Pages

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Editorial: Mean Drunk Justice

There were plenty of reasons to keep Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, but Charles Grassley wasn’t interested in any of them. Sen. Grassley had one job and that was to get Kavanaugh out of his Judiciary Committee by any means necessary, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would take it from there.

After Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s emotional testimony that Kavanaugh and his friend, both drunk, tried to rape her at a 1982 house party in Bethesda, Md., when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, Kavanaugh came back with explosive and contemptuous denials. He emphasized that he liked beer but had not been a blackout drunk in high school or college, no matter what his best friend wrote of their drunken high school exploits; his college roommate said Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker who became aggressive and belligerent when he was drunk. Kavanaugh certainly came across at the hearing as a potentially mean drunk.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in what passes for Republican moderation, made his support for Kavanaugh conditional on an FBI investigation of the charges. The Republican leadership reluctantly agreed, and referred the case to the White House, which apparently told the FBI to make a few calls, but barred interviews with Ford, the two other women who have openly accused Kavanaugh of sexual abuse, or potentially corroborating witnesses, much less Kavanaugh.

Republican leaders knew a wide-ranging inquiry would be disastrous for Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation, and his problems telling the truth under oath are documented: He had lied repeatedly to the Judiciary Committee in 2004 and 2006 about using documents stolen from Democrats to prepare judicial nominees when he worked on George W. Bush’s White House staff; he lied about which judicial nominees he worked with; and he lied in denying his role developing Bush-era detention and interrogation policies. And that was before the Sept. 27 hearing where he apparently lied about his drinking and sexual history.

So a whitewash was called for and, sure enough, two days before the deadline, the FBI returned a one-page report shown only to senators sworn to secrecy. Apparently they didn’t find proof Kavanaugh raped the girl and didn’t go into whether he committed perjury. Flake and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, two of three Republicans who claimed to be on the fence, said that was good enough for them. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, jumped off the fence, but Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., running for re-election in a state Trump carried by 42 points, supported Kavanaugh, leaving McConnell two votes to spare.

It was an ugly process throughout. Minority President Trump couldn’t resist the opportunity to mock Dr. Ford at a rally Oct. 2 in Mississippi. He may have been playing to the crowd, but he also distracted attention from the New York Times’ blockbuster report that same day exposing shady business dealings of Trump and his family. Far from being the self-made real estate developer who parlayed a $1 million loan from his father into a multi-billion-dollar business empire, it turned out that father Fred Trump used his children to dodge taxes and Donald received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler — he was a millionaire by age 8 — and continuing to this day.

But the master of distraction carried the day as his cruel mockery of Ford, and the laughter of the Mississippi crowd, overshadowed the Times report in the broadcast news.

So Kavanaugh was picked by a president who won 46% of the popular vote and he was confirmed by senators representing 44% of the population. That’s no way to run a government — much less maintain respect for the Supreme Court’s supposed neutrality.

If Democrats take control of the House, they should hold hearings on the administration’s manipulation of the FBI investigation and the extent to which Kavanaugh lied to the Senate.

If Democrats regain the White House and control Congress after the 2020 elections, they should move to expand the size of the court to offset the two illegitimate justices — Kavanaugh as well as Neil Gorsuch. “Changing that majority would not constitute politicizing the court because conservatives have already done this without apology,” E.J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post Oct. 7.

A simple act of Congress could increase the number of Supreme Court justices to 11 or more.

“Court packing” will cause Republicans to shriek, but the size of the court was changed seven times during the 19th century and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 proposed to increase the court’s size by six justices after a conservative bloc on the Supreme Court overturned many of his New Deal programs during his first term.

FDR’s threat in 1937 got a couple conservatives to back down and the court allowed, among other things, Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act and a federal minimum wage. Roosevelt is said to have failed in his “court-packing scheme,” but he won the war against the “economic royalists” whose excesses brought about the Great Depression.

Eighty years later, the economic royalists returned to power under Lying King Donald and they hope Kavanaugh will be a solid fifth vote to reverse the progressive reforms that helped build the world’s greatest middle class. Republican royalists, with occasional help from conservative Democrats, have been undermining unions, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and New Deal reforms that regulated the financial industry, even after the reckless use of financial derivatives in the early 2000s nearly brought down banks that were “too big to fail,” requiring a massive bailout.

Too many working-class Americans have been lured to support the Republican royalists by “culture war” issues such as opposition to abortion, gay rights and gun control, which have obscured the damage Republicans have done to their economic interests.

Republican undermining of unions since the Reagan administration has reduced organized labor’s role as a balance to corporate power, at the expense of working people. The threat of strikes forced unionized industries to increase wages and benefits, and it also forced non-union employers to increase their wages to keep unions out of their business. The system made the US the envy of the world in the economic boom after World War II, as the typical worker’s wages increased along with productivity improvements from the late 1940s through the 1960s, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported. But in the 1970s, that started to change. From 1973 to 2017, net productivity rose 77%, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated — increasing only 12.4% (adjusted for inflation). That corresponds with the decline in union bargaining power.

When Trump got a $1.5 trillion tax cut, which heavily favors billionaires and corporations, through Congress in late 2017, Trump promised it would benefit everyday workers. Of course he was lying. The EPI found for the first half of 2018 very little increase in private-sector compensation — and that was mainly because some businesses used bonuses to attract or keep workers in a time of low employment. Overall compensation rose 7 cents per hour in the first six months of 2018 but actual W-2 wages fell 25 cents per hour.

That’s what depending on the good faith of bosses gets you — breaking even, at best, during a time of full employment and an “economic boom” on Wall Street. And Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court to make sure the “free market” is all you can count on.

Vote Blue no matter who. Even Joe Manchin, who might waver, will do on Nov. 6 as long as he votes for a Democratic majority leader and a Democratic Judiciary Committee chairman in January. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, November 1, 2018

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the November 1, 2018 issue

COVER/Kevin Robillard
Democrats have a shot at winning the Senate — and blocking Trump’s court picks


EDITORIAL
Mean drunk justice


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
College unrest: Why Joe Hill, Mother Jones and Cesar Chavez are smiling


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
You know the type. Do you want him on the court?


DISPATCHES
Kavanaugh fight turns Fox News white supremacist.
Kavanaugh accuser reacts to confirmation.
Prominent conservative says GOP must be destroyed.
GOP mulls Murkowski reprimand.
Dems have narrow edge in key House districts.
Climate report predicts crisis as early as 2040.
Dairy farmers say NAFTA redo won’t solve milk problems.
Postal unions fight privatization. Steel booming but workers fuming.
Steel is booming, but workers are fuming.
No 'States' Rights' fo Trump when California wants open internet.
FCC's 5G vote blasted as handout to carriers.
Trump attacks Dems for immigration billl that does't exist.
Trump says China can pay for pre-existing conditions.
Wait, Judge Kavanaugh told us he would be fair and impartial ...


ART CULLEN
Iowa is a trade casualty


JILL RICHARDSON
We need to talk about masculinity


JOHN YOUNG
The toxic public unraveling of a would-be justice


MARTHA BURK
The mean drunk and the mendacity


BENJAMIN DANGL
Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 is a win for big oil — but a huge loss for workers and the environment


JOEL D. JOSEPH
Brett Kavanaugh does not have proper judicial temperament or neutrality to be a Supreme Court Justice


BOB BURNETT
A tipping point: Kavanaugh and Trump


DALLAS KNAPP
Tax carbon or watch temperature continue to rise


HARD TRUTH/Sally Herrin 
Out of time


FRANK CLEMENTE 
Under cover of Kavanaugh, Republicans passed the huge tax cuts for the wealthy


GEORGE FARADAY
Trump subsidizes companies that send jobs overseas


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Methane and you


SAM URETSKY
Is Brett Kavanaugh the kind of guy you’d cast as a judge?


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel 
A republic ... If you can keep it


WAYNE O’LEARY
Wages of Trump: The sequel


JOHN BUELL
Recognizing the global climate crisis


N. GUNASEKARAN
Discrimination against female workers in Asia: A neoliberal paradigm


ANTHONY PAHNKE and JIM GOODMAN
Bad farm policy contributes to natural disasters


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
The make-a-reprobate-great-again redemption tour


ROB PATTERSON
How do you access ‘The Shield’?


BOOK REVIEW/Seth Sandronsky
Undoing patriarchy


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
Bethany Hamilton is ‘Unstoppable’

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Time to do more than just protest immigration policies. Comment on a bad new regulation Trump wants to inflict on immigrants

By Marc Jampole
The latest Trump scheme to suppress immigration is to give immigrants a Sophie’s choice—two equally onerous options: either forgo all government benefits or forgo the option of becoming a citizen.
Immigrants must meet many qualifications before they can obtain permanent residency and citizenship. Part of the process is the requirement to undergo what is called the “public charge assessment,” which evaluates, on a case-by-case basis, whether an individual applying for permanent residence is likely to become dependent on the government for public assistance. If an applicant is categorized as a potential “public charge,” immigration services can reject their green card application. The “public charge assessment” has been part of federal immigration law for decades, but up to now has always been narrowly defined. The proposed rule, however, would make the assessment consider many more federal programs than in the past, including, for the first time, health and nutrition programs.
Critics rightly point out that this proposed new regulation will discourage poor people, including virtually all refugees, from crossing the border, and encourage many to return to their country of origin. Critics assume that the regulation won’t affect the wealthy, who don’t need benefits. But that ends up being a miniscule number of immigrants, as most people in all countries are poor or middle class. Much of the middle class in the United States has to take government benefits like subsidized healthcare, disaster relief or unemployment compensation from time to time, so we can imagine that many if not most immigrants will fear having the same experience and therefore face the dilemma of deciding between the security of citizenship or the pressing needs of food, shelter, healthcare, education and disaster relief.
The new regulation will thus negatively affect virtually all immigrants from all countries. To view it as another example of the rich getting special treatment while the poor suffer is to miss the broader problem: that it will lead to far fewer immigrants, which will be disastrous to the American economy. We are already facing labor shortages, which are expected to grow as more baby boomers retire. Caregiving, agricultural, hospitality and construction are just a few of the industries already crying out for new employees.
A heap of current research proves that immigrants—legal and illegal—increase the rate of employment of native-born Americans and also increase the average wages of the native-born. Immigrants also pose less of a crime threat than native-born Americans, since both legal and illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes overall and fewer violent crimes.
In other words, if we stem the flow of immigrants, as the Trump administration intends to do, we shrink the economy and the average wage while increasing the crime rate.
There is still something we can do to prevent this awful new regulation from taking effect. We are in the middle of the comment period on the regulation, a time when anyone—corporations, think tanks and individuals—can publicly comment. By law, the administration must take those comments into account when creating the final rules.
The easiest way to comment is to follow the instructions on a special web page set up by the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), the lobbying arm of the Quakers. Now FCNL is framing the issue primarily as one of rich and poor, and they are absolutely right that the rich will end up having a much easier time to citizenship under this nasty reg. But don’t let that cloud the main point. This regulation will lead to far fewer immigrants at all economic levels, from all countries, which goes against the best interests of every American.
You can also go to a special web page that the pro-immigration nonprofit organization, the Protecting Immigrant Families Campaign, for an easy way to make your comment on the regulation.
The deadline to make comments is October 21, so don’t tarry. Link to FCNL or Protecting Immigrant Families today, follow the instructions, and tell the Trump administration you oppose the reg.

Monday, October 8, 2018

Research shows carbon markets don’t reduce pollution as much as regulation, yet world governments insist of carbon trading to address global warming

By Marc Jampole
The Spring 2018 issue of Jewish Currents had my latest “Left is right” article that uses the latest research to show that the left position on environmental issues is the correct one: that the government has a role in addressing climate change and that the best way to do so is with regulation and not market solutions.
There are no current plans to post the article on the Jewish Currents website, so I thought I would give you a taste of it in hopes that you will buy the issue to read the whole piece, and maybe even start a subscription. Jewish Currents is a leading left-wing journal of politics and the arts.
Here’s the excerpt:
Instead of regulation, conservatives and even some liberals have proposed letting the market fix what the market broke. Their solution is government-administered markets in which an agency gives or sells a set number of permits (or credits) to emit specific quantities of a pollutant over a specific period of time, requiring polluters to hold permits equal to their emissions. Polluters that want to increase their emissions must buy permits from others willing to sell. In this fantasy, polluters who can reduce emissions most cheaply will sell their permits to heavy polluters, achieving the emission reduction at the lowest cost to society. This solution—called “cap and trade”—is embraced by most governments of the world today and many Democrats, including former president Barack Obama.
Tamra Gilbertson and Oscar Reyes, both of the Carbon Trade Watch/Transnational Institute, demonstrate in Carbon Trading: How It Works and Why It Fails that carbon trading markets are ”a multi-billion dollar scheme whose basic premise is that polluters can pay someone else to clean up their mess so they don’t have to.” For one thing, Gilbertson and Reyes argue, the process of setting emission levels is easily tainted by lobbying and politics, resulting in too many permits issued, and major polluters granted additional revenue streams. Moreover, carbon markets do nothing to speed the transition to solar, wind and other alternatives, but merely manage the use of fossil fuels.
As an article of faith, however, right-wingers believe that simple regulation, be it setting efficiency standards for appliances or assessing fines on companies emitting too much greenhouse gas, stifles the freedom to innovate that they fantasize produces more efficient and higher quality solutions. The reality is that companies will “innovate” to meet a regulation just as readily as they innovate to adapt to any market change. The claim that market-based solutions like emissions trading are “less bureaucratic, less centralized, less coercive, and more supportive of innovation than other forms of regulation does not stand up to scrutiny,” write Gilbertson and Reyes.
Recent history serves as some guide here. Starting in the 1990s, both the U.S. and the European Union decided to combat acid rain by reducing the levels of sulfur dioxide in the air. As stipulated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S. established a sulfur dioxide trading scheme, while the European Union instituted a series of strict regulations. Using the cap-and-trade strategy, the U.S. obtained mediocre results, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions by 43.1 percent by the end of 2007. Over the same time span, EU countries reduced emissions by a robust 71%.
Yet nations persist in creating carbon markets. For example, China recently announced it was forming a giant national market to trade credits for the right to emit greenhouse gases; the New York Times noted that the trading plan “is not a sure bet to succeed.”
The conceptual problem with cap-and-trade is that it is a market mechanism meant to fix an inherent flaw in the market: The health and environmental costs of fossil fuel extraction and use are not assessed to the companies involved, but are spread to society. This flaw in the overall market repeats itself in the carbon-trading market because it is inherent in all markets not to consider hidden costs to third parties. Further, the reduction of pollution to the lowest common denominator of money conceals the absolute value of an unpolluted environment not threatened by excessive warming. When we reduce all values and inputs to money, it is easy to neglect the overall objectives of society — e.g., the protection of people, the ending of hunger, the maintenance of a clean, safe, biologically diverse environment. These values are better expressed and pursued through regulations and mandates established by a democratic government than by the “logic” of the marketplace.