Friday, May 1, 2015

A reminder from 35 years ago that we need to ratchet up space exploration

By Marc Jampole

About 35 years ago, astrophysicist Carl Sagan wrote the best-selling book of popular science, Cosmos, to accompany his enormously popular public broadcast series of the same name. Cosmos is still in book stores, which explains why my son gave it to me a few months back for Hanukkah.

Sagan surveyed a broad expanse of science in Cosmos, touching on the evolution of the cosmos and life, and the history of the attempts by humans to understand both. Most of the science that Sagan explicated is still valid, and his anecdotes about Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Newton and other scientists were refreshingly non-heroic, focusing on the intriguing mix of science and pseudoscience that animated these titans of physics, chemistry and biology.

The last chapter of Cosmos may be the most compelling to 21st century readers. Writing at the moment in history when our elected officials were beginning to consider curtailment of the space program, Sagan argues fervently for an active program of space exploration. His proposal was to end the nuclear arms program and use the money saved to fund aggressive space exploration. Sagan talked about “Our obligation to survive,” which requires us both to disarm and to explore non-earthly sources of needed resources and a new home for humans. As a pacifist, I would do Sagan one better, and call for a massive reduction in military spending including complete nuclear disarmament; certainly, space exploration would join the development of alternative energy, basic research, repair of our infrastructure, expansion of mass transit and enlarged support for public education as recipients of the money we would save from significantly reducing our military budget. The effect on the economy would be to shift jobs from death-producing industries to life-sustaining industries.

As we know, our elected officials ignored Sagan’s pleas. We have made cut after cut to our program of space exploration for more than three decades. The official position of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) now encourages the private sector take the lead in exploring space. The Wall Street Journal reports that a NASA official recently said that he expects multiple space stations to emerge around the end of the next decade, mostly  private, “very single-purpose, small and entrepreneurial.”

Based on the American experience privatizing prisons, higher education and the military, privatization of space exploration will prove to be lucrative for the privatizers and a disaster for everyone else. Each space privatization corporation will pursue its own interests, which tend to be quite short-term. Their reasons for conducting pure research will always be private inurement and not the long-term good of society. An article a few years backby Taylor Dinerman, a member of the board of advisers of a company working on space-solar-power concepts, pointed out that so far all private space efforts have failed. 

In a fluff piece called “What Was the Worst Prediction of All Time?” that just appeared, The Atlantic recalls that in 1950 science fiction author Ray Bradbury predicted that we would colonize Mars in the early 2000s as a matter of necessity after poisoning the earth in a global nuclear war. When asked decades later why humanity is not spending spring vacation on the Red Planet, Bradbury reportedly said, “It chose consuming instead—drinking beer and watching soap operas.” 

Funny, but untrue. We—meaning humanity—didn’t chose anything. Our leaders chose for us, and their choice has been to disinvest in science, just as they chose to disinvest in public education and infrastructure development. To most Republicans and Democrats, space exploration and other science research are just one more item to cut, so we can continue to provide the wealthy with the historically high tax cuts they have enjoyed over the past 35 years and perhaps, if the Republicans get their way, cut their taxes even more.


The earth will eventually become inhabitable, either because of environmental degradation or an expected increase in the intensity of solar energy hitting the atmosphere in about a billion years. The human race has a limited amount of time to develop the means to transport ourselves to another habitable celestial body. Space exploration is as important as addressing global warming and learning how to operate a no-growth economy if we are to survive as a species.   

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Riots like in Baltimore won’t stop until police treat African-Americans with respect & without violence

By Marc Jampole

There is absolutely no excuse for the riots and the fires in Baltimore. Violence is never the appropriate way to seek redress of grievances in a civil society.

But just because we don’t condone, does not mean that we can’t empathize with the rioters and their concerns. If we want to prevent future violence of the same sort, we have to explore the reasons that motivated so many people suddenly to break loose of the social bonds that restrain all of us most of the time and to burst into rioting.

We know the origin of the Baltimore riots is the death of African-Americans everywhere in the United States at the hands of police, who are quicker to arrest blacks, quicker to use force on them and quicker to draw their gun and fire at them than they are when confronting whites. The death of Freddie Gray from a spinal cord injury while in police custody was the proximate cause of the Baltimore riot, but behind it stand years of rough treatment of African-Americans by the Baltimore police and the crescendo of recent publicity surrounding other African-Americans essentially murdered by police in Ferguson, Tulsa, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Cleveland and elsewhere. 

The equation is simple: riots about unfair and brutal treatment of minorities by local police departments will end when local police departments stop treating minorities unfairly and brutally.

As they always do after spontaneous violence flares up in reaction to injustice, the rightwing news media has thrown all its support behind the police while tarring the entire community with blame for the violent actions of what is always a minority of the neighborhood where rioting occurs. Meanwhile, the mainstream news media seek to conflate the rioting with the police brutality that instigated it on the moral and ethical level.

Both may be unacceptable, but two factors make the police actions far worse. For one thing, it is the police actions that constitute the injustice which foments the violence.

More significantly, the violence in the community is unplanned, a spontaneous outbreak of people who have often suffered for decades. As the U.S. Department of Justice report on Ferguson substantiates, the police violence against African-Americans is often part of a larger, long-term policy of unjust discrimination that includes racial profiling, more frequent arrests, larger fines and prison terms and more frequent applications of violent force. To blame equally the rioters and the police who kill, hurt and hassle people because of their color is to misunderstand the dynamics of racial discrimination in America.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Editorial: Just Say No to Fast Track

President Obama is pushing fast-track approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would restrict the government’s ability to regulate multinational corporations in their pursuit of profits in the name of harmonizing trade. Democrats should say, “Mr. President, with all due respect, no.”
Democratic leaders, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Harry Reid (Nev.), as well as Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and most organized labor and environmental leaders have raised concerns about the deal that is being finalized with 11 other Pacific countries. They fear the deal could worsen income inequality and allow private companies to challenge domestic regulations before an international tribunal. Those challenges, critics argue, could undermine key financial, environmental and other regulations.

More than 150 Democrats in the House have signed a letter to the White House circulated by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and George Miller (D-Calif.) opposing the use of “fast track” procedures to usurp Congress’ authority over trade matters.

President Obama on Feb. 21 singled out Warren as wrong. “I love Elizabeth. We’re allies on a whole host of issues, but she’s wrong on this,” he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. He said progressives should “Wait and see what we actually have in this deal before you make the judgement.”

Warren replied, via email, “Have you seen what’s in the new TPP trade deal? Most likely, you haven’t – and don’t bother trying to Google it. The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret. Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: ‘We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.’”

The Office of US Trade Representative has said the deal would not undermine bank regulations, and Obama’s team may have gotten concessions on health and labor standards, but, as Sam Levine of HuffingtonPost.com noted, it’s difficult to know exactly what the deal contains because Obama’s administration has deemed the negotiations to be classified. Members of Congress may review drafts of the deal only in a secure room and may not make copies.

Organized labor, which has not been a party to the talks, has been adamantly opposed to more “free trade” deals. “At a time when workers all over the country are standing up for higher wages, Congress is considering legislation that will speed through corporate-driven trade deals,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. “For decades, we’ve seen how fast-tracked trade deals devastated our communities through lost jobs and eroded public services. We can’t afford another bad deal that lowers wages and outsources jobs.”

Sen. Brown said, “There’s too much at stake for Congress to be rushing through a bill that would allow more NAFTA-style trade deals. Our manufacturing sector has lost more than 5 million jobs since 1994. While we’ve seen an impressive recovery, the more than 629,000 Ohio jobs tied to the auto industry could be at risk if our trade deals don’t protect against competitors that cheat trade law or manipulate currency. Rushing a trade package through Congress without a healthy debate is not only reckless, but it’s a betrayal to middle class and working families in Ohio.”

Trade promotion authority, also known as “Fast Track,” originally was conceived in the 1970s as a means for Congress to authorize and set guidelines for the negotiations before the talks start. The US entered TPP negotiations in February 2008 during the George W. Bush administration, and the talks picked up steam after Obama was inaugurated and the deal is now being finalized.

The bill before the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees requires the president to notify Congress of the deal’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it. But the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president could send it to Congress and Congress would not begin considering it for 30 days after that. So Congress probably would not consider the TPP until at least October, as the presidential primary debates are just heating up.

But Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said the Trade Promotion Authority bill also would extend Fast Track procedures for up to six years. It would delegate away Congress’ constitutional trade authority, even after the Obama administration dismissed bipartisan and bicameral demands that the TPP include enforceable currency manipulation disciplines. The trade authority proposal would not require negotiators to actually meet Congress’ negotiating objectives in order to obtain the Fast Track privileges, making the bill’s negotiating objectives entirely unenforceable.

“Congress is being asked to delegate away its constitutional trade authority over the TPP, even after the administration ignored bicameral, bipartisan demands about the agreement’s terms, and then also grant blank-check authority to whomever may be the next president for any agreements he or she may pursue,” Wallach said. “Rather than putting Congress in the driver’s seat on trade, this bill is just the same old Fast Track that puts Congress in the trunk in handcuffs. I expect that Congress will say no to it.”

The bill comes despite broad and growing opposition to Fast Track and the TPP, Wallach said. A 2015 bipartisan poll from the Wall Street Journal and NBC News shows that 75% of Americans think that the TPP should be rejected or delayed. In recent weeks, voters in Maryland, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Colorado and other states protested against Fast Track, citing the devastating impact past Fast Tracked pacts have had on local jobs, small businesses and farmers. Recent data show that similar trade deals have already pushed the United States to the precipice of a historic $1 trillion trade deficit, contributed to the loss of 5 million American manufacturing jobs and increased US income inequality.

Public Citizen noted at citizen.org/TPP that the deal isn’t even mainly about trade. “Of TTP’s 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.

“The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the ‘expected future profits’ they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.”

And we only know about the TPP’s threats thanks to leaks – the public is not allowed to see the official draft. Neither Public Citizen nor other public advocates have been allowed to monitor the talks. “Even members of Congress, after being denied the text for years, are now only provided limited access. Meanwhile, more than 500 official corporate ‘trade advisors’ have special access. The TPP has been under negotiation for six years, and the Obama administration wants to sign the deal this year.”

Our suspicions are raised when Republicans, who normally wouldn’t agree with Obama on the time of day, and have delayed the confirmation of his highly qualified attorney general nominee for five months, now are willing to grant the President Fast Track review of the trade deal that Obama’s people have struck behind closed doors. If that isn’t a sign that the fix is in for the Powers That Shall Not Be Named, we don’t know what it is.

As we have said before, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a good deal, it should go through the normal legislative process as a treaty, which requires consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Trade deals modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement have proven disastrous for Main Street manufacturers and workers. Maybe this is the one that will turn global trade around to work for us. But we’re still doubters. Say no to Fast Track. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, May 15, 2015

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

Copyright © 2015 The Progressive Populist
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652




Selections from the May 15, 2015 issue

COVER/Conor Lynch
America’s libertarian freakshow

EDITORIAL
Just say no to Fast Track


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Discrepancies between men and women


DISPATCHES
Pipeline blues: who’s to blame;
TPP cartoonist wins Pulitzer;
Anti-Hillary book relies on hoax to back up accusations;
Poll shows turnaround on Obamacare popularity;
Southerners trapped in Medicaid gap;
Richest 0.01% of Americans gave 42% of political donations in 2012;
Talent following super PAC money;
FBI botched hair analysis for more than 20 years;
House PAC expects Benghazi repor
t pre-election;
Podcasting troll patent knocked down;
Woman cites religious freedom law to feed homeless ...


DON ROLLINS
Obama flunks (another) theology test


BOB BURNETT
Ready for Hillary?


JOHN YOUNG
Hardliners desperately seeking Satan


WENONAH HAUTER
Beware of corporate GMO spin doctors


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Polio: Lessons for today


SAM URETSKY
Budgets follow election results


WAYNE O’LEARY
The right’s fiscal nuclear option


JOHN BUELL
Diet and sustainable agriculture


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
The campaign begins


JIM CULLEN
Former lawman would make cops accountable


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Walt Whitman’s self-help advice for democracy


ROB PATTERSON
Robert Moses and the use and abuse of power


POPULIST PICKS
Three music documentaries to check out


and more ...

Friday, April 24, 2015

Drones & other automated weapons dehumanize the enemy & make it easier to go to war

By Marc Jampole

It’s so easy to kill an animated figure on a screen in a video game. And then another, and then another, each of them so realistic in their detail that they could almost be human. Pretty soon you’ve knocked off hundreds of imaginary people.

Not so easy, though, for most of us to pull a trigger, knowing that a bullet will rip through someone’s heart and stop their existence. Perhaps we instinctively empathize with the victim and fear for our own lives. Or maybe most of us kill with difficulty because the taboo against killing is so strongly instilled in us, that moral sense that taking the life of another human being is wrong, sinful? 

The problem with all advanced military technologies is that they turn war into a video game, and by doing so distance the possessors of the technology from their adversaries. Whether the attack is by conventional bomber, missile, drone or the robot weapons now under development that will make decisions independently of their human masters, the technology turns the enemy into video images. I know that this distancing leads to fewer deaths among the attackers. But remote warfare dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill lots of them without giving it a thought. The bombardier doesn’t see the victims below, or if he can, they look like specks. The operator of the drone is even farther away from his intended victims.

At a distance, distinguishing between terrorists and the innocent is difficult, if not impossible, as the latest admission by President Obama that our drones killed two hostages tragically demonstrates. Keep in mind, this incident is just the latest drone fiasco. As the New York Times reports, every independent investigation of our drone attacks has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. “When operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.”

For most of human history, it took a man to kill a man, or perhaps a man to kill 10 men. Soldiers knew full well when they were killing other soldiers and when they were killing civilians, and would often face the full moral force of human society and history when they did the latter.

But now a small group of men can kill 70,000 people with the push of a button, without even considering how many were children and adult noncombatants. I use the number 70,000, because that’s how many people died within hours when the United States dropped a rudimentary atomic bomb on Hiroshima some 70 years ago.

By lowering the cost of battle in human terms, military technology makes it easier for leaders, generals and military industrialists to convince countries to go to war. It makes it easier to propose and implement extreme acts of violence, both from the operational and the moral point of view. Only afterwards, when we read that people we were trying to rescue were killed in our drone attack or that from 150,000 to one million Iraqis died in our war built on lies, only then do we recognize the enormity of our crimes and the bad judgment that went into perpetrating them. Look how it easy was for Obama, who voted against the Iraq War, to get sucked into using drones to target terrorists.

We would have been better off without the invention of bombs and missiles. We would have been better off without the invention of guns. But those genies are out of the bottle. Let’s learn from our mistakes, though, and stop the development of robot weapon systems and stop the use of military drones.

Those who believe that it will be harder to fight the terrorists without drones are living in a delusional world in which American exceptionalism means we’re the only ones who bother manufacturing military technology. Automated weapons efficiently kill the other side, whether it’s the enemy or us. In a few years, the terrorists will also have military drones, unless we stop their development and sign treaties to make sure no nation works on them.

Of course, we can always develop the next generation of weaponry and continue our militaristic death spiral that started with machine guns, tanks and nerve gas.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Surveys show Americans succumbing to lies of the gun lobby

By Marc Jampole

Charles Blow has written the column I toyed with writing, dreaded writing and avoided writing.

In “Has the NRA won?” Blow analyzes the evidence that the United States has become a nation of gun lovers who incorrectly believe that they’re safer with a gun in the house and in the holster. 

Blow tracks the odd phenomenon of rising guns sales after every mass murder. He blames it on a boomerang effect: Mass murders using guns get people talking about gun control, which compels gun-toters to buy more for fear that they won’t be able to when stronger gun laws pass. Not mentioned by Blow, but a similar phenomenon, is the flurry of state legislation that loosen gun regulations after each mass murder.

Like many progressives, I have lately consoled myself with the fact that fewer people than ever own guns in the United States. The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center reports that only 32% of all American households own guns, down from 50% just three decades ago. Since there is about one gun per person in the United States (or 50% of all guns owned privately in the entire world!), that means that those who own guns have more of them. 

Thus, for a long time I and others have reasoned that Americans really do want to rid society of the plague of guns, but that craven politicians afraid of the financial clout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) have blocked the passage of laws that make it harder to buy and carry firearms and passed laws that loosen firearm restrictions. The storyline of the bad NRA corrupting politicians to obstruct the will of the people has provided reasonable people with both solace and a large and prominent enemy to battle.

Of course, besides corrupting elected officials, the NRA, helped by the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world, has unleashed a propaganda machine that spouts false information about violent crime increasing and gun ownership making homes and society safer. The little research out there clearly demonstrates that an increase in the number of guns owned in any country increases the number of deaths and injuries from guns. Research also shows that far more people die each year from friendly fire than are saved by pulling out a gun against an attacker or criminal. Note that there haven’t been enough of these surveys done, since Congress passed a law that prevents federal money being used to fund studies on gun violence. What’s out there, however, shows that gun ownership in and of itself makes our streets—and homes—more dangerous places.

The result of this endless barrage of false information and fearmongering is what Charles Blow lays out in his latest column: A new Pew Research Center survey showing more Americans now believe that protecting gun rights is more important than controlling gun ownership and a 2014 Gallup poll that says that 63% of all Americans believe that having a gun in the home makes it safer. The second statistic is particularly disturbing because just 15 years ago in 2000, only 35% of those polled thought a home was safer with a gun in it. That Gallup poll also showed that 63% of Americans believe crime is on the rise, even though crime is at a 20-year low. Not many people connect this decrease in crime with the decrease in households with guns, possibly because not many people are aware that crime and household ownership of guns are both down.

If only 32% of households own guns and 63% of Americans think households are safer with guns, does that mean that gun sales are set to expand? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it certainly shows that at this point in time, much of our nation is dedicated to making it easier for people to own and carry guns. Lies have won over truth.

“The N.R.A. appears to be winning this round,” is how Blow ends his disturbing article. I think that’s a very optimistic understatement. I’m thinking the NRA has won not just the round, but the entire game. For the time being, we are a nation that supports private ownership of guns with little if any restrictions, certainly less than we place on those who drive automobiles.

That our support is based on lies may enrage and confuse us, but it shouldn’t surprise us. Americans seem to be ever more susceptible to the big lie, be it the lie that guns keep us safe, the lie that humans are not making the Earth too warm too quickly for our own good, or the lie that lowering taxes on the wealthy is the key to creating new jobs and ending economic inequality. In each case, what the liars propose to make things better actually make them worse for most of us.

Friday, April 17, 2015

New Kansas law picks the pockets of the poor while humiliating them in the process

By Marc Jampole

When Republicans support or pass a law to address a non-problem, they usually have an ulterior motive. Take the slew of recent state laws making it harder to vote. The stated rationale behind these laws is to prevent voter fraud, a complete non-problem since there is virtually no voter fraud perpetrated by individual voters anywhere in the country. The ulterior motive is to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote.

The state of Kansas presents the most recent example of using a non-existent problem to ram through legislation that has as its goal something completely different, and devious. The Republican-dominated state legislature has passed and Republican Governor Sam Brownback has signed a law that limits where people who receive cash assistance can spend their money and also limits how much they can withdraw in any single day.

The new Kansaslaw prevents those receiving state cash assistance from spending it on alcohol, cigarettes, tobacco products, lottery tickets, concert tickets, professional or collegiate sporting events, tickets for entertainment events intended for the general public or sexually oriented adult materials. Among the more than 20 types of retail establishments where poor people can’t spend their public assistance money are bail bond companies, movie theatres, swimming pools, jewelry stores and spas. 

To this progressive, these holier-than-thou Kansas lawmakers are imposing their value system on the poor living in their state in a particularly humiliating way. They are essentially saying that if you’re poor, you don’t deserve to enjoy your life, nor do you have the ability to make wise decisions about how to spend money. The law prevents the poor from using their welfare to take their kids to a public swimming pool or to sit in the “cheap seats” at a baseball game.

Kansas reserves this moral harshness for the poor. There are no restrictions on fast-food franchise owners, whose businesses are subsidized because their employees receive so little in wages they qualify for state benefits. Fast-food franchise owners can spend their state subsidy on anything they like. There are also only loose restrictions on how businesses spend the funds they get from tax rebates and other state government support. No state auditor inspects a business office to make sure the business didn’t buy expensive luxury furniture, pay themselves too much money or subscribe to non-essential magazines.

I know that conservatives will disagree, averring that we need to treat our poor with “tough love,” instead of incentivizing poverty.

But we don’t even have to get into a discussion of the rights of those who receive cash assistance to evaluate the efficacy of this new law. All we have to do is look at the facts to see that Kansas is addressing a non-problem.  A 2014 federal report showed that less than one percent of all cash assistance in eight states it studied was spent at liquor stores, casinos or strip clubs. In other words, it’s not really a problem. In other words, those receiving cash assistance do not spend it frivolously or on goods and services that offend some people’s sense of morality. 

We know what the non-problem is that the new Kansas law is trying to solve. The question is what is the ulterior motive? What are these Republican lawmakers really trying to do?

The answer lies in the payment system, I believe. The poor don’t get a check anymore, they get an ATM/debit card, which is why the state can so confidently ban purchases at particular locations like swimming pools and movie theatres.

It usually costs money to extract cash using an ATM card, an average of $4.35 pertransaction nationally, according to bankrate.com. The $25 limit per day means that the poor have to keep coming back to get more money, racking up additional transactional fees. The law prohibits a clever and frugal poor person from getting all her or his money at once to save on fees. 

It’s worse than you think, because, as Elizabeth Lower-Basch, director at Center for Law and Social Policy, an advocacy group for low-income people, notes, virtually no ATM machine gives out $5 bills, so the real limit is $20. At $4.35 a transaction, that’s a more than 20% fee that the poor have to pay to get access to their cash.

What a windfall for financial institutions! 

I think all the other restrictions in the new Kansas law are meant as window-dressing and a diversion from the true purpose of this law—to take from the poor and give to the wealthy, in this case the financial institutions that charge withdrawal fees on those receiving cash assistance. The real reason for the law is not to humiliate the poor, but to divert some of the money earmarked for them to financial institutions.

It’s an interesting twist on the basic Republican economic playbook, which has been to fund massive tax cuts to the wealthy by cutting government spending on everything except the military and the security state apparatus. In this case, the Kansas state government is sanctioning the kind of usury we associate with payday loans and sub-prime used-car loans.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Hillary will win in November unless Americans want to end Social Security, Medicare & aid to public schools

By Marc Jampole

Now the media attacks on Hillary will begin in earnest, if for no other reason than there is nothing much else to say about the campaign to become the 2016 Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Hillary has name recognition, a distinguished record, high scores for likeability and big donors. The current president is on her side. She has no heavyweight competition and a lead in the polls unparalleled for a non-incumbent in the history of American elections. She has pretty much shut down the competition early, just as Bush II did in 2000.

But there are still papers to print, broadcast space to fill, Internet pages to launch. The mainstream media has to pretend that it is covering the Democratic side, even though as in 2010 and 2014—the off-year elections that gave Republicans a gerrymandered dominance in Congressional districts for years—the media will give much wider coverage to the differences between conservative Republicans like Jeb Bush and rightwing loonies like Ted Cruz than they will to the differences between Democratic centrists and progressives. It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that the mainstream media favors coverage of Republicans and twists issues rightward. Their owners, after all, tend to be conservative rich folk.

Early returns suggest the following as the main themes the media will use to cover Hillary Clinton’s inevitable march to the Democratic nomination:
·         Scrounge up old scandals or fabricate new ones.
·         Try to make it appear as if Hillary is a stolid, uninspiring or wonkish speaker, which is a standard accusation that Republicans have made against all of the recent Democratic candidates for president, including Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and even Clinton—everyone but Barack Obama. Him they called a rock star! In retrospect, I wonder if the Republicans were just too racist to admit that an African-American could be smart enough to be boring.
·         Exaggerate the differences between Hillary and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
·         Focus on the past peccadilloes of Bill Clinton or wonder whether he is being intrusive or a distraction on the campaign trail.
·         Isolate poorly worded statements for signals that Hillary really doesn’t care about the poor, but is just another “rich bitch.”
·         Speculate on whether America is ready for a woman president, and whether Hillary is putting too much or too little emphasis on her gender.

The mainstream media will leave it to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the National Rifle Association and the Republican candidates to paint Hillary as an America-hating, male-emasculating atheist socialist who wants to destroy the economy, although the mainstream will cover the Republican candidates smearing Hillary with various crimes and misdemeanors.
Note that none of these story ideas focus on the issues. Focusing on the issues would show the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans and help swing the vote to Hillary Clinton.

Paul Krugman made the case for voting the Democratic party line in The New York Times by listing the various critical issues on which all Democrats and all Republicans seem to disagree: Virtually all Democrats want to maintain and grow Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, preserve the Affordable Care Act (ACA), raise taxes on the wealthy, preserve the 2010 financial reforms and respond to global warming (which Krugman politely calls “climate change”). Virtually all Republicans want to cut social insurance programs, destroy the ACA, lower taxes on the wealthy, deregulate financial markets and block any attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

No progressives in their right mind will make the mistake many made in 2000 and vote for a third-party candidate or stay home from the polls. We see what happened when votes for Ralph Nader allowed Bush II to sneak into office and bring us the botched responses to 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, a shameful torture gulag, lower taxes on the wealthy, a booming deficit and a financial crisis. The differences between Hillary Clinton and the least rightwing Republican contender Jeb Bush are far greater than the differences between Gore and what Bush II was mouthing in 2000.

Those who follow the news know the stakes are high—a Republican Senate, House and presidency could bring severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, public education and other important programs for the poor and middle class, all to finance more tax breaks for the wealthy. The similarities of the Democrats on these core domestic issues will moderate the tone of any debate between Hillary and other candidates. And even if there is a spirited campaign battle pitting Hillary against an attractive progressive candidate, most Democrats will fall into line and vote for Hillary in the fall.

If they know what’s at stake, they will have no choice. Despite Hillary’s hawkishness on foreign policy and connections to Wall Street money, she still supports traditional Democratic positions on economic and social issues. 

That’s why the key for a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 is not so much to articulate the centrist Democratic line she espouses but to remind voters of the rightwing economic ideology that drives the current Republican Party.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Dispatches 5/1/15 Progressive Populist


RAHM WINS RE-ELECTION BUT CHUY MOVES GRASSROOTS.

A populist coalition upset with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s treatment of working-class neighborhoods won a historic victory of sorts when they forced the mayor into a runoff with progressive Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia in March. But the populists were unable to overcome the advantages of incumbency, support from the Chicago Democratic machine, the support of the city’s two major newspapers, endorsement of President Obama and a campaign bankroll of more than $23.6 mln, compared with $6 mln for Garcia. Emanuel’s campaign was helped by millions more in spending by a separate campaign fund and an Emanuel-aligned “Super PAC,” John Nichols noted at TheNation.com (4/8).

Garcia won more than 250,000 votes (44% of the total) and the citywide coalition that supported him beat several City Council candidates allied with Emanuel. The challenger conceded on election night, but he did not sound defeated, Nichols noted. “We didn’t lose today. We tried today. We fought hard for what we believe in,” Garcia told a cheering crowd of supporters. “You don’t succeed at this or anything else unless you try. So keep trying. “

Emanuel alienated voters and got the moniker “Mayor 1%” by closing 50 schools in low-income neighborhoods, doubling water rates, installing speed cameras and nicking one-tenth of a second off red lights to trap more motorists into tickets, Edward McClelland noted at Salon.com (4/8). Garcia was dragged into the race last October, as the third choice of the progressive movement. The first choice, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, decided to run for re-election last November. The second choice, Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis, dropped out after developing a brain tumor, and drafted Garcia, who was unprepared for a mayoral campaign. After landing in the runoff, as the beneficiary of protest votes against Emanuel, Garcia didn’t reveal his plan for the city’s finances until 3/13, three-and-a-half weeks before the election.

Under Emanuel, the city’s bond rating has been downgraded five times, to two steps above junk status, and pensions are consuming an ever-increasing share of the city’s budget. Garcia proposed cutting Tax Increment Financing districts and share expenses with other governments. But he also suggested a graduated income tax, which is unconstitutional in Illinois, and put off more specific decisions by promising to form a committee to “examine the full range of existing and potential revenue options that are available to the city.” Asked in a debate who would serve on that committee, he responded that he was “not at liberty to say.”

Such vagueness allowed Emanuel to portray Garcia as a political weakling who would raise property taxes before demanding sacrifices from the city’s public sector unions.

Garcia had an answer for that in his concession speech, in which he implicitly blamed Emanuel for Chicago’s financial problems, because of his failure to make the city an attractive place to live. Chicago has led the nation in murders every full year of Emanuel’s mayoralty, its schools and neighborhoods have been neglected at the expense of downtown development, and its middle class feels nickel-and-dimed by traffic tickets and fees.

“We’ve got some big problems,” he said. “In the last 15 years, Chicago has lost 200,000 people. We have a debt crisis and a pension crisis. We have a growth crisis. That means people moving here, not leaving. That means a growing middle class. We can’t tax our way out of this crisis. We can only truly grow a way out. There are too many shootings. We need to end the violence. We need to end school closings and privatization. We need to stop paying so much attention to what happens downtown and more attention to what happens in our neighborhoods. A less violent city is a more attractive city. A city with good neighborhoods is a more attractive city. It’s a city that doesn’t have a pile of bills and a pile of discarded people it can’t afford to take care of.”

Despite their defeat, Chicago progressives were able to force Emanuel to the left. Last year, the mayor supported an increase in the city’s minimum wage to $13 an hour. After Garcia promised to end the speed camera program, Emanuel pulled cameras off 25 street corners.

“Mayor Emanuel, in a sense he lost though he won,” said the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who hugged Garcia when he appeared in the arena after the TV stations had predicted his defeat.

State Rep. Will Guzzardi, who defeated a Machine-backed incumbent to win a seat in the state legislature, predicted that Garcia’s campaign would inaugurate an anti-establishment movement in Chicago.

“This campaign was up against impossible odds, and yet in an incredibly short span of time these people built a movement that pushed a political apparatus of nearly infinite resources to the brink of extinction,” Guzzardi said. “Movement building takes time. It’s not an overnight process. This movement’s going to keep growing.”

David Hatch, executive director of Reclaim Chicago, a grassroots effort jointly sponsored by the People’s Lobby and National Nurses United, in an email exchange with Richard Eskow described the vote which forced Emanuel into a runoff as “a clear rejection of corporate austerity politics,” adding: “Much like the election of Bill Di Blasio in New York, Kshama Sawant in Seattle, the Syriza victory in Greece, and the rise of Podemos in Spain, the vote in Chicago is indicative of widespread and deep dissatisfaction with a politics of the corporate austerity agenda.”

Asked how this election was likely to affect Chicago politics going forward, Hatch responded, “We’ve strengthened the progressive movement in Chicago, we’re in a better position to fight back.” He also noted that “with progressives still a minority” on the City Council, “Garcia alone could not have been our savior.”

“We’ve got tremendous work ahead of us,” said Hatch. “Chicago’s fiscal crisis is not unique. It is the result not just of poor decisions made in city council and in the mayors office, but is also the result of broader global and national economic conditions and state level politics. Right now, Illinois faces a six billion dollar budget deficit for next fiscal year, and the cuts coming down from Springfield will also hand the next mayor an even worse set of fiscal cards. We’ll see cuts to education, infrastructure, public transit, health care and much, much more.”

Writing in The Nation, Micah Utrecht profiled another activist group which expects to have a long-term impact on Chicago politics: United Working Families, a coalition founded by the Chicago Teachers Union, the Illinois Service Employees International Union, and “a passel of other unions and grassroots community groups.” He quotes a UWF board member, Matthew Luskin, as saying that the group isn’t just focused on winning the next election. “”It’s also about building space for movement politics,” said Luskin, “politics to the left of the Democrats — and trying to recruit people to those politics.”

National groups were active in the mayoral effort as well, including National People’s Action Campaign (NPAC), the Working Families Party, MoveOn, Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the American Federation of Teachers. Their efforts resulted in an impromptu coalition that is likely to resurface in future races. In a published statement, NPAC Executive Director (and Chicago resident) George Goehl said that “we’re seeing a new left pole emerge in American politics.” Goehl added: “In cities across the country, progressive populists are talking on corporate politicians ... As discontent with a system that’s rigged in favor of corporations and the super-wealthy continues to grow, so too will a new political movement.”

On the same day the mayor was re-elected, Chicago Sun-Times gossip columnist Michael Sneed reported that Hillary Clinton would name Emanuel to her cabinet if she’s elected president. “That would be a good move for Rahm, after he nearly bungled away the mayor’s office to an obscurity,” McClelland noted. “He could avoid the humiliation of losing an election, or retiring to avoid better-prepared challengers emboldened by the fact that he was forced into a runoff this year. He’d be back in Washington, his natural environment, where his abrasiveness is considered colorful. In four years as mayor of Chicago, Emanuel has demonstrated he’s not an effective chief executive. He was perfect in the role of bullying donors and congressman for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Every leader needs someone to do his dirty work, but that someone is never beloved by the public.”

If Emanuel is called back to Washington, McClelland noted, a possible candidate to take his place as mayor is Patrick Daley Thompson, who is a grandson of the first Mayor Daley and was elected to the City Council on 4/7. “A Daley made way for Emanuel, and Emanuel could make way for another Daley, after keeping the seat warm for the city’s ruling family. The Daleys know how to wield power in Chicago. They would never have let a guy like Garcia get so close to the mayor’s office.”

DANNY SCHECHTER, ‘NEWS DISSECTOR,’ PASSES. Danny Schechter, a journalist, author, media critic and a contributor to The Progressive Populist, died in Manhattan of pancreatic cancer (3/19).

Schechter started out as “news dissector” of the Boston rock station WBCN-FM in Boston in the 1970s. John Nichol noted in The Nation (3/20), “Dissecting the news was Schechter’s thing. He reported to listeners what was happening, then he explained why it was happening, and then he revealed why other media outlets did not tell the whole story. It was bold and daring, and the word of what Danny Schechter was doing on one progressive-rock station in Boston spread far and wide. ‘As “News Dissector” on Boston radio,’ recalled Chomsky, ‘Danny Schechter literally educated a generation.’

“What distinguished Schechter, who died too young at age 72, was his merging of a stark and serious old-school I.F. Stone-style understanding of media power and manipulation with a wild and joyous Yippie-infused determination to rip it up and start again.

“Schechter was of his times. He marched for civil rights and against wars. He made common cause with hippies and Yippies. He danced and sang and inhaled. He was, he recalled, ‘a participatory journalist, a down-with-the-movement reporter, a manic media maven.’

After Schechter’s gig at WBCN, he went national, as a producer for the ABC newsmagazine 20/20, where he won two Emmy Awards, Nichols noted. He helped to get CNN started, served as an executive producer for Globalvision and as executive editor for MediaChannel.org. He developed and served as executive producer for the remarkable South Africa Now news magazine, which played a critical role in revealing the true story of apartheid and of the global anti-apartheid movement. He used television and film and books and the Internet—where he was a pioneering blogger on media issues—to reveal and challenge the failure of major media to expose human rights abuses abroad and corporate abuses at home.

One of Schechter’s great fights was to maintain local public-access television programming and new-media interventions by citizen journalists, Nichols noted. “That wasn’t a fight that many Emmy Award winners took on. But the guy who used to dissect the news on rock station out of Boston understood why it mattered.”

Schechter wrote for Newsday in 1993, “A growing segment of the public wants to be involved with new media. The boom in on-line computer networks and even radio talk shows demonstrates the demand and the need—which the media giants are unlikely to satisfy. Let’s hope that the Congressional watchdogs who are questioning the anti-trust implications of these new monopolies-in-the-making will speak out to preserve public access. In commercial television, everything is slick, but little matters. Its edges may be rough, but public access should matter to us—not only for what it is, but for what it can become.”

Schechter wrote 17 books, among them The More You Watch the Less You Know: News Wars/(sub)Merged Hopes/Media Adventures and Madiba A-Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela. He also made more than 30 films, including six documentaries on Mr. Mandela and another titled WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception, and had blogged since 2002, the New York Times reported (3/23).

“I know all this is easy for me to say,” Schechter wrote a year ago at CommonDreams.org. “All I seem to have these days is this keyboard to crank out more condemnations and calls to action, knowing full well, as I do it, that I don’t know what else to do. I am compelled to make media, compelled to do what I can, thinking modestly that perhaps somewhere, in hearts I don’t know, words or images can still stir souls to rise.”

RAND PAUL’S HOME STATE RELIES ON PROGRAMS HE’S VOWED TO DISMANTLE. Rand Paul became the second Republican to join the race for president (4/7). But his policies would devastate the people who are already suffering in one of the worst economies in the nation, Kira Lerner and Aviva Shen noted at ThinkProgress.org.

For example, although he did not address health care in announcing his presidential campaign, Rand Paul has said he will not rest until Obamacare is 100% repealed, preferring to rely on “freedom” in the health insurance marketplace. But Kentuckians living in rural parts of the state, which ranks among the most unhealthy in the nation, were among the groups that benefited most from the health care law. Before the health care law was signed, a staggering 640,000 people, or 15% of the state, lacked health insurance in Kentucky.

Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was an advocate for the law from the beginning. He urged his fellow Southern, red state governors to put the health of their citizens above politics. “There’s a huge disconnect between the rank partisanship of national politics and the outlook of governors whose job it is to help beleaguered families, strengthen work forces, attract companies and create a balanced budget,” the governor wrote in a New York Times op-ed (9/27/13).

In May 2014, after the first open enrollment, Beshear noted that over 421,000 Kentuckians — almost one in ten state residents — signed up for coverage through the state exchange. “I see the ACA’s positive impact first-hand in my home state, a place whose collective poor health has long been jeopardizing the lives and financial security of hard-working families who can’t seem to get ahead,” he wrote in a Huffington Post column in which he told Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to “get out of the way” of the law.

He also noted that some 330,000 of Kentucky’s uninsured, mostly working poor, qualified for Medicaid under its expansion.

Kentucky was the only Southern state that agreed to both expand Medicaid and set up its own exchange. And both measures had positive impacts on the state’s economy. A study conducted before the implementation found that the expansion of Medicaid would inject $15.6 bln in Kentucky’s economy over eight years, create 17,000 jobs and help the budget improve by $802.4 mln – all vital steps forward in a state that recently had the sixth worst unemployment rate in the nation.

Kynect, the state exchange, is popular enough among Kentuckians that Paul has said publicly that the state could keep its exchange, even if Obamacare were to be repealed.

Paul has also made clear that he would take down the social safety net as president, even comparing food stamps to slavery. But nearly 900,000 Kentuckians — one in five residents — struggle to get by on Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), even as benefits have shrunk over the past few years. Meanwhile, food banks in Kentucky have picked up the slack; 56% of organizations in the state had to serve more people this year than last, as more than 600,000 people visited food banks in 2014, according to the Kentucky Association of Food Banks.

Paul believes food stamp recipients are abusing the system to “buy junk food” and “McDonalds,” but 91% of Kentucky food bank clients reported that they bought unhealthy food because it was the cheapest way to feed their families.

Paul also opposes setting a minimum wage, let alone increasing it. About 49,000 Kentuckians earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25 or less, but even that falls short of how much it costs to live in the state. According to MIT’s living wage calculator, a Kentucky family making minimum wage would still be stuck deep in poverty.

Nevertheless, Paul has dismissed concerns over poverty, asserting that “the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.”

FEDS ADMIT POT CAN KILL TUMORS. The propaganda war about marijuana may have turned a new page with the federal government’s acknowledgment of a recent study that found the plant can significantly reduce aggressive types of brain tumors when combined with radiation treatment, endorsing what medicinal marijuana advocates have long affirmed as its healing properties, Sam P.K. Collins noted at ThinkProgress.org (4/6).

A team of researchers from St. George’s University of London recorded reductions in high-grade glioma masses — a deadly form of brain cancer — in mice. The mice’s tumors shrank after they were exposed to radiation in tandem with two marijuana compounds: THC, which creates the “high feeling,” and CBD, which has no psychoactive side effects. In their report, the researchers said that both cannabinoids made tumors more receptive to the radiation treatment, creating what lead author Dr. Wai Lui described to HuffPost as a “triple threat” approach.

“We’ve shown that cannabinoids could play a role in treating one of the most aggressive cancers in adults,” Liu wrote in an op-ed earlier this year. “The results are promising…it could provide a way of breaking through glioma and saving more lives.”

TEXAS CITY GOES ALL-IN FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. The city of Georgetown, Texas, has announced plans to replace traditional electricity sources, such as coal- and gas-powered plants, with renewable fuels, such as wind and solar energy to meet its customers’ power needs, the Texas Tribune reported (3/18).

The city-owned utility in the suburb of Austin with 55,000 population, announced a 25-year-deal with SunEdison, the world’s largest renewable energy company, to buy 150 megawatts of solar power from plants in West Texas beginning next year. Last year, Georgetown signed a contract with EDF for 144 megawatts of wind energy from West Texas through 2039.

A megawatt can power as many as 100 Texas homes on the hottest summer days, the Tribune noted. During average temperatures, it can power many times more.

Keith Hutchinson, the city’s spokesman, said the deals locked in cheaper electricity than what the city’s expiring contract with the Lower Colorado River Authority guaranteed. LCRA generates about 59% of its power from coal, 34% from natural gas and 7% from solar and wind energy.

Among the few US cities that have gone all-renewable are Burlington, Vt.; Palo Alto, Calif.; and Aspen, Colo.

Jim Briggs, interim city manager of Georgetown, told the Guardian (3/28) that customers would have the security of a fixed-rate plan that will be similar to the currnet cost of about 9.6 cents per kilowatt-hour and will protect them against fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels. The city utility also will be able to buy and sell electricity to the Texas grid — the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

KANSAS TAX EXPERIMENT FORCES SCHOOLS TO CUT ACADEMIC YEAR. When Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) launched his radical economic plan, which cut taxes far beyond what his state could afford, he called it “a real-live experiment.” The governor said at the time, “We’ll see how it works.”

More than four years later, Steve Benen noted at Maddowblog.com (4/6), Brownback’s plan has resulted in debt downgrades, weak growth and state finances in shambles. The latest data adds insult to injury: “State figures released [3/31] showed that tax revenue came in $11.2 mln below expectations in March, the latest in a string of lower-than-expected tax receipts.” The report came two weeks after the governor said his plan is “working.”

It’s reached the point where a pair of Kansas public school districts will close down early this school year because the state won’t furnish the resources necessary to allow these communities to finish out the academic calendar.

“We are popular with the kids but not the parents,” Concordia district Superintendent Bev Mortimer told the Wichita Eagle after announcing that her schools will shut down six days earlier than planned. In the Twin Valley district, just south of Mortimer’s terrain, schools are closing down 12 days ahead of schedule. The districts are “losing $51 mln they expected to receive for the current school year after Gov. Sam Brownback signed a school funding overhaul bill in March,” the paper explains. Brownback disputes that causal claim, but the school board in Twin Valley specifically referenced “mid-year, unplanned financial cuts recently signed into law.”

Brownback has followed through on a promise to all but erase the state’s income tax code, ditching all taxes on a class of businesses known as “pass-through entities,” Many of the people who rely on the pass-through structure for tax purposes are only which collect royalties or other non-wage compensation from something that isn’t a standard payroll job.

“Brownback chased that major overhaul with other, more standard conservative tax-slashing policies, with the full pricetag for the near-total Reaganing of Kansas coming in over a billion dollars,” Alan Pyke noted at ThinkProgress.org (4/3). “The result has been massive deficits that endanger public services like roads, schools, and pension contributions for public employees. The only concession the governor has made to fiscal reality is proposing a combination of regressive sales tax hikes and higher ‘sin taxes’ on cigarettes and alcohol.”

On school funding, Kansas had already slashed its spending on schools from 2009 to 2011 during the recession, as many states did as part of a scramble to maintain balanced budgets amid the downturn. And while Brownback has made nominal increases in state spending on education, the structures of those increases have undermined local governments’ ability to furnish school money themselves. The result is that total schools funding has been basically flat in inflation-adjusted terms ever since Brownback took over, despite a larger portion of all public education spending coming from the state level in his tenure. And with the move to block-grants this spring, Brownback essentially pulled the plug on the complicated funding formula that is supposed to ensure more-or-less equitable funding for educating kids in both rich and poor districts.

From 2008 to 2014, Kansas has cut per-pupil spending by $950, more than all but two states. That roughly 16.5% cut in the resources available to educate Kansan kids has brought some dire consequences — like school nurses being told to put wet sponges in a freezer because real ice packs are just too expensive — and the ire of the state Supreme Court, which has ruled that Brownback is overseeing unconstitutionally low education spending.

None of this is paying off, Pyke noted. The state’s economy is growing more slowly than the national average, and the poverty rate has risen steadily.

Rather than take a look at the tax policies that have ruined state finances, Benen noted that Kansas Republicans appear to have a very different priority in mind:  imposing new restrictions on how welfare recipients can receive and spend limited benefits.

Kansas welfare recipients will be unable to get more than $25 per day in benefits under a new law sent to Brownback’s desk by the state legislature.

The bill also prohibits welfare recipients from spending their benefits at certain types of businesses, including liquor stores, fortune tellers, swimming pools and cruise ships.

As Arthur Delaney reported at HuffingtonPost.com (4/4), under Kansas’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, a low-income family of three is eligible to receive $429 per month in benefits through government-issued debit cards. But under the new Republican plan, families would have to receive those benefits in increments of no more than $25 per day – and the overall monthly total would be reduced through a series of withdrawal fees.

Under the new rule, a three-person family receiving the maximum benefit would have to go to the ATM more than a dozen times to get the full benefit in cash, which would be whittled away by a $1 fee for each withdrawal. And the local cruise liner ATM will no longer be an option.

“This provision makes it nearly impossible for a recipient who does not have a checking account to pay rent,” Liz Schott of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in an email. “Moreover, it actually takes money from the pockets of poor families [in fees].”

STINGY CONGRESS PUTS FOOD SUPPLY AT RISK. Five years after the passage of sweeping food safety legislation that gave the Food and Drug Administration power to prevent future outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, lawmakers haven’t fully funded programs that would realize the goals of the law,Sam P.K. Collins reported at ThinkProgress.org (4/7).

The Food Safety Modernization Act, which gives the FDA mandatory recall authority along with other expanded regulatory powers, needed a total of $580 mln since 2011 to be effective, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Congress, however, has doled out less than half that amount, even with some provisions set to go into effect this year.

Agency officials said the budget shortfall undermines their efforts to significantly improve the food safety system that has failed to prevent nearly 48 mln foodborne illnesses annually, nearly 3,000 of which result in death. A report released by a trio of federal agencies in February confirmed that bacteria like E.coli, campylobacter, listeria, and salmonella are found in common food like beef, chicken, dairy, vegetables, and fruit.

Without substantial funds, the FDA hasn’t been able to modernize its inspection process and retain nearly 2,000 inspectors and other staff members crucial to its mission. The federal agency has also had difficulty overseeing food imports and providing guidance to state inspection groups. A recent GAO report found that the government agency fell short in its goal to inspect at least 4,800 facilities by 2014, only carrying out its mission in less than a third.

The FDA recently asked Congress to allocate $109.5 mln for the upcoming year — nearly $80 mln more than last year’s amount, but half of what will help the agency meet its food safety modernization goals. It remains to be seen, however, if a Republican-controlled Congress will fulfill the request. But Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.), one of the authors of the law, says GOP lawmakers have no choice. “If we keep shortchanging the FDA, it will continue to cost us billions of dollars a year to deal with food-borne illness,” DeLauro, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency’s funding, told the New York Times.

From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2015

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

Copyright © 2015 The Progressive Populist
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Editorial: Give Peace a Chance


Granting President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry the approval to finalize an agreement with Iran and five other nations to put controls on Iran’s nuclear development should be a no-brainer. But there is a problem with Congress.

You see, Republicans pledged on the night that President Obama was inaugurated not to cooperate with the new president in any way, and to deny him any victories. Apparently that includes the president’s efforts to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

On March 9, 47 Republican senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, sent a letter to Iranian leaders that apparently was intended to undermine the negotiations. The Republicans warned Iranian leaders that once President Obama is out of office in 2017, “the next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Obama noted it was “somewhat ironic” to see Republicans “wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” Luckily, it didn’t stop the Iranian negotiators from agreeing to open their nuclear facilities to international inspection.

Obama might not be able to set aside sanctions against Iran that are required by US law if Congress won’t go along with changes to that law, but those sanctions will count for little if right-wing denialists in Congress alienate the other nations that helped to negotiate it, including Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. They would be free to conduct their own business with Iran.

Congressional leaders should be concerned about the president’s authority to conclude international agreements without congressional approval. The Senate particularly should be concerned about its prerogatives to “advise and consent” on treaties. But this Congress is so dysfunctional that we’re hard pressed to criticize Obama for trying to avoid interference by mendacious Republicans.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) became the heir-apparent to the post of Senate Democratic leader when Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he would not seek re-election next year. But Schumer has endorsed a GOP bill that would give Congress an avenue to reject the White House-brokered deal. If Schumer joins Republicans in trying to stop the nuclear deal, Senate Democrats should think twice about giving him the promotion, and any Democrats who vote with the Republicans to prohibit the deal ought to get a primary opponent at the next election.

While Republicans place more trust in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than they share with President Obama, two former top Israeli intelligence officials have expressed optimism about the nuclear agreement. Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy argued that Iran made important and significant concessions during the negotiations and Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli military intelligence, said the deal could delay the Iranian nuclear program by many years, the Times of Israel reported April 5.

Lawrence Wilkerson, the Republican retired colonel who was an aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell in George W. Bush’s administration, said on MSNBC’s Ed Show April 3 the agreement was historic, “in the category with Kissinger and Nixon opening China, with Camp David under Carter, with the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and so forth ... We have a deal here that if it’s consummated in the complexity that it will need to be by the end of June, if it’s consummated this is a deal that has win-win written all over it.”

If the deal unravels, Wilkerson said, “I think it is going to be a much more dangerous region for sure. ... But I know what my political party wants. My political party, at least some of them — the 47 [senators] for example who signed the letter to the Ayatollah — they want war.”

Why do Republicans (and apparently some Dems) want war? Because war is good for business. Less than 24 hours after the 47 Republican senators trolled the Iranian hardliners, the letter’s author, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) met with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying group for defense contractors. Cotton has said Congress should consider supplying Israel with B-52 bombers and “bunker buster” bombs, which are manufactured by NDIA member Boeing, for a possible military strike on Iran. Other NDIA members include Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Oshkosh Defense, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

The Iran deal also has an impact on world oil prices, which took a pounding on April 2 following news that Iran had reached a preliminary agreement with the six world powers over its nuclear program. With the prospect that more Iranian oil would come onto already oversupplied world markets, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) May oil futures dropped $1.33, or 2.5%, to $48.91 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent May crude prices dropped 5% on the news, to $54.72.

However, after it became clear that Republican opposition could delay the efforts to implement the deal that would relax sanctions, oil prices rebounded more than 5% on April 6, with Brent May crude rising 5.77% to $58.12 a barrel and WTI rising 6.11% to $52.14, Reuters reported.

So relaxation of sanctions on Iran has an impact on the value of oil reserves around the world. That can add or subtract billions of dollars to the bottom lines of multinational oil corporations, so oil executives keep their hired hands in Congress working to roil the Middle East and keep oil prices and profits up.

Sen. Cotton on April 7 said it would simply take “several days air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities” to put the Iranian nuclear sites out of commission but Juan Cole noted that bombing Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites would only set back those operations a year or so, and would put Iran on a war footing with the US.

“Those who think such bombing runs would be the end of the story ... are fooling themselves,” Cole noted. “Bombing Iraq in 1991 and the no-fly zone had a lot to do with taking the USA down the path to a ground war in 2003. Bombing now will almost certainly lead to a similar ground war.”

Iran is 2.5 times more populous than Iraq and is much bigger geographically, Cole noted. “It is likely that Iran war numbers would be three times those of Iraq, at least,” he wrote.

So to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program by force could cost 15,000 US troop deaths, 90,000 Americans seriously wounded and 270,000 lightly injured, Cole wrote. Such a war could cost the US $5.1 trillion while the cost of caring for wounded troops over a lifetime would run from $9 trillion to $18 trillion. All because Republicans and a few Democrats were persuaded by Netanyahu that diplomacy could not work.

The Obama administration managed to pull the economy out of the nose dive that the Bush administration left it in. Obama saved the US auto industry, the banks and the stock market, implemented the Affordable Care Act and got unemployment down to 5.5% and even got gas prices down to $2 a gallon, despite Republican attempts to block him at every turn.

On foreign policy, Republicans learned nothing from Bush’s catastrophic invasion of Iraq — an invasion that Benjamin Netanyahu urged. Toppling Saddam Hussein took out a major rival of Iran and put Iran-allied Shi’ites in power in Iraq. Then, frustrated by Obama’s resistance to getting involved in the civil war in Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in 2013 urged Saudi and Qatari governments to arm Syrian rebels who turned out to be allied with al Qaeda and Islamic State/Daesh.

Republicans clearly are inept at economics and foreign policy. President Obama should proceed with the other participating nations to finalize the nuclear agreement with Iran by July 1. That gives the US an opening to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran, which could become our ally against Al Qaeda and the Islamic State/Daesh as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The agreement also gives Israel at least 10 or 15 years to settle with Palestinian officials on the two-state solution that is the only route to a lasting peace in that troubled land. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2015

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

Copyright © 2015 The Progressive Populist
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652


Selections from the May 1, 2015 issue










Monday, April 6, 2015

Indiana pious pizza purveyors latest example of the rightwing touting bogus victims

By Marc Jampole

A coordinated rightwing effort raises $840,000 for a pizza joint in a small town in Indiana through crowd-sourcing when the pizza place supposedly closed down in the face of an avalanche of threats after the owners told local news media that it wouldn’t cater a same-sex wedding.

Doesn’t it smell a little cheesy? And not the fresh buffalo mozzarella you sometimes get in upscale enotecas in Manhattan and Washington, D.C.? No, this is definitely a phony processed cheese product that’s stayed in the back of the fridge far too long that we’re whiffing here.

Let’s start with the question unasked so far by any of the horde of pundits who have commented on Memory Pizza’s venture into social significance: Who serves pizza at a wedding? A Bar Mitzvah or Sweet Sixteen party—sure! But a wedding?

My guess is that the local TV news reporter who first covered Memory Pizza’s intolerant attitude towards those different from them had spent the day asking multiple business owners whether they wouldn’t provide services to an LGBT wedding and went into Memory’s Pizza out of desperation. Or maybe Memory faxed out a news release about the superficially religious stance its owners were taking. In either case, Memory’s closed down after dozens of negative reviews on Yelp and what the owner says were a bunch of threatening messages. No pickets at Memory’s doors, no rocks through its windows. Just condemnation over social media. That certainly shows the courage of one’s convictions—unless the owner knew that someone at Glenn Beck’s media empire was going to stoke the fires of rightwing indignation at a crowd-sourcing site.

It’s perhaps the first entirely virtual cause célèbre ever; Internet spread the original local TV story. Online expressions of ire were enough to intimidate the pious pizza purveyors, who were supposedly rescued from financial ruin by online ad hoc charitable contributions.

But at the heart of it all is the small fact that very few people if anyone would order pizza for a wedding banquet, so the effect of the new law on Memory’s ability to assert their so-called religious freedom was theoretical. Note, too, that the handful of other small businesses who have said they would refuse service to gays have not run into difficulties.

Does it sound familiar, all this hullaballoo about a rightwing cause célèbre who turns out to be a little bogus?

Let’s start with Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, AKA Joe the Plumber, who took on Barack Obama at an Obama rally during the 2008 presidential campaign because Obama wanted to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. As it turned out, Joe the Plumber wasn’t even registered as a plumber in his home state and made about $40,000 a year. The McCain campaign and rightwing Republicans touted Joe as an example of the average Joe and Jane being crushed by Obama’s tax proposals, but in fact this particular Joe would have been helped by Obama’s plans.

Just as federal subsidies help two of the three individuals in whose name the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed King v. Burwell, which seeks to overturn federal subsidies to individuals who buy insurance on the federal healthcare exchange because there is no state exchange in their states; the third plaintiff, by the way, qualifies for Medicare. In other words, CEI filed a lawsuit in the name of three victims who were not victimized in the slightest.

A variation of the phony victim of what the rightwing considers to be pernicious Socialist-like programs of the left-leaning center is the phony perpetrator from whom the right insists on protecting all of us. That’s certainly the case with the dozens of voting restrictions passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures over the past eight years. All have as their stated purpose protecting American society from fraudulent voting, a problem that statistically speaking does not exist. By statistically speaking, I mean that there are less than a handful of cases of suspected fraud by individual voters at the polls among the hundreds of millions of people to vote over the past 30 or so years.

Just as the Bush II administration manufactured reasons to go to war in Iraq when there were none, so does the rightwing routinely manufacture victims, villains and heroes when none exist, all in the name of justifying duplicitous positions: laws that say they protect religious rights but really discriminate against gays or take rights from women; laws that say they protect us from voter fraud but really serve to make it harder for millions to vote; and policies they say will lead to growth and prosperity but only for those already rich and connected. 

Friday, April 3, 2015

What do Pet Rocks and handbags made from frog and anaconda skin have in common?

By Marc Jampole

Would you pay $17.23 for a smooth gray-colored stone that could fit in your hand, something you could find at almost any municipal park for free? That’s the equivalent value in today’s money of what people paid for Pet Rocks in 1975. Of course, it came with a 32 page manual full of puns and jokes about the rock.

Around the Christmas season in 1975, the Pet Rock first became a media sensation, covered in newspapers and TV news shows all over the country, and then a marketing fad as 1.5 million people plunked down $3.95 (plus tax, I assume) to buy one—for what purpose remains a mystery. Gag gifts? Funny party favors? Conversation starters? Because neighbors bought one for their grandchild? Unlike their later incarnation in virtual pets, which needed to be “fed” and “cleaned” on a regular basis, the Pet Rock did nothing and demanded no interaction. It just sat there, looking smooth.

Pet Rocks are in the news again—briefly—because their creator, a formerly ne’er-do-well advertising writer named Gary Dahl, has died.  

The Pet Rock came out during a time of abundance when we had an historically large middle class and the smallest gap between the wealthy and the poor in terms of wealth and income in American history.  In 1975, someone making the federal minimum wage of $2.10 would have to work 1.88 hours to buy one, net of all taxes. The Pet Rock still sells today, but inflation has driven the cost for one up to $19.95, which means that net of taxes, it takes someone earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 about 2.75 hours to pay for one. Interestingly enough, someone earning the median household income in both 1975 and today would both work about 47.5 minutes to pay for a Pet Rock, again net of taxes. (The median is the point at which half the population is higher and half lower.)

If someone ran me through a word association test and mentioned the Pet Rock, the words that might come to mind are useless, frivolous, wasteful, stupid. It represents the frothy extreme of American consumerism—something you can find anywhere for free and yet you buy it. The Pet Rock takes to an absurd extreme the branding strategy by which you slap a catchy or famous name onto a cheap product and jack up the price. The messages behind the name supposedly imbue the product with greater worth—at least to unsavvy consumers, a category that seems to include many of us. In the case of the Pet Rock, the entire value is in the brand name, except for those who use their Pet Rocks for door stops or to keep their papers from flying around when the window is opened.

Coincidentally, the same day the news media reported the death of Mr. Pet Rock, it also told us that Carlos Falchi, a designer of exotic handbags, also met his demise. Falchi first made his name in the 1970’s and 1980’s selling exotic handbags patched together from the bits of skins of wild animals—the list of his raw material in the NewYork Times obituary includes pieces of alligators, anacondas, anteaters, buffalo, caiman, crocodiles and frogs, among others. Falchi handbags sell for thousands of dollars at upscale department stores, but you can get cheaper versions from $20 to $300 on the Home Shopping Network or at Target.

The question of how a $30 bag differs from the $5,000 bag involves a lot of variables, including materials. One Amazon seller is currently offering a bag for $16.95 made of nylon and faux snakeskin; another has one of the same material for $89.99. Meanwhile, Nieman Marcus is selling a bag made of python and leather for $1,155.  Most women and many men think they need handbags, and Falchi has a version for everyone, no matter how much money they earn. In fact, once you buy into the ideology of branding, buying a Falchi for around $20 is an enormous value, because you’re toting what the rich folk tote.

The brand-name fashion item thus becomes a social leveler of a peculiar sorts—it doesn’t level economic or social differences, just brand buying patterns. Mick Jagger, Miles Davis and Andy Warhol carried Falchi bags and so can the working Jane or Joe watching the Shopping Network. Celebrity worship, which usually involves a preoccupation with what a celebrity buys and uses,  serves as a means to lessen the perceived difference between rich and poor, thus helping to preserve social order.

But whatever price one pays for a Falchi, it costs more than it would without the fame of the Falchi name, without the back story of his creating custom hand-sewn bags for cool people. I don’t know it for a fact, but I’m extremely confident that the brand value of the Falchi name and myth adds much more to the cost of the expensive bags than the entire price of the Pet Rock.  I’m also confident that the cost to make the cheap bags is about the same as the cost to find and package the Pet Rock, and that both represent a small fraction of the sales price.

Thus Gary Dahl and the Carlos Falchi ( at least the one who expanded beyond making bags by himself for a handful of customers) were running the same exact scam, but on different audiences. Dahl went for the mass market and Falchi went for the wealthy, but both used the name to jack up the price beyond the value of the materials and labor needed to assemble the product. One could argue that the added value consisted of creativity, in the case of Dahl, his humor, and in the case of Falchi, his designs and selection of materials. But by the time the products rolled out in department stores, all this value had been reduced to the exhortation of a name: buy the smooth gray stone rock because of the name; buy the bag because of the name.