Saturday, April 27, 2019

Editorial: Let the Chips Fall

Robert Mueller finally produced his book, detailing in 448 pages the at-best skeevy behavior of Donald Trump and his apparatchiks during the 2016 campaign, followed by the outrageous conduct as Trump apparently tried to cover up the misbehavior after the election. But the findings of the special counsel won’t have maximum impact on the electorate until Democrats produce the movie, which will require public hearings in the House that lay out how Mueller reached his conclusions.

Despite warnings, mainly from conservative pundits, that impeachment hearings could blow back on the Democrats, we don’t see a downside to holding Trump to account for his misbehavior, and the bad actions of his entourage. Indeed, it is the House’s duty.

We certainly can’t count on Attorney General Bill Barr doing his duty, after his April 18 press conference before the report was released, in which Barr spouted talking points that could have been drawn up by Trump. He gave Trump a half hour to proclaim “total exoneration” before the Mueller report came out with the damning details of a 22-month investigation that produced 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas and five prison sentences, as of this writing. Mueller also referred cases to US attorneys’ offices in New York, Virginia and Washington, D.C., as well as state investigators in New York and Maryland, but Mueller stopped just short of criminal indictments of the Great Misleader.

Among other things, Barr stressed that Mueller did not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Trump seized that point to tweet “Game Over,” despite the fact that Mueller, as Barr knew, had not considered “collusion,” since he was looking for evidence of “conspiracy,” which is the applicable criminal offense.

Barr excused Trump’s actions that might look like obstruction of justice, saying, “There is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

Barr also said Mueller was “not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.”

The redacted report itself, however, provides an entirely different explanation of why Mueller didn’t make a prosecution decision.

Mueller concluded that he could not seek indictments in 10 cases that looked like obstruction of justice, because he was, technically, an attorney of the Justice Department, which has a policy, drawn up during the Watergate era, that a sitting president couldn’t be indicted. But Mueller also concluded he couldn’t clear Trump of obstructing justice, based on the evidence they uncovered.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
That’s hardly a vote of confidence in Trump’s character.

Mueller also concluded that Congress’s proper function in this situation was to exercise its powers under our constitutional system of checks and balances to make sure that no person is above the law. “We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” Mueller wrote.

Mueller also explained why this is constitutionally proper. “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions.”
That is where congressional hearings are warranted. Republicans have a considerable capacity for denial, but televised hearings on the details of Trump’s obstructive conduct should make Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors increasingly obvious.

For example, Congress should take its own look at the meeting Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held with Russians who were said to be linked to Vladimir Putin’s government — even if they weren’t technically on the payroll — after Don Jr. was promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, in addition to a discussion on “Russian adoptions.”

Amanda Marcotte of Salon believes “Russian adoptions,” which the Trump camp claims was the reason for the meeting, was a code phrase for sanctions relief for Russian oligarchs. Marcotte noted that Trump literally went out in public in the summer of 2016 and asked Russian hackers to attack Hillary Clinton’s email servers, which they immediately did. “We also know that Trump has routinely lied about what he knew about the extent of Russian interference, since he was briefed on it in August 2016 and has repeatedly pretended he was not,” Marcotte noted.

Another reason to hold hearings is to give Republicans a chance to defend their vote to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998 on a charge that he lied about a legal, consensual act with an adult, when they now insist that Trump shouldn’t face any repercussions for trying to stop the FBI from investigating his links to Russia and his then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s lies to the FBI about activities during the transition period. Then, after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he tried to prevent Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. After that, he tried to get then-attorney general Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller, despite Sessions’ recusal. Trump continued to try to curtail the investigation; he tried to prevent public disclosure of evidence; he tried to cover up his attempts to fire Mueller; he tried to limit the cooperation of witnesses, including Flynn, Manafort and others; and he turned from praise of his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to castigation after Cohen started cooperating with prosecutors.

Some Democrats think they’d be better off running against Trump in 2020 instead of removing him from office and running against Mike Pence. Democrats probably will still get to run against the Great Misleader, because Republicans are scared witless by Trump’s base who are ready to “primary” any Republican who strays from the self-righteous path. The odds against Democrats finding 20 Republican senators who will rediscover patriotism in the next year and a half to remove Trump are pretty remote.

But Democrats should do what they can to expose the rot in the Trump Administration, which has taken over the Grand Oligarch Party. Democrats shouldn’t fear the roars from Trump, who “won” the election in the Electoral College with a minority of the popular vote and has never tried to win over those who voted against him. He’s also never had a national approval rating average higher than 47.8%, in the week after his inauguration, in polls compiled by FiveThirtyEight.com. As of April 23, his approval rating was 41.4% while 53.5% disapproved. That’s during a healthy economy and it’s not a position of strength for the GOP.

Let Republicans defend Trump’s perfidy — and thank goodness he wasn’t an effective obstructer. Democrats can promote expanding health coverage, enacting a Green New Deal to save the climate while increasing jobs in renewable energy and protecting small farms, and replacing Trump’s budget-busting tax breaks for billionaires and corporations with a return to the progressive income tax code, which carried the US through its greatest economic boom in the 1950s and ’60s, when millionaires and corporations paid their fair share of the expenses of providing for defense, promoting general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, May 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

Selections from the May 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Daniel Marans and Jonathan Cohn
Bernie Sanders welcomes war with insurance industry over Medicare for All


EDITORIAL
Let the chips fall


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
Coal towns, their past and present


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Kick a bully if it’s Monsanto


DISPATCHES
Trump lawsuit to block congressional oversight reads like his tweets;
Modest projections about NAFTA 2.0 economic gains makes passage unlikely;
Social Security trust fund will reach zero in 2035, trustees say;
Earth Day founder thinks we're close to political breakthrough on climate;
Warren student debt cancellation plan helps most vulnerable;
Trump unpopularity spreads to battleground states;
Trump and Pence tweeted about Notre Dame fire but ignord 3 black churches burned in Louisiana;
Global economy could save $160 trillion by shifting to renewables;
Sen. Richard Burr leaked Trump-linked targets of FBI probe to White House


JIM GOODMAN
Don’t fall for the hype of free trade agreements


JOHN YOUNG
‘Stick it to them’ policies that have stuck

JILL RICHARDSON
Why is going green so hard? Because our system isn’t


SETH SANDRONSKY
Extinction rebellion


ART CULLEN
Beto has some beef, plus star power


BARRY FRIEDMAN
Me and Joe on the line


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas 
A president hog-wild about pork


SAM URETSKY
House call program brings dentistry to seniors who don’t have their own foundation


MIKE KUHLENBECK
Nothing to smile about: The inequality gap in dental care


WAYNE O’LEARY
Single-payer and its enemies


JOHN BUELL
Democracy vs the bipartisan consensus


GENE NICHOL
N.C.’s continuing crusade against democracy


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel 
Pleasure principles


ROB PATTERSON
Bingeing blue


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
Orange you glad he’s our president?


FILM REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
Much ado about little


KELLY MARTIN
How the White House spent Earth Day


TODD LARSEN
The planetary cost of Amazon’s convenience

Monday, April 22, 2019

One big reason for Dems to overcome their fears & pursue impeachment of Trump: it’s their constitutional responsibility & the right thing to do

By Marc Jampole

The Democrats who don’t want to impeach Donald Trump at this point are afraid of their own shadows. Or maybe the shadows of their big funders.

They say they fear that the move would backfire—as it seems to have done when the House impeached Bill Clinton in 1999 and Slick Willie’s popularity soared.

But the Clinton case is much different from the current situation. Most of the country didn’t really care one way or another about what Clinton had done in his private life. People at the time understood that Clinton was not a corrupt individual, nor was he running a corrupt enterprise. Many people thought it was nobody’s business what two people did with each other behind closed doors. It had no bearing on U.S. security or the ability of Clinton to serve as president. Many people even forgave Clinton his one instance of law-breaking: lying under oath about having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. They thought as I did at the time—and still do—that lying was inherent in adultery. It’s virtually as impossible to have an affair without lying as it is to get a homerun and not touch first base. Besides, a consensual relationship with an adult is a far cry from Trump’s history of illegality and unethical behavior. Lying about an affair is definitely not the same as breaking campaign finance laws; trying to impede an investigation; manipulating the value of assets up to get a bigger loan  and down to avoid taxes; or not reporting it to the FBI when a foreign adversary offers you help to get elected.

Instead of the Clinton case, Democrats should look at the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the almost-impeachment of Richard Nixon for historical precedents. Like Trump, they were both truly guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Johnson endangered American law by impeding reconstruction of the south as a bastion of democracy for all. While there were no political polls in the 1860s, everything we read of the period suggests highly that Johnson’s popularity went down after his impeachment and near-conviction by the Senate. Besides the Watergate burglary and cover-up, Nixon had bombed Cambodia illegally and gone way too far in investigating his perceived domestic enemies. We know Nixon lost the country, because that’s why the GOP finally ended its resistance to impeachment and conviction, and ultimately why Tricky Dick short-circuited the constitutional process for removing a president and resigned. Thus the two times presidents deserved impeachment, the impeachment process did not help their popularity.

Let’s also keep in mind—only a little facetiously—that no president who has faced impeachment was ever elected to the office again. Facetiously because in both Nixon and Clinton’s case, the impeachment proceedings began during his second term, a fact that goes to the heart of the Democrat’s cravenness in not immediately initiating impeachment proceedings. They figure that the people will vote Trump out of office in 2020, and if they don’t then they’ll think about taking care of business.

Others suggest that until the Republicans are on board with convicting in the Senate, impeachment is a waste of time. That argument assumes falsely that impeachment is in of itself a little less than a hand slap.

But as the always perceptive Charles Blow points out in the New York Times, “an impeachment vote in the House has to this point been the strongest rebuke America is willing to give a president.” Blow and others argue—and I agree—that impeachment without conviction is nonetheless a severe punishment.

Blow also reminds us that Trump’s approval rating has never vacillated widely the way other modern presidents have. He has stayed in a narrow channel of around 40% no matter what he says or does or others say or do about him. There is therefore not much of a chance that his popularity will soar after an impeachment and non-conviction.

It is true that the several investigations of Trump recently opened by the House will likely reveal more and remind us of many Trump’s wrong doings—illegal or merely despicable. The idea of waiting until the evidence builds up seems prudent until you peruse the Mueller Report and realize that there is already enough to impeach Trump multiple times. The impeachment hearings will allow the House, and maybe the entire country, to see most of the documents being requested in these various committee hearings. One way or another, Trump’s taxes are coming out! So why wait? No need for them to appear before impeachment hearings begin, since they can emerge as part of those hearings.

There is one overarching reason for the House to pursue impeachment. It’s their job and the right thing to do.

As usual, Elizabeth Warren expressed it best, in her tweet advocating the House begin impeachment proceedings: The Mueller Report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack. Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: “Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.

The Democrats seem to risk little by starting the ball rolling on impeachment. And the reward will be that they did their jobs under the Constitution of the United States.

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Editorial: GOP Continues War on Sick Poor

When Donald Trump ordered new Attorney General William Barr to join the lawsuit to wipe out the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), many Republicans were left wondering what their Great Misleader was thinking. After all, Barr was busy undermining special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s intrigues with Russia.

If the Trump administration, and the 20 Republican-dominated states that are suing to overturn the ACA, succeed, approximately 20 million people would lose their health insurance, or the federal subsidies that make insurance affordable for the working poor. Insurance companies no longer would be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge. Individual insurance plans would go back to having big coverage gaps.

As Matt Stieb wrote for New York Magazine April 1, “If the Trump administration has a domestic policy doctrine at this point, it could be described as the following practice: the appointment of industry insiders to Cabinet-level positions in order to deregulate or otherwise surgically dismantle the protections of a given department.

“In this spirit comes the announcement that Florida Senator Rick Scott intends to deliver on President Trump’s promise that the GOP ‘will soon be known as the party of health care.’ On [March 28], Trump told reporters that Scott, and fellow Republican Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, will lead the party’s push on health-care reform.”

“They are going to come up with something really spectacular,” Trump said, surprising Scott, Barrasso and Cassidy.

Trump has been pushing for two years to repeal Obamacare, and replace it with “something really spectacular,” but he admitted that so far, he’s got nothing. Still, that might be a good thing, if Rick Scott is his point man on health care reform. Scott’s health care experience was as former CEO of Columbia/HCA, which was fined $1.7 billion for defrauding of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1990s, in what the Justice Department called “the largest health-care fraud case in US history.”

Columbia/HCA agreed to plead guilty to 14 corporate felonies, but nobody went to jail. Ironically, Scott spent $75 million, mainly from his own fortune, to become governor of Florida in 2010, then he resisted efforts by convicted felons to regain their voting rights. He spent another $12.8 million of his family’s money to win re-election in 2014, and then he self-financed his 2018 Senate race with $63.6 million to unseat Sen. Bill Nelson (D).

After voter concerns about Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan helped Democrats’ regain a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018, many Republicans were surprised when Trump tweeted that the GOP would become “the party of health care” and Republicans “will take care of pre-existing conditions better than they’re taken care of now.”

In the 10 years since Democrats passed the ACA, Republicans have been able to come up with little more than allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines, turning Medicaid into a block grant so states could put their own restrictions on the program, and allowing insurance companies to sell “skinny” plans that offer less coverage at lower costs for people who bet they’ll stay healthy.

Scott has expressed some thoughts about keeping protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and requiring that consumers pay no more for drugs than they do in other industrialized nations, but he has little to show for it. As governor, he couldn’t get the Republican legislature to accept federal money to expand Medicaid to cover the working poor and Florida ranked near the bottom on access to basic health coverage. The rate of Floridians without health insurance was 12.7% in 2018, compared with a national average of 8.7%. Texas, which also rejected expanding Medicaid for the working poor, had the highest uninsured rate, at 17%.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has no plans to mess with health care reform. ”I look forward to seeing what the president is proposing and what he can work out with the speaker,” he said in an interview with Politico March 28. “I am focusing on stopping the ‘Democrats’ Medicare for none’ scheme.”

Rural communities have suffered from the Republican indifference to health care, as many small towns are at risk of losing their hospitals. The North Carolina Rural Health Research Program lists 102 rural hospitals closing since January 2010, including 17 in Texas and 11 in Tennessee. Both states refused to accept federal money to expand Medicaid to cover the working poor. The latest casualty was the Cumberland River Hospital, a 25-bed facility in Celina, Tenn., that closed March 1 after the Cookeville Regional Medical Center, which operated the Celina hospital 35 miles away, couldn’t find a buyer.

“Unfortunately, many rural hospitals across the country are having a difficult time and facing the same challenges, like declining reimbursements and lower patient volumes, that Cumberland River Hospital has experienced,” CEO Paul Korth wrote to Blake Farmer of Nashville Public Radio, who profiled the impact of the loss of the hospital — and another 147 jobs — on the town of 1,500 whose nearest hospital is now 18 miles away. That adds another 30 minutes through mountain roads for those who need an X-ray or blood work. For those in the back of an ambulance, that bit of time could make the difference between life or death, Farmer noted April 7.

More folks on TennCare, the state’s Medicaid program, would have helped, but legislation to extend coverage to the working poor died during a special session in February 2015. Instead, the state chose to purge at least 128,000 children in low-income families who had been covered under TennCare.

Meanwhile, expansion of Medicaid has helped rural hospitals stay afloat in states like Colorado, which added 400,000 people under the ACA, John Daley reported for NPR in January 2018.

Hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid were about six times less likely to close than hospitals in non-expansion states, according to a study by the University of Colorado that was published in the January 2018 edition of the journal Health Affairs.

Colorado was one of 37 states, including DC, that expanded Medicaid under the ACA. That cut the state’s uninsured rate in half.

Richard Lindrooth, a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health and lead author of the study, says hospitals saw more people showing up to hospitals with that insurance — so Medicaid payments increased. That helped the hospitals’ bottom line.

“It’s not as though Medicaid is an extremely profitable form of reimbursement, but it is something,” says Lindrooth, a professor the University of Colorado’s School of Public Health. “On the margins, it certainly helps the hospitals’ cash flow.”

The ACA led to historic gains in health insurance coverage by extending Medicaid coverage to many low-income individuals and providing Marketplace subsidies for individuals below 400% of poverty. The number of uninsured nonelderly Americans decreased from over 44 million in 2013 (the year before the major coverage provisions went into effect) to just below 27 million in 2016. However, in 2017, under Trump, the number of uninsured increased by nearly 700,000 people, the first increase since implementation of the ACA, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported in December 2018.

Obamacare  needs to be fixed, but Trump can’t be trusted, of course, and neither can other Republicans who have resisted realistic health reforms at every step. Private insurance had its chance to show it could provide universal coverage, and it failed. It’s time to expand Medicare to cover everybody. That will require a Democratic takeover of Congress and the White House. — JMC


From The Progressive Populist, May 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 May 1, 2019 issue

COVER/Tom Levitt
We’re already seeing health effects of pesticides — just not where you’d expect


EDITORIAL
GOP continues war on sick poor


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
Wait, before you catch that ‘Bachelor’ rerun...


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Bees won’t be easily replaced


DISPATCHES
Grassroots organizeres help progressives win;
Trump to Republican Jews: Israel’s Netanyahu is ‘your prime minister’;
Trump’s cruelest immigration policies may be yet to come;
Trump’s tax scam still unpopular,with few seeing promised cut;
Trump administration says it could take 2 years to reunite migrant familes;
White House balks at complying with tax law;
High CO2 levels signal receding coasts:
Americans borrowed $800 bilion for health care;
DHS reassigns domestic terror analysts;
Trump labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard 'terrorist' could imperil US forces;
Trump as passed 9,451 false/misleading claims ...


ADAM TURTLE and SUSANNE TURTLE
Locavores rejoice!


JOHN YOUNG
GOP’s morning-after headache is a doozy


JILL RICHARDSON
The death penalty is getting crueler


ART CULLEN
No Democratic candidate has been able to figure out how to help farm country


LEO GERARD
Republicans on health care: Do vast harm


CHUCK COLLINS
A cure for excessive wealth disorder


JOEL D. JOSEPH
GM’s Lordstown plant should stay open


BOB BURNETT
Managing traumatic Trump disorder


SETH SANDRONSKY
Gender pay gap resists closure


JOSHUA ADAMS
We all practice ‘identity politics’


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Let’s get ready to rumble


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Back to the future: Nursing homes unfettered


SAM URETSKY
They don’t make Demagogues like they used to


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Flag overboard


WAYNE O’LEARY
The Benjamins flap


JOHN BUELL
‘Free’ markets and the attack on democracy


SAM PIZZIGATI
A ‘buyback’ for our future?


WILLIAM A. COLLINS
What I learned in Iran


BARRY FRIEDMAN
The vote fraud game


ROB PATTERSON
Welcome bootleg: More blood, more tracks


FILM REVIEW/Ed Rampell
What makes Steve Bannon run?


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
Behind Barrs


Monday, April 8, 2019

Biden controversy has clarified touching rules between people who are not related or involved. But should Joe get a free pass?

By Marc Jampole

Many people are giving Joe Biden a free pass for his past touchiness because his intentions were never sexual. That’s absurd. He invaded the personal space of a lot of women and it made them feel very uncomfortable. Plus, even in the benighted days of Joe Biden’s youth, when grabbing someone’s shoulders from behind and rubbing them was perceived as a sign of encouragement, it was never okay for a man to kiss a woman’s hair unless she was a close relative or a paramour.

And just like Al Franken, he should have known better. In all of his years of hanging around well-educated, liberated, articulate and outspoken women, you’d think Joe Biden would have encountered at least one person who told him his touchiness creeped out a lot of people, and that the younger the person, the more likely she would find his little lip musses to the hair repulsive. Let’s remember that the #Metoo movement is now two years old. A politician more attune to the times than Citizen Joe would not have waited until an accusation to change his hugging ways.

The Joe Biden controversy has gone a long way to clarifying what the rules should be regarding public interactions between people who are not related or involved. Touching and hugging should never be allowed unless preapproved by both parties, but we’ll forgive everyone older than 75 for all past public non-sexual touching without prior permission. I’m happy to give Joe Biden a free pass for past actions because his intentions were always noble, which essentially means that I’m happy to welcome Al Franken back into the fold, too.

But then there’s the little matter of the Anita Hill hearings. I saw about 80% of the hearings live and at the time was disgusted by Joe Biden’s behavior towards Hill. He treated her with a great deal of disrespect and suspicion, which made no sense since Clarence Thomas represented judicial values far to the right of the centrist Democratic Party of the early 1990’s. You would think Biden would have wanted to sink the confirmation, not run interference for a pervert. But Biden took it upon himself to serve as prosecutor trying a case of false accusation and perjury.

Biden, like Bernie, is of the generation directly before the Baby Boomers—a generation that used to be called the “Silent Generation”—and thus out of step in many ways, not just with Gen Xers and Millennials, but with Boomers, too. His touchiness symbolizes the generation gap that leaves people on either side of the age divide with different attitudes about race, women, LGBTQ, mass media and music. The Biden controversy has demonstrated how inappropriate it is for Citizen Joe and Bernie Sanders to run for president because they are out of touch to some degree with what will attract young people to the Democratic Party in a way that Baby Boomers Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee and Kamala Harris are not. Biden was already in his thirties when feminism became a political and cultural force, whereas Warren and Kamala Harris (the oldest and youngest Boomers running) were among the first women to take advantage of the doors feminism opened. Inslee is young enough to have had to confront women’s issues from the very beginning of his career.  

The Democrats have a number of qualified candidates from which to choose this election cycle and the differences between them are narrow compared to the vast gap between their views and the Trumpublicans. There is no rational reason for Biden to siphon off resources from younger, more dynamic, and frankly more qualified candidates.

On the other hand, if Biden runs and wins the nomination, we should be ready to support him with enthusiasm. No matter who heads the Democratic ticket, we must send her-him money, talk her-him up to our acquaintances and vote for her-him on Election Day.

Monday, April 1, 2019

If instead of waging wars, we spent money on education, alternative fuels & infrastructure, we would create millions more jobs

By Marc Jampole

The first week after the announcement of the arrests of dozens of selfish and unethical rich folk who committed fraud to get their kids into college, the New York Times must have had 25 articles analyzing various aspects of this disgraceful scandal. All of these articles repeated a limited number of basic facts, with each article providing a different frame—the kids, the parents, the corrupt coaches, the investigation. After a while, it was just so much blah, blah, blah…

I wonder whether that’s why there has been no room in the Times to cover “War Spending and Lost Opportunities,” a truly startling piece of research by Heidi Garrett-Peltier, a research fellow at the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Garrett-Peltier studies the impact of war-related spending compared to other ways the federal government could spend the money. The paper demonstrates that if instead of going to war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the federal government had spent the money on other government programs, the economy would have created approximately 1.4 million more jobs since 2001.   

In 2017, her first paper on the subject, published by the Watson Institute of International Affairs at Brown University, Dr. Garrett-Peltier took a look at how many jobs various government activities produce, including waging war, investing in education, support of wind and solar energy, maintaining our infrastructure of mass transit, sewers systems, highways and bridges and healthcare. Her analysis consisted of three parts:
  1. Distinguishing between wartime spending and the base Pentagon budget.
  2. Comparing the number of jobs created by waging war to the numbers created by other federal spending.
  3. Creating a reasonable mix of other ways to spend and comparing the number of potential jobs created with the number of jobs actually created by our war economy.

As it turns out, virtually every other kind of federal expenditure creates more jobs than bombing and invasion. Check out some of these numbers: Healthcare sending creates 107.2% more jobs, which means that if war money created 100 jobs, the same amount spent on healthcare would have created more than 207 jobs. Elementary and secondary school education spending creates 178.3% more jobs, infrastructure spending creates 42% more jobs, retrofitting existing manufacturing and energy systems creates 53.6% more jobs.

While other researchers could disagree about how much alternative spending should go to education versus renewable resources, whatever mix you pick will create significantly more jobs than spending it on war.

Her initial study was ignored by the mainstream media at the time, and the same fate has met her 2019 update so far. Her latest numbers estimate warfare spending from FY 2001 through FY2019 (FY = fiscal year) and fine tune some details of her analysis.

Perhaps the most shocking number Dr. Garrett-Peltier provides is the average annual amount we have spent on war-related activities over the past 19 years. The number is in addition to the base Pentagon budget, which already puts us way ahead of what any two other nations combined spend on the military. Get ready for this number. Sit down. Relax. Maybe ready a glass or pipe of your favorite anti-anxiety home remedy. Or an Ativan or two.

Here goes…

On average, every year since 2001, the United States has spent $290 billion fighting wars. Again that’s not the total, but the annual average. Using Dr. Garrett-Peletier’s model, it works out 1.8 million defense-related jobs, instead of 3.7 million jobs that spending that money on a realistic mix of education, infrastructure, retrofitting, healthcare and renewable energy would have created.

And what did we get? Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and our bloody little adventures throughout Africa.  

Dr. Garrett-Peltier doesn’t measure the toll our wars have taken on American soldiers, their families and the soldiers and civilians of our adversaries. She hasn’t measured the monetary value of the wrecked cities, roads and bridges. She hasn’t taken into account the millions of refugees created by our wars. On a more Kissingerian “Realpolitik” note, Dr. Garrett-Peltier’s research doesn’t measure the loss of status we have suffered throughout Western Europe and the Muslim world for our stupid, goalless bullying wars. She doesn’t compute the value of the loss in global leadership to China and other countries in the areas of alternative fuels and infrastructure development. Or the value of the loss of status as a leader in the future by spending trillions of dollars on bombing and shooting instead of investing in meeting the Paris Accords on climate change.

None of these wars made the United States any safer. None of them advanced our expressed interests. None of these wars created greater democracy, freedom of speech, equality for women or economic growth. All they did was to kill people, destroy economies and enlarge the bank accounts of military contractors and weapons manufacturers.

It’s time to bring home all our troops, reign in development of new weapons of mass and pinpoint destruction, and start investing our tax dollars in life, not death.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Feel-good story of homeless 8-year-old chess champ should make us feel ashamed that other homeless children won’t get the opportunities now open to him

By Marc Jampole

A homeless eight-year-old refugee from Nigeria wins the New York State Chess Championship in the K-3 division. Within weeks, the publicity that Tanitoluwa Adewumi receives, primarily through the New York Time’s Nicholas Kristof, leads to the boy getting a home, a six-figure bank account, scholarship offers from three private schools and an invitation to meet with former President Bill Clinton.
What a wonderful story of deserving talent being rewarded! How heart-warming to see this very smart young man get some breaks in what has been until now a perilous life! Only in America, land of opportunity. All you need is hard work and perseverance.
At least that’s all you need if you’re Tani, as he is mostly called. But for most other homeless children, eight years of age is not when things start getting easier. Tani left behind thousands of school-aged children without homes, many of whom have one or both parents who work but don’t make enough money to afford permanent lodging.
Right-wingers can point to Tani and say that those with extraordinary talent have the best chance to do something with it in the United States. These knee-jerk flag-saluters and liars ignore statistics showing there is less economic and social mobility in the United States today than in virtually every other western country, and far less than we had 40, 50, 60 and 70 years ago. More to the point, virtually every society in all ages has found ways to identify and reward the very talented. From ancient China’s system of examinations to the rise of meritocracy-based civil service bureaucracies in European nation states to academic scholarships in the 20th and 21st centuries, ruling elites have never had a problem locating the geniuses and the great athletes, and then helping them get to a point that they can contribute to society.
But what about everyone else?
While Tani is to be praised and honored, we should also examine how lucky he has been. Lucky to be born with great mathematical talent and an inborn competitive edge, as both are needed to win at chess at any level.
Lucky to go to a school that had a chess program in a city and state that care about the game.  
Lucky not to be born in the first half of the 19th century, when he would arrive in the United States not as a homeless refuge required to attend school, but as a slave.
Lucky to excel at an endeavor in which an eight-year-old can have the success of an adult. In a few years, he’ll have competition from a lot of kids whose families can afford chess lessons with grand masters, chess camps and other kinds of enrichments like foreign travel that help children learn to think. By the age of 12, there may be 25 children across the country with the same kind of talent Tani has who come from wealthy families and practice three hours a day or more. With more kids playing and more kids serious in the future, Tani might have already had his best chance to win a major tournament. Or maybe he’ll become a chess professional. Hikaru Nakamura, one of the 10 highest rated chess players in the world had about the same rating as Tani at about the same age. Of course, Hikaru was studying chess three hours a day by the time he was ten.
But even if Tani never wins another chess tournament, his early achievement has identified him as a very special talent, and American society will now help him.
But kids like Tani are really few and far between. True talent, of the Tani or LeBron level, while distributed evenly among large populations (be they defined nationally, racially, by sex or by economic class), is nevertheless rare.  It’s not the Tani’s of the world who get screwed when wealthy parents put their kids through test prep after test prep, hire consultants and use their money to cheat or bully their children into highly rated colleges. It’s the average kids, and especially the above average but not brilliant kids of limited means who get screwed. And the screwing starts early, as wealthier parents are able to give their children the type of enrichment that most other parents can’t afford, unless they live in a large city with lots of free cultural opportunities. You know, the kind of stuff for which Republicans have spent the last 40 years slashing budgets, like libraries, music and drama programs, free lessons after school
Let’s face it. We love our little darlings and think they are all little geniuses. But most people are pretty average in ability and potential. Luckily, our economy produces a wide range of jobs that require every possible talent at every level. What we don’t do is value everyone or value every job. Our current society produces CEOs who make hundreds of millions of dollars no matter how the company performs, while millions of people have to live on a minimum wage that has remained stagnant for so many years that it’s buying power has been eroded to the point that in not one state in the country can someone afford a home on minimum wages. Meanwhile, many million more have seen no raise or even a shrinking of income when you adjust for inflation.
Imagine a world in which the range of salaries and wealth was much less than today, a world in which the cost of tuition at state universities was in the hundreds of dollars, a world in which a relatively high level of unionization insured that both union and non-union jobs paid middle class wages, a world in which high rates of marginal income tax (marginal meaning you only pay the rate for income above a certain amount, not your entire income) financed the building of roads and bridges, cheap public education, robust research and development and other government programs that create a level playing field and equalize the rewards of the winners and losers.
That world existed for the most part from 1940-1975 or so. It was not a perfect world, as minorities, women and the disabled did not have the opportunities that white males had in the workplace. Some would call it ironic that the era in which American society created a more level playing field for minorities and women was the very period in which the playing field became tilted in favor of the rich and the rewards became to be distributed in a less fair manner. Of course, many, including myself, wouldn’t call the simultaneous emergence of these two trends a coincidence.  Those interested in returning society to the Gilded Age of extremes in rich and poor in which selfishness reigned used the real plague of racism and the phony threat of job and status loss to the “other” to convince large numbers of both poorly and well educated voters to support candidates who created the conditions for today’s growing inequality by lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting government programs.
The story of Tanitoluwa Adewumi makes us feel good, but it should make us feel ashamed and guilty, because it reminds us by virtue of being human everyone deserves the basics of an affordable home, a quality education, lifelong healthcare and a secure retirement. We shouldn’t judge a society on how well its talented do, but on how well the average and under-average do. We’re all people, whether we can figure out checkmates or have trouble adding two-digit numbers.

Editorial: Show Mueller’s Work

William Barr did what he was hired to do. The new attorney general shut down Robert Mueller’s investigation into the relationship of Donald Trump and the Russians, and Barr declared that the president cannot be indicted for conspiracy or his efforts to obstruct justice.

Trump claimed Barr’s letter summarizing Mueller’s findings amounted to “total exoneration,” when it did no such thing. Barr specifically quoted Mueller saying that one of his principal findings was that the report “does not exonerate him.”

Mueller apparently did not find enough evidence of conspiracy to warrant an indictment (Barr didn’t use the word “collusion” in his four-page letter summing up Mueller’s 22-month investigation) but Mueller found some of the obvious signs that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. Indeed, Mueller reportedly created a substantial record of the president’s troubling interactions with law enforcement. Barr’s letter only contains the top-line findings. It does not include any of the evidence or legal analysis that underlies those findings, which the full Mueller report would contain.

It is widely believed that Barr got the job of attorney general because he had ruled out charging a president with obstruction. In a June 2018 memo, shared with Trump’s lawyer before his nomination, Barr argued that the theory of obstruction he believed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be adopting was “fatally misconceived.”

Barr has a history of undermining investigations of Republican presidents. In 1992, when he was then-President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, Barr advised Bush to pardon all those who had been involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which threatened to implicate Bush and former President Ronald Reagan in arranging secret sales of arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages in the early 1980s. After the Christmas Eve 1992 pardons, Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, who headed the investigation of Reagan Administration officials’ criminal conduct in the Iran-Conra scandal from 1986 to 1992, stated that “the Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.” Walsh noted that in issuing the pardons Bush appeared to have preempted being implicated by evidence that was to come to light during the pending trial of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger.

With the new Barr letter apparently putting Trump in the clear, at least temporaarily, Trump was intent on vengeance, and said “the other side” might be made to pay. “Hopefully, somebody is going to look at the other side. This was an illegal takedown that failed. And hopefully, somebody is going to be looking at the other side.”

It’s hard to see how Mueller avoided finding conspiracy and/or obstruction in a probe that already has taken down Trump’s former campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, personal attorney, national-security adviser, and longtime political adviser. We know Russians offered to help the Trump campaign, and Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in the Trump Tower in June 2016 with Russian government associates offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. We know Trump invited Russians to find Hillary’s missing emails. We know Paul Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian linked to Moscow’s intelligence agencies. We know Jared Kushner sought to use secure Russian diplomatic lines to communicate with the Kremlin. And Trump has a long history of lying, filing false reports and business dealings with Russian mobsters and oligarchs. Also, Trump resisted answering questions from Mueller, and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, suggested Trump might use the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating himself. Of course, that is his right. But we have the right to know if the president did plead the Fifth, which Trump has said in other cases would be an admission of guilt.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York continue their investigation of campaign finance violations, including hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep the women quiet about their sexual affairs with Trump. His former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, already pleaded guilty last year to campaign finance violations related to the $130,000 payoff to Daniels and Cohen told investigators and Congress that he made the payment on Trump’s orders. The Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, has also been cooperating with the SDNY since last August, leading to speculation that he could implicate Trump in future indictments.

Federal investigators also are probing Trump’s inauguration committee for potentially committing illegal acts such as fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and a host other crimes. The inauguration raised an unprecedented $107 million dollars with little to show for it and spent exorbitant amounts on expenses such as makeup and rooms in the Trump International Hotel. Prosecutors subpoenaed the inaugural committee in February for documents on how it spent the money, seeking a wide range of materials, including records of payments to the Trump International Hotel or Trump Organization.

The subpoena indicates investigators are looking for a wide range of possible crimes. It’s likely that the SDNY, which issued the subpoena, will take the lead in the probe. Much like the other inquiries into Trump’s operations and inner circle, there’s no immediate end in sight for the investigation.

The House Judiciary Committee should continue its wide-ranging corruption probe into Trump’s involvement in any campaign finance violations, obstructions of justice or abuses of power such as misuse of pardons. It should also demand that the Justice Department account for evidence of criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia, as well as efforts to cover up any potential conspiracy.

Leading the investigation is House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, an attorney and congressman from New York. The White House and many Trump allies appear to be stonewalling Nadler’s document requests, however, and only eight of 81 requests for documents were returned by the deadline. Nadler expects that more individuals will eventually comply, but the White House has already rejected requests for certain materials, such as those related to Trump’s meetings and phone calls with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and they can expect the White House to try to stonewall any more scrutiny, crying that it is a partisan inquiry.

New York’s state attorney general is looking into Trump’s dealings with Deutsche Bank, including whether he inflated the value of his property during his failed 2014 attempt to buy the Buffalo Bills football team. The attorney general’s office reportedly has subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank for records related to the Bills deal, as well as other Trump Organization plans. Deutsche Bank loaned Trump at least $2 billion over recent decades despite other banks cutting him off because of his financial instability.

At the very least, Barr must release the full Mueller report, including underlying documents, and agree to testify before the House Judiciary Committee to explain his decision not to prosecute.

Mueller’s punt on the Russia probe removes the pressure on House Democrats to pursue impeachment, since the prospects of getting 20 Senate Republicans to join Democrats in removing the Great Misleader are remote to the point of invisibility.

While we might be stuck with Trump for another two years, that should enhance Democrats’ chances for an electoral sweep in 2020. Make Republicans defend Trump’s pursuit of Moscow Gold as well as the GOP’s tax breaks for the billionaires, their plans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, budget cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and placing fossil fuel industrialists in charge of the nation’s environment and national parks. — JMC


From The Progressive Populist, April 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