RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: The Pandemic Is Helping the Rich Get Even Richer. It's Time to Tax Their Obscene Wealth Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=24193"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 August 2020 11:51

Sanders writes: "We are in the middle of an extraordinary moment in American history: a public health crisis, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the existential threat of climate change and a president who is moving our country in an authoritarian direction."

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, greets supporters after speaking at James Madison Park in Madison, Wisconsin, Friday, April 12, 2019. (photo: Amber Arnold/Wisconsin State Journal/AP)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, greets supporters after speaking at James Madison Park in Madison, Wisconsin, Friday, April 12, 2019. (photo: Amber Arnold/Wisconsin State Journal/AP)


The Pandemic Is Helping the Rich Get Even Richer. It's Time to Tax Their Obscene Wealth

By Bernie Sanders, Guardian UK

11 August 20


Inequality is becoming worse as tens of millions of Americans face unemployment, loss of healthcare, evictions and hunger

e are in the middle of an extraordinary moment in American history: a public health crisis, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the existential threat of climate change and a president who is moving our country in an authoritarian direction.

In the midst of all these crises, there is another issue of major concern that is receiving very little attention. And that is the obscene level of income and wealth inequality which exists in our country and the fact that, during the pandemic, that inequality is becoming much worse.

While tens of millions of Americans are now facing economic desperation – unemployment, loss of healthcare, evictions, hunger – the very rich are becoming much richer. Here are three figures that should come as a shock to everyone in America:

$13,000,000,000. That’s how much Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man alive, made in one day while the companies he owns denies paid sick leave, hazard pay and a safe workplace to hundreds of thousands of his workers.

$21,000,000,000. That’s how much the Walton family, the richest family in America, made over the past 20 weeks while US taxpayers continue to subsidize the starvation wages at Walmart, the largest private employer in America.

$731,000,000,000. That’s how much the wealth of 467 billionaires increased since the Federal Reserve started taking emergency actions to prop up the stock market in March.

Incredibly, thanks to President Trump’s tax giveaway to the rich signed into law a few years ago, billionaires now pay a lower effective tax rate than teachers, nurses, firefighters or truck drivers.

The extraordinary wealth gains that billionaires have made during the pandemic come at a time when 92 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and tens of millions of Americans are facing evictions or foreclosures.

At a time when so many of our people are struggling economically, it is morally obscene that a tiny handful of billionaires – the top 0.0001% – are using a global pandemic as an opportunity to make outrageous profits after receiving a de facto bailout by the Federal Reserve.

It is time to change our national priorities. Instead of allowing multibillionaires to become much richer, Congress needs to stand up for working families. A good place to start would be to tax the enormous gains billionaires have made during the pandemic and use that money to guarantee healthcare as a right for the duration of the public health emergency.

According to Americans for Tax Fairness, imposing a 60% tax on the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires in America would raise over $420bn. That’s enough money to empower Medicare to pay all of the out-of-pocket healthcare expenses of every American in this country, including prescription drugs, for an entire year.

Think about that for a moment. By imposing a 60% tax on the wealth gains made by just 467 billionaires, healthcare would be extended to everyone in America through Medicare and no one, regardless of their coverage, would have to pay any out-of-pocket medical bills over the next 12 months. That’s exactly what the Make Billionaires Pay Act I recently introduced with Senators Ed Markey and Kirsten Gillibrand would accomplish.

Under this legislation, no one who is diagnosed with cancer would have to beg for money from strangers on GoFundMe. No one with diabetes would die because they could not afford their insulin. No one with coronavirus symptoms would be afraid to go to a doctor because of the cost, and risk infecting their neighbors, colleagues, family or friends.

While the fight for Medicare for All continues, for at least the next 12 months, every American would be able to get the healthcare that they need during this public health crisis. And it could all be paid for by a 60% tax on the outsized fortunes the wealthiest people in America accumulated during this horrific pandemic.

Now, I understand that there are some people out there who may believe that a 60% tax sounds like a pretty steep tax increase. Well, let me ease those concerns. Even after paying this tax, these 467 billionaires will still come out ahead by $310bn. Trust me. Their families will survive.

As a nation, the time is long overdue for us to finally address the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that exists. In my view, we can no longer tolerate the three wealthiest people in America owning more wealth than the bottom 50%, the top 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 92% and 45% of all new income going to the 1%.

At a time of enormous economic pain and suffering, we have a choice to make. We can continue to allow the very rich to get much richer while most everyone else gets poorer. Or we can tax the winnings a handful of billionaires made during the pandemic to improve the health and wellbeing of tens of millions of Americans. 

The time has come for the Congress to act on behalf of the working class who are hurting like they have never hurt before, not the billionaire class who are doing phenomenally well and have never had it so good.

Making billionaires pay to expand Medicare to all during a public health emergency is a good place to start.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Real Reason New York's Attorney General Went After the NRA Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46833"><span class="small">Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 August 2020 11:01

McQuade writes: "New York Attorney General Letitia James may be able to do what no politician before her has been able to accomplish - take down the National Rifle Association."

New York Attorney General Letitia James. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
New York Attorney General Letitia James. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


The Real Reason New York's Attorney General Went After the NRA

By Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast

11 August 20


Why was it left to New York’s attorney general to file a civil suit? The silence of the U.S. Department of Justice is deafening. 

ew York Attorney General Letitia James may be able to do what no politician before her has been able to accomplish – take down the National Rifle Association. 

Her lawsuit alleging self-dealing and misconduct could, if successful, dissolve the entire organization. While the suit is civil in nature, it reads like an old-fashioned corruption indictment. 

It alleges that the not-for profit organization violated New York state laws governing charities by diverting tens of millions of dollars away from the organization’s mission for the personal benefit of its leaders, with Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President for the past 29 years, and three other officers named as defendants along with the organization itself. According to the complaint, LaPierre used NRA funds for eight private plane flights to the Bahamas, where they enjoyed life on the 107-foot yacht of an NRA vendor, as well as for safaris in Africa and elsewhere. The complaint also claims that LaPierre allotted millions of dollars for private security for himself without sufficient oversight (and cited “security” concerns to explain why he didn’t disclose those trips to the NRA’s board), that he  spent $1.2 million of the group’s funds on gifts from Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman for favored friends and vendors, and that he negotiated a post-employment contract for himself valued at $17 million without board approval. 

New York, like most states, requires non-profit organizations to file annual financial reports as a condition of its non-profit status, which confers tax benefits for the organization and its donors. The law requires funds to be used to serve the organization’s members and advance its charitable mission. The complaint alleges that the NRA’s leaders “blatantly ignored” those rules by failing to ensure proper internal controls, ignoring whistleblowers and concealing problems from auditors. 

Like other cases of corruption, this easily could have been framed as a criminal case. Filing false registration and disclosure documents as part of a scheme to defraud can serve as the basis for federal mail or wire fraud, and often does in public corruption cases. When I served as a federal prosecutor, my former office brought public corruption cases on such theories in similar cases in which officials misused funds for personal benefit. Why then, is it left to James, whose office’s oversight over charities is civil in nature, to bring this action? The silence of the U.S. Department of Justice here is deafening. 

But the effect of the state attorney general’s civil case might be even more devastating than a criminal case because one of the remedies of her action is dissolution of the NRA itself.  She used the same tactics to dissolve the Trump Foundation in November. There, she reached a settlement with President Donald Trump and family members to pay $2 million to resolve allegations of misuse of charitable funds to influence the 2016 presidential primary election and to further his own personal interests. Among the improper use of funds was doling out $500,000 to potential voters at a 2016 campaign rally in Iowa. As part of that settlement, James required Trump to personally admit to misusing the Foundation’s funds. Sometimes, parties to settlements are permitted to publicly state that a resolution is not an admission of wrongdoing. James would not let them off so easily. Her success in the Trump Foundation case puts teeth into her legal quest to dissolve the NRA as well. 

Since 1871, the NRA has been the nation’s largest gun advocacy group. Founded to improve marksmanship following the Civil War, the organization has lately become a powerful lobbying organization and campaign funder that can make or break candidates for political office depending on their stance on firearms regulations. As its website boasts, the NRA is “widely recognized today as a major political force.” Following mass shootings in America, Democratic candidates for office have blamed the NRA for the inability to pass gun reform legislation, and have demanded campaign finance reform to expose and limit the organization’s influence on elections. 

No doubt, there will be Second Amendment advocates who claim that the New York lawsuit is politically motivated effort to strike a blow against gun ownership. Indeed, if the allegations are true that the NRA engaged in cartoonishly corrupt self-dealing and misconduct, then the dissolution of the NRA would end its 139-year run as the nation’s strongest advocate for gun rights. 

The law may be the only weapon that can take down the NRA. And if James can prove her case, then the demise of the NRA will be a self-inflicted wound. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: The Coming Tightening of the Presidential Race Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 August 2020 08:32

Ash writes: "American auto racing has developed a technique for creating close races."

Hillary Clinton Headquarters, election night 2016. (photo: Todd Heisler/NYT)
Hillary Clinton Headquarters, election night 2016. (photo: Todd Heisler/NYT)


The Coming Tightening of the Presidential Race

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

11 August 20

 

merican auto racing has developed a technique for creating close races. If there is any kind of damage whatsoever to one of the cars, they put out the yellow flag, slow all the cars down, and bunch all the cars together until the track is cleaned up and the racing can be restarted.

The race organizers say this is for safety reasons and, to a limited extent, it is indeed somewhat safer. What the race organizers don’t say is that once the cars are bunched together and the race restarted, the situation becomes quite a bit more dangerous due to the cars being much closer together. So why do it?

Close races tend to be more compelling, particularly as they approach the finish, and more likely to keep audiences riveted to the coverage. For bottom-line-driven broadcasting, riveting coverage is more profitable than coverage of an event whose outcome appears to be a foregone conclusion.

Would US media really shift their coverage to create the perception that the race is getting closer as election day approaches? Yes, they would, and if past is prologue they are going to do just that. Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 both watched big leads evaporate into horse races at the finish line fueled by media-driven calamities, only to lose to rivals without majorities.

The amount of revenue generated by presidential election coverage dwarfs the money generated by an individual sporting event. If it’s a “toss-up heading to the finish line” and “the fate of the nation hangs in the balance,” the revenue generated will be exponentially greater than a race that appears to have been decided weeks or months in advance.

So what’s the harm? After all, close elections generate vigorous debate, and that’s good for the political discourse, isn’t it? There are two very serious problems with that approach. One, US media tampering with the election process is no better or more acceptable than interference by a foreign government. It just replaces one motvie with another, a profit motive instead of a global strategic advantage. But it is still tampering, nonetheless.

The other reason is embodied in the old adage, elections have consequences. The consequences of the minority presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump have been literally catastrophic for the country on a myriad of levels. It will take generations to undo the harm of those two horse races that ended up with the wrong horse, the horse without the majority in the White House.

Time to demand that Russia, China, CNN, and MSNBC — all — stop tampering with American elections.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bolivia: Social Movements Will Not Allow an Illegitimate Regime to Remain in Power Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55626"><span class="small">Anton Flaig and Denis Rogatyuk, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 August 2020 08:22

Excerpt: "Nine months after the military coup that ousted left-wing president Evo Morales, Bolivia's coup government has suspended elections for the third time."

An Evo Morales supporter confronts Bolivian police in La Paz. (photo: Natacha Pisarenko/AP)
An Evo Morales supporter confronts Bolivian police in La Paz. (photo: Natacha Pisarenko/AP)


Bolivia: Social Movements Will Not Allow an Illegitimate Regime to Remain in Power

By Anton Flaig and Denis Rogatyuk, Jacobin

11 August 20


Faced with the Left’s lead in the polls, coup-installed president Jeanine Áñez has suspended Bolivia’s election for the third time. The COB trade union federation has responded with a general strike and road blockades around Bolivia — showing that the country’s mighty social movements will not allow an illegitimate regime to continue clinging to power.

ine months after the military coup that ousted left-wing president Evo Morales, Bolivia’s coup government has suspended elections for the third time. In reaction to acting president Jeanine Áñez’s move to delay the ballot, the Bolivian Workers’ Central (COB) staged marches around the country, with some half a million people turning out for the demonstration in El Alto. Addressing the rally, COB general secretary Juan Carlos Huarachi threatened an indefinite general strike unless the elections went ahead as planned.

The El Alto demonstration was the biggest since the immediate aftermath of Morales’s overthrow in November, when indigenous people protesting the coup were “shot like animals,” killing at least thirty-seven. Yet the election court president Salvador Romero, appointed by the coup regime, ignored the protests, and on Monday, August 3, the indefinite general strike began in earnest, with protests, marches, and road blockades rapidly spreading across Bolivia. Within twenty-four hours, over seventy-five major roads and highways in the provinces of La Paz, Cochabamba, Santa Cruz, Oruro, and Potosí were completely or partially blockaded by local trade union branches and social movements.

The COB-backed blockades were widely supported by trade unions and social movements. Participants included the Union Federation of Bolivian Mine Workers (FSTMB), the coca growers (the Six Federations of the Trópico of Cochabamba), the Bartolina Sisa women’s federation, the Tupac Katari peasants’ federation, and the trade union Confederation of Intercultural Communities of Bolivia (CSCIB). These forces have a history of mass mobilizations against neoliberal governments, such as the historic 2003 Gas War and the 2000 water wars in Cochabamba. Following the first few days of blockades, on August 6 the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) was forced to open talks with the social movements regarding the final date of the elections.

After a tense night of negotiations on August 8, which involved the COB, the TSE and both houses of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, no agreement was reached. The electoral court continues to rebuff any attempts to move the election closer to the original September 6 date. The following day, an attempt by the Áñez regime to convene a national political dialogue ended in a humiliating failure, as not only Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), but practically all political forces boycotted the meeting, except for her own “Together” (Juntos) alliance and two minor right-wing parties.

More promisingly, it seems that under Huarachi’s leadership, the COB has now returned to its historic roots of fighting for democracy and against military dictatorship. Indeed, while the COB is now firmly standing against the coup regime’s bid to delay elections, even a few months ago its stand was far less robust. With the coup regime seeking to avoid a test at the polls, the coming developments will test the power of Bolivian social movements — and their willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with Morales and his allies.

How the COB and FEJUVE Failed to Defend Evo

This relationship cannot be taken for granted. When Bolivia headed for presidential elections in October 2019, the alliance of urban mestizo workers and rural indigenous social movements that had long backed Morales’s government had begun to weaken. After fourteen years of governing, there wasn’t much left of the revolutionary spirit that first brought Morales’s MAS party into office. And though Morales was credited as Bolivia’s first indigenous president, this distinction had become age-worn.

When Bolivians did go to the polls on October 20, deciding whether to grant Morales another term, he took some 47 percent of the popular vote. This may seem like a high score in a multicandidate race, but by comparison, in 2014 he had swept to victory with 61.36 percent support. The 2016 constitutional referendum on allowing Morales and vice president Álvaro García Linera to run for a historic fourth term saw the MAS vote drop below 50 percent for the first time since 2005 — a  key loss that set off the domino effect that would eventually result in the coup of November 2019.

While Morales did eventually obtain the right to run in the 2019 presidential election, thanks to a ruling from the Plurinational Constitutional Court, the right-wing opposition invested a great deal of time and energy in building a false narrative that Bolivia had turned into a “narcostate” and “dictatorship,” given Morales’s refusal to accept the results of the referendum. This narrative found its expression in the extreme violence perpetrated during last October’s election campaign by far-right groups like the 21F movement, the Cochala youth resistance group, and the Cruzenian Youth Union, followed by a police mutiny at the start of November and the military coup on November 10.

The MAS’s indigenous strongholds endured the brunt of the violence surrounding October’s election. The two key massacres happened in Sacaba, Cochabamba, against the Morales-loyalist coca growers from the Six Federations of the Trópico; and in Senkata, against the self-organized indigenous Aymara residents of El Alto (FEJUVE).

Faced with such intense persecution, neither FEJUVE nor COB robustly defended Morales’s government. With a huge Organization of American States media campaign speaking of supposed “election fraud” and right-wing mass demonstrations, and military and police demanding that Morales resign, COB leader Huarachi became a part of “pacification” moves.

Like many labor leaders, he received serious death threats; and when police and military forced Morales to resign, Huarachi commented that he should do so if it would help “pacify the country.” Many hardcore MAS supporters regarded this as treachery — and Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro called Huarachi a traitor.

Yet in recent months, these social movements have regained strength — and hardened their line. This has especially owed to the Áñez regime’s relative absence during the coronavirus crisis, and the demand for justice after a period of intense repression. Under the leadership of Basilio Villasante, FEJUVE, which forms part of the MAS-affiliated “Pact of Unity,” is working together with COB groups with which the Áñez government has refused all negotiations.

By announcing the indefinite general strike and mass mobilizations, the COB is reestablishing the unity of rural peasants (campesinos), miners, and urban workers which was lost last November. In recent decades, it was precisely this unity and permanent mass mobilization that made the nationalization of natural resources and fourteen years of MAS government with successful economic development possible. Several weeks before the marches began, Miners leader Orlando Gutiérrez from the FSTMB said: “This is no longer about a political party. This is about the dignity of the people.”

Memory of Struggles

In his speech at the El Alto demonstration, Huarachi invoked the struggles of recent Bolivian history, noting how he himself marched during the Gas War of 2003. “How can we forget these struggles and those who gave their lives in those struggles?” he asked, “After many years, the people are united again and telling the government to respect the election [date] of September 6.”

The day after the march, the coup regime filed a criminal lawsuit against him and other trade unionists for “promoting criminal acts and threatening public health.”

Miners — as represented by Huarachi’s own union, the FSTMB — used to be the major stronghold of Bolivian workers’ organization, leading the National Revolution of the 1950s, and the resistance against military dictatorships and neoliberal policies dictated by the IMF. Their work in the mines, in a country heavily reliant on exporting minerals, made them the strongest — and the only armed — sector of organized workers. This changed with the closure of the state-owned mines under Víctor Paz Estenssoro in 1985, undermining the union.

In more recent years, Morales’s government prevented the closing of state-owned mines and gave subsidies to private mines to protect relatively well-paid jobs. This helped make the FSTMB (and the COB) a close ally in the “process of change.” But even if the FSTMB has lost some of its power, its legacy continues in militant unions involving former miners, like the Six Federations of the Trópico, the coca growers from Yungas, union associations in El Alto, and many indigenous suburbs.

Such organizations are still under the ideological influence of pre-capitalist indigenous culture, but also trade union traditions: COB also has major symbolic value given its historic role in the fight for democracy.

The COB thus has to represent its traditional base among workers and, at the same time, the indigenous middle class that emerged under Morales’s presidency, including large numbers of university students. Under the Áñez regime, parts of this new indigenous middle class are already losing the social rights conquered over the last decade, with shock-neoliberal policies destroying their standard of living.

So, the economic incapacity of Áñez’s government to deal with the terrible economic situation and economic crisis is strengthening social movements and the COB, while the racism of the government is bringing middle-class indigenous people back into the MAS fold.

Echoes of 2003

For many MAS supporters and left-wing intellectuals like Jorge Richter, there are clear parallels with the turbulent neoliberal times in the early 2000s, which prepared Morales’s initial rise to power. There are number of important similarities.

Just like back in 2003, we have long queues to buy gas, a government asking for IMF loans, mass demonstrations, tanks on the streets protecting an unpopular government, and radical Aymara-Indianist Felipe Quispe Huanca announcing his support for COB blockades.

Quispe was probably the most important figure in the fight for indigenous rights throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. His line “I don’t want my daughter to be your housemaid” changed Bolivian politics and he was the intellectual author of the Gas War of 2003.

He was never a MAS member and since 2014 has been one of the toughest Indianist critics of the Morales government. Yet even among such critics, he is hardly alone in taking a stance in favor of the current protests. Dr Félix Patzi, indigenous governor of La Paz and a former MAS politician, said that Jeanine Áñez will end up like Gonzálo Sánchez de Lozada (“Goni”), the president overthrown by the anti-privatization protests of 2003: “Escaping by a helicopter from the palace because of the conflicts that are coming, people are tired of her and are going to stand up.”

Anti-MASism

But there is an important difference between the Áñez government and Goni’s: the latter had, after all, won a democratic election, even if narrowly; after his ouster, he was replaced by his vice president Carlos Mesa. Áñez took office thanks to a military-police coup in the name of democracy and “God,” supported by the old racist middle class.

The vast majority of the Bolivian press framed the COB-led march as a revolt organized by Morales’s own MAS party, feeding the coup government’s narrative that the mass mobilizations are primarily directed at destabilizing the country in the middle of a pandemic This press has routinely attacked protestors as “savages.”

The main viewers and readers of these racist media outlets are in the traditional middle class of big cities and, in the white-separatist stronghold of Santa Cruz, even workers. Together they are building a strong anti-MAS bloc, to elect “anyone” but a renewed MAS government.

Journalist Fernando Molina has developed a good explanation for this phenomenon. The traditional middle class never truly accepted the indigenous president Morales. For them, the emerging indigenous middle class was eroding the “educational capital” of the old, privileged middle class of partly Spanish ancestry.

So, the protests against Morales were not just about any supposed “election fraud.” This was a euphemistic way to express a rejection of indigenous power, to be replaced by a power bloc centered on “military and police forces, the judiciary, the mass media, the universities and the organizations and institutions of the middle and upper classes.”

Yet given its own corruption and internal divisions, as well as the regime’s dramatic mishandling of COVID-19, this movement has largely demobilized in recent months. Morales’s main challenger in the October election, former president Carlos Mesa has thus far failed to unite enough white and mestizo middle-class voters behind his own candidacy.

If democratic elections do ultimately take place, he will try to use the formula of the “useful vote,” presenting himself as the only candidate capable of winning a democratic election against MAS. In the time between the coup in November 2019 and the COVID-19 crisis starting this March, his claim was probably accurate. But with the coronavirus crisis, the social reality in Bolivia has changed.

COVID-19 and Economic Crisis

During more than a hundred days of quarantine, the government failed to buy respirators and inform the indigenous-speaking population about the dangerous pandemic, instead preferring to close down indigenous radio stations. So, it didn’t take long for the health system to collapse. Since then, people have been dying on the streets in the thousands, in a country of just 11 million.

At the same time, the economic situation has worsened drastically. In the thirteen years of MAS rule, Bolivia regularly posted the strongest economic growth in Latin America. This took place under economy minister Luis Arce Catacora, who is now the MAS presidential candidate. In just over a decade, extreme poverty fell by more than half, from 38.2 percent in 2005 to 15.2 percent in 2018; moderate poverty also decreased from 60.6 percent in 2005 to 34.6 percent in 2018. In this sense, under Evo Morales and Luis Arce, Bolivia had a golden decade.

The poor indigenous population working in the informal economy benefited most from all this. Natural gas was nationalized, making possible mass-scale investments. Social benefit payments for elderly people, mothers, parents, and others were created. A huge infrastructure of schools, universities, hospitals, and public transport were built, including modern projects like the urban cable cars connecting La Paz and El Alto.

A new generation of indigenous working-class teenagers entered universities for the first time. In the last year, the MAS government had sufficient financial resources to start creating a universal health care system (SUS) to make health care a human right. They implemented their own “social-communitarian” economic model, making Bolivia a truly independent country.

But more than half of the workforce still depends, directly or indirectly, on day-to-day work in the “informal sector.” After more than a hundred days of quarantine, without any social policies to alleviate their suffering, this sector is now under intense pressure. Parts of the new indigenous middle class are now losing everything they had. And poor people are hungry, despite neighborhood initiatives like “common pots” and “the people will save themselves.” This terrible situation is the base of the coming social conflicts.

Decisive Test

Faced with a fresh provocation by the coup regime, the COB and social movements have now chosen the path of mass mobilization, with the blockades organized all around the country on August 3. It remains to be seen if they are now strong enough to compel the election court to show a basic degree of institutional independence, and force a democratic vote.

If the coup government gets away with suspending the elections, it can get away with anything. This would mean it continuing to nakedly rob from state companies, persecute trade unionists and indigenous activists, and trample on democratic rights. In the coming days and weeks, we can expect more massacres like in November 2019 and the early 2000s.

The Left has to be on its guard, ready to denounce all such abuses. So far, not a single Western human rights group or NGO has seriously denounced the coup regime for its abuses or the massacres it as committed. It will, then, be up to the Bolivian people to save themselves.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Seriously. White House Asked if Trump Could Be Added to Mount Rushmore Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49820"><span class="small">Peter Wade, Rolling Stone</span></a>   
Monday, 10 August 2020 13:06

Wade writes: "In 2019, White House aides reached out to the governor of South Dakota and asked about the process of adding additional presidents to Mount Rushmore, a Republican official familiar with the conversation told the New York Times."

Mount Rushmore National Memorial near Keystone, South Dakota on Oct 1, 2013. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Mount Rushmore National Memorial near Keystone, South Dakota on Oct 1, 2013. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)


Seriously. White House Asked if Trump Could Be Added to Mount Rushmore

By Peter Wade, Rolling Stone

10 August 20


“Do you know it’s my dream to have my face on Mount Rushmore?” the president said to South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem

n 2019, White House aides reached out to the governor of South Dakota and asked about the process of adding additional presidents to Mount Rushmore, a Republican official familiar with the conversation told the New York Times.

So, when the president arrived last month for his July fourth festivities, the governor of the state, Kristi Noem, presented Trump with a four-foot replica of Mount Rushmore that included his face.

Adding to the already odd ask is the fact that the federal government is in charge of such matters, not the state, and the National Park Service has addressed the subject several times with a hard no, citing instability to the structure making it impossible to make additions.

In a 2018 interview, Noem says that Trump told her that it was a “dream” of his to be carved into the mountain.

Noem told South Dakota’s Argus Leader that during a White House visit, Trump said to her: “‘Kristi, come on over here. Shake my hand.'” The governor continued, “I shook his hand, and I said, ‘Mr. President, you should come to South Dakota sometime. We have Mount Rushmore.’ And he goes, ‘Do you know it’s my dream to have my face on Mount Rushmore?’ I started laughing. He wasn’t laughing, so he was totally serious.”

Because of Trump’s mountain-sized ego, none of this is a surprise. He often suggests that his tenure might be equal to or better than past presidents. In June, the president tried to diminish the accomplishments of Abraham Lincoln, while praising himself. Trump has also boasted that he’s a “far greater” president than Ronald Reagan was.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next > End >>

Page 395 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN