RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Notes on Excessive Wealth Disorder Print
Monday, 24 June 2019 12:55

Krugman writes: "In a couple of days I'm going to be participating in an Economic Policy Institute conference on 'excessive wealth disorder' - the problems and dangers created by extreme concentration of income and wealth at the top."

People waiting in line at a job fair in Bloomington, Minn., in 2011. (photo: Craig Lassig/NYT)
People waiting in line at a job fair in Bloomington, Minn., in 2011. (photo: Craig Lassig/NYT)


Notes on Excessive Wealth Disorder

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

24 June 19


How not to repeat the mistakes of 2011.

n a couple of days I’m going to be participating in an Economic Policy Institute conference on “excessive wealth disorder” — the problems and dangers created by extreme concentration of income and wealth at the top. I’ve been asked to give a short talk at the beginning of the conference, focusing on the political and policy distortions high inequality creates, and I’ve been trying to put my thoughts in order. So I thought I might as well write up those thoughts for broader dissemination.

While popular discourse has concentrated on the “1 percent,” what’s really at issue here is the role of the 0.1 percent, or maybe the 0.01 percent — the truly wealthy, not the “$400,000 a year working Wall Street stiff” memorably ridiculed in the movie Wall Street. This is a really tiny group of people, but one that exerts huge influence over policy.

Where does this influence come from? People often talk about campaign contributions, but those are only one channel. In fact, I’d identify at least four ways in which the financial resources of the 0.1 percent distort policy priorities:

READ MORE

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Three Children, Young Woman Found Dead Near US-Mexico Border Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47782"><span class="small">Paul Blest, Splinter</span></a>   
Monday, 24 June 2019 12:49

Blest writes: "America’s horrific immigration policy has a body count, and it keeps piling up."

The Rio Grande. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
The Rio Grande. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


Three Children, Young Woman Found Dead Near US-Mexico Border

By Paul Blest, Splinter

24 June 19

 

merica’s horrific immigration policy has a body count, and it keeps piling up.

According to the New York Times, the bodies of four people, “including what appeared to be the body of a migrant woman,” two infants and a toddler, were discovered on Sunday night at the edge of the Rio Grande near McAllen, TX. Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra said on Twitter late Sunday night that the bodies had been found, and later told the Times that the woman appeared to be the mother of some, but not all, of the children found with her.

Thus far, none of the four have been publicly identified by authorities; Guerra said that because the bodies had been found on federal land, the FBI would lead the investigation. Guerra also told the Times that the four didn’t drown, but that it was possible they had died of dehydration.

In 2018, more than 260 migrants died crossing the southern border. As the Times notes, these deaths are all too common, but “it is rare for officials to discover dead migrant children on the American side of the border, and rarer still for the bodies of three children to be found together at the same time.”

For years, Border Patrol agents have been accused of destroying water and other supplies left for migrants in arduous border-crossing conditions. (Border Patrol has said it does not condone such activities.) In January 2018, the Tuscon-based organizations No More Deaths and La Coalición de Derechos Humanos released a report claiming that they found 415 gallons of water vandalized in the Arizona desert over the course of nearly four years, before President Donald Trump even took office.

Since then, the government has cracked down even harder. Earlier this month, an Arizona jury couldn’t reach a verdict on the case of No More Deaths volunteer Scott David Warren, who was on trial for “harboring and conspiring to transport undocumented immigrants”—i.e., providing food, water, and other supplies to undocumented people—a charge that carried a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

And as we’ve seen, things aren’t much better in federal custody, either. Last week, the Department of Justice argued in federal court that it wasn’t legally obligated to provide soap, toothbrushes, and beds for detained children in American custody. When asked about this on CNN, Vice President Mike Pence just chuckled and said it was “part of the appropriations process.”

These people are monsters.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for Most Americans Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44184"><span class="small">Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept</span></a>   
Monday, 24 June 2019 10:25

Hasan writes: "Do you know what really annoys me about the media's coverage of U.S. politics, and especially the Democratic Party? Google the words 'moderate' or 'centrist' and a small group of names will instantly appear: Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and, yes, Howard Schultz."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the New York City Women's March. (photo: John Lamparski 2018/Getty Images)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the New York City Women's March. (photo: John Lamparski 2018/Getty Images)


AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for Most Americans

By Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept

24 June 19

 

o you know what really annoys me about the media’s coverage of U.S. politics, and especially the Democratic Party?

Google the words “moderate” or “centrist” and a small group of names will instantly appear: Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and, yes, Howard Schultz.

Bloomberg is considered a “centrist thought leader” (Vanity Fair). Klobuchar is the “straight-shooting pragmatist” (Time). Biden is the “quintessential centrist” (CNN) and the “last hurrah for moderate Democrats” (New York magazine). Shultz is gifted with high-profile interview slots to make his “centrist independent” pitch to voters.

Now Google the freshman House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She’s been dubbed a member of the “loony left” (Washington Post), a “progressive firebrand” (Reuters), and a “liberal bomb thrower” (New York Times).

Got that? Biden, Schultz and Co., we are told, sit firmly in the middle of American politics; Ocasio-Cortez stands far out on its fringes.

This is a brazen distortion of reality, a shameless and demonstrable lie that is repeated day after day in newspaper op-eds and cable news headlines.

“It’s easy to call what AOC is doing as far-lefty, but nothing could be farther from the truth,” Nick Hanauer, the venture capitalist and progressive activist, told MSNBC in January. “When you advocate for economic policies that benefit the broad majority of citizens, that’s true centrism. What Howard Schultz represents, the centrism that he represents, is really just trickle-down economics.”

“He is not the centrist,” continued Hanauer. “AOC is the centrist.”

Hanauer is right. And Bernie Sanders is centrist too — smeared as an “ideologue” (The Economist) and “dangerously far left” (Chicago Tribune). So too is Elizabeth Warren — dismissed as a “radical extremist” (Las Vegas Review-Journal) and a “class warrior” (Fox News).

The inconvenient truth that our lazy media elites do so much to ignore is that Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Warren are much closer in their views to the vast majority of ordinary Americans than the Bloombergs or the Bidens. They are the true centrists, the real moderates; they represent the actual political middle.

***

Don’t believe me? Take Ocasio-Cortez’s signature issue: the Green New Deal. Former George W. Bush speechwriter — and torture advocate — Marc Thiessen claims that the Green New Deal will “make the Democrats unelectable in 2020.” The Economist agrees: “The bold plan could make the party unelectable in conservative-leaning states.” The Green New Deal “will not pass the Senate, and you can take that back to whoever sent you here and tell them,” a testy Diane Feinstein, the senior and supposedly “moderate” Democratic senator from California, told a bunch of kids in a viral video.

But here is the reality: The Green New Deal is extremely popular and has massive bipartisan support. A recent survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University found that a whopping 81 percent of voters said they either “strongly support” (40 percent) or “somewhat support” (41 percent) the Green New Deal, including 64 percent of Republicans (and even 57 percent of conservative Republicans).

What else do Ocasio-Cortez, Warren, and Sanders have in common with each other — and with the voters? They want to soak the rich. Ocasio-Cortez suggested a 70 percent marginal tax rate on incomes above $10 million — condemned by “centrist” Schultz as “un-American” but backed by a majority (51 percent) of Americans. Warren proposed a 2 percent wealth tax on assets above $50 million — slammed by “moderate” Bloomberg as Venezuelan-style socialism, but supported by 61 percent of voters, including 51 percent of Republicans. (As my colleague Jon Schwarz has demonstrated, “Americans have never, in living memory, been averse to higher taxes on the rich.”)

How about health care? The vast majority (70 percent) of voters, including a majority (52 percent) of Republicans, support a single-payer universal health care system, or Medicare for All. Six in 10 say it is “the responsibility of the federal government” to ensure that all Americans have access to health care coverage.

Debt-free and tuition-free college? A clear majority (60 percent) of the public, including a significant minority (41 percent) of Republicans, support free college “for those who meet income levels.”

A higher minimum wage? According to Pew, almost 6 in 10 (58 percent) Americans support increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to (the Sanders-recommended) $15 an hour.

Gun control? About six out of 10 (61 percent) Americans back stricter laws on gun control, according to Gallup, “the highest percentage to favor tougher firearms laws in two or more decades.” Almost all Americans (94 percent) back universal background checks on all gun sales — including almost three-quarters of National Rifle Association members.

Abortion? Support for a legal right to abortion, according to a June 2018 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, is at an “all-time high.” Seven out of 10 Americans said they believed Roe v. Wade “should not be overturned,” including a majority (52 percent) of Republicans.

Legalizing marijuana? Two out of three Americans think marijuana should be made legal. According to a Gallup survey from October 2018, this marks “another new high in Gallup’s trend over nearly half a century.” And here’s the kicker: A majority (53 percent) of Republicans support legal marijuana too!

Mass incarceration? About nine out of 10 (91 percent) Americans say that the criminal justice system “has problems that need fixing.” About seven out of 10 (71 percent) say it is important “to reduce the prison population in America,” including a majority (52 percent) of Trump voters.

Immigration? “A record-high 75 percent of Americans,” including 65 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, told Gallup in 2018 that immigration is a “good thing for the U.S.” Six in 10 Americans oppose the construction of a wall on the southern border, while a massive 8 in 10 (81 percent) support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

***

How much of this polling, however, is reflected in the daily news coverage of the Democrats, which seeks to pit “leftist” activists against “centrist” voters, and “liberals” against “moderates”?

How is it that labels like “centrist” and “moderate,” which common sense tells us should reflect the views of a majority of Americans, have come to be applied to those who represent minority interests and opinions?

How many political reporters are willing to tell their readers or viewers what Stanford political scientist David Broockman told Vox’s Ezra Klein in 2014: “When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want. Within both parties there is this tension between what the politicians who get more corporate money and tend to be part of the establishment want — that’s what we tend to call moderate — versus what the Tea Party and more liberal members want”?

The center ground — if it even exists — cannot be found on a map; it is not a fixed geographical location. You cannot get in your car, type the address in your navigation, and then drive to it.

It moves, it shifts, it reacts to events. The center of 2019 is not the center of 1999 or even 2009. You want to know where it is right now? You want to find the moderate middle? Then ignore the right-wing hacks, the conventional wisdom-mongers, and the donor class. Go check out the policy platforms of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Autoworkers Deserve Better Than the UAW Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51036"><span class="small">Nicole M. Aschoff, Jacobin</span></a>   
Monday, 24 June 2019 08:16

Aschoff writes: "For boomers and labor history nerds Lordstown evokes an angsty, rebellious time and place — an 'industrial Woodstock' where pissed-off young men in bell-bottoms and shaggy hair defied both their company and their union."

Dave Green, president of UAW Local 1112, talks to the media outside the GM Lordstown plant on March 6, 2019 in Lordstown, Ohio. (photo: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Dave Green, president of UAW Local 1112, talks to the media outside the GM Lordstown plant on March 6, 2019 in Lordstown, Ohio. (photo: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)


Autoworkers Deserve Better Than the UAW

By Nicole M. Aschoff, Jacobin

24 June 19


The closing of the Lordstown plant and the recent Chattanooga defeat are the latest crushing losses for US autoworkers. What's worse, the UAW has proven completely incapable of fighting back.

eneral Motor’s Lordstown, Ohio assembly plant was shuttered indefinitely this past March after more than fifty years making vehicles. An AP photo captured the scene as the last car — a gleaming white Chevy Cruze draped in the American flag — rolled down the assembly line.

Autoworkers looked on with a mixture of sadness and resignation. One thousand six hundred Lordstown workers lost their jobs in the closing as part of GM’s latest restructuring plan in which at least fourteen thousand blue- and white-collar jobs will be cut and four additional plants will be closed.

GM claims it needs to close plants to raise money for electric and autonomous vehicle development — a laughable claim considering the company’s Board of Directors has authorized $14 billion for share buybacks.

Regardless of the real reasons for the closure, the somber farewell speaks volumes about the grim status quo for autoworkers today. It also calls to mind a different time.

For boomers and labor history nerds Lordstown evokes an angsty, rebellious time and place — an “industrial Woodstock” where pissed-off young men in bell-bottoms and shaggy hair defied both their company and their union.

In the early 1970s General Motors, feeling the pinch of competition from Europe and Japan, instituted a new production system in its more modern plants (including Lordstown) to cut costs and increase productivity. It trimmed the number of assembly workers while speeding up production from sixty cars per hour to an unprecedented one hundred Vegas per hour.

Lordstown autoworkers, many of whom had fought in Vietnam and were sympathetic to the broader social movement occurring around the country, were furious at the new system and rebelled. They filed thousands of grievances, stayed home, worked to rule, and let unfinished cars roll by on the line.

Members of Local 1112 weren’t just unhappy about the inhuman pace of the line or GM’s contemptible disciplinary policy, however. They were frustrated with their lives — with the realization that being a cog in a machine was all there was for working men like them. For many, the relatively decent pay and benefits of an auto job simply wasn’t a fair exchange for spending life trapped in a factory destined to perform the same grueling tasks over and over until retirement or death.

In 1972 Lordstown workers went on strike. As the local’s treasurer J. D. Smith said of the rank-and-filers at the time: “They’re just not going to swallow the same kind of treatment their fathers did. They’re not afraid of management. That’s a lot of what the strike was about. They want more than just a job for 30 years.”

The Lordstown workers’ “blue-collar blues” received the most attention from press and media outlets, but they weren’t alone. The early seventies saw an upsurge of labor organizing and wildcat strikes.

At other auto plants black workers organized revolutionary union movements (RUMs), coming together in Detroit to form the League of Revolutionary Black Workers in 1969 to fight racist unions and bosses.

Mineworkers rebelled against their undemocratic and murderous leadership; California farmworkers organized a grape boycott under César Chávez to improve working conditions; clerical workers fought for their own unions even when their union brothers didn’t support them.

Like the autoworkers who walked out at Lordstown, most of these rank-and-file rumblings weren’t about getting a bigger paycheck. Workers wanted respect and dignity. They wanted a voice in their unions and a safe, healthy place to work.

Observers at the time thought the uprisings signaled the beginning of a something new — a departure from the ossified union bureaucracies, recalcitrant companies, and pluralist assumptions of policymakers that had come to characterize labor relations by the late 1950s.

In hindsight it’s clear that uprisings like Lordstown were the end, not the beginning.

They were the last real attempt to transform the declining union movement into a vehicle of working-class empowerment — the last attempt to chart a course for industrial democracy, a goal that had been shunted aside by the end of World War II.

In the wake of the second oil shock, the neoliberal counterrevolution, and industry-wide concessions, those autoworkers who had managed to hold on to their jobs stopped demanding something better. Existential dread took a back seat to unemployment.

The autoworkers’ union meanwhile, entered a four-decade holding pattern, using its remaining structural bargaining power to hold on to its legacy gains for as long as possible. Instead of returning to its radical roots in the face of new challenges, the UAW doubled down on business unionism.

No doubt these decades were punctuated by moments of rank-and-file militancy, some of it — like the Delphi workers’ bankruptcy fightback — incredibly brave. But the steady drip of concessions, attrition, and buyouts slowly drained the once powerful union’s life force.

Nothing demonstrates this better than the UAW’s recent loss in Chattanooga where workers voted 833 to 776 against joining the union. The loss follows a string of defeats in the US South including a previous Chattanooga campaign in 2014 and yet another trouncing at Nissan’s Canton, Mississippi plant the summer of 2017.

These losses are often chalked up to globalization and technology. But while many, many auto jobs have been moved to cheaper locales outside the United States or destroyed by automation, the story is not so simple.

The United States is the second largest producer of motor vehicles in the world and makes significantly more cars and trucks now than it did in 1970. The churn of globalization has not only sent jobs out of the country, it has also brought in vast new brick-and-mortar investment from foreign assemblers and component manufacturers.

Yet, UAW organizing successes have been few and far between, and in recent years have been increasingly likely to occur in sectors outside of auto. The reasons why aren’t hard to find.

As Chris Brooks has shown through his in-depth reporting from auto plants in the US South, the UAW is stuck in the seventies.

Brooks talked with dozens of pro-union autoworkers in Tennessee who painted a clear picture of the union’s recent defeat: it failed to “organize a high-participation, in-plant campaign capable of withstanding a strong boss fight.”

Instead of building solidarity through community outreach, or organizing a petition drive around the plant’s dire health and safety issues, the UAW spent thousands on pro-union television commercials and ads played at local gas station pumps.

The UAW’s failure speaks to a clear divide in the labor movement today. The campaigns that are winning are the ones grounded in empowering rank-and-file workers and their communities.

The teachers’ revolts of the past few years bring this contrast into sharp relief. Despite being underpaid and overworked, teachers around the country have formed dynamic campaigns, standing up to both their unions and their elected officials.

Indeed, the teachers’ campaigns, starting with the 2012 Chicago teachers strike, have been so powerful they have created an expanded notion of what it means to be a teacher.

Teachers from West Virginia to Los Angeles have positioned themselves not simply as workers who deserve a raise and decent benefits, but as fighters — for their students, their community, and for the survival of public education in America.

In organizing their campaigns teachers made sure poor students still got meals, that non-English speaking families could be active participants. Their outreach was encompassing, drawing in parents and community members, ensuring issues such as the school to prison pipeline, over-testing, immigrant fears, and classroom size were front and center.

This expansion of teachers’ working-class identity has been incredibly empowering, giving their campaigns an energy that is impossible for elites to dismiss or ignore.

It’s also what’s missing from business union drives like those organized by the UAW — it’s why autoworkers aren’t willing to risk their livelihood on a vote for the organization.

The closing of the Lordstown plant and the recent Chattanooga defeat are painful and demoralizing, not least because autoworkers today are in desperate need of a raise and a dignified, safe place to work.

But the UAW doesn’t seem to have the answer. It’s time to build something new.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Climate Action: Can We Change the Climate From the Grassroots Up? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51037"><span class="small">Irene Banos Ruiz, Deutsche Welle</span></a>   
Monday, 24 June 2019 08:12

Ruiz writes: "Alarming headlines regarding the climate crisis often overshadow positive actions taken by citizens around the world, but that doesn't mean they're not happening."

Ecuador's Waorani indigenous people celebrated a court ruling against oil extraction on their ancestral lands. (photo: AP)
Ecuador's Waorani indigenous people celebrated a court ruling against oil extraction on their ancestral lands. (photo: AP)


Climate Action: Can We Change the Climate From the Grassroots Up?

By Irene Banos Ruiz, Deutsche Welle

24 June 19

 

larming headlines regarding the climate crisis often overshadow positive actions taken by citizens around the world, but that doesn't mean they're not happening.

They are, and sometimes with considerable success. DW looks at some civil society victories.

Blocking Fossil Fuels

Despite scientific warnings, governments and companies continue to green light fossil fuel projects around the world. But in many instances, these authorizations are accompanied by protests.

1. Hema Thermal Power Plant

Earlier this year, after more than a decade of vocal opposition to the planned Hema thermal power plant, villagers in the coastal Turkish region of Amasra welcomed a court ruling that rejected its construction. Locals had not only feared the destruction of their land, but also the impacts on their health and that of their children.

The win is a milestone for Turkish climate activists, whose struggle to stop the expansion of fossil fuel plants in the country still has a long way to go.

2. Rocky Hill Open-Cut Mine

Locals around the Australian town of Gloucester experienced similar satisfaction when a national court rejected a plan to build the Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine on the basis that it would increase greenhouse gas emissions at a time when they needed to be reduced. It took those involved in fighting the plans about a decade to achieve success.

The judge said the negative impacts outweighed its economic and public benefits. Australia is the fourth largest coal producer in the world.

3. Hambach Forest

Germany has become the setting for one of the most iconic fights against coal mining in Europe.

Hundreds of people have spent five years living in tree houses in a bit to prevent a tiny fraction of the Hambach forest in North Rhine-Westphalia from being razed for the expansion of a nearby open-pit coal mine that has already devoured dozens of villages and 90% of the forest.

In 2018, the anti-coal movement brought together thousands of people in Germany's biggest climate march. A few months later, authorities agreed on a moratorium on logging. Only until 2020, however, so theirs is a bittersweet victory.

4. Divesting Money

More and more people are demanding that investors, such as faith-based organizations and pension funds, withdraw their financial support from fossil fuel projects. The global divestment movement has convinced over 1,000 institutions to commit to divesting from oil, coal and gas companies. This translates to almost $8 trillion (€7 trillion) less in assets from fossil fuel investments.

"The momentum has been driven by a people-powered grassroots movement, ordinary people on every continent pushing their local institutions to take a stand against the fossil fuel industry and for a world powered by 100% renewable energy," the NGO 350.org says.

Thousands Coming Together

Climate protests have long been a niche for dedicated eco warriors, but this year, they've become increasingly mainstream.

1. Fridays for Future

Kids who go on strike to protect their future are becoming the new normal. The Fridays for Future movement has managed to capture everyone's attention — in a way that not even the iconic images of starving polar bears achieved.

It all began with Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg skipping school on Fridays to take a lone stand outside her country's parliament. That singular action has since spurred hundreds of thousands of young people worldwide to participate in Friday school strikes calling for decisive climate action.

2. Extinction Rebellion

In early 2019, a mass civil disobedience campaign emerged on the streets of London. The protest group, which includes members of all ages and walks of life, occupied iconic sites in the English capital and saw some of its number strip off inside parliament.

A week of disruptive actions in April led to the arrest of more than 1,000 people, but it also scored the group considerable global attention. The movement has since expanded to more than 30 countries.

3. We Are Still In

U.S. President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement came as a shock, but U.S. American civil society quickly recovered. They gathered strength and created the We Are Still In coalition.

Since then, the group has tripled in size and now totals over 3,500 institutions, including local governments, faith communities, businesses and universities.

The group has generated hundreds of climate commitments, businesses have pledged to meet climate targets and over 100 U.S. cities have committed to switching to 100% percent renewable energy.

The Climate Crisis Goes to Court

Globally, more than a thousand court cases are demanding governments and polluters comply with laws to protect citizens. Some have already achieved success.

1. The Urgenda Case

In 2015, a group of Dutch citizens decided to hold their government accountable for contributing to climate change.

In a landmark ruling, a court in the Hague ordered the Netherlands government to cut greenhouse-gas emissions in the country by at least 25% within five years. However, the Dutch government appealed the decision and a final decision is now expected from the Netherlands' Supreme Court.

Whatever happens, the Urgenda case is seen by many as the climate's greatest legal milestone. It has inspired lawsuits across the world.

2. Waorani Against Oil

Earlier this year, Ecuador's Waorani indigenous people celebrated a court ruling that suspends the sale of the community's territory in the remote Amazon for the pursuit of oil extraction. The result came after more than five years of opposition from the indigenous group.

This victory could also mark a turning point for other indigenous communities struggling to defend their land rights and oppose oil exploration.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Next > End >>

Page 849 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