Saturday, December 14, 2019

Trump Isn’t a Populist

The editor of The Progressive Populist gets provoked every time he hears Donald Trump described as a populist. Trump is a con man who inherited a real estate empire from his father and he has kept it going through a series of bankruptcies that showed, among other things, he couldn’t make a profit running casinos. He also wouldn’t pay his contractors without forcing them to go to court. Trump appears to have remained afloat with the backing of Eastern European oligarchs, which is probably why he is so desperate to avoid the release of his income tax returns. His former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, before heading to federal prison for offenses that include conspiring with Trump to violate federal election laws and lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, testified to Congress that Trump altered his tax and loan records to suit his business needs.

Corporate media calls Trump a populist because corporate executives won’t let reporters call him what he is — a fascist who has embraced hyper-nationalism, admires authoritarian leaders, cuts regulations for corporations and puts former executives and lobbyists in charge of the agencies that are supposed to regulate corporations, and he suggests violence may be used in politics if he doesn’t get his way. He also has had mob ties throughout his career as a real estate developer.

There are clear differences between populism and fascism. Populism is a movement that rose in the late 1800s as a reaction to the rapid industrialization of the US during the Gilded Age. It called for the government to protect working people, farmers and small businesses against monied interests, particularly railroads and what were then called “trusts,” which we now know as corporations. The little guys needed protection against the plutocrats and oligarchs who own and control the corporations (and the government).

The Populists started in the 1880s, and appealed to farmers and merchants in the South, Midwest and Western states to unite in an attempt to regulate the railroads and trusts.

The People’s Party put up candidates for state and national offices in more than 20 states in the 1890s but after the election of 1896 moved into the Democratic and Republican parties and had an influence on their progressive wings of those national parties. The Populists had called for collective bargaining, federal regulation of railroads, an expansionary monetary policy and a Sub-Treasury Plan, which called for federally controlled warehouses to aid farmers, as well as a graduated income tax, direct election of senators, a shorter workweek and establishment of a postal savings system.

You can see those elements in the accomplishments of the Progressive Era of the early 1900s and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs in the 1930s, through the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. The Populists also supported public schools and universities and sought diffusion of scientific and technological knowledge so farmers could make use of it. The Populists also tried to form coalitions between white and black farmers in the South, which resulted in a backlash by white supremacists that brought about the Jim Crow laws in the 1890s.

Trump has demonstrated the Grand Oligarch Party’s tilt toward fascism, but the GOP has been moving in that direction since American plutocrats, who had been looking for an opportunity to overturn the New Deal since the end of World War II, put up Ronald Reagan to run for president in 1980.

The Republican Party under Reagan expressed contempt for “liberal” media and, once elected, his National Labor Relations Board undermined organized labor and his Federal Communications Commission in 1987 did away with the Fairness Doctrine, which had been established in 1949 to require broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. The doctrine was designed to encourage diversity of opinions and prevent the control of broadcasters that allowed fascist governments to consolidate their hold on power in Europe in the 1930s.

Since radio and TV stations no longer are required to provide balanced coverage, talk radio has come to be dominated by right-wing voices, particularly in rural areas, where one can drive most of the day without hearing a good word about liberals or Democrats on the car radio. That may be one reason rural areas increasingly vote Republican. Air America Radio was established in 2004 to provide a liberal alternative to right wingers such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. At its height, Air America’s most popular show, The Al Franken show, was carried by 92 affiliates and had 1.4 million weekly listeners before he was elected to the Senate in 2008. The Rush Limbaugh Show was carried by more than 600 affiliates and had between 14 million and 20 million weekly listeners.

With the decline of local newspapers, that leaves struggling periodicals like us and the Internet as refuges for progressive views.

As House Democrats move toward impeachment of Trump, Republican members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees have offered little substantial defenses, mainly complaining about the process, making procedural objections and dilatory motions and demanding record votes on routine actions to obstruct the flow of the hearings.

Republicans won’t support the impeachment in the House and few, if any, Republicans will vote for Trump’s removal in the Senate trial. But Democrats must do their duty, and they should go ahead and throw in the obstruction of justice charges Robert Mueller’s report proposed. Trump is corrupt to the core and Republicans carry guilt by their continued association.

Ultimately, voters will decide if Trump is fit to be president, and if his Republican enablers are fit to remain in Congress. Trump remains unpopular, which is why Republicans want to limit who makes it to the polls. Make sure you and your friends are registered.

When it comes to actual populists running for president, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren effectively carry progressive populist positions and progressive Democrats should support one or the other of them in the upcoming Democratic primaries, particularly with the Iowa caucuses coming up Feb. 3. We’ve heard many Democrats express misgivings about voting for Sanders or Warren, fearing if they don’t nominate a centrist it might give Trump an advantage next November. Don’t believe it. Voters want government to help them, and Medicare for All, which both Sanders and Warren are proposing, would be a great deal for most businesses as well as workers and their families who will pay less than they now pay for insurance that require deductibles and co-pays. Both Sanders and Warren propose to expand Medicare so it pays nearly all health costs for every American without deductibles, with wealthy tax dodgers would pay the balance.

Medicare for All was overwhelmingly popular among Democrats and independent voters, and even among Republicans, before the health industrial complex started spending millions of dollars to spread disinformation about what Medicare for All would do. Polls have shown a drop in support for Medicare for All, but progressives need to get the truth out — the current US system costs twice as much per capita as Canadian health care, and that’s with the US sytem leaving 87 million Americans uninsured or underinsured. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, January 1-15, 2020

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive Populist

Selections from the January 1-15, 2020 issue

COVER/Hal Crowther
Christmas at the madhouse: The straitjacket blues


EDITORIAL
Trump isn’t a populist


FRANK LINGO
Progressive propaganda: Private parts


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
A tale of two narratives


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Threats to farms and food — roundup the usual suspects


DISPATCHES
Deal reached on bill to replace NAFTA;
One-third of Americans delayed medical care over cost last year;
House sends bill to restore Voting Rights Act to roadblocked Senate;
N.R. Rep. George Holding to retire after district redrawn;
Dems say Trump ‘illegally withholding’ funding for Puerto Rico hurricane aid;
Trump brings war crimes pardonees to Fla. fundraiser;
Refugee advocates remember anniversary of child's death in US custody;
Moscow Mitch's boycott of legislating is angering one of his own: Chuck Grassley;
Lawsuit alleging private prison company used ICE detainees as 'captive labor force' goes forward;
Trump touts 'special relationship' with North Korea, which calls him 'heedless and erratic old man' ...


ART CULLEN
Biden appeals to rural voters over climate change


TRACEY L. ROGERS
Can plantations be redeemed?


JILL RICHARDSON
Is marijuana a gateway drug?


JOHN YOUNG
Gleam in Rick Perry’s eyes: King Trump


MAX B. SAWICKY
Everything you need to know about the next recession


TOM CONWAY
Corporations sell out workers’ safety for profit — with Trump as their ally


THOM HARTMANN
Why have no republicans turned on Trump?


JOEL D. JOSEPH 
Ford Motor Company has lost its way

BOB BURNETT
The new normal


JOHN L. MICEK
Trump continues to manufacture lies


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
A shopper’s guide to costs, the health version


SAM URETSKY
When do pols pass their peak?


ALEX LAWSON
Why Bernie Sanders is backing Cory Booker’s plan to tackle Big Pharma’s soaring prices


WAYNE O’LEARY
Annals of inequality: The market factor


JOHN BUELL
The politics of the non-political fed


JASON SIBERT
Get a grip on nukes


N. GUNASEKARAN
‘Asia’s oldest democracy,’ Sri Lanka, faces dilemma


HEATHER SEGGEL
The trash is piling up


ROB PATTERSON
‘Mrs. Maisel’ is indeed marvelous


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
What goes around


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Dead woman walking: A capital film on capital punishment


SETH SANDRONSKY
A king’s ransom


JAMES G. KAHN
It’s time to end Medicare-for-All denial

Friday, November 29, 2019

Editorial: Rule of Law Overrules Lies

You’ve heard the saying, “Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies.” Clearly that doesn’t work with Donald Trump or Republican members of Congress, who volunteer lies in defense of the president’s power grabs.

Two weeks of hearings by the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee produced a lot of bluster by Republican Congress members as well as Trump’s tweets and statements trying to distract from the truth laid out by witnesses from the State Department and the National Security Council. They confirmed that Trump not only pressed Ukraine’s president to order an investigation of Joe Biden but also pursued a debunked claim that it was the Ukraine, not Russia, that conspired with Democrats to throw the 2016 election..

Trump and his allies falsely claim that Biden, as vice president, stopped a potential prosecution of his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, by threatening to withhold a US government loan to Ukraine. Trump wanted to smear Joe Biden as corrupt. But Biden pushed for the ouster of an ineffective prosecutor, which was a policy of the US government and was coordinated with US allies, such as the European Union and International Monetary Fund. And the Ukrainian gas company was not under investigation at the time of Biden’s actions.

After Trump in mid-July ordered a pause in the distribution of $391 million in security assistance that Congress had appropriated, US officials in Kiev and D.C. scrambled to understand why the decision was made and sought to get it reversed before the authorization expired on Sept. 30.

Trump, in a July 25 phone call, stepped over the line when he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “do us a favor” and investigate Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 election. Trump and his defenders have asserted this kind of “quid pro quo” is the normal give and take that takes place between governments.

Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, not only got Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to remove US Ambassador Marie Yovanovich because she wasn’t seen as a team player; Giuliani kept a back channel with Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, who pressed the Ukrainian president to issue a statement that he was opening investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. The US aid and/or a White House meeting with Trump was the bait.

President Zelensky had finally caved to the pressure and scheduled an interview with CNN on Sept. 13, at which he was expected to make the announcement of the investigation. But a few days before the interview, the funds were released after pressure from Congress, and the interview was canceled.

Trump insists that the CrowdStrike, a company that investigated hacking of the Democratic National Committeer (DNC), took the server to Ukraine, where he said CrowdStrike’s primary owner is located. The theory is that Ukrainians hacked into the DNC network in 2016 and framed Russia for it.

In fact, CrowdStrike is based in California and is a publicly traded American company co-founded by US-born George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch, who was born in Russia, is a US citizen with no connection to Ukraine, the company says. The DNC server data was copied and submitted to the FBI, the Washington Post reported.

The FBI and DNC disagree on whether the FBI requested access to the DNC’s servers. Former FBI director James B. Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the bureau made “multiple requests at different levels” to access the servers, but the DNC said the FBI never requested access. The DNC had CrowdStrike analyze its network and share findings with the FBI, which Comey called an acceptable substitute.

Cybersecurity expert Thomas Rid told the Post that “handing over the server” as Trump described could have destroyed evidence.

Thomas P. Bossert, Trump’s first homeland security adviser, said Sept. 29 that the president has been told the story is “completely debunked.” “The DNC server and that conspiracy theory has got to go,” Bossert said on ABC’s “This Week.” “If he continues to focus on that white whale, it’s going to bring him down.”

But Trump won’t let it go. It is one of those lies that demonstrate his reckless disregard for the truth, which has led him to make more than 13,435 false or misleading statements, many of them repeated on multiple occasions, as of Oct. 9, according to the Post’s Fact Checkers.. That’s an average of almost 22 false claims daily this past fall.

Some Republicans are resorting to the fallback position that what Trump did may be wrong, but it does not call for his impeachment and removal from office. However, extortion is a form of bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable crime.

And there are plenty of other impeachable acts the House can list in the Articles of Impeachment. Among them are various efforts to obstruct justice, detailed in Robert Mueller’s report, as well as his obstruction of the oversight role of Congress.

Lawyers for the House of Representatives accused Trump of trying to “obstruct his own impeachment” by claiming the authority to block his advisers from cooperating with congressional investigations. The House Judiciary Committee is trying to secure testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, as he testified in special counsel Mueller’s investigation, which laid out 10 instances of apparent obstruction of justice.

The House’s lawyers cited the current top White House counsel’s declaration that the Trump administration would refuse all cooperation with the House’s impeachment inquiry, calling it “illegitimate” and “invalid.” Trump directed McGahn not to comply, claiming his former senior advisers have “absolute immunity” from testifying before Congress.

On Nov. 25, a US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed and ordered McGahn to comply with the subpoena, ruling that “no one is above the law,” but the decision was expected to be appealed by the Department of Justice.

Trump also has refused to allow his income tax returns to be released to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as the law requires. (He also had promised before his election he would make the tax returns public.)

After the first week of hearings, an ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted Nov. 16-17 found 70% of Americans think Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival was wrong, but only a slim majority, 51%, believe he should be impeached and removed from office. Most other polls appear to show Americans split over impeachment. On Nov. 26, after the second week of hearings, the average of polls reviewed by FiveThirtyEight showed 48.6% support impeachment and 44.1% don’t support it.

Impeachment probably will not result in the removal of Trump from office, unless voters put pressure on Republican senators who are the bulwark against the Democratic prosecution. Democrats need at least 20 Republican senators to vote to remove Trump.

If Republican senators choose to defend their president’s power grab against republican principals, Democrats should not only run on “normal” policy initiatives to improve health care, economic opportunities for the working class and building green infrastructure to address climate change, but Dems should also focus on taking back the Senate and the White House, and restoring the rule of law. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, December 15, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive Populist


Selections from the December 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Jeff Bryant
Striking teachers are fighting for much more than paychecks


EDITORIAL
Rule of law overrules lies


FRANK LINGO
Progressive propaganda, please


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
Vaping: When kids become lab experiments


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen 
Try new things in the new year


DISPATCHES
Middle-class Americans getting crushed by health insurance costs;
Southern governors say Dems can win if they stick to kitchen-table issues;
Kentucky GOP moves to strip new Dem governor’s authority;
Polls show close races in key states;
Trump starts sending refugees to Guatemala;
Company behind Keystone pipeline lowballs leak;
‘Pro-life’ group embraces death penalty;
AOC calls on solar company to rehire workers fired after unionizing;
Arizona jury acquits migrant rescuer;
Latino voters hope to flex numbers in California primary;
Justice Department empowers monopolists in media & entertainment ... 


ART CULLEN
Yovanovitch reminds us of decency


JILL RICHARDSON
Explaining Trump’s racism


JOHN YOUNG
If another president did (even one of) these things


LINDSAY KOSHGARIAN 
It’s our choice: Medicare for All, or endless war?


ANDREA FLYNN
What breast cancer taught me about health care


TOM CONWAY
Corporate spies keep an eye on organized labor


BOB BURNETT
Ranking the Democratic candidates


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Not all politics is national


NEGIN OWLIAEI
Time for a billionaire ban


JIM VAN DER POL
Two farm crises


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas 
Cassandra on the status quo


SAM URETSKY
Antibiotic resistance: The superbugs are fighting back


PAUL ARMENTANO
Americans love CBD, but it’s a wild west


WAYNE O’LEARY
The Bernie blackout


JOHN BUELL
How’s that individual responsibility working for you?


HEATHER SEGGEL
PSPS, I don’t love you


KENT PATERSON
Two clashing visions for El Paso’s future


DAVID SCHMIDT
The Left got “Joker” dead wrong: A progressive defense of the film


ROB PATTERSON
Escaping into the Hollywood view of Washington


BOOK REVIEW/Seth Sandronsky
Abolish this


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
Pacino, Paquin and the Gangs of New York are all here: Mean seats


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
Ahead of his time


and more ...

Friday, November 15, 2019

Editorial: The Right Enemies

Say this about Elizabeth Warren: She scares the right people.

Billionaires are up in arms about her plans to tax their wealth, which is one of the elements of her plan to pay for Medicare for All. One of the aggrieved billionaires, hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman, wept on CNBC’s “Halftime Report” Nov. 4 at the thought that Warren might become president and make him pay higher taxes. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, chided Warren for using “some pretty harsh words, you know, some would say vilifies successful people.” Then billionaire Michael Bloomberg announced he was weighing the possibility of jumping into the Democratic primary field, apparently because he was not impressed with the selection.

There is no apparent groundswell of support for Bloomberg, who served two terms as a mayor of New York City from 2001 to 2009 as a Republican before switching to independent to run for a third term in 2009. But he decided he’s the only one who can beat Trump on the Democratic ticket.

Health industry executives are really scared at the threat Warren and Bernie Sanders represent to their billions of dollars in profits, so they’re lining up funds to brainwash the electorate into believing that it is impractical to expand Medicare to cover everybody.

As former insurance executive Wendell Potter notes in our cover story, big insurance, drug and hospital companies have hired a PR firm to create and run a front group called the “Partnership for America’s Health Care Future,” which, with allies such as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, will work to convince voters that expanding Medicare to cover everybody can’t be done without a significant tax hike on middle-income earners. And the propaganda seems to work.

In January 2019, a national poll released by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that two-thirds of Americans support a national health insurance program that would eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket expenses and they supported “Medicare for All” 56% to 42%.

But when they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26% and 37%, respectively. Support fell to 32% if it would threaten the current Medicare program.

That represents the power of lying — and misrepresenting what Medicare for All would do is the last refuge of the health industry scoundrels. In fact, the proposals by Sens. Sanders and Warren would improve the current Medicare program for seniors, as well as younger Americans, by making it comprehensive, covering everybody and doing away with co-pays and deductibles — and they could accomplish it by simply re-routing through Medicare money that now is spent on insurance premiums.

Warren produced a plan on Nov. 1 that would pay for Medicare for All with higher taxes on businesses, financial firms, wealthy Americans and corporations that would essentially replace the premiums American businesses and individuals now spend on private insurance. Bernie Sanders would pay for the Medicare expansion with a 7.5% payroll tax on businesses and 4% tax on workers’ income.

Warren noted that families are getting crushed by health costs. For years she studied bankruptcies and found that the number one reason families were going broke was because of medical bills they could not pay — and three quarters of those who declared bankruptcy after an illness were people who already had health insurance. No other industrialized nation has this problem.

An average family of four with employer coverage spends $12,378 per year on health care, Warren noted. This includes employee premium contributions and out of pocket costs in 2018. And the figure has increased every year. The family would pay $844 under Sanders’ plan and nothing under Warren’s plan.

Employers who now provide coverage for their workers would also see savings. They now pay, on average, $5,500 toward each employee’s annual premium and $750 in Medicare payroll tax for an employee earning $50,000 annually. Under Sanders’ plan the employer’s cost would decline to $3,750 for an employee who earned $50,000. And skinflint employers who don’t provide insurance for their workers would finally have to ante up. Warren expects businesses to pay slightly less than what they currently pay for health care, but she would exempt firms with less than 50 employees. Sanders would exempt the first $2 million of payroll.

Of course, ultimately the tax structure to support Medicare for All would be up to Congress, starting with the House Ways and Means Committee.

Critics use 10-year totals to scare voters, claiming that expanding Medicare to cover everybody could cost $35 trillion over the next decade, but we’re already at that spending level, as the US spent $3.65 trillion, or $11,121 per person, in 2018, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Warren’s plan counts on cost savings, which gets a skeptical reaction from critics, but there appears to be plenty of room for savings as the US already spends twice as much, per person, as Canada and most other countries that have national health care — and that’s while leaving 87 million Americans uninsured or underinsured. (The next-biggest spender is Germany, whose $5,986 average expenditure is 53.8% of the US average, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.)

Nearly 60% of our health care costs already are paid from public money that finance Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, coverage for public employees, elected officials, military personnel and so forth.

One-third of the nation’s health care spending go to private health insurance premiums paid by businesses and individuals. Another 10% of health care spending came directly from the pockets of Americans on copays and deductibles.

And administrative costs, much of which are spent on billing and paperwork, take up approximately a quarter of health-care revenues in the US, Drs. Stephanie Woolandler and David Himmelstein reported in 2017. They estimate that single-payer reform could save approximately $503 billion annually in administrative costs.

Spending on hospitals, doctors and other clinic services was $2.16 trillion, holding steady at 59% of total health care spending.

National health care is by no means a radical program. It has been a Democratic priority since President Franklin D. Roosevelt included “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” in the Second Bill of Rights he proposed in his State of the Union address on Jan. 11, 1944. Harry Truman called for universal health care as part of his Fair Deal proposal in 1949, but conservatives blocked it in Congress. When Lyndon Johnson finally got Congress to approve Medicare in 1965 as part of his Great Society program, the plan was to start offering health coverage to seniors aged 65 and older. Then, in succeeding years, the eligibility age was supposed to move down to eventually cover everybody.

With Donald Trump at historic levels of unpopularity, and several vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in the Senate, Democrats have an historic opportunity to move ahead on finally closing the gap on Medicare. If it takes vilifying a few billionaires who don’t want to do their part, so be it. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, December 1, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive Populist


Selections from the December 1, 2019 issue

COVER/Wendell Potter
How health insurance industry allies will lie about Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All Plan


EDITORIAL
The right enemies


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
Secular urge, religious language


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Thanks for caring


DISPATCHES
Trump must pay $2 million to charities over misuse of his foundation;
Civiqs poll of battleground states shows tight prez race, no matter who Dems nominate;
Many undecided voters in ‘Blue Wall’ states;
Estimated 15,600 deaths result from GOP blocking Medicaid expansion;
Trump ends Filipino WW2 vets program
Ukraine expert says Mulvaney held up missile sles to Ukraine to avoid upsetting Russia;
At Rick Perry's suggestion, 2 political backers get Ukraine gas deal;
Senate Republicans ready to rubber stamp worst Trump judge appointee yet;
Trump hotels rake in millions from Republicans eager to suck up;
New Chinese trade deal might make chicken a booby trap ...


ART CULLEN
Impeachment is not the issue in Iowa


BEN LILLISTON
NAFTA’s empty promises


JILL RICHARDSON
We need publicly owned utilities


JOHN YOUNG
Un-American to boo Trump? Well, lock us up


JOHN L. MICEK
Trump and Republicans are weak, even on friendly turf


ROBERT P. ALVAREZ
Republicans, not Russians, threaten our elections


SAM PIZZIGATI
How much ‘inequality tax’ are you paying?


KEITH COMBS
One way to honor vets? Protect the Postal Service


THOM HARTMANN
A Democracy-killing duo: How the Supreme Court and the morbidity rich are ruining Democracy in America


TOM CONWAY
NAFTA is an accomplice to murder


JOEL D. JOSEPH
Japan-US trade agreement is weak and unconstitutional


SETH SANDRONSKY
California burning


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
A note on the limits of Uncle Sam


SAM URETSKY
Can dogs help sell a presidential candidate?


GENE NICHOL
Obama and Cummings


WAYNE O’LEARY
Annals of inequality: the Trump interlude


JOHN BUELL
Chile and 9/11 (1973)


FRANK LINGO
EPA ignores toxic PCBs in schools


JASON SIBERT
International cooperation takes a break during the Trump era


ERIC BOEHLERT
Trump’s reelection campaign spreads lies online — and the press touts it as savvy


ROB PATTERSON
Listening to music while driving


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
The lies in true crime


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
All-aboard the freedom train: ‘Harriet’ is real life African American action hero


RON NICHOLS
‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ and the GOP’s crisis of sonscience


and more ...

Saturday, October 26, 2019

Editorial: Ways to Pay for Med4A

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has gained a narrow lead in the Democratic presidential field, pundits and many of her Democratic rivals have demanded that she specify where she would get the money to pay for expanding Medicare to cover everybody. She has wisely avoided the trap.

Reporters want a sound bite that Medicare for All will increase taxes on the middle class. Sen. Warren explained at the Oct. 15 debate in Ohio that no middle-class family would see an increase in overall health care costs. “Costs will go up for the wealthy,” Warren said. “They will go up for big corporations. And for middle-class families, they will go down. I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families.”

There are many ways to come up with the estimated $3.5 trillion to pay for expansion of Medicare to cover practically all medical expenses for everybody. The health insurance industry, which stands to be the big loser, wants desperately to muddy the debate.

The Affordable Care Act was a good first step in providing access to health coverage for millions of people who don’t get health insurance with their job, and the ACA provides minimum standards for that coverage. But coverage that cost hundreds of dollars per month for adults, and more than $1,000 for a family, with copays and annual deductibles of $6,000 or more made it less affordable. Republicans’ answer was to allow insurance companies to offer “skinny” insurance plans that offer lower monthly premums, but also provide skimpier coverage.

Some moderates have proposed simply expanding Medicare to people in their 50s, so more people qualify for Medicare, and eventualy covering everybody. But that won’t do away with copayments, deductibles and the need for supplemental “Medigap” insurance.

In 2018, the last year with complete data, nearly 60 million Americans received Medicare benefits. Most were elderly residents, as well as nine million disabled people. Total spending was over $700 billion, or an average of $11,800 per recipient, Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at University of Massachusetts Amherst noted. Of course, that group includes the oldest and most medically needy people.

Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP) notes that 60% of our health care system already is financed by public money, including federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies that pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, coverage for public employees, elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance.

Public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. PNHP figures the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness.

Under the current system, the typical non-elderly family in the US spends $8,200 per year, or 11% of their income, on health care – not including employer contributions – but this can vary substantially by income, type of insurance, and health status, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports.

For example, a family of four with employer coverage with $50,000 income spends, on average, $7,450, or roughly 15% of income, on health care. This includes $2,100 in out-of-pocket costs, a $3,950 premium contribution, and $1,40 in state and federal taxes to fund health programs. Under the PNHP plan, the family would pay $1,000 more in tax instead of $3,950 in premiums.

Employers who now provide coverage would also see savings. They pay, on average, $5,500 toward each employee’s annual premium and $750 in Medicare payroll tax. That would decline to $3,500 for an employee who earned $50,000. And skinflint employers who don’t provide insurance for their workers would finally have to ante up.

A single person earning $50,000 who now obtains insurance on the individual market instead of through his or her employer now can expect to spend 20% of income — $10,000 — on health care. Medicare for All could cut that to $1,000.

Many pundits assume that organized labor won’t support Medicare for All, because they already have insurance as a result of collective bargaining, but many union leaders say they would be glad to have Medicare for All take health insurance out of contract negotiations, so they could spent their time pushing for better wages and other priorities. Protection of health-care benefits was a major issue in contract negotiations between US Steel and the United Steelworkers last year, as well as the recent UAW strike of GM

The AFL-CIO endorsed Medicare for All in 2009, but support varies from one union to another.

“While we would like to see universal health care, we want to make sure that there is a role for employer-bargained plans in that plan,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters in July after the second Democratic debate. Though the union voted in 2017 on a resolution to “move expeditiously toward a single-payer system, like Medicare for All,” Trumka has endorsed a much narrower coverage expansion plan: lowering Medicare’s eligibility age to 55.

Other union leaders would rather take care of health coverage once and for all.

“Wouldn’t it be great if we had a single, universal access point for health care and we could instead spend our time bargaining for lower class sizes and wrap around services and increases to people’s pay?” said Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers, which endorsed Medicare for All earlier this year. “Wouldn’t it be great it if it wasn’t always dominated by health care fights?”

Jonathan Cohn, who covers health care for HuffPost, noted Oct 17 that progressives in New York have been promoting a state-level New York Health Act that is structurally similar to Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal. The New York plan would be financed with taxes on payrolls and non-wage income (interest, dividends, etc.).

The Rand Corporation noted that the New York bill, which hs not advanced in the legislature, would cover all residents of New York state with comprehensive health benefits (except long-term care benefits, which could be added later). Patients would have no deductibles, copayments, or other out-of-pocket payments at the point of service for covered benefits.

Rand researchers determined the NYHA as designed would reduce overall spending on medical care in New York. And as long as taxes to pay for the program were sufficiently progressive, the benefits would flow primarily away from the rich and toward lower- and middle-income groups.

Specifically, the richest 10% of New Yorkers would be paying more for health care on average, while the other 90% would pay the same or less, Cohn noted.

“That sounds a lot like the kind of plan that Sanders and Warren promise — which is to say, it sounds a lot like a plan that would work out well for most Americans.”

Make that deal for Americans, Democrats. — JMC


From The Progressive Populist, November 15, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive Populist

Selections from the November 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Austyn Gaffney
A Wisconsin town desperately fights for its drinking water


EDITORIAL
Ways to pay for Med4A


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
Public radio on the country music highway


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Climate change puts the lights out


DISPATCHES
Online lies aren’t helping Trump much;
Americans shift to supporting Trump impeachment;
Confusion continues in White House as Trump changes course on leaving troops in Syria;
Trump passes 13,435 lies in October;
Hillary’s emails were always a nothingburger, the State Department finally caught up;
What happens when Trump is gone?
Thanks to Republican policies, STDs at record highs;
Dem congessional candidates raise big sums, buoyed by small donors;
Bankrupt PG&E rejects San Francisco bid to buy back power grid;
Supreme Court will review Consumer Finance Protection Bureau;
Billions spent on stock buybacks should have been spent raising wages, creating jobs, Patriotic Millionaires say;
Texas has worst health in nation ... 


ART CULLEN
Don’t just sit and take it


JIM VAN DER POL
Dems need more voices of working people


JILL RICHARDSON
What life on the margins feels like


JOHN YOUNG
Team Trump and ‘consciousness of guilt’


DIANE ARCHER
Watch out, seniors: Trump just launched a stealth attack on Medicare


TOM CONWAY
The dark side of billionaire philanthropy — and the threat to American democracy


GRASS ROOTS/Hank Kalet
A different world for the poor


MICHAEL WINSHIP
Our mad dog president — and his Bible-thumping pals


GENE NICHOL
Defeating a tyrant


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Making America cruel again, next chapter


SAM URETSKY
Pols depend on air superiority


WAYNE O’LEARY
Idea man


JOHN BUELL
Who are the real centrists


JOEL D. JOSEPH
US should support independent Kurdish nation


SETH SANDRONSKY
California’s Fair Pay to Play Act


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Poverty and perspective


ROB PATTERSON
A fresh voice, 14 albums later: Chuck Prophet


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Seoul on ice: ‘Parasite’


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
Witches want their hunt back


FRANK LINGO
Republicans mistreat Native Americans


and more ...

Saturday, October 12, 2019

Editorial: Impeach Trump and Senate

Democrats should proceed with impeachment inquiries in House committees, whether or not the Trump administration continues to block the House’s access to White House documents and officials.

It appears the simplest route to impeachment relates to Trump’s effort to extort the president of Ukraine, to get him to gin up an investigation of Hunter Biden that might smear his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, who Trump apparently fears as a potential Democratic nominee. Ukraine needed the $400 million Congress appropriated to help the embattled nation fend off Russian-backed separatists. Trump was holding onto the military aid package until he could talk things over with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. A heavily edited memo of the call, released Sept. 25, shows that, after some small talk about Trump’s support of Ukraine, when Zelensky said he hoped to buy American Javelin anti-tank missiles so it could better repel armored assaults by Russian-supported fighters, Trump replied, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.”

Trump pressed Zelensky to use the help of Attorney General William Barr in opening an investigation of a company involved in the beginnings of the FBI inquiry of Russia’s 2016 election interference. He also wanted a corruption investigation connected to the Bidens.

Trump and his Republican supporters insist that no “quid pro quo” was discussed in the call. Of course, Trump didn’t need to spell out what might happen if Zelensky didn’t play ball. A few days later the House Intelligence Committee released a series of text messages that show State Department officials made it quite clear to their counterparts in Ukraine that staying in Trump’s good graces — and getting the military aid — was contingent on Ukraine providing Trump the concocted evidence he could use to bolster his crackpot conspiracy theories about the Democrats.

Hunter Biden is a lawyer who joined the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, in 2014, when the company was trying to clean up its image after its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, was forced to flee to Russia with former Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted after massive, sustained protests that focused on corruption in his administration.

Joe Biden, who was then vice president, apparently had nothing to do his son getting on the board, with a $50,000-a-month salary, even if having the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine for a dad didn’t hurt Hunter’s employment prospects. But there is no evidence Joe Biden did any favors for Burisma, and the reason he (and other European nations and international bodies) pushed for the ouster of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2016 was because he was widely viewed as corrupt. Shokin’s successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, has said Hunter Biden didn’t violate any Ukrainian laws.

Hunter Biden left the board of Burisma earlier this year as his father was launching his presidential campaign.

Trump also has made unfounded allegations about the Bidens in China. On several occasions, Trump has intimated that the Bidens have received millions of dollars from China, implying they capitalized on the then vice president’s political power and connections.

Trump said Oct. 3, “China should start an investigation into the Bidens,” alleging that they received a “payoff” worth billions. Trump said that while he hasn’t yet asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to look into the Bidens, he will start “thinking about it.”

But CNN reported Oct. 3 that in a June call with Xi, Trump raised Biden’s political prospects as well as those of Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He also told Xi he would remain quiet on Hong Kong protests as trade talks progressed.

According to the New York Times, Hunter Biden has a 10% interest in BHR Partners, a private-equity fund that the Chinese government-owned Bank of China has invested in. As of May 2019, both the New York Times and the Washington Post reported that Hunter had not received any money from the fund or in connection with his role as an unpaid advisory board member.

In July 2019, more than two years after his father left office, Hunter purchased an equity stake in the BHR fund, valued around $430,000, according to the Washington Post.

Yes, the optics of Joe Biden’s son taking advantage of foreign business opportunities while his dad was vice president don’t look good, but bad optics are bipartisan. What do you think Donnie Jr. and Eric have been doing since their dad got into the White House? And at least they don’t have government jobs, like Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, who were supposed to stop doing business while they serve as special assistants to the president, but they took in as much as $135 million in revenue from real estate holdings, stocks and bonds and a book deal last year, according to their financial disclosures reported in June.

Still, it’s hard to believe Kushner’s position as Trump’s senior adviser did not play a role in Brookfield Asset Management taking a 99-year lease on 666 Fifth Avenue, the troubled Manhattan tower owned by the family of Trump’s son-in-law. Jared Kushner paid a record-setting $1.8 billion for the building in 2007, and it has been a drag on his family’s real estate company ever since.

The deal, in which Canada-based Brookfield paid $1.1 billion rent for the entire 99-year term upfront, helped the family resolve its biggest financial headache: a $1.4 billion mortgage on the office portion of the tower that was due in February 2019, the New York Times reported. Jared technically had divested himself from the property, but he “sold” the assets to his brother and a trust controlled by his mother. A lawyer described the transaction to the Times as a “shell game.”

The Kushners had spent more than two years on an international search for new partners or fresh financing that stretched from the Middle East to China.

Among Brookfield’s investors is the Qatar Investment Authority, one of the world’s largest sovereign funds, which raised questions about Jared’s involvement in the deal. Brookfield said that the Qataris had no knowledge of the deal before its public announcement.

The House can pass articles of impeachment any time now, and Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell (R-Ky.) appears to be confident that there is no way Democrats will get the 20 Republican senators needed for a two-thirds majority to remove the crooked incumbent president from office, but after the public gets a chance to focus on the shakedown of Zelensky, the admission that Trump raised the subject with Chinese President Xi, the acceptance of emoluments from foreign powers and domestic favor-seekers via payments to Trump-owned properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C., which has become a favorite watering hole for lobbyists, and Trump’s obstruction of the congressional investigation of issues raised by the Mueller report might give Democrats the momentum not only to defeat Trump in November 2020, but also to flip at least three Senate seats now held by Republicans to regain control of the Senate (if they don’t regain the White House, they’ll need to flip four seats).

There are plenty of vulnerable Republican targets in the Senate, whose re-election prospects would diminish if they are saddled with an unpopular vote to keep crooked Trump in office. Democrats should force that vote upon them. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, November 1, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive Populist

Selections from the November 1, 2019 issue

COVER/Adam Weymouth
Big banks are accused of funding the climate crisis


EDITORIAL
Impeach Trump and the Senate


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
Tommie Smith and John Carlos: Heroes at last


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen 
Sometimes a little disruption is necessary


DISPATCHES
Team Trump wants Supreme Court to hold off destroying ACA until after election;
Trump’s Medicare ‘improvement’ sets up its demise;
Trump lets Turkey attack Kurdish allies of US;
Which senators appear vulnerable heading into 2020?
Trump sees Florida changes shrink;
Workers pay as GE freezes pensions;
72% of rural hospital closures are in states that rejected Medicaid expansion ...


ART CULLEN
Trump impeachment might shake up Senate


BEN LILLISTON
Trump’s Japan deal another win for global meat 


JILL RICHARDSON
Why does Trump keep doing this? 


JOHN YOUNG
Look who’s ‘trying to destroy the Republican Party’


JOSUE DE LUNA NAVARRO 
How fossil fuels pollute STEM education


MICHAEL WALLIS
My patients deserve Medicare for All


NANCY J. ALTMAN and SEAN MCELWEE
How far are Americans willing to go to overthrow the power of big pharma?


WENDELL POTTER  Why the private health insurance industry faces an existential crisis

TOM CONWAY  
US government lets employers target union organizers with impunity

THOM HARTMANN 
If we want democracy back, we must undo the attack on middle class launched by Reagan


OLIVIA SNOW SMITH
Wall Street is killing local newspapers


BOB BURNETT
Ready or not, here comes impeachment


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas 
Vaping: Now that we know, or derailing addiction from the start


SAM URETSKY
‘Moscow’ Mitch McConnell — a hard man to like


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel 
Ladies first


WAYNE O’LEARY
Random thoughts on democratic dissonance


JOHN BUELL
O Canada: Race and class north of the border


ELWOOD WATSON
Yes! Many millenials are plagued with racism!


ROB PATTERSON
Opinions are like smartphones; everybody’s got one


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
Going, going, gone but not forgotten


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
Roy Cohn and the art of mean


SETH SANDRONSKY
Privileging white skin

and more ...

Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Browser Problems (Apparently) Resolved

UPDATE: We think we have resolved the issue that caused problems accessing our website via the Safari browser. At least now (at this writing) our website at https://populist.com appears to be accessible via a Safari, Firefox and Google Chrome browsers. If our website doesn't show up on your favorite browser, try your next-favorite browser.

We're sorry for any inconvenience. Note that this blog is on a different web server than our website is, so if one is down, the other ought to be available.

PREVIOUSLY: Over the past week we have noticed several instances when our website at https://populist.com is not accessible via the Safari browser, which is the browser on most Mac computers and iPhones. If you go there with a Safari browser, you might find a notice, "Account Suspended." The account is not suspended; the website can be accessed on other browsers, including Firefox and Google Chrome. We’ll try to resolve the problem as soon as possible.

Friday, September 27, 2019

Editorial: Trump’s Climate Con

President Donald Trump not only expresses disbelief in climate change and calls it a “Chinese hoax”; he also is actively resisting attempts to reverse damage to the environment and he even mocked teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg at the UN. His Republican enablers, at best, profess skepticism on climate change. Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates and congressional leaders are trying to mobilize national resources to fight climate change as if it threatens life in the US and on this planet.

While fossil fuel industrialists — the most notable being the Koch Brothers — have bankrolled bioskeptics to sow doubts about climate change, the evidence is overwhelming that heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, most of which result from human activities, are transforming the planet. Temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, heat waves and wildfire seasons are getting longer, hurricanes are getting stronger and thawing permafrost in arctic regions threatens to release more methane into the atmosphere.

Still, when Trump took office he pulled the US out of the Paris Accord on climate change, his first step in his effort to undermine Obama-era policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Trump’s administration has harassed climate scientists at federal agencies and the White House has proposed to dramatically cut funding for programs supporting research and development of clean energy technologies, such as electric vehicles and solar power.

Trump’s budget for 2020 proposed a 31% cut in the EPA budget, leaving $6.1 billion to implement only the rules industrial lobbyists agree with. Trump would eliminate the EPA’s Global Change Research office, which provides scientific information to policymakers about the threats posed by climate change. Among other things, he also would slash funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) by 87% — from $2.3 billion last year to $343 million in new spending next year.

The White House also proposes eliminating tax credits for electric vehicles and an array of other incentives for reducing carbon emissions. And it makes a third attempt to eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, an incubator for cutting-edge energy research and development.

Congress is not expected to go along with the cuts, but that won’t stop Trump’s minions from trying to sabotage green efforts. After all, Trump last year set aside a compromise carmakers had reached with the Obama administration that had targeted 54.5 miles per gallon for 2025; Trump said 37 mpg would be fine. Then, on Sept. 18, Trump announced plans to revoke California’s long-standing right to set stricter pollution standards for cars and light trucks.

The Justice Department has also announced an antitrust investigation into the deal California reached with four carmakers — Ford, VW, Honda and BMW — who had agreed to hold to California’s stricter emissions and mileage standards.

California and 22 other states have filed legal efforts to protect California’s mandates, which would be 51 mpg by 2026.

While carmakers and people concerned about climate change support the higher standards, the oil industry sees a threat to its bottom line, as a quarter of the world’s oil is used to power cars, and less thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales, the New York Times reported in December 2018.

“Marathon Petroleum teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a secretive policy group financed by corporations as well as the Koch network, to draft legislation for states supporting the industry’s position. Its proposed resolution … describes current fuel-efficiency rules as ‘a relic of a disproven narrative of resource scarcity’ and says ‘unelected bureaucrats’ shouldn’t dictate the cars Americans drive.”

Revoking the waiver on California’s emissions standards also helps Trump get revenge on the state where Hillary Clinton nearly doubled him up in 2016, and where his approval rating currently sits 30 points underwater, Aaron Rupar noted at Vox. So if Trump can use environmental regulations to act against a state that’s proudly on the cutting edge of fighting climate change, all the better for him.

Trump’s move is likely to be unpopular nationwide and in California, with Americans widely supportive of stricter fuel efficiency standards. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Sept. 20 found 66% of Americans oppose Trump’s plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards rather than enforce the Obama administration’s targets for 2025, the Washington Post reported.

A nearly identical 67% majority support state governments setting stricter fuel efficiency targets than the federal government.

Trump also kicked Midwestern farmers while they were down in August when the EPA waived ethanol blending requirements for gasoline refineries. First his tariffs prompted China to shut off the market for half of Iowa’s soybean crop. Then his EPA put in doubt the demand for ethanol, which accounts for as much as 40% of the corn crop.

The blowback from enraged farmers caused Trump to order the EPA to increase the amount of ethanol and biodiesel large refiners are required to blend each year to compensate for the exemptions granted to small refiners, Reuters reported Sept. 16.

On the other side, most of the Democratic presidential candidates have issued comprehensive plans to zero out the country’s carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest. They differ in how to get there, how they will use sources like nuclear power, how much federal government investment they’ll need, and the political levers they’ll use to enact their visions, Umair Irfan noted at Vox.

Of the top three remaining candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a Green New Deal with the biggest price tag — $16.3 trillion, coming from income taxes from an estimated 20 million new jobs building 100% renewable transportation and electric grid, taxes on fossil fuels, defense budget savings from no longer protecting oil shipping, and selling power via federal marketing authorities.

He would create a climate resilience fund, deploy renewable energy, build a high-voltage direct current network, and support the UN Green Climate Fund.

Sanders proposes to zero out emissions from transportation and power generation by 2030 and “complete decarbonization” of the energy sector by 2050.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has incorporated her climate change agenda into proposals for public lands, the military, trade, manufacturing, and climate risk disclosure. She proposed a $2 trillion green manufacturing plan and, after Washington Gov. Jay Inslee left the race in August, borrowed his vision for reaching 100% clean energy, including a $1 trillion investment in the transition to renewable energy.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who introduced the first climate change bill in the Senate in 1986, has released a $1.7 trillion climate plan roughly in line with the other candidates, pegged to the 2050 deadline. He would provide job training and other assistance for those impacted by the shift away from fossil fuels. He would build 500,000 recharging stations throughout the US to encourage electric vehicles.

Other Democrats in the field have plans to tackle climate change. Republicans have nothing but jeers and hot air. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, October 15, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive Populist

Selections from the October 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Bob Cesca
Time for 2020 Democrats to go after Trump on his supposed strength: the failing economy


EDITORIAL
Trump’s climate con


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
How is your newsfeed?


SAVANNAH KINSEY
Fighting for health care in America’s forgotten towns


DISPATCHES
Only Dems can stop corruption of the Oval Office;
Trump’s Labor nominee, Scalia, is his father’s son;
Trump’s 'rebuilding and expanding' steel industry has 'real problems';
Trump lost farm votes over China trade war, now climate change may cost him more;
Warren takes first lead in Iowa Poll;
Sanders, Biden lead field of five candidates in double digits with Latino support;
Trump administration allows faster pork slaughter lines with fewer inspectors;
Hate group that sued over being called hate group loses lawsuit;
ACLU asks fed judge to block ongoing family separation at border;
College grads owe $29,200 in student debt, more than ever;
North American birds are down 29% ... 


ART CULLEN
Trump may have already lost Iowa to the 2020 Democratic candidates — over corn


JILL RICHARDSON
Punching through the bad headlines


JOHN YOUNG
Stop the kidney punches, Democrats


TRACEY AIKMAN
President Trump: I’m one of the workers you lied to


TOM CONWAY
Google’s chance to do good for gig workers


JOE SANBERG and RICHARD MASTER
The health care industry poses an existential threat to the middle class


FRAN QUIGLEY
Removing the profit from our pills: The case for a public pharma system


THOM HARTMANN
The big American bribery scandal isn’t Felicity Huffman’s $15,000


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Joe Biden: Democratic MAGA


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Pass the bullhorn


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Are we healthier?


SAM URETSKY
Is trustworthiness too much to ask?


SAM PIZZIGATI
Wealth that concentrates kills


WAYNE O’LEARY
Trader Donald meets Adam Smith


JOHN BUELL
Healthcare even for the worst among us


BOB BURNETT
Trump’s search for a big win


SETH SANDRONSKY
Surprise: Private equity and unforeseen medical billing


BOOK REVIEW/Roger Bybee
An activist’s journey from 1964 Mississippi to death row and back


ROB PATTERSON
Filling in between the rolling and thundering


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
Lyin’ Sharpie


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Look out! Mike Wallace is here


FRANK LINGO
Interview with the hurricane


and more ...

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Editorial: After Trump the Deluge

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Donald Trump faces an unprecedented number of investigations into almost every business and organization he has led. After all, he has long been known for associating with questionable figures and cutting corners in his business and financial dealings, and he has brought those methods into government.

During the campaign his rivals made an issue of the lawsuits filed against Trump alleging that Trump University engaged in a variety of illegal practices, ranging from making false claims and fraudulent business practices to racketeering. Before the election Trump said he would never settle the lawsuit, but shortly after his election, on Nov. 18, 2016, he agreed to a $25 million settlement under terms that let him admit no wrongdoing. US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel — the same Indiana-born judge Trump called biased because of his “Mexican heritage” — finalized the settlement in April 2018. It marked the end of two class-action lawsuits and a civil lawsuit from New York accusing Trump of “swindling thousands of Americans out of millions of dollars through Trump University,” in the words of then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Most of the attention toward Trump’s legal problems has been directed to the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, which brought the prosecution of his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Mueller laid out evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct justice but he declined to declare Trump’s actions were criminal, apparently because it is Justice Department policy not to consider the incumbent president as a criminal.

But there are plenty of investigations that go beyond Mueller’s probe. Anita Kumar of Politico on June 17 counted at least 15 investigations of wrongdoing by Trump and his organizations. State and federal investigators in California, New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., are examining more than $100 million in donations to Trump’s inauguration, checking whether foreign donors illegally contributed to the inaugural committee and whether the organization misspent funds. In New Jersey, investigators are looking into whether undocumented workers were given fraudulent documents at Trump’s Bedminster, N.J., resort.

In New York, the Trump Foundation, was forced to dissolve, but it is still being investigated for potentially spending money on Trump’s company or campaign. The state’s Department of Taxation and attorney general are both on the case.

The New York attorney general also is looking into allegations that undocumented workers were forced to work extra hours without pay at Trump’s golf club in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. The New York attorney general is also looking into large loans the company received, while the state’s Department Of Financial Services is scrutinizing the company’s insurance policies.

Even the Trump campaign, nearly three years after the 2016 election, is still facing government probes. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are examining whether the campaign illegally coordinated with Rebuilding America Now, a pro-Trump super PAC, as well as the much-publicized hush money payments Trump’s team made to two women over allegations of extramarital affairs with Trump.

Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor who handled cases against public officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, told Politico Trump’s situation stands out. Unlike prior administrations, he noted, these cases are all about the president and his personal businesses — not those of his staff. “We’ve seen nothing on this scale,” he said.

The Democratic House plans hearings on Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors, but the Trump administration is defying the House’s efforts to get information or testimony from current and former administration officials, claiming it is protected by executive immunity, and the Justice Department is loyally working with Trump to oppose the House’s efforts to enforce subpoenas.

House Democrats, back in session after the August recess, are planning to investigate hush-money payments made on Trump’s behalf — and reportedly at Trump’s direction — to at least two women — former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Both women say they had affairs with Trump.

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer, cooperated with the investigation, which started with Robert Mueller’s team and was passed on to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Cohen outlined the arrangement to pay off Daniels to keep her from going public with her story. McDougal was given a similar financial arrangement by the owners of the National Enquirer.

Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence for conspiracy to violate federal election laws, but prosecutors declined to pursue any further criminal charges, even after Cohen testified under oath that Trump was the one who directed him to make the illegal payments. The Justice Department apparently did not pursue felony charges against Trump because of its policy not to indict sitting presidents.

Remember that the White House first denied Trump had an affair with Daniels. then, after the Wall Street Journal broke the news of the hush money payments, Trump himself denied having any knowledge of the financial arrangement. Then his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani acknowledged that the president had reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 he paid Daniels. So if Cohen committed a felony, Trump did too.

Yet with all the legal scrutiny, Trump is still embraced by the Republican establishment. They stayed with him through his racist rhetoric aimed at Mexican Americans as well as the tape in which he is heard boasting of sexually assaulting women. They have closed ranks around him because he has put corporate lobbyists in key government positions to slash government regulations, he gave their billionaire backers the tax cut they demanded and he has put two right wingers on the Supreme Court and may have tipped the balance in the judiciary.

Many Republicans believe Trump can fight back against the allegations of racketeering by dismissing the probes as partisan “witch hunts,” on which he can raise money from his true believers. Bryan Lanza, who worked on Trump’s 2016 campaign and transition and remains close to the White House, told Politico Trump doesn’t plan to shy away from talking about the inquiries.

“You have to lump these together, too. They’re all the same. They’re all witch hunts,” he said. “He’s comfortable telling the American public that these are partisan hit jobs.”

The American people cannot accept these evasions from responsibility. Trump is crooked and so are his enablers. Republican leaders are normalizing the Great Misleader’s lying and contempt for the rule of law. While Trump remains unpopular, even in the Midwestern states that provided his margin of victory in the Electoral College in 2016, Republicans are proceeding with voter suppression efforts, including purges of voting rolls, to deny working-class people access to the polls next November.

Trump’s incompetence and the scope of his corruption may be his undoing, but smarter and more ambitious Republicans have studied his methods and are lining up to take his place. There is more to do in restoring democracy than simply turning Trump out of office next year. His enablers need to go, too. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, October 1, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the October 1, 2019 issue

COVER/Art Cullen
Trump’s trade wars fuel Amazon forest fires


EDITORIAL
After Trump the deluge


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

DON ROLLINS
Criminalizing free speech in Ohio and elsewhere


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Getting to know farmers


DISPATCHES
US military stopovers in Scotland help struggling Trump resort;
Trump took a big loan from Trump and never paid it back, in just one more apparent scam;
Trump security risk causes CIA to pull top Kremlin spy;
NOAA probe NOAA's 'political' response to Trump's lies;
Trump takes money from FEMA for border seurity with with hurricane season ramping up;
Trump diverts funds from military to build wall;
Trump administration plans to gut food stamps, hitting red states hardest;
NC Supremes drop hammer on partisan gerrymandering;
Jobs report for August falls 30,000 short of prediction as retail jobs decline for 7th month;
Trump to Ukraine: No aid nless you smear Joe Biden;
DHS spent $120M on office furniture as migrant kids go without soap ...


ART CULLENk
The view from behind the ox is not that clear


JIM GOODMAN
Farmers need a bill of rights


JILL RICHARDSON
Get ready for unnatural disasters this hurricane season


JOHN YOUNG
Hostages of lobbyists and hobbyists


JIM VAN DER POL
Saving our earth


SETH SANDRONSKY
Falling: Job growth down at very small farms


TOM CONWAY
In praise of scabby the rat


HAL CROWTHER 
Bad news from home: The white knights ride again


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel 
Three is a magic number


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas 
The know nothings redux


SAM URETSKY
Who will benefit from opioid settlement money?


WAYNE O’LEARY
Wile E. Trump


JOHN BUELL
Politics and local weather broadcasters


JOEL D. JOSEPH
Put US manufacturers on equal footing with government-paid comprehensive health insurance


MARK ANDERSON
Mind your pollinators


BOB BURNETT
Dealing with the Trump cult


ROB PATTERSON
Jobs is survived by his machines


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
A new day, a new lexicon


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
New film blows the whistle on war


JAMES EGGERT
Feeling betrayed


and more ...

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Editorial: Don’t Settle for ‘Safe’

As Donald Trump digs a deeper hole for himself in public opinion, Democrats should disregard warnings from corporate media pundits that they must nominate a “safe” centrist to take on Trump next year.

The pundits have been warning that if Democrats choose a progressive candidate, such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, they’ll revive Trump’s re-election chances, because moderate voters will be scared by their progressive proposals, such as expanding Medicare to cover everybody, protecting and extending Social Security, and taking action to reverse climate change. But we fear that if Democrats nominate a “moderate,” they might put their progressive base to sleep.

We’ve heard a few forecasts of a potential Republican sweep if Sanders or Warren is the standard bearer — a 40-state loss, or even a McGovernite 49-state loss.

Of course, McGovern was a liberal Democrat when the party was badly split over the Vietnam war as well as backlash against attempts to desegregate public schools and other domestic troubles. And Richard Nixon, while corrupt, was an experienced politician who at least pretended to be concerned about the whole country, not just the people who voted for him and donated to his campaign.

Trump won the White House in the political equivalent of drawing the inside straight in poker — beating Hillary Clinton in the traditionally Democratic strongholds of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by a combined total of fewer than 80,000 votes, while Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote by 2.8 million votes nationwide. The Electoral College held sway, but Trump has ruled since then as if the people who voted against him — and the cities and states where they live — are his enemies, to whom he owes only revenge. So he has played to his base, and he is the only president in the history of the Gallup poll never to crack 50% approval. As of Aug. 14, the Gallup poll showed 41% approval and 54% disapproval.

Trump has made little effort to reach out to swing voters. “I think my base is so strong, I’m not sure that I have to do that,” he told Time in June. The mantra of Trump 2020 is “turnout, turnout, turnout,” campaign manager Brad Parscale said. “People all think you have to change people’s minds. You have to get people to show up that believe in you.”

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in August found 52% either would or were likely to vote for the Democratic nominee, while only 40% said they would or were likely to vote for Trump. A separate Morning Consult tracking poll of Trump’s support in the states showed that, as of the end of July, Trump was “under water,” with more disapproving him than approving, in at least six states Trump carried in 2016, including Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Florida and North Carolina were statistically tied. Of course, this comes with the caveat that polls this early are not predictive. But they do show Trump is very vulnerable.

How can Democrats excite their base to get out the vote? They should start with promoting popular initiatives, such as expanding Medicare to cover everybody, as polls have shown 70% of adults — including a majority of Republicans — support. At least they support it until they’re told that it will result in higher taxes, or that they’ll lose their private insurance — and the for-profit health industrial complex is already working to stir up voters’ fears that the government will mess things up.

Under Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan, individuals would get comprehensive health coverage, including dental and vision care, with no deductibles or copayments, for less cost than they now pay in premiums and copays. Seniors who now get Medicare will get better coverage, along with those under 65. And reputable businesses, who struggle to find affordable health insurance plans to cover their employees, will no longer have to compete with skinflint businesses who don’t offer health coverage for their workers. But if it makes voters feel better, we can let for-profit companies still try to sell insurance.

Democrats also should campaign on protecting, and expanding, Social Security, as Republicans are drawing up plans to slash Medicare and Social Security if Trump wins a second term. The New York Times reported Aug. 21 that, with the budget deficit set to surpass $1 trillion in 2020 thanks in large part to Trump’s tax cuts for the rich and his trade war, Republicans and right-wing groups are pressuring the president to take a sledgehammer to Social Security and Medicare, widely popular programs Trump vowed not to touch during his 2016 campaign.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told the Times his party has discussed cutting Medicare and Social Security with Trump and said the president has expressed openness to the idea. In his budget for fiscal year 2020, Trump already has called for $845 billion to be cut from Medicare and $25 billion to be cut from Social Security.

Democrats should raise alarms about Trump’s plan to cut Medicare and Social Security, and embrace the Social Security 2100 Act, sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), that would lift the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax, which is now $128,400. Removing that cap would take care of the shortfall expected after 2035, when the Social Security surplus of $2.9 trillion will otherwise be exhausted. Taxing the wages of the wealthy would also allow an increase in Social Security benefits for the first time in more than 40 years. The Republican “plan” is to let benefits be cut 20% in 2035.

Perhaps most importantly, Democratic presidential nominees should promote mobilization to avert climate catastrophe. The Democratic National Committee apparently doesn’t think climate change deserves a debate on its own, but voters want to know what the candidates will do. Warren released her own climate plan in June, a $2 trillion package that commits the federal government to spend $150 billion a year over 10 years on low-carbon technology, increases energy research funding and funds a $100 billion Green Marshall Plan to aid poorer countries projected to suffer the worst as global temperatures rise.

Biden was scored 83% pro-environment from the League of Conservation Voters during his 36 years in the Senate. He presented a climate platform in June that embraced the Green New Deal as a framework and foresees $1.7 trillion in spending over 10 years, along with $3.3 trillion in investments by the private sector and state and local governments.

Sanders on Aug. 22 proposed his own Green New Deal plan that would transition the US economy to 100% renewable energy and create 20 million union jobs over a decade. The cost — $16.3 trillion — might sound like a lot, but Sanders says it will pay for itself through a combination of new taxes, fees and litigation against fossil fuels companies, new taxes on corporations and wealthy people, together with cuts in military spending related to US reliance on oil and savings across the economy, InsideClimateNews.org reported. Republicans who still claim the 2017 tax cut for the rich will pay for itself have no room to complain.

In short, whoever gets the Democratic nomination will get framed by the corporate media as a socialist — even if it’s Joe Biden. Republicans called Barack Obama a socialist, so why not his running mate? And we’ll vote for any of them against Trump.

With the election year coming up, Democrats should embrace the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt — who was not really a socialist, either, but made capitalism accountable to the people. Democrats should give voters a reason to believe, once again, that government can make their lives better. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, September 15, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652