The Establishment Debates, Round Two

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

17 September 15

onald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz are part of the establishment. Donald Trump is an owner of the establishment. Carly Fiorina was a top employee of the establishment and is not campaigning against the establishment. Ted Cruz worked on George W. Bush’s campaign, even helping to put together the legal team that helped defend the theft of Florida. Cruz also has an establishment economic agenda. Ben Carson is the only one who has a case to make that he is an outsider, but he too is a champion for the establishment.

The mainstream media constantly calling these four anti-establishment candidates either shows how out of touch they are or reveals their agenda to mislead the American public.

Let’s get real: the establishment loved the focus of this debate. Social issues, Planned Parenthood, Donald Trump, gay marriage, Carly Fiorina, ISIS, Iran, Iraq, Syria, immigration, vaccines, taxes, and more Trump. In three hours there were a few minutes of discussion on the minimum wage, and that was it for the economy. Barely a word on economic inequality, student debt, racism, criminal justice, the environment, jobs, or health care.

I’ll let the talking heads tell you who won the debate, but the American people lost the debate. I will say Carly Fiorina landed a solid blow to Trump, but who knows what the Republican voters will think. In the Junior Varsity debate, Bobby Jindal sounded an anti-Washington message, but he has an establishment agenda. The next time someone says the anti-establishment candidates are winning on the Republican side, ask them what anti-establishment policies they have proposed. Expect to hear crickets after you ask that.

The real anti-establishment candidate gave up two and a half hours into the debate when he decided that he had seen enough. “The evening was really pretty sad. This country and our planet face enormous problems. And the Republican candidates barely touched upon them tonight. And when they did, they were dead wrong on virtually every position they took. The Republican Party cannot be allowed to lead this country. That's why we need a political revolution.”

That was Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent member of Congress. You see, “anti-establishment” has nothing to do with being from outside Washington, or whether or not you have ever been elected to anything. It’s about your agenda. None of the 15 candidates on the stage at the Reagan Library make the establishment nervous. Even Rand Paul would not rock the economic boat enough to worry them.

Well, maybe they would worry a little about Trump trying to raise their taxes, but I think they know they can make a deal with the Donald. I, like Senator Sanders, kept waiting for them to talk about income inequality. “Rich get richer. Median family income $5k less than in 1999. One of the highest rates of childhood poverty. Any discussion?” Sanders asked as the debate droned on. “Have you heard anyone use the word poverty yet? 47.7 million Americans living in poverty. No discussion.” Still later he tweeted: “Waiting, waiting, waiting. Will we hear anything about racial justice, income inequality or making college affordable?”

Of course we didn’t. This was an establishment debate. The establishment wants to maintain the status quo. Even the so-called “outsiders” don’t want to rock the apple cart. They only want to distract the people while they continue to redistribute wealth upward to the one percent. They are overjoyed that Trump is blaming all of our problems on immigrants crossing the Mexican border. They love it that people think Obamacare and entitlements are causing the economic problems of the shrinking middle class.

They did briefly talk about the minimum wage, and it turned out the candidate who the moderator said supported raising the minimum wage really only said it might be a good idea. Ben Carson did go on to say that he thought both sides had to sit down and negotiate a sensible minimum wage and then index it to inflation. But he also said we need two minimum wages, one for young people and one for adults. Never mind that young people have to pay an arm and a leg for college. And what if that young person was getting a job to support his out-of-work parents, who might not be able work anymore because of an illness.

The establishment doesn’t relate to the struggles of the poor and middle class. They have it all, and in no way want to support policies that allow their wealth to be shared downward. This was clearly their debate, and they want many more of these.

Next month in Las Vegas there will be a debate in which at least one candidate will present a real anti-establishment agenda. The establishment will be well represented in that debate, and CNN will again be in control. It’s no wonder they only want six debates where the American people will hear about income inequality, money in politics, racial justice, global warming, peace, and workers’ rights.

Let’s hope the moderators don’t steer the Democratic Party debates down the same path as the first two Republican Party debates. I guess even if they try, Bernie will not let them succeed.

Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

The Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion Dollar Lie About Bernie

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

17 September 15

've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

(1) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).

(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.

(3) Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

(4) Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.

That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

Your thoughts?