkage of affordable housing, the lack of pre-kindergarten programs, and the unfair system of taxation that favors Wall Street and the 1 percent.

Supporting his candidacy was a diverse coalition that grew rapidly in the course of the campaign (something that Garcia’s supporters should take inspiration and draw lessons from). So much so that it was evident in the final days of the campaign that de Blasio would win by a landslide as part of a broader progressive electoral sweep.

The outcome was an emphatic rebuff of the previous two mayors – the billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the utterly reactionary Rudy Giuliani. But our analysis can’t be left here. It was, if we dig a little deeper – and we don’t have to dig too far – a repudiation of pro-corporate neoliberalism and the rise of the neoliberal city, which were hallmarks of both Bloomberg’s and Guiliani’s governing strategy and style.

In voting overwhelmingly for de Blasio, New Yorkers said “enough” to a form of political and economic governance that favors commercial, real estate and banking interests, facilitates gentrification and the reconfiguring of urban space to suit the interests and sensibilities of the 1 percent, scales back public sector services, jobs, and union contracts, ramps up “aggressive” policing, promotes privatization of functions that previously were in the public sphere, especially public education, and deepens inequality.

As much as de Blasio’s landslide victory was a repudiation of neoliberal urban governance, it was in equal measure an affirmation by voters, even if not fully articulated, that they have a right to a livable, vibrant, just, and sustainable city (much like people have a right to a job, livable wage, health care, housing, equality, etc.).

Moreover, “right” in this instance, much like the right of workers to the products of their social labor, doesn’t rest on some abstract notion of justice, nor some general societal obligation (although society has such obligations). Instead it is grounded in material practices and activities of millions of New Yorkers who inhabit and create and recreate the city each and every day with labor and neighborly reciprocity in a multitude of paid and unpaid forms. That includes everything from raising children to transporting people, constructing skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges and roads, providing countless services, taking care of the sick and the elderly, creating art and culture, organizing sports, maintaining parks and green spaces, cleaning up environmentally hazardous sites, helping neighbors and coworkers, addressing disabilities needs, going to church, educating the young, engaging in politics, and on and on.

I wondered at the time of the New York elections if Emanuel, seeing the sea change that carried de Blasio into the mayor’s office, might consider a political reset in order to better position himself for a successful run for a second term in Chicago’s elections, which were coming into view. After all, he had to know that his closing of so many public schools was causing widespread discontent in the city as was his relentless push to turn over schools to private charter operators and contract out school janitorial services to major corporations.

Moreover, Emanuel’s refusal, despite promises, to reform the city’s notorious Tax Incremental Finance program and to stop the flow of public monies to subsidize corporations (Hyatt Hotels in Hyde Park) and big real estate interests also was leaving more and more people wondering if Emanuel was the right person to lead the city.

Most people in this situation would adjust their persona and policies to this brewing storm, but not Emanuel. As if to prove that it’s difficult to teach an arrogant, tone deaf, and well-heeled dog new tricks, he pressed fast-forward on his neoliberal plans and made no effort to tamp down his grating, me-first personality. Chicago’s elites hailed his intransigence and determination to stay the course. But many ordinary Chicagoans, when given the chance to express their displeasure in the first round of the mayoral primary in February, denied Emanuel a simple majority, thus forcing the April runoff with second-place finisher Garcia.

While it is uncertain if Emanuel will have to pay the ultimate price for being the loyal soldier for Chicago’s elites when voters go to the polls again, the contested nature of this election no matter what the outcome signifies the growing opposition to economic inequality, neoliberalism, and the neoliberal city, an emphatic assertion of the people’s right to a city, and a scaling up of the class and democratic struggle.

It has already given a shot in the arm to the broader movement and the progressive and left currents within that movement in Chicago as well as elsewhere. And it is serving notice, as did the election in New York, on the centrists in the Democratic Party as well as the right-wing-dominated Republican Party that the political dynamics that have shaped the country’s trajectory over the past 35 years are changing.

Admittedly, these changes don’t yet possess transformative power – that is, the power to deeply, boldly, and creatively consolidate a new governing model that accents people’s self-organization and needs, whether at the local, or, even more so, at the national level.

Nor are the changes in political dynamics in Chicago and New York – or Newark, N.J., Richmond, Calif., Seattle, or Los Angeles – observable in Lubbock, Texas, or Lincoln, Neb., or Cincinnati, Ohio, or, for that matter, Detroit. In other words, the process isn’t broad in scope either.

And yet, I can’t help but believe that the anger at the growing inequality and outlandish class privilege on display in a growing number of cities is also felt by tens of millions elsewhere. Maybe not to the same degree, maybe not to the same extent, but expressing nonetheless a rejection of the economic orthodoxy – neoliberalism – of the past four decades, ideologically embraced and politically facilitated by the top circles of the Democratic Party as well as every section of the Republican Party.

Of course, nothing that has happened in Chicago, New York, or anywhere else puts on the back burner in any way the overriding imperative of decisively defeating right-wing extremism. For the fact is the crisis bedeviling Chicago and other cities – not to mention the country as a whole – cannot be fully, or even significantly, resolved without politically crushing this extreme reactionary political movement that now commands the Republican Party. And it is both very mistaken and dangerous to think that islands of urban progressivism can be established in a surrounding and churning sea in which the most zealous and adventurist prosecutors of a form of neoliberalism that disdains even a passing rhetorical nod to democratic rights, social protection, or equality are increasingly riding the biggest waves.

But that discussion, as important as it is, is for another day. Right now, the challenge in Chicago, if New York’s experience is any guide, is to expand and deepen the cross-class, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic coalition that supports the insurgent campaign of Chuy Garcia.

While a strategy of reaching and mobilizing black, brown, and progressive white voters underpinned the historic 1983 election of Harold Washington, the city’s first Black and undeniably great mayor, a different strategy – and a far more likely winning strategy this time – is necessary to carry Garcia across the finish line in the first place.

A lot has happened since that historic night of Washington’s victory three decades ago. We’ve seen the election and reelection of an African American president that many thought impossible, by a multi-racial coalition of voters; the growing rejection of racism by significant sections of white people; the changing attitudes and new initiatives in the labor movement to address racism inside and outside of its ranks; the greater resonance of class in the thinking of working people, and more. And to this we should add the broad coalition of labor – the Chicago Teachers Union in the first place – communities of color and many of their leaders, reform democrats, independents, progressives, and sections of the left that are the mainstays of Garcia’s campaign.

This argues for an even more inclusive strategy than was employed to elect Harold Washington. In particular there is no good reason to write off a large section of white people without a struggle and in doing so run the risk of conceding many of them to Emanuel. That’s not a formula for success.

Yes, many white people, bombarded by the subtle and not so subtle racist message that Garcia doesn’t have the political or intellectual heft to be mayor – “not up to the challenge,” will have to be convinced that Chuy’s worst day as mayor will be better than Rahm’s best day. The way to do that isn’t by righteously exclaiming on the “backwardness” of white people, but rather by persuading them on the basis of their experience, common sense, better angels, and deeply felt and existential needs for jobs, livable wages, quality public education, and so on, that Chuy Garcia is best equipped on the basis of his vision, experience, and ordinary roots to lead the city.

And when combined with sustained efforts to acquaint voters throughout the city – North Side, West Side, South Side – with Garcia and his vision as well as mobilize those same voters to go to the polls on Election Day, Chicago will make history again in electing Jesus Garcia as it did decades ago when Harold Washington was elected. And in doing so the people of that great city will take another vital step to reclaim their city and future.

Photo: Chicago mayoral candidate Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s at a televised debate with current Mayor Rahm Emanuel, March 26. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia for Chicago, Facebook.

Grover Norquist Sees Bi-Partisan Doc Fix Deal as “Model of Success” in Privatizing Medicare
| March 25, 2015 | 8:04 pm | Analysis, Health Care, National, political struggle | Comments closed

 

by Kay Tillow

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have worked out a deal, a permanent “doc fix” that would repeal automatic cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.  Their bi-partisan solution, if enacted, will plunge a stake into the heart of traditional Medicare, according to health policy expert Don McCanne, MD, of Physicians for a National Health Program.

 

Social Security Act amendments passed more than a decade ago once again threaten to slash Medicare payments to physicians, this time by 21.2%, as of April 1, 2015.  These provisions require automatic cuts based on a formula called the “sustainable growth rate.”

Each time these cuts threaten to kick in, Democrats and Republicans alike look for a solution to stop the harmful cuts.  Now Boehner and Pelosi have agreed on a permanent solution, a plan that stops those cuts, but at the unacceptable price of inflicting devastating damage on Medicare.

The Boehner/Pelosi-backed bill, HR 1470 “SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2015” is cosponsored by progressive James McDermott (D-WA), anti-Medicare Republican Paul Ryan (R-WI), and seven others from both parties.  The bill would replace the current formula for physician reimbursements with a new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

MIPS is an administrative nightmare, says McCanne.

Expensive consultants will game the system bringing in additional incentive payments while those who work with disadvantaged patient populations will find it difficult to score higher points, predicts McCanne.  Those who serve less wealthy populations will see negative payment adjustments by up to 9%.

MIPS robs from the professionals who are trying to make the system work for their patients and gives the spoils to those who likely have consultants to show them how to game the system, says McCanne.

MIPS will apply only to traditional Medicare, promoting an exodus of physicians from traditional Medicare into the private for-profit Medicare Advantage plans.

The deal would also reward remote patient-monitoring and telehealth as clinical practice improvement activities, reports Darius Tahir of Modern Healthcare.   That can create big bucks for health information technology but does not portend well for patients who need hands on caring professionals.

According to The Hill’s Scott Wong and Peter Sullivan, the deal will be paid for through a combination of means testing — that is, making wealthier seniors pay more for Medicare — and reforms to the supplemental health insurance plans known as Medigap.

Medigap policies would have to make the patients pay the first $250, providing the “skin in the game,” that ugly, inhumane concept so popular with insurance companies. The further means testing of Medicare threatens its broad based popular support as a benefit for all.

“The increased beneficiary cost-sharing included in the SGR reform proposal could work hand-in-hand with the larger House GOP Medicare plan by prodding seniors to choose the lower-cost private Medicare plans envisioned under the budget blueprint. That would advance their long-held goal of turning Medicare into a privatized, means-tested welfare program and getting the government out of the health insurance business,” reports Harris Meyer in Modern Healthcare.

Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and known for wanting to shrink government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, likes the Boehner/Pelosi deal.  Norquist says the “doc fix” deal could be a “model of success” for a larger entitlement deal.

The bill, negotiated in secrecy, is being steamrolled and is predicted to come to a vote this week.  Those who cherish Medicare as our nation’s best yet health program should sound the alarm.  A stab in the heart of Medicare is not a compromise but a complete and disastrous sell-out.

Article originally appeared on Daily Kos.

Response to “Bernie Sanders to propose “war tax” amendment to GOP budget”
| March 24, 2015 | 7:43 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, National, political struggle | Comments closed
By A.  Shaw
“Instead of being honest and upfront about their goals, the Republicans have used a number of budgetary gimmicks to cover-up the devastating impact that their budget will have on the lives of ordinary Americans,” Sanders said in a Sunday statement. “I find it particularly offensive that Republicans, who are demanding massive cuts in Medicaid, education, nutrition and health care in order to move toward a balanced budget, have no problem adding $38 billion to the deficit through the off-budget Overseas Contingency Operations fund. That is hypocrisy pure and simple,” 
US reactionaries, about a third of the US electorate and people, have lied so much and so long that most of them are no longer capable of honesty and upfront conduct about their goals or about anything else.
In bourgeois jargon, reactionaries are usually called “conservatives.” About 95% of GOP and about 25% of the DP are reactionaries.
US reactionaries are wildly imperialistic. So, we, the two-thirds of USA people who are good or at least cool, used to think of our reactionaries as people who suffer from a longing to produce  “devastating impacts” on foreigners, not on US citizens. Today, US reactionaries enjoy causing  “devastating impacts” on us – two-thirds of the US people – as much as on foreigners.
An alliance of GOP and DP reactionaries, representing a mere third of the USA, are preparing a budget that will shock and awe the majority of the US people. The proposed cuts in the budget will devastate the mass of the US people.The budget cuts in education are designed to deny access to college to large sectors and strata of the middle class. The budget cuts in education are also designed to deny access to high tech job training to large sectors and strata of the working class, unemployed, and poor.
The slimy US reactionaries want to reduce and, in some cases, deny indigent school kids a lunch at school because  US reactionaries believe “There is no such thing as a free lunch” and “Nobody is entitled to anything.”
But the GOP budget will provide the rich and big companies, especially entities in the military-industrial complex, with free lunches, breakfast, and dinners through tax cuts, larger tax deductions for a wider array of expenses, lavish subsidies, and massive cost overruns on government contracts.
Corrupt reactionaries are preparing to loot the US regime and people of trillions of dollars.
Two principles underlie the proposed GOP budget:
(1) Take from the poor and give to the rich and
Liberals and moderates, two-thirds of US people, are often ineffective in the struggle against ultra-aggressive reactionaries, one-third of the people, because liberals and moderates can’t digest the idea that one-third of the blessed USA consists of raving lunatics and the ultimate in perversity.
As reactionaries grab more and more state power, their public stance becomes “Reactionary, now is the time to expose thyself.”
US Combat Forces, FBI and CIA in Ukraine
| March 21, 2015 | 10:48 am | Analysis, Imperialism, International, National, political struggle, Russia, Ukraine | Comments closed
US Combat Forces, FBI and CIA in Ukraine: Vice President Biden Congratulates Poroshenko for Violating Minsk Peace Agreement
Global Research, March 20, 2015
www.globalresearc/4E03C05D.jpg
Obama continues using Kiev junta proxies to wage war on Donbass. He’s gone all-out to sabotage multiple peace efforts spearheaded by Russia.
He didn’t wage war to quit. He’s supplying Kiev with heavy weapons, munitions and other US aid.
US combat forces are in Ukraine working directly with its military. CIA and FBI operatives infest Kiev.
On March 18, Joe Biden called Poroshenko. He congratulated him for violating Minsk.
It calls for granting Donbass special status autonomous rule. Draft Kiev legislation designates it “temporarily occupied territories.”
A White House statement said Biden “welcomed the (parliament’s) adoption of implementing measures relating to the law on special status for certain areas of eastern Ukraine…”
He lied saying legislation adopted complies with terms stipulated under “September 2014 and February 2015 Minsk agreements.”
Kiev continues violating their letter and spirit with full US support and encouragement.
“The two leaders discussed the upcoming multinational training program for Ukraineís (Nazi infested) National Guard forces, which the United States will support,” the White House statement said.
They ‘agreed” on maintaining sanctions on Russia. They lied claiming they’re in response to “Russia(n) violence and instability in” Donbass.
They concurred on pressuring “the international community…to increase the costs to Russia for pursuing such actions.”
Sergey Lavrov responded saying Washington wants Ukrainian crisis conditions settled militarily.
Kiev’s failure to grant Donbass special status violates its pledge to do so.

“If Washington welcomes the action, which undermines the Minsk agreements, then we can only conclude that Washington is inciting Kiev to resolve the issue by military means,” Lavrov explained.

“The Ukrainian leadership..basically terminated their commitments to engage in direct dialogue and negotiate with south-eastern Ukraine, including on the issue of elections, on the implementation of the law on the special status…”

Russia’s OSCE envoy Andrey Kelin accused Kiev of spurning conflict ending dialogue with Donbass.

“No lasting truce and sustainable ceasefire are possible without political settlement, and no such settlement is possible without dialogue,” he said.

“Kiev is categorically reluctant to speak with Donbas about political settlement. Last year’s developments seem to be reoccurring.”

“We saw it a year ago and it ended up, as we know, in Ukraineís aggression against Donbas.”

“Kiev is seeking to fall into the same trap, arrogantly ignoring representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics.”

“If they do not observe what has been agreed in Minsk after months of warfare, and Minsk agreements provide for a dialogue between the parties to the conflict to establish the DPR and LPR status, local elections in Donbas and normal political settlement, the risk (of attempts to solve the conflict by military means) considerably increases.”

Kiev systematically breached previous peace initiatives straightaway. It ignores Minsk II provisions.
It wants total control over Donbass regained. It intends seizing it forcefully.
Illegitimate prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk explained it several times. Most recently on Wednesday unambiguously saying “(o)ur goal is to regain control of Donetsk and Lugansk.”
Last April, naked aggression was launched to accomplish Kiev’s objective. Low-intensity conflict continues – heading toward resuming full-scale war at Washington’s discretion.
Expect it any time. Expect likely greater mass slaughter and destruction than before.
“We will fight using all method and techniques,” said Yatsenyuk. Meaning no-holds-barred dirty war – using banned weapons, willfully targeting civilians, and committing other egregious crimes of war and against humanity.
Expect Russia and rebels blamed for US/Kiev crimes like earlier. Chances for peace are nil.
At risk is direct US/Russian confrontation. Fox News is one of many presstitute platforms promoting it.
It features anti-Russian gun-slinging retired generals. Robert Scales told Fox the only way to change things in Ukraine is “start killing Russians.”
A criminal case was opened against him in Russia under Article 354 of its Criminal Code.
He advocates cold-blooded murder. He’s not alone. Active and retired US political and military officials want war on Russia.
Giving them national television air time increases the possibility. Lunatic fringe loose cannons infest Washington.
Retired General/former US army vice chief of staff Jack Keane wants US bases closer to Russia’s borders.
Sanctions and provocative military exercises aren’t enough, he says. He urges tougher actions.

“I think weíve got to recognize that the security issues in Europe are no longer in Central Europe where our forces were post-WW2,” he said.

“The fact is theyíre in Eastern Europe, so we should realign our bases not on a temporary basis but on a permanent basis, put the air bases and the ground bases further into eastern Europe, move them out of Central Germany where they currently are.”

“That’ll cost some expense, but it’s absolutely worth it in terms of letting Putin know clearly that those countries, those Baltic countries…matter to us.”

“They are a part of NATO and we’re not going to accept any challenge to them.”

“This would send a really loud signal to them that clearly the security situation in Europe has changed.”

“Itís recognition of those changes. It’s a recognition of the intimidation and the threatening situation that is clearly developing.”

Fact: America’s only threats are ones it invents.
Fact: Eastern and Western European countries claiming Russian threats lie. None exist.
Fact: Positioning increasing numbers of US military combat troops near Russia’s borders heightens chances for direct confrontation.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
                Copyright © 2015 Global Research