Friday, April 17, 2015

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

By Marc Jampole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a windfall for financial institutions! 

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

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

Monday, April 13, 2015

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

By Marc Jampole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 10, 2015

Dispatches 5/1/15 Progressive Populist


RAHM WINS RE-ELECTION BUT CHUY MOVES GRASSROOTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2015

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

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

Editorial: Give Peace a Chance


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2015

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

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


Selections from the May 1, 2015 issue










Monday, April 6, 2015

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

By Marc Jampole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 3, 2015

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

By Marc Jampole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

We learn same old lesson from Indiana law that claims to protect religious rights: Money talks

By Marc Jampole

When did the fight about religious liberty change from protecting the right to practice in private to asserting a right to impose a religious practice on a public space?

It’s a rhetorical question, because history tells us that for at least 200 years the religious rightwing has always wanted to impose Christianity on American society, just like radical Muslims want to impose a conservative version of Islam on civil societies across the Middle East.  We know that the America’s religious rightwing has become more pushy over the past 35 years as it has become more politically powerful—thanks to a deal to join forces with those who support the economic interests of the wealthy. The campaign against the war on Christmas, the many state laws trying to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights, the demands that the state pay for religious education through voucher programs, the demonizing of Michael Schiavo and passage of “Terri Schiavo” laws—these are some of the steps that the Christian right has taken to impose its religious values on the rest of the country.  

But we do live in a secular society and sometimes the religious right pushes too far.

The mainstream of business leaders, pundits, politicians and media have joined progressives in believing the new Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows business to discriminate against LGBT individuals and couples. Indiana Governor Mike Pence and other conservative supporters of the new law believe that it merely protects religious people and the organizations they control from having to take actions against their religious beliefs.

It sounds like a face-off between two rights, each with equal standing, but it’s really not. There is no right to refuse to sell goods or services to anyone because you don’t approve of their private actions.  Many people who support the law—Pence, the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush—insist that it won’t enable discrimination against LGBT, although the comments of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker all suggest that they don’t care about gay rights as long as religious rights are preserved.

An analysis of what the law means on the level of day-to-day actions reveals that at its heart, it represents an imposition of religion on civil society. Let’s start by all the real-world actions that the law might protect: Private worship in the home? Other laws protect that. The right to display religious imagery on one’s own property? Other laws protect that. The right to gather with others of like mind and pray or philosophize together? Other laws protect that. So why did we need this law if not to enable individuals and corporations to act out their beliefs in ways that do impinge on others?  

Supporters of the law have yet to name one additional action not allowed previously that religious individuals and the organizations they control will now be able because of the new law.

Keep in mind that many businesses can quietly refuse to serve anyone, although as the recent case of Macy’s discriminating against blacks in New York City, you have to be pretty subtle about it. Take everyone’s favorite example of the florist or photographer who doesn’t want to work a same-sex wedding. A vendor can claim to be “too busy, jack up the price or market the business solely through religious vehicles such as the local Christian business directories. As long as no one discovers a pattern of discrimination, the vendor—be it florist, landlord or adoption agency—could always get away with it.  If the interpretation of most in the mainstream and on the left is correct—and I think it is—the new law would enable these vendors to take their discriminatory attitudes out of the closet and explicitly tell LGBT people why they won’t serve them. 

Thus, when we reduce the lofty words about religious freedom to specific actions, we can only conclude that either the law is unnecessary or that those supporting it do want to give people and corporations the right to refuse service to others because of a difference in religious practice.

Even as the Indiana governor and legislators raise a hue and cry about the hue and cry everyone else has raised about this ill-conceived law, they are nevertheless acting swiftly to amend it to make certain that no one can hide behind it to discriminate.

The reason for this rear guard action is money: They fear that businesses will take theirs away from the state. In the few days since the Indiana legislature passed and Pence signed the law, large employers in Indiana and all over the country have protested loudly. Indianapolis-based Angie’s List has canceled a $40 million office expansion. The Gap, Apple and Levi Strauss have all come out against the law, as have the administrations of Indiana and Butler Universities. So has the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which is holding its basketball finals in Indianapolis and has an extensive operation in Indianapolis. Several smaller organizations have already canceled conventions planned for Indiana’s largest city.

Those who believe that the United States is a secular nation should naturally rejoice that the Indiana state legislature is going to fix the new law to make certain no one can use it to discriminate against others in the marketplace. But we should mourn the fact that Indiana’s elected officials are not acting from a sense of right and wrong, but rather reacting to what the moneyed interests want. It reflects the hypocrisy of many of the politicians who follow the classic demagogue playbook in upholding the views of the religious right. Their support is not sincere, but part of a snow job to gain support for economic programs and policy that hurt 99% of the country but help their real employers—the super wealthy.

Once again, in the immortal words of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman, “When money talks, no one listens to the accent.”

Friday, March 27, 2015

Editorial: Dems Need Prez Race



Some progressive Democrats are starting to freak out that Hillary Clinton might have a clear route to the Democratic presidential nomination without a serious challenger.

Several groups have been urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president, but Warren has made it clear that she is not interested. Warren apparently is not excited about the prospect of spending most of the next year trooping through Iowa and New Hampshire, even if we think her economic populist rhetoric would resonate well with Democrats and independents in those states.

The good news is that a few reputable Democrats, as well as an independent who is actually pretty close to a New Deal Democrat, are trying to make a race. Potential candidates include former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Progressive Dems should stop wishing for Warren and start supporting Sanders or O’Malley, who actually want to run for president and would provide a progressive alternative to Hillary.

H.A. Goodman, in a recent column, noted that the Electoral College favors Democrats in 2016. “To win the White House a candidate needs 270 electoral votes; far fewer than the 332 votes Obama won in 2012 to beat Romney. Martin O’Malley and Elizabeth Warren can defeat anyone Republicans have to offer in 2016, primarily because they possess ideas and attributes that resonate with the majority of Americans.”

Voters didn’t buy Romney’s conservative pitch in 2012 and they are unlikely to be convinced next year by Scott Walker’s ability to beat up on unions, which is popular among right-wing donors but is less persuasive to blue-collar voters that Republicans need to peel away from the Democrats.

Goodman noted that Wisconsin went blue in 2012 despite Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) being Romney’s running mate. Since then, the economy has continued to improve, despite Republican predictions that it would collapse and Republican obstruction of Democratic jobs bills, while the Affordable Care Act has helped 16 million Americans get health coverage. That has cut the national uninsured rate by 35% since the law went into effect.

Like Wisconsin, other battleground states that went for Obama can easily vote for a Democrat once again in 2016, Goodman noted. Pew Research reported, “Nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements.” In addition, 51% of Americans support labor unions, most Americans believe in global warming, 73% of Americans favored increasing the minimum wage in 2014, and 52% of Americans support same-sex marriages.

“On almost all of these issues, Scott Walker and Ted Cruz don’t side with the majority of Americans. As for Rand Paul and Jeb Bush, some of the mainstream values they espouse (immigration reform) are overshadowed by extremely conservative policies on the economy, wealth inequality, climate change, and issues like the minimum wage,” Goodman wrote. “Conversely, all the Democratic candidates in 2016 ... hold views that resonate with most voters.”

In O’Malley’s case, Quentin Misiag of the Daily Iowan at the University of Iowa, has likened the former Maryland governor to John F. Kennedy. And O’Malley has executive experience with eight years at the helm of Maryland government and before that as mayor of Baltimore, where, supporters say, he reversed the Eastern industrial city’s decline, Misiag noted.

Joan Walsh notes on page 13 that O’Malley supports restoring the Glass-Steagall law to separate commercial banks, whose deposits are federally insured, from more speculative banking operations. He also supports abolishing the lower tax rate for capital gains, increasing the minimum wage and overtime-pay threshold, greater collective bargaining rights, expanding Social Security and more infrastructure spending.

Sanders is all that and more — progressive to the point of socialism. He was a founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he was re-elected senator in 2012 with 71% of the vote and he has visited Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-primary states to test support for a potential campaign, but he is not interested in mounting a purely symbolic campaign and he is not interested in being a spoiler who would throw the election to the Republicans.

Sanders wants progressives to show they can mount a winning campaign. That’s not an unreasonable request — and if progressives don’t want to see a right-winger elected to the White House next year they’d better stop whining about how we’ve lost our democracy. Instead start organizing to get people to believe they can beat the billions of dollars that the Koch Brothers and their plutocrat allies will put up to elect the right winger of their choice.

Finally, progressives ought to calibrate their criticism of Hillary Clinton. She is a centrist liberal in much the same caste as her husband and Barack Obama. She would be friendlier to Wall Street and corporate interests than we would care to see in the White House. But Hillary would not be the enemy of progressive policies, and particularly organized labor, that Jeb Bush or Scott Walker would be. And an Italian funeral during any Democratic administration could turn around the Supreme Court and enable the liberal wing on that court to reconsider Citizens United.

Recent polls show Mrs. Clinton more than 40 points ahead of non-candidate Warren and comfortably ahead of potential Republican rivals, even with the media-manufactured controversy over her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. But she also was in a strong position in 2008, before Barack Obama overtook her. We think she could benefit from a challenger to sharpen her campaign skills. So bring ’em on, whether Sen. Warren wants to join the fray or not.

Peace By Other Means in Palestine


Benjamin Netanyahu won another term as Prime Minister of Israel in a close election that was tarnished not only by his interference in domestic politics in the United States two weeks before the election, but also with his promise to right-wing Israelis that he would not allow an independent Palestinian state, reneging on a longstanding commitment to a peaceful solution to that conflict, and his last-minute appeal for his base to counter Israeli-Arab votes on election day.

On March 23, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel had spied on the US talks with Iran and leaked information to Obama’s political opponents in Congress. After Netanyahu addressed Congress, 47 Republican senators wrote a letter to Iranian leaders, warning that any agreement reached with President Obama would not be binding on Congress or future administrations.

Netanyahu has shown himself to be untrustworthy and President Obama has told him that the US would have to “reassess our options.” He should start by lending support to the UN Security Council’s resolution that would define the principle for a two-state solution as based on Israel’s 1967 borders. The US previously has refused to endorse the resolution, which allows for mutually-agreed swaps of territory between Israel and the future Palestinian state.

American Jews also are reassessing their support for Israel with Netanyahu in charge. The left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street stepped up criticism of the prime minister. The Jewish Daily Forward reported March 22 that J Street’s President Jeremy Ben-Ami made clear that J Street is “very glad to hear the Obama administration is reconsidering its approach to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.”

Obama also could soften opposition to Palestine’s efforts to join the International Criminal Court, which is supposed to happen on April 1. Under current US law, the Palestinian Authority will forfeit $400 million in aid if it pursues war crimes charges against Israel. The US should help Israel maintain its security but the US should not block Palestine from seeking redress of grievances in a recognized international legal forum. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, April 15, 2015

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

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

Selections from the April 15, 2015 issue













Thursday, March 26, 2015

House budget seeks to make war, not love thy neighbor

By Marc Jampole

Snip, snip, snip. They’re cutting down the nets.

I’m not talking about overjoyed college basketball players standing on ladders to cut down the basket nets to the cheers of rabid fans after advancing to the next round of the National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournament.

No, that loud and constant snipping sound we hear comes from our nation’s capital where Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted to shred the social safety net.

Healthcare aid to the poor. Cut.

Food stamps for families who can’t otherwise afford a decent meal: Cut.
Special education. Cut.

Pell grants to help poor students afford a college education. Cut.

Job training. Cut. Housing assistance. Cut. Federally-funded research. Cut.

The one government function not to get the hatchet is defense. The House budget actually gives the Pentagon more than it requested, including $96 billion that the generals can spend without telling Congress why. They call it the Overseas Contingency Operations funds, or OCO, but that’s just a euphemism for a slush fund.

And not just for military spending, but for spending on war. As a New York Times article points out, the House budget gives the Defense Department less than it wanted for basic operations, but more than double what it requested for waging war.

House Republicans say they are slashing programs to reduce the deficit, but the fact they saved war from the cutting table suggests that what they really wanted to do was stop paying for social welfare programs.  Thus the budget takes money from poor people and gives it to the military contractors and defense manufacturers who benefit most from increased spending on war. 

When we look at the money flow, it all makes sense. This budget continues the proud Republican tradition of stealing from the poor to give to the wealthy. It’s the essence of the Reagan agenda, which still guides Republican economic policy.  The true objective behind the budget differs not a whit from that goal behind other Republican actions that transfer money from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, such as replacing public schools with charter schools that pay teachers less and administrators more; cutting taxes on the wealthy while also cutting social welfare programs; or making it easier for businesses to resist labor unions so they can pay their employees less and keep more of the profits.

The House budget also includes language that could lead to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which would end the health insurance of millions of Americans, while driving up the cost of coverage significantly for those lucky enough to keep their insurance. The House budget also takes the first step to privatizing Medicare.

It’s not just the flow of money that makes the Republican budget so odious, it’s also the values behind it: These self-proclaimed protectors of American values say “no” to helping the young, the sick, the poor and the elderly, but say “yes” to bombs, tanks and guns.  I know these guys hated the 1960’s, but that’s no reason to make “make war, not love” in a mockery of that earlier age’s slogan projecting a world of peace and prosperity.

There is absolutely no chance that this budget will become law. The more reasonable Senate will undoubtedly mess with it, and even if it does pass in close to present form, President Obama will certainly veto it.

But all that means is that programs that help poor people, those who send their children to public schools and those who use America’s roads, bridges and mass transit systems will suffer gradual strangulation, not an instantaneous deathblow. Why? Because without a budget, the sequester will remain in effect and keep slowly choking the budgets of all federal programs.

And if the Republicans could somehow exempt military spending from the sequester, they wouldn’t mind that outcome at all.