California Free Press

Hypocrite Alert: All Upset That Russia Interfered in Our Democracy?

The US Overthrew Democratically Elected Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973

by John Lawrence

Besides that the US has interfered in other countries such as Iran. The ouster of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh is the earliest coup of the Cold War that the U.S. government has acknowledged. In 1953, after nearly two years of Mossadegh’s premiership, during which time he challenged the authority of the Shah and nationalized an Iranian oil industry previously operated by British companies, he was forced from office and arrested, spending the rest of his life under house arrest.

Must I go on? OK, I will. Guatemala, 1954: President Jacobo Árbenz attempted a series of land reforms that threatened the holdings of the U.S.-owned United Fruit Company. A coup in 1954 forced Árbenz from power, allowing a succession of juntas in his place. Classified details of the CIA’s involvement in the ouster of the Guatemalan leader, which included equipping rebels and paramilitary troops while the U.S. Navy blockaded the Guatemalan coast, came to light in 1999.

Other US supported "meddling" in other countries resulting in overthrown leaders: Congo, 1960; Dominican Republic, 1961; Brazil, 1964; Chile 1973.

South Vietnam, 1963. “For the military coup d’etat against Ngo Dinh Diem, the U.S. must accept its full share of responsibility,” the Pentagon Papers state. “Beginning in August of 1963 we variously authorized, sanctioned and encouraged the coup efforts of the Vietnamese generals and offered full support for a successor government…. We maintained clandestine contact with them throughout the planning and execution of the coup and sought to review their operational plans and proposed new government.”

Creativity is the Closest Experience to God

Dear friends,

     Images are to the mind what energy is to the body, to paraphrase the words of Dr. John Conger.  Think how uplifted you are when a new idea “pops” into your mind.  You feel elated and hopeful and ready to create.  Creativity is the closest experience of God we can have.  That is what is meant by “we are made in the image and likeness of God.”

     God can be found in the moment of transition from idea to thing; from image to action; from invisible to visible; from formless to form; from desire to experience.  That is how we extend the Presence into this dimension.  We make the “word” manifest. It is the nature of the human mind to draw from the whole Quantum field of potential, transferring the image into energy and motion.  Musicians and artists do this all the time.  They work with energy and image.  You and I are the artists of our life.  We are working with the same power that is projecting the universe into visibility.

     Having said all that, it is easy to forget it!  It is tempting to fall into the general beliefs of the population; ie: it is hard to get ahead; everything depends on the economy; there is not enough of anything for everybody.  Or perhaps we identify with the belief that we do not deserve to live a life of ease and joy; that we have been too damaged by the past; that it is selfish to succeed; that wealth is a negative; that health is the luck of the draw; that we are victims of circumstance.

     We might think we do not buy into any of that rhetoric, but it is all around us and we are bombarded with those messages all the time. Our part is to stay apart from it as much as possible; to daily reaffirm the Truth of our place in this creative  process we call life.  It is not easy to be “in the world but not of it”, but that is exactly what we must try to do.

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes

www.carolcarnes.com

www.mvcsl.org

www.californiafreepress.net   for real news and informed opinion

New campaign: Close all US military bases on foreign soil

From Nation of Change:

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers - July 30, 2017 | Op-Ed

U.S. foreign military bases are NOT in defense of U.S. national, or global security.

The Coalition Against Foreign Military Bases is a new campaign focused on closing all U.S. military bases abroad. This campaign strikes at the foundation of U.S. empire, confronting its militarism, corporatism and imperialism.

On the occasion of its announcement, the coalition issued a unity statement, which describes its intent as “raising public awareness and organizing nonviolent mass resistance against U.S. foreign military bases.” It further explains that U.S. foreign military bases are “the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of U.S. foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just, peaceful and sustainable world.”

While the U.S. sought to be an imperial force beginning just after the U.S. Civil War and then escalated those efforts at the turn of the 20th Century, it became the dominant empire globally after World War II. This was during the time of decolonization, when many traditional empires were forced to let their colonies become independent nations. So, while the U.S. is the largest empire in world history, it is not a traditional empire in which nations are described as colonies of the U.S. empire. Nations remain independent, at least in name, while allowing U.S. bases on their soil and serving as a client state of the United States. They are controlled through the economic power of the U.S., World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The U.S. has used regime change tactics, including assassination and military force, to keep its empire intact.

Commentators have described the United States as an “empire of bases.” Chalmers Johnson wrote in 2004:

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize – or do not want to recognize – that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire – an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can’t begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. To dominate the oceans and seas of the world, we are creating some thirteen naval task forces built around aircraft carriers whose names sum up our martial heritage – Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, and Ronald Reagan. We operate numerous secret bases outside our territory to monitor what the people of the world, including our own citizens, are saying, faxing, or e-mailing to one another.

We do not know the exact number of U.S. military bases and outposts throughout the world. The Unity Statement says “the United States maintains the highest number of military bases outside its territory, estimated at almost 1000 (95% of all foreign military bases in the world). . . . In addition, the United States has 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned), each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft – each of which can be considered a floating military base.”

Peace is the Ideal to Strive For

Dear friends,

     Without an Ideal to strive for, there could be no reason to do anything. For example, however misused, war is an attempt to achieve peace.  Peace is the Ideal.  Vitality is the Ideal of health; our fitness activities are to maintain or enhance our natural vitality.  The Ideal precedes the act, perhaps is the motivator for everything we do.  Even the criminal is trying to gain power.  Power is the Ideal.

     It has to do with our innate wholeness.  Built into our spiritual and physical DNA is the blueprint for wholeness.  It is the pre-requisite for sentient life.  Wholeness must be present for individualization to occur.  The ground of being gives rise to personifications of itself.  You and I are that.  We are the wholeness matrix expressing as person.  What Ideal will we choose to strive for today?  What aspect of our own wholeness will we attempt to bring out through our expression?

     We are never starting from scratch, as the old saying goes; but from a pre-existent field of completion.  That which we desire is already in motion within us. It is ours to activate and reveal.  Sounds complex but is actually simple; which is why the greatest teachers of this Truth have used seeds and soil again and again as metaphor for the process.  Intentions are seeds; the soil is our subjective mind; the result is what we nourish and encourage to grow as we reveal it through our actions.  It is the old “Be, Do and Have” model.   It is the ideal way to live.

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carolcarnes.com

www.mvcsl.org  support my work via pay pal

www.californiafreepress.net  (real news, alternative views)

Why the Myth of Meritocracy Hurts Kids of Color

From The Atlantic:

by Melinda D. Anderson, July 27, 2017

A new study finds that believing society is fair can lead disadvantaged adolescents to act out and engage in risky behavior.

Brighton Park is a predominantly Latino community on the southwest side of Chicago. It’s a neighborhood threatened by poverty, gang violence, ICE raids, and isolation—in a city where income, race, and zip code can determine access to jobs, schools, healthy food, and essential services. It is against this backdrop that the Chicago teacher Xian Franzinger Barrett arrived at the neighborhood’s elementary school in 2014.

Recognizing the vast economic and racial inequalities his students faced, he chose what some might consider a radical approach for his writing and social-studies classes, weaving in concepts such as racism, classism, oppression, and prejudice. Barrett said it was vital to reject the oft-perpetuated narrative that society is fair and equal to address students’ questions and concerns about their current conditions. And Brighton Elementary’s seventh- and eighth-graders quickly put the lessons to work—confronting the school board over inequitable funding, fighting to install a playground, and creating a classroom library focused on black and Latino authors.

“Students who are told that things are fair implode pretty quickly in middle school as self-doubt hits them,” he said, “and they begin to blame themselves for problems they can’t control.”

Barrett’s personal observation is validated by a newly published study in the peer-reviewed journal Child Development that finds traditionally marginalized youth who grew up believing in the American ideal that hard work and perseverance naturally lead to success show a decline in self-esteem and an increase in risky behaviors during their middle-school years. The research is considered the first evidence linking preteens’ emotional and behavioral outcomes to their belief in meritocracy, the widely held assertion that individual merit is always rewarded.

continue reading ...

Does the Military Make a "Man" Out of You

by John Lawrence

From dreamicus.com

From time immemorial military service has been associated with manliness. The First World War was largely an exercise in futility as the youth of that day thought that the war would bring glory on their heads. Instead, they died gasping for air, their lungs filled with poison gas. Or they got trenchfoot from living in muddy trenches as the war drug on. Resentment over how they were treated by the Treaty of Versailles was a large factor in the rise of Hitler and the determination of the German people to return to their glory days instead of being under the thumb of the French, English and Russians.

Again young men in search of manly glory died miserable deaths on the battlefields trying to regain honor, glory and manliness. Today the US is engaged in perpetual war and sweetens the pot for young, non-college bound men by offering a paycheck, job training and esprit de corps. Those lucky enough to survive the ordeal of war can put on their resume their Marine Corps training and leadership qualities that will place them at the head of the line for job placement.

If the world isn't to destroy itself in endless wars, it must get a grip on peace, and to do so it must make war unattractive from the standpoint that the military "will make a man out of you." Why shouldn't the Peace Corps make a man out of you? Why shouldn't social service helping others make a man out of you? There's no reason why not except for the fact that militaristic nations tout war as a noble endeavor, one that will heap honor on a man's head and win others' respect. You can even put a window sticker on your car that you or your son are a proud marine.

The world will eventually destroy itself unless warmaking is seen as dishonorable and peacemaking will be seen as "making a man out of you."

 

A Society Built on Two Layers: Socialism and Capitalism

by John Lawrence

A society composed of layers of which the bottom layer is socialistic and includes free universal health care, free universal public education and a basic package consisting of food and housing, which could be provided "in kind" or in terms of a universal basic income, for those who can't afford to provide for themselves and their families, would be better than one in which there are absolutely no guarantees about anything and you're entirely on your own. On top of that the next layer could consist of capitalism in which businesses and corporations would be free to start industries and create products. Entrepreneurialism would be encouraged and rewarded.

No less a capitalist than Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, recommends a Universal Basic Income. He took a trip to Alaska recently and found that they had a version of it there:

The billionaire founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg spent his July 4th weekend in Alaska learning about fishing and local economics as part of his "Year of Travel Challenge." In Alaska, all residents get a yearly cash payment just for living in the state.

The trip gave Zuckerberg yet another platform to lobby for universal basic income (UBI), as he did during his commencement address to Harvard in May.

Alaska has a state-wide version of UBI. In 1976, the state voted to create the Alaska Permanent Fund as the Alaska pipeline construction neared completion. The goal was to share the oil riches with future generations. Still today, people living in Alaska get cash payouts from the fund, called the Permanent Fund Dividend. Recipients must be Alaska residents for the entire calendar year before applying, with no plans to leave the state, according to the Alaskan government's website.

Hey, if it's good enough for Mark Zuckerberg, it's good enough for me. American GDP is 70% consumer spending so what better way to get consumers to spend than to give them a little spending money. It'll get the wheels turning and that's what Zuckerberg's advertisers want. As the American corporations go more and more to automation, there will be fewer and fewer jobs, but the capacity for production will continue to increase, thanks to all those robots.

So let's hear it for capitalist Mark Zuckerberg and the Alaska Permanent Fund which hands out money to Alaskan citizens just becuase they can. Nobody's complaining about this handout as socialism.

Collateral Damage: U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Strike Western European Allies

JULY 28, 2017 from counterpunch

by DIANA JOHNSTONE

Do they know what they are doing?  When the U.S. Congress adopts draconian sanctions aimed mainly at disempowering President Trump and ruling out any move to improve relations with Russia, do they realize that the measures amount to a declaration of economic war against their dear European “friends”?

Whether they know or not, they obviously don’t care.  U.S. politicians view the rest of the world as America’s hinterland, to be exploited, abused and ignored with impunity.

The Bill H.R. 3364 “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” was adopted on July 25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives.  An earlier version was adopted by all but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.

This congressional temper tantrum flails in all directions. The main casualties are likely to be America’s dear beloved European allies, notably Germany and France.  Who also sometimes happen to be competitors, but such crass considerations don’t matter in the sacred halls of the U.S. Congress, totally devoted to upholding universal morality.

Economic “Soft Power” Hits Hard

Under U.S. sanctions, any EU nation doing business with Russia may find itself in deep trouble.  In particular, the latest bill targets companies involved in financing Nord Stream 2, a pipeline designed to provide Germany with much needed natural gas from Russia.

By the way, just to help out, American companies will gladly sell their own fracked natural gas to their German friends, at much higher prices.

That is only one way in which the bill would subject European banks and enterprises to crippling restrictions, lawsuits and gigantic fines.

While the U.S. preaches “free competition”, it constantly takes measures to prevent free competition at the international level.

Following the July 2015 deal ensuring that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, international sanctions were lifted, but the United States retained its own previous ones. Since then, any foreign bank or enterprise contemplating trade with Iran is apt to receive a letter from a New York group calling itself “United Against Nuclear Iran” which warns that “there remain serious legal, political, financial and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors of the Iranian economy such as oil and gas”.  The risks cited include billions of dollars of (U.S.) fines, surveillance by “a myriad of regulatory agencies”, personal danger, deficiency of insurance coverage, cyber insecurity, loss of more lucrative business, harm to corporate reputation and a drop in shareholder value.

Murkowski, Collins and ... McCain sink Obamacare overhaul effort

From the Washington Post, July 28, 2017

BY PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM
with Paulina Firozi

Senate Republicans attempted to pass a “skinny repeal” bill that would undo some portions of the Affordable Care Act on July 28, but the bill failed after three GOP senators voted against it. (Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the third Republican to vote against a "skinny" Obamacare repeal bill last night, ending the Republican health-care effort for now. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Republicans' seven-year quest to wipe out President Obama's Affordable Care Act came to a crashing halt around 1:30 this morning, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) shockingly bucked his party and voted against a scaled-down repeal bill that emerged as the Senate's last-ditch effort. It's now clear that replacing Obamacare -- or even repealing small parts of it -- may be forever a pipe dream for President Trump and the GOP, whose deep divisions over the U.S. health-care system proved unbridgeable in the end.

Gasps broke out around the Senate chamber early this morning as McCain walked to the dais and uttered "no" on the "skinny repeal" bill. Two other Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- had already opposed it, making McCain the third GOP no vote and the senator to ultimately sink the measure. It was a surreal scene; until the end, McCain wasn't among the senators expected to defect. Earlier this week, McCain made a quick return visit to Capitol Hill after surgery related to his recent diagnosis of brain cancer to help Republicans start health-care debate, for which Trump had praised him warmly. This seems oh-so-long ago, already.

continue reading ...

The Fed Says There's No Inflation

by John Lawrence

Then Why Are Housing Prices and Rents Going Up 10% Per Year

The San Diego Union reports on July 26, Section C, that the median home price in San Diego County increased 9.8% in the last year to $543,500. And yet the Consumer Price Index did not reflect this? Why? Simple answer. Home prices are not considered in the CPI. But rents are, and rents have gone through the roof. Asset inflation like real estate and the stock market which are both bubbles at this point are not considered. So why hasn't the astronomical increase in rents, which has exacerbated the homeless and affordable housing problems, not indicated to the Fed that there is indeed inflation going on? Maybe because the huge coastal rent increases in California are balanced out by lower rents and housing prices inland. Could be.

The Fed keeping interest rates low does not mean that consumers are getting a break. It means that banks are being charged low interest rates while at the same time they are bilking consumers and making a healthy profit off of the spread. It also means that interest on the national debt which is ginormous is less than what it would be if interest rates set by the Fed go up. It also means that seniors on social security will not get a cost of living increase because consumer prices supposedly have not gone up.

So banks and hedge funds, many of them associated with banks, can borrow money at essentially zero interest while at the same time paying no interest on savings accounts, but charging huge interest rates on credit cards and student loans. The Fed keeping interest rates low has little if any benefit to the average consumer while at the same time savers, who are mostly seniors, get nothing on their savings accounts.

The Constitution Project: France

by John Lawrence

Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite

From operationworld.org

France's Constitution goes back to the French Revolution of 1789 when France guillotined the King and became a Republic. Article 4 states: "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law." The current Constitution was adopted in 1958.

This is from Wikipedia:

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), passed by France's National Constituent Assembly in August 1789, is an important document of the French Revolution and in the history of human and civil rights. The Declaration was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson, working with General Lafayette, who introduced it. Influenced also by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by the law. It is included in the beginning of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current. Inspired by the Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a major impact on the development of freedom and democracy in Europe and worldwide.

The Declaration, together with Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the United States Bill of Rights, inspired in large part the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The French President is elected directly by a vote of the people much like the US. The French Parliament consists of two Houses: the National Assembly and the Senate. In all elections where there is a single official to be elected for a given area, including the two major national elections (the election of the President of the Republic and the election of the members of the National Assembly), two-round runoff voting is used. For elections to the European Parliament and some local elections, proportional representation voting is used. The Senate is not elected directly by the people but indirectly by elected representatives. It also includes some representatives of French citizens abroad.

The GOP’s Trojan Horse on Health Care Repeal

Published on Wednesday, July 26, 2017

 

by Campaign for America's Future

 

by Julie Chinitz

 

3 Comments

"We really are in a fight for our lives. Yet we’re motivated not just by fear but also by moral outrage. We know how fundamentally wrong it is to deprive people of health care." (Photo: CSPAN)

On Tuesday, 50 Republican senators showed contempt for their constituents by voting to move forward on repealing our health care, with Vice President Mike Pence stepping in to break the tie.

Nine GOP senators later broke ranks in a late-night session to vote down the Senate’s toxic version of the bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) – which would have rolled back much of the Affordable Care Act and gutted Medicaid, ending coverage for 23 million – but there are more votes to come, including one that may simply repeal care and and strip coverage from 32 million.

The final version of the bill may be nothing more than a placeholder – a Trojan horse for setting up a Republican Senate-House conference committee that will use yet another secretive, undemocratic process to craft yet another version of health repeal.

GOP leaders will want the new version to look just like their previous versions: cut taxes for corporations and the rich, raise the price of coverage for the rest of us, unravel Medicaid, and take health care from 22 to 24 million people.

Among Republicans, only Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had the courage to stand with their constituents and vote no on moving forward.

By voting to move ahead on the health care debate, Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada caved to pressure from Trump and casino mogul Steve Wynn. Almost 630,000 Nevadans get their health care through Medicaid and are now in jeopardy.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia caved under the weight of right-wing donor money and attack ads. With three in 10 West Virginians getting their health care through Medicaid, Capito’s state will be harder hit than almost all other states the country.

Ohio’s Sen. Rob Portman also caved, representing a state where hundreds of thousands of people finally got coverage because of expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

It was extremely irresponsible of Portman, Capito, and Heller – who have all expressed concern for constituents enrolled in Medicaid – to throw their weight behind this reckless process without a clear plan for protecting Medicaid coverage.

In statements, Capito and Portman have both said they’ll make good on their concern in the days to come, but both voted with their GOP colleagues for the BCRA on Tuesday night. Heller, who voted against the BCRA, said he wants the bill to be improved.

They need to show this is more than talk. Now more than ever, their constituents need them to stand strong, resist any bullying, and protect Medicaid and health care overall. They’ll do that, if they really do care about their constituents.

And let’s not forget the true heroes in this fight.

These heroes include the West Virginians who’ve been holding Capito’s feet to the fire for months with creative protests and civil disobedience. They also include the Mainers who delivered messages in a pill bottle to Sen. Collins and tracked Rep. Bruce Poliquin down at a Boston fundraiser and reminded him who he’s supposed to represent. And let’s not forget the seniors who braved a Great Lakes blizzard to protest in front of Speaker Paul Ryan’s Racine office.

Like these heroes, tens of thousands of people have shown up at protests and town halls, often speaking up for the first time in their lives. In every corner of the country, people have put their senators on speed-dial, camped out in congressional offices, and rallied friends.

We really are in a fight for our lives. Yet we’re motivated not just by fear but also by moral outrage. We know how fundamentally wrong it is to deprive people of health care.

And our fight isn’t over. Republican leaders wanted to put health care repeal on Trump’s desk in January. It’s the end of July, they’re still scrambling. That’s because of us.

In the coming days, let’s keep making calls and showing up at rallies and protests. Let’s track every vote this week, and raise the pressure on senators and representatives alike if repeal moves to a conference committee.

We’ve shown an incredible persistence in our fight. We’ll show plenty more when it comes to holding politicians accountable for a vote that favors big-money bullying over the people they’re supposed to represent.

 

Julie Chinitz is a lead writer for People's Action.

Trump Cuts Antibiotics Research 18%

by John Lawrence

I just watched a Frontline special about the dismal prospects for antibiotics research at a time when superbugs are increasingly resistant to drugs already on the market. Already we're in an era where people unfortunate enough to contract one of these bacteria have no treatment whatsoever available to them. We are in an era where the plague could strike again and we'd be no better off than medieval Europeans were when plague wiped out a third of the population.

Antibiotics are a class of drugs which need continual research and development because the bacteria are always evolving. Major pharmaceutical corporations have dropped their antibiotics research efforts because antibiotics, unlike cholesterol or erectile dysfunction drugs, are unprofitable. Why? Because the drug, when used properly, only needs a few doses and then the problem is solved. Other medications are meant to be taken for life and are hugely profitable.

Even Pfizer, which opened a facility dedicated to antibiotics research, the last company to do this kind of research, shut the facility out of consideration for the bottom line. This left government and the National Institute of Health as the last resort. Unfortunately, this is where Trump came in and cut the budget to the NIH.

The San Diego Union reported:

Salk Institute President Elizabeth Blackburn, a Nobel Prize winner, said reducing NIH funding will leave people vulnerable to emerging threats.

“In a world facing unprecedented health challenges, from the rise in the numbers of people with Alzheimer’s to the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, now is the time to prioritize foundational scientific research, not reduce funding,” Blackburn said. “We are in a golden age of science, thanks to the groundbreaking research that’s come before. To drastically reduce funding now is to squander that legacy and to undermine the legacy we leave future generations.”

These superbugs are already showing up in American hospitals and many have already been exposed to them and died. Thank Mr. Trump, if this becomes an epidemic.

Letter to Senators Re OPEN Act

by John Lawrence

Congress is always passing legislation to benefit the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of average Americans who have to pay ridiculously high prices for drugs and medical insurance. The OPEN Act is one example. Big Pharma then only pursues the development of drugs that have a high profit potential. The provisions of Obamacare that need to be repealed and replaced are those which provide no cost containment for drugs. Following is a letter from socialsecurityworks.com.

 

 

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator
:
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the Orphan Product Extensions Now (OPEN) Act.
Social Security Works fights to improve the economic security of all Americans by protecting and
expanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and lowering drug costs. With an email list of 1.3
million engaged activists and key organizers in targeted states and districts, we fight to fundamentally
restructure the pharmaceutical industry from one based on high prices and profits for the drug corporations
to one based on justice.

The OPEN Act contains policies that continue to allow pharmaceutical corporations to charge patients
absurd amounts of money for life-saving prescription drugs, for longer periods of time. It is estimated that
this new law would cost patients and taxpayers up to $11.6 billion over 10 years –ensuring that Americans
continue to pay the highest drug prices in the world.

Former Congressman Henry Waxman, an author of the 1982 Orphan Drug Act said, “We’re seeing the
Orphan Drug Act used in ways that we never anticipated when the law was adopted. In the way people use
the word ‘orphan status’ it’s almost becoming a synonym for a monopoly price.”

This piece of legislation should not pass as a standalone bill or as part of the User Fee Reauthorizations.
Members of Congress should focus on legislation that reins in abuses by drug companies, and assures that
Americans have affordable and accessible healthcare.

We believe lowering prescription drug prices, especially for Americans with rare diseases is a bipartisan
issue. We are hopeful that you will join us in standing up for patients and rejecting yet another giveaway to
billion dollar drug corporations.

Please vote “NO” on the OPEN Act. We look forward to working with you to lower prescription drug
prices.

Sincerely,
Alex Lawson
Executive Director

"The Beauty of Our Weapons" (and the War in Yemen)

Published on

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

by

Common Dreams

 

      by

 George Capaccio

 

 8 Comments

Boys hold a large piece of twisted metal near homes that were destroyed in an air strike, in Okash Village, near Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. (Photo: UNICEF/Mohammed Hamoud)

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst . . . .  – From "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

Now in the summer of our love for the glory and greatness of the Republic, let us recall the soaring words of Mark Twain and his paean to war and its multitude of tender mercies. Let us give thanks to God and his various co-conspirators for making our nation an exceptional font of wisdom, wealth, and weapons. Let us praise the weapons makers with their bottomless thirst for profits and their pledge of allegiance to the continuation of war for which no price is too great to bear, no life too small to incinerate in the blessed pursuit of national security, global hegemony, and unchallenged control of the world’s most vital resources

Let us bow down before the lords and ladies of the Pentagon and CIA, and their sovereign masters in the White House and legislature whose deep, uncompromising morality is clearly evident in their decision to provide billions of dollars worth of weapons to the enlightened despots of Saudi Arabia. God save King Salman and his ministers of state, presiding over shining seas of petroleum, that gooey lubricant that keeps our engines purring and our economy overflowing with the fruits of capitalist expansion and exploitation.

"The weeping of orphaned children, the keening of widowed mothers—are these not harbingers of greater things to come, a time when peace and plenty shall reign supreme, and the people of Yemen, finally subdued, shall harvest the blessings of Thy bounty. As it was in Iraq, so shall it be in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, and every other nation in which our men and women in uniform have led the fight against tyranny and strewn the land with the priceless jewels of freedom and democracy."

Now, as the world warms and the seas rise and the gods repose on cloudy cushions of greenhouse gas, let us salute our nation’s unbreakable bond of fealty to the House of Saud as the keeper of the flames that burn eternally from those precious repositories of oil in the heart of the desert. O Lord, keep those majestic wells pumping, keep the money flowing into the coffers of Raytheon, Textron, General Electric and their brothers in arms, keep our bombs and missiles falling like magical stars on the markets and mosques, villages, farms, and fields of ancient Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia’s next-door neighbor. God, give us the strength and resolve to continue to support the Saudi-led coalition in its no-holds-barred onslaught on the people of Yemen and the rebellious fighters in their midst.

Above all, keep our eyes fixed on the endlessly falling cascade of tweets anointing our hands and the phones we hold so dear and dare not lay aside lest we miss the latest chirp or expose ourselves to the bitter winds twisting around us, bearing news of a world of woe. Let us never waver from our sworn duty to pillory Donald Trump at every opportunity and hold his feet to the fire for the crime of colluding with the evil empire. Let us only hear the opprobrium hurled at Trump and his cronies from the high and mighty pulpits of MSNBC and their all-seeing pundits, who see under every rock and stone and in every crevice of the national security state a slimy trace of Russian intrusion.

If Hell Had a Budget: The GOP Breaks the Ten Commandments

Published on

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

by

Campaign for America's Future

 

 

 

 

 

by 

Richard Eskow

 

 2 Comments

"This budget is a wish list for millionaires, billionaires, and corporate special interests. It also breaks most of the Ten Commandments, which is more than a little ironic for the GOP, a party that prides itself on its Christian piety." (Photo: Infografika / CC)

A heat wave gripped Washington D.C. last week, its bright sun delineating each building’s sharp corners with Edward Hopper-like clarity. Commuters waited listlessly for trains and buses, fixed in their moments of misery like flies in amber.

If the city seemed like Hell, the resemblance was only heightened by the shadowy figures passing by in black chauffeured vehicles, their faces hidden by smoked glass as they glided through the city in air-conditioned comfort.

Some of those vehicles carried the Republican Congressional leaders who were finalizing the House GOP’s 2018 budget, which the House Budget Committee sent to the floor last Wednesday. If hell had a fiscal policy, it would look a lot like that document.

Breaking Commandments

This budget is a wish list for millionaires, billionaires, and corporate special interests. It also breaks most of the Ten Commandments, which is more than a little ironic for the GOP, a party that prides itself on its Christian piety.

This budget is designed to serve the unbridled greed of the ultra-wealthy, offering them even more tax cuts and inflicting suffering on the least of us to do it. They were apparently “coveting” the money that pays for kids’ breakfasts and other meals, since that’s one of the programs that will be cut in order to give billionaires their million-dollar tax cuts.

“Honor your father and mother?” This budget cuts Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars over ten years, either through explicit cuts or by “assuming” moves like raising the eligibility age to 67. It also cuts federal retiree benefits.

“Thou shalt not kill”? People will die if this budget is enacted. Medicare significantly reduced the elder mortality rate, which will presumably rise again if these cuts are enacted. Additional deaths will result from the budget’s cuts to Medicaid.

For more direct forms of killing, the House GOP budget calls for $929 billion more in military spending — already higher than it was at the peak of the Cold War — while cutting all non-military spending by $1.3 trillion over the same period.

While the budget sometimes punts the details to specific committees, the result for committees like Ways and Means (which supervises aid to needy children) are a foregone conclusion: to find $52 billion in savings, that committee would need to cut vital, even life-saving programs.

False witness? The budget promises that prosperity will come from its  “pro-growth policies,” like “deficit reduction, spending restraint, comprehensive tax reform, welfare reform, Obamacare repeal-and-replace legislation, and regulatory reform.” But economic research and experience shows that such cuts, commonly described as “austerity economics,” have the opposite effect.

The U.S. economy would have grown more quickly without the spending cuts known as “sequestration.”  Europe’s economy was squelched by austerity policies. Nevertheless, the GOP promises that the US will see 3 percent annual growth under its draconian budget.

Liars.

Elizabeth Warren Speaks Out

7/25/17

Senate Republicans don’t exactly know how they’re going to rip health care away from tens of millions of Americans – but they voted for it anyway today.

This vote isn’t just irresponsible. It isn’t just reckless. It isn’t just cruel.

This vote is immoral. It goes against everything we stand for in this country – and everything we stand for as Americans.

But this fight isn’t over – not by a long shot. We still have time to stop the final passage of this bill. We can still stop the Republicans from gutting Medicaid and taking away millions of Americans’ health care so that America’s richest families can get a tax break.

We’re not going to whimper. We’re not going to whine. We’re going to fight back. All of us, including you, John.

History will judge us for what happens in the United States Senate this week. This is the week we must prove: the Senate doesn’t just work for the billionaires and giant corporations, it doesn’t just work for the lawyers and lobbyists, and it doesn’t just work for one bought-and-paid-for political party – it works for the people.

Speak out, make your voice heard, and persist.

Spiking Pension Costs Squeeze San Diego Budget

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

By City News Service

Photo by Megan Wood / inewsource

Above: A view of the outside of San Diego City Hall, Jan. 19, 2016.

The city of San Diego's projected budget shortfall for the next fiscal year has ballooned by nearly $10 million because of new data from the municipal employees' pension system, financial management staff reported Tuesday.

The looming deficit could force spending cuts or delays in implementing new projects and initiatives.

In a report issued two months ago, city officials estimated that they would have to close a $37 million gap between revenues and expenses when budgeting for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Staff told members of the City Council that the initial projection was based on the most recent figures available at the time from the San Diego City Employees Retirement System, which reflected a valuation as of June 30, 2015.

An updated valuation — for June 30, 2016 — has since become available, and the city's contribution to the pension system that will come from the general fund will rise by $9.7 million. That pushes the budget shortfall for the city to around $47 million.

Related: San Diego Budget Deficits Could Be Bigger Than Mayor Planned

"It's definitely a challenging situation that we're in," said Councilman Chris Ward, who is just beginning his first term on the panel.

Barbara Bry, who also just joined the council, called the news "very sobering."

In the current fiscal year, the city's general fund — which pays for basic services like public safety and recreation centers — contributed around $191 million to SDCERS.

Because the pension system's investments didn't perform up to expectations, and changes to actuarial assumptions by the SDCERS board, that figure was expected to rise by around $36 million for the next fiscal year, to nearly $228 million.

The new estimate, which is scheduled to be presented to the SDCERS board for review on Friday, projects the city's general fund contribution to be $237.6 million. Because some self-funded departments, like water, also contribute to the pension system, the total city payment is expected to be $261.3 million.

City staff have made several suggestions to reduce the impact on the general fund, including spending reductions for city departments and slowing down the planned increase in the amount held in reserves.

Financial staff said the city might end the current fiscal year with an extra $20 million or so, which could be applied to next year's budget. Also, the City Council previously placed $16 million in a new pension reserve account in anticipation of higher-than-expected contributions.

However, the city financial outlook issued in November took a bare-bones approach to reaching some of the bottom-line projections, and separately listed some programs considered to be of high priority. Those items, including replacing city vehicles, fire station costs, replacement of the San Diego Police Department's antiquated computer-aided dispatch system and others, could be in danger with the updated figures.

The city is required to issue a balanced budget each year. Mayor Kevin Faulconer is scheduled to release his proposed spending plan for the next fiscal year in mid-April.

It's Obvious: Republican Congressmen Are No Experts on Health Care

by John Lawrence

If they were, they would design a health care system that was the best in the world with input from people that really know what they're doing. Instead we're getting a mish mash designed by lobbyists who only care about health care from the perspective of how much money they can make off it. Republicans want health care to represent the interests of the most powerful corporations and individuals in America, and that means that the final design, if they can come up with one, will serve the interests of politicians and lobbyists.

These Senators don't know crap about what health care is all about or should be all about. They are lusting after a transfer of wealth to higher net worth individuals by lowering taxes that represent a transfer of wealth to lower income individuals.

They see Obamacare as a transfer from the rich to the poor in the form of Medicaid. If they got health care costs under control, there wouldn't be a need for any transfers between economic classes whatsoever, but lobbyists for pharmaceutical corporations and other health care corporations don't want costs under control. That would mean decreased profits for them.

How does the rest of the world provide health care for a reasonable cost for all their citizens? Maybe the politicians should look into that. Instead, their focus is on how to buy a few votes by granting special favors to a few Senators whose votes they need to pass legislation that will screw the poor.

The First Thing Democrats Must Do to Fix the Economy

From Time magazine:

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 11: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news briefing after the weekly Senate Democratic Policy Luncheon July 11, 2017 at the Capitol in Washington, DC. Sen. Schumer discussed various topics including Senate's delaying its recess to the third week of August. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Alex Wong—Getty Images

 

Felicia Wong

Jul 21, 2017

 

IDEAS

Wong is President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute.

Just underneath the avalanche of Trump headlines, Democratsare planning their political comeback. But after a decades-long slide into increasing economic uncertainty under presidents of both parties, voters don’t trust easily. In the aftermath of 2016, Americans still overwhelmingly say the country is on the wrong track. Donald Trump’s explanation blames immigrants and foreigners for ripping us off. That story is wrong, cruel, and actually a Trojan horse for rule by the wealthiest among us, but it clearly appeals to many voters: Trump not only won the Midwest in November, he continues to be popular with his Republican base.

To beat that, Democrats will need more than a new motto or a better list of policies, as they plan to release this coming week. To win, Democrats have to start with something else: They have to tell Americans what’s gone wrong with our economy. Only then will it be clear how we can fix it.

To see the way forward, it helps to take a step back. What drove the strong, middle-class-led growth of the mid-20th century? Then as now, we had technological change upending industries and jobs; then, it was the move from farming to factories; now, it is the move from factories to the cloud. But then, we invested in America — in people and transportation and innovation. We had higher top tax rates and union protections that curbed the inequality between industrialists and shop-floor workers. We also had robust protections to keep companies from undermining competition, to keep our markets free and fair.

In short: We kept the winners from shutting everyone else out. Republican Teddy Roosevelt railed against trusts and sued dozens of monopolists, and his Democratic cousin Franklin reinvented the antitrust division at the Department of Justice, reining in some of the biggest corporations in America to save capitalism from itself.

 

The Unexpected Reason Panhandling Bans Are Being Struck Down Across the Country

BY: J.B. Wogan | July 25, 2017 from governing.com

A Supreme Court ruling about regulating church signs is spurring cities to repeal their anti-begging laws.

 

Most cities have some kind of ban on panhandling. (AP/M. Spencer Green)

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of churches' free speech. The case had nothing to do with panhandling, but it set a new legal precedent that's now being used to take down panhandling laws in cities across the country.

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, the court ruled that government regulations curtailing free speech have to be as narrow as possible and must fulfill a “compelling government interest.” At issue was a town ordinance that restricted where signs for religious services could be displayed. But the decision, which applies to any local rules that limit certain types of speech, has caught some cities by surprise.

"It's an unanticipated consequence," says Joshua Cox, chief counsel with the city attorney's office in Columbus, Ohio, where police recently announced they would stop enforcing a ban on aggressive panhandling. Cox remembers reading about the Reed case: “You don’t typically look at a graphics case and think, ‘I wonder if this affects our panhandling ordinance.’”

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups had long argued that it was unconstitutional for municipalities to prohibit people from begging for money in public spaces. The Reed decision, which some legal experts say is a game changer, strengthened their argument.

Within two months of the decision, a federal appeals court deemed a panhandling ban in Springfield, Ill., unconstitutional. In the past two years, federal courts have also struck down panhandling laws in Grand Junction, Colo.; Tampa, Fla.; Portland, Maine; and Worcester and Lowell, Mass. In Ohio alone, lawsuits brought by the ACLU have led Akron, Cleveland and Toledo to repeal all or parts of their panhandling bans. 

Most cities have some kind of ban on panhandling. Last year, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that 61 percent of 186 cities had laws banning begging in “particular public places,” such as commercial or tourist districts. The same report found that such laws in those cities had become more common over the past decade.

City councils often enact these bans in response to complaints from local businesses that say panhandlers scare away their customers. Though cities typically already have laws on the books to address disorderly conduct and threats of violence, councils justify panhandling bans as a further way to protect people from feeling unsafe.

Einstein Considered Himself a Citizen of the World

by John Lawrence

"Einstein's contempt for Germany's authoritarian schools and militarist atmosphere made him want to renounce his citizenship in that country. This was reinforced by Jost Winteler, who disdained all forms of nationalism and instilled in Einstein the belief that people should consider themselves citizens of the world. So he asked his father to help him drop his German citizenship. The release came through in January 1896, and for the time being he was stateless."

"Einstein also became an early member of the liberal and cautiously pacifistic New Fatherland League, a club that pushed for an early peace [to the First World War] and the establishment of a federal structure in Europe to avoid future conflicts. It published a pamphlet titled "The Creation of the United States of Europe," and it helped get pacifist literature into prisons and other places."

"In November, Einstein published a three-page essay titled "My Opinion of the War" that skirted the border of what was permissible, even for a great scientist, to say in Germany. He speculated that there existed "a biologically determined feature of the male character" that was one of the causes of war."

"The idea that war had a biological basis in male aggression was a topic Einstein also explored in a letter to his friend in Zurich, Heinrich Zangger. "What drives people to kill and maim each other so savagely?" Einstein asked. "I think it is the sexual character of the male that leads to such wild explosions.""

—above quotes from "Einstein: His Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson. There is an excellent series on PBS called "Genius" based on Isaacson's book.

How the Food and Drug Companies Ensure that We Get Sick and They Make Money

Published on Monday, July 24, 2017 by Common Dreams

 

by Paul Buchheit

 

43 Comments

"It seemed all the large health organizations were encouraging people to eat the very foods linked to the diseases they're supposed to be fighting against."  (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Another reason for single-payer health care: The documentary What the Health shows how the lives and health of human beings are considered insignificant, and in many ways threatened, by the pursuit of profits in the meat and dairy and drug industries. 

The corporate disdain revealed by this film is nearly beyond belief. And our 'trusted' watchdog agencies, both non-profit and government, are beholden to the biggest companies, accepting money in return for their silence about the dangers of animal and pharmaceutical products. 

Some of the contentions in the documentary have been disputed, most notably the implication that sugar is not a major factor in diabetes, and that dairy is. Indeed there may be flaws in the documentary. But it clearly reveals the damaging behavior of the businesses and organizations that are contributing to human suffering. 

Despicable: Corporate Profits at the Expense of Our Health 

According to the documentary (and other sources), the World Health Organization and other major health groups have labeled both processed and red meats as carcinogenic. Yet powerful lobbying efforts have kept America near the top of the world in meat consumption. The drug and chemical industries do their part by providing pesticide-filled GMO corn and soy, fed mostly to dairy cows, and with most of their antibiotic products going to fatten up the animals most of us eat. 

Hypocritical: Our Watchdog Non-Profits on the Payroll of Big Ag 

At the time of the documentary, beef and/or dairy menu items were promoted on the websites of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Susan G. Komen Foundation, prompting the narrator to say, "It seemed all the large health organizations were encouraging people to eat the very foods linked to the diseases they're supposed to be fighting against." 

It all started to make sense when some of the health organization funders were discovered: Kraft Foods, Oscar Mayer, Tyson Chicken, Dannon and Yoplait Yogurts, Pizza Hut, KFC, Taco Bell, Subway, Domino's, and the beef and dairy industries themselves. Not a single one of the four health organizations was willing to be interviewed. 

It gets worse. ACS, AHA, and ADA are accepting millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies that are making BILLIONS of dollars from the diseases the health organizations are supposedly trying to combat. That includes Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott, and others. These Big Pharma firms HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN OUR SICKNESS. A Time report explains the diabolical 'cascading' of drugs through our lives: "If you become addicted to painkillers, there are pills to help you stop taking the pills, by reducing the symptoms of withdrawal. And if you take too many pills, there's a pill for that too."

Saving Illinois: Getting More Bang for the State’s Bucks

Published on

Monday, July 24, 2017

 by

Common Dreams

Illinois is teetering on bankruptcy and other states are not far behind, largely due to unfunded pension liabilities; but there are solutions. The Federal Reserve could do a round of “QE for Munis.” Or the state could turn its sizable pension fund into a self-sustaining public bank.

 

by

 Ellen Brown

 

 7 Comments

"If Illinois were a corporation, it could declare bankruptcy; but states are constitutionally forbidden to take that route." (Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Illinois is insolvent, unable to pay its bills. According to Moody’s, the state has $15 billion in unpaid bills and $251 billion in unfunded liabilities. Of these, $119 billion are tied to shortfalls in the state’s pension program. On July 6, 2017, for the first time in two years, the state finally passed a budget, after lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto on raising taxes. But they used massive tax hikes to do it – a 32% increase in state income taxes and 33% increase in state corporate taxes – and still Illinois’ new budget generates only $5 billion, not nearly enough to cover its $15 billion deficit.

Adding to its budget woes, the state is being considered by Moody’s for a credit downgrade, which means its borrowing costs could shoot up. Several other states are in nearly as bad shape, with Kentucky, New Jersey, Arizona and Connecticut topping the list. U.S. public pensions are underfunded by at least $1.8 trillion and probably more, according to expert estimates. They are paying out more than they are taking in, and they are falling short on their projected returns. Most funds aim for about a 7.5% return, but they barely made 1.5% last year.

If Illinois were a corporation, it could declare bankruptcy; but states are constitutionally forbidden to take that route. The state could follow the lead of Detroit and cut its public pension funds, but Illinois has a constitutional provision forbidding that as well. It could follow Detroit in privatizing public utilities (notably water), but that would drive consumer utility prices through the roof. And taxes have been raised about as far as the legislature can be pushed to go.

The state cannot meet its budget because the tax base has shrunk. The economy has shrunk and so has the money supply, triggered by the 2008 banking crisis. Jobs were lost, homes were foreclosed on, and businesses and people quit borrowing, either because they were “all borrowed up” and could not go further into debt or, in the case of businesses, because they did not have sufficient customer demand to warrant business expansion. And today, virtually the entire circulating money supply is created when banks make loans When loans are paid down and new loans are not taken out, the money supply shrinks. What to do?

What if People Owned the Banks, Instead of Wall Street?

From the Nation:

From Seattle to Santa Fe, cities are at the center of a movement to create publicly owned banks.

By Jimmy Tobias

May 22, 2017

Demonstrators protest against the Wall Street bailout outside Chase in Times Square. (AP Photo / Edouard H.R. Gluck)

 

When Craig Brandt marched into the City Council chambers in Oakland, California, in the summer of 2015, he was furious about fraud.

The long-time local attorney and father of two had been following the fallout from the Libor scandal, a brazen financial scam that saw some of the biggest banks on Wall Street illegally manipulate international interest rates in order to boost their profits. By some estimates, the scheme cost cities and states around the country well over $6 billion. In June of 2015, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Barclays, among other Libor-rigging giants, pleaded guilty to felony charges related to the conspiracy and agreed to pay more than $2.5 billion in criminal fines to US regulators. But, for Brandt, that wasn’t enough. He wanted the banks banished, blocked from doing business in his city.

“I was totally pissed about it,” he says. “It was straight-up fraud.”

So, in a small act of stick-it-to-the-man defiance, Brandt drafted a resolution that barred the municipality from working with any firm that had either committed a felony or had recently paid more than $150 million in fines. He presented the homespun and eminently reasonable legislation to city officials and urged them to adopt it.

“The city councilors said they couldn’t do it,” Brandt says. “If they did, they wouldn’t have a bank left to work with. They said there wouldn’t be any bank big enough to take the city’s deposits.” Oakland, it seemed, was hopelessly dependent on ethically dubious and occasionally criminal financial titans. Brandt, however, was undeterred.

After the City Council turned him down, he started looking for other ways to wean Oakland off Wall Street. That’s when he fell in with a group of locals who have been nursing an audacious idea. They want their city to take radical action to combat plutocracy, inequality, and financial dislocation. They want their city to do something that hasn’t been done in this country in nearly a century, not since the trust-busting days of the Progressive Era. They want their city to create a bank—and, strange as the idea may seem, it’s not some utopian scheme. It’s a cause that’s catching on.

Across the country, community activists, mayors, city council members, and more are waking up to the power and the promise of public banks. Such banks are established and controlled by cities or states, rather than private interests. They collect deposits from government entities—from school districts, from city tax receipts, from state infrastructure funds—and use that money to issue loans and support public priorities. They are led by independent professionals but accountable to elected officials. Public banks are a way, supporters say, to build local wealth and resist the market’s predatory predilections. They are a way to end municipal reliance on Wall Street institutions, with their high fees, their scandal-ridden track records, and their vile investments in private prisons and pipelines. They are a way, at long last, to manage money in the public interest.

What Will I Do Today?

Dear friends,

     What will I participate in today? That is a good early morning question. It may seem as if there is no real choice, since we must go to the same job we have had for years, or tend to the same chores. But the question specifically asks; in what will I be a full participant? Shall I go through the motions and put in my time, or will I bring something new to the day? Will I participate in coffee room gossip or can I offer some ideas on how we might improve our shared efforts?

     Our experience is so much about what we bring with us into it. Have we been giving a whole self to it, whether it is a relationship or a job? It is too easy to let things repeat themselves. How often do we find ourselves having the same conversations with the same people? Boredom does not happen because there is nothing to do, it is a symptom of lazy thinking. When it becomes a chronic feeling, it is caused by ignorance of our own potential.

     Modern spirituality speaks of what I call “the rest of us, the best of us, the not yet expressed of us.” There is a vast inner self that is unencumbered by our past or even our beliefs. It is ever-ready to come through as we give it something new to do! We are more capable than we think we are. We can participate in so much more than we have up until now. The right answer to our original question could unlock our hidden talents and gifts.

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes

www.carolcarnes.com

www.mvcsl.org

Out tv show can be seen locally on Las Cruces Channel 98 or on You Tube. Search Living Consciously Carol Carnes

How Our Intel Agencies Screwed Us by Letting Sessions, Trumpies Get Away with Russia Scheme

Published on Saturday, July 22, 2017

 

by Informed Comment

 

by Juan Cole

  

37 Comments

Attorney General Jeff Sessions pledged during his confirmation hearings to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. (Photo: Reuters)

Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller at WaPo report from a US intelligence source that former Russian ambassador to the US, Sergei Kislyak, told Moscow that he had discussed campaign-related matters with Jeff Sessions twice in the summer of 2016. This revelation directly contradicts Sessions’ testimony before Congress. If the allegation is correct, Sessions is guilty of a crime, perjury, the same crime of which the Republicans in the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton. Only, like, Sessions may actually have committed, like, a crime.

Me, I’m angry. I’m angry because the US intel community had this information in summer of 2016 and they’re only leaking it now. You mean they could have blown the whistle on the Trump gang over the Russian contacts and they didn’t bother? It is too late now. Getting rid of Sessions won’t change anything. Trump will just appoint another stealth white supremacist.

Now, their bosses are Trump appointees and most of this stuff will be ordered suppressed.

Second, let’s acknowledge the hypocrisy of all the condemnations of Ed Snowden over leaking the *illegal* activities of the National Security Agency, and the acceptance of this leak about Sessions. Nobody is threatening the WaPo journalists with jail for publishing the information on Sessions, and nor should they. But tell me how all this is different from the Snoweden affair in form (Snowden obviously released lots more information).

Observers are pointing out that all the intel community has is Kislyak’s cables back to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, not a transcript of the actual meeting. This is true. But why would Kislyak misrepresent the meetings to his bosses? Moreover, if the NSA didn’t actually record their conversations, after recording millions of innocent Americans, then we want our money back.

It should be pointed out that Sessions has trouble telling the truth about his meetings with Kislyak. First, he got the number of those meetings wrong. Now, the substance.

Repeal and Replace Donald Trump

by John Lawrence

New White House communications director Anthony Scarimucci says Trump is not back on his heels but will lunge forward from the balls of his feet and knock your socks off. Will he take off his socks first so he can get a better grip on the balls of his feet before knocking our socks off? Scarimucci says Trump wants to get on with helping the middle class. Yeah, right. The only people Trump and the Republican Congress want to help are the ultra rich like themselves. They are in Washington for one reason and one reason only: to enrich themselves and their friends.

Scarimucci says he won't tolerate leakers. They will all be subjected to the "You're fired" treatment. When asked if this wasn't a little bit harsh, he said that nobody with a thin skin should come to Washington. He only wants thick skinned people there. Everybody that is except his boss who has one of the thinnest skins ever to set foot in Washington. The Tweeter-in-Chief needs to get on with knocking the socks off of the middle class. Then he'll proceed to knocking everything else off.

A fond farewell to Spicey. Spicey, we hardly knew ye! SNL will never be the same.

The Road to Hell is Paved With Good and Bad Intentions

by John Lawrence

The road to Hell is paved with both good and bad intentions. George W Bush paved the road to hell when he lied the US into the invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had good intentions when they encouraged Middle Eastern countries to become more democratic. In both cases they created a veritable Hell in those countries with massive numbers of innocent people killed and injured, tremendous destruction of real estate and the unleashing of a refugee crisis that threatens the stability of Europe. There are billions of dollars available for creating Hells on earth, but only a few pennies for dealing with the consequences thereof or for preventing war in the first place.

War is so profitable for defense contractors. Is there even such an entity as a peace contractor?

Donald Trump and the Coming Fall of American Empire

Published on Sunday, July 23, 2017

 

by The Intercept

A new book by the famed historian Alfred McCoy predicts that China is set to surpass the influence of the U.S. globally, both militarily and economically, by the year 2030

by Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept

 

1 Comments

Ships from the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group simulate a strait transit in the Atlantic Ocean, Dec. 10, 2013. The strike group was conducting a pre-deployment evaluation. (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Justin Wolpert/Released)

Even as President Donald Trump faces ever-intensifying investigations into the alleged connections between his top aides and family members and powerful Russian figures, he serves as commander in chief over a U.S. military that is killing an astonishing and growing number of civilians. Under Trump, the U.S. is re-escalating its war in Afghanistan, expanding its operations in Iraq and Syria, conducting covert raids in Somalia and Yemen, and openly facilitating the Saudi’s genocidal military destruction of Yemen.

Meanwhile, China has quietly and rapidly expanded its influence without deploying its military on foreign soil.

A new book by the famed historian Alfred McCoy predicts that China is set to surpass the influence of the U.S. globally, both militarily and economically, by the year 2030. At that point, McCoy asserts the United States Empire as we know it will be no more. He sees the Trump presidency as one of the clearest byproducts of the erosion of U.S. global dominance, but not its root cause. At the same time, he also believes Trump may accelerate the empire’s decline.

McCoy argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the beginning of the end. McCoy is not some chicken little. He is a serious academic. And he has guts.

During the Vietnam war, McCoy was ambushed by CIA-backed paramilitaries as he investigated the swelling heroin trade. The CIA tried to stop the publication of his now classic book, “The Politics of Heroin.” His phone was tapped, he was audited by the IRS and he was investigated and spied on by the FBI. McCoy also wrote one of the earliest and most prescient books on the post 9-11 CIA torture program and he is one of the world’s foremost experts on U.S. covert action. His new book, which will be released in September, is called “In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power.”

“The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, may already be tattered and fading by 2025 and, except for the finger pointing, could be over by 2030,” McCoy writes. Imagining the real-life impact on the U.S. economy, McCoy offers a dark prediction...

Read the full post, and listen to the interview, at The Intercept.

© 2017 The Intercept / First Look Media

As Paperwork Goes Missing, Private Student Loan Debts May Be Wiped Away

From the New York Times:

by Stacey Cowley and Jessica Silver-Greenberg  July 17, 2017

Photo

 

A City College of New York graduate last year. At least $5 billion in private student loans are at the heart of a legal dispute. CreditSpencer Platt/Getty Images

Tens of thousands of people who took out private loans to pay for college but have not been able to keep up payments may get their debts wiped away because critical paperwork is missing.

The troubled loans, which total at least $5 billion, are at the center of a protracted legal dispute between the student borrowers and a group of creditors who have aggressively pursued them in court after they fell behind on payments.

Judges have already dismissed dozens of lawsuits against former students, essentially wiping out their debt, because documents proving who owns the loans are missing. A review of court records by The New York Times shows that many other collection cases are deeply flawed, with incomplete ownership records and mass-produced documentation.

Some of the problems playing out now in the $108 billion private student loan market are reminiscent of those that arose from the subprime mortgage crisis a decade ago, when billions of dollars in subprime mortgage loans were ruled uncollectible by courts because of missing or fake documentation. And like those troubled mortgages, private student loans — which come with higher interest rates and fewer consumer protections than federal loans — are often targeted at the most vulnerable borrowers, like those attending for-profit schools.

At the center of the storm is one of the nation’s largest owners of private student loans, the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts. It is struggling to prove in court that it has the legal paperwork showing ownership of its loans, which were originally made by banks and then sold to investors. National Collegiate’s lawyers warned in a recent legal filing, “As news of the servicing issues and the trusts’ inability to produce the documents needed to foreclose on loans spreads, the likelihood of more defaults rises.”

continue reading ...

Robert Reich - Inequality for All

The Constitution Project: the Netherlands

by John Lawrence

From operationworld.org

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy whose crown is hereditary in the House of Orange-Nassau. Current head of state is Queen Beatrix. For all intents and purposes, the monarch has little power. The queen formally appoints the prime minister and the government, but it's always the one voted in by the voters that has the majority.

The Dutch voters elect only their legislative assemblies. All executive office holders are appointed theoretically by the Queen; in practice by complicated negotiations between the larger parties.

The Netherlands do not have electoral districts, as the US and UK do. Instead, a party enters parliament by getting enough votes for at least one seat. National parliament consists of 150 members. Today the Netherlands has a population of about 17 million so in order to get one seat in parliament, about 113,000 votes would be required. Where these votes were cast does not matter.

During elections one votes for a person, and in theory MPs are elected on a personal basis. In practice the vote goes to a party, or rather to a party list. Before the elections, each party that wishes to participate hands in a list of candidates. It’s these lists of candidates that appear on the ballot, and every voter is allowed to select one candidate.

The Netherlands is a Parliamentray Democracy. The Queen has little actual power.

The total number of votes for all candidates of one list determines how many seats that list gets. So if a party gets a certain percentage of the total number of votes, they get that percentage of seats in Parliament. If the party gets x seats, they go to the top x people on the list.

Most of the party candidates are unknown to the general public, and therefore most people vote for the first person on the list of their party of choice. This first person is always the party leader, who in general gets about 70 to 90% of all the votes for his (rarely her) party.

The party list system has advantages as well as disadvantages. The most obvious disadvantage is that few MPs are generally known throughout the country; most are rather anonymous party members that wouldn’t have been elected if they hadn’t been on the party list and are therefore beholden to the party bosses, and not to the voters.

The advantage is that parties can get their specialists into parliament. Every party has a few MPs who sorely lack charisma and would never be elected on their own, but who also have excellent knowledge of a specialized field; say Education or Finance. In order to keep these specialists in parliament they’re usually placed highly on the party list.

Medicare for All

by John Lawrence

The American People Win. Pharmaceutical and Medical Corporations Lose

There's a reason why American medical care is so expensive: It benefits the bottom lines of major American corporations. Medicare for all would be much cheaper in terms of overall costs that would be paid by means of taxation primarily. However, GDP would decline as major corporations' profit margins would decrease. The system we have right now allows the bilking of the American people through the tax code and directly through their pocketbooks. Medicare for all would lower the net out of pocket costs to the average American citizen and result in better health care for all. The big gainers would be the American people. The big losers would be American corporations and the American economy as a whole which doesn't produce much except high cost medical care and financial derivatives. Pharmaceutical lobbyists and compliant Republican lawmakers will do all they can to keep the current system which guarantees huge profits to these corporations. Their lobbyist expenditures are a minimal investment that guarantees maximal profits at the expense of the average American.

Obamacare, Trumpcare, Repeal and Replace - all this stuff is a bunch of hooey. The issue is what is the best form of health care at the least expense for the American people. The Democratic party should redefine itself along these lines and stand for Medicare for All. The candidate that does that will win the next election. For too long Republicans and their talk show surrogates have pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people.

New Poll Shows Nation Moving Left on Healthcare, Embracing Medicare for All

Published on

Thursday, July 20, 2017

by

Common Dreams

The poll shows that 62 percent of Americans believe it is the federal government's responsibility to guarantee healthcare for all

 

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

 39 Comments

"There is a significant increase in people who support universal coverage," Robert Blendon of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told AP. (Photo: Molly Adams/Flickr/cc)

In the face of "cruel" attempts by the Republican Party to strip health insurance from more than 30 million Americans with the goal of providing massive tax breaks to the wealthy, a new poll published on Thursday finds that a growing majority of the public is "shifting toward the political left" on healthcare and expressing support for a system that ensures coverage for all.

"The Democratic party needs to stop fumbling around incompetently for a positive vision and instead unify behind the one already supported by the overwhelming majority of its voters." 
—Matt BruenigThe poll, conducted by the Associated Press in partnership with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, shows that 62 percent of public believes it is "the federal government's responsibility to make sure that all Americans have health care coverage."

As AP's Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Laurie Kellman note, this is a dramatic shift in popular attitudes over a very short period of time.

"As recently as March," they observe, "the AP-NORC poll had found Americans more ambivalent about the federal government's role, with a slim 52 percent majority saying health coverage is a federal responsibility, and 47 percent saying it is not."

This most recent poll also found:

• Only 22 percent of Democrats want to keep Obamacare as it is, and 64 favor changes to the law.
• 80 percent of Democrats believe it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure coverage for all.
• 80 percent of Americans believe Republicans should work with Democrats to improve Obamacare.
• 13 percent of Americans support the Republican plan to repeal Obamacare without a replacement, a proposal the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates would leave 32 million more Americans uninsured.

These latest survey results are consistent with increasingly vocal grassroots support for a Medicare-for-All style system that "leaves no one out." Prominent Democrats have joined the groundswell of enthusiasm; former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are two of the more notable figures who have openly advocated a move toward single-payer in recent weeks.

"There is a significant increase in people who support universal coverage," Robert Blendon of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told AP. "The impact of the debate over dropping coverage looks like it has moved [more] people to feel that the government is responsible for making sure that people have coverage."

This soaring support for Medicare for All at the grassroots has been bolstered by recent analyses showing that a single-payer system would be more affordable than the current for-profit system—a fact that refutes President Donald Trump's baseless claim on Wednesday that single-payer would "bankrupt our country."

All of these factors, argues welfare policy analyst Matt Bruenig in a recent piece for Buzzfeed, amount to an irrefutable case in favor of moving beyond Obamacare to a healthcare system that ensures universal coverage.

"Now that the Republicans have failed [in their attempts to repeal Obamacare], the time is ripe for a serious single-payer push," Bruenig writes. "Policy institutions need to work hard to hammer out the details of a single-payer plan, and the Democratic party needs to stop fumbling around incompetently for a positive vision and instead unify behind the one already supported by the overwhelming majority of its voters."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Unregulated Market Capitalism Is Inherently Undemocratic

by Frank Thomas

California is not getting hood-winked into the conservative right doctrinaire harangue that an “unregulated free-market” economy equates with democracy. California acknowledges our nation is going down the path of an extreme version of pure capitalism where "competition in a free market" is elevated to mythic status as the arbiter of all economic, environmental, and implicitly, cultural and social decisions. California is taking some wise steps of re-examining some of the most basic assumptions of democracy, human rights, and the institution of mega global corporations, now society’s most powerful citizens.

The idea is to have a civil society where the well-being, rights and interests of people, community, and the natural environment are paramount and not undermined by the power of corporations or the state. This means a vibrant societal focus on policies creating the conditions where government and market driven capitalism function in the most equitable, transparent, democratic manner serving the needs the whole society and reducing the levels of inequality disintegrating our social fabric.

For California, if this means rethinking the social-economic model, then so be it. If this means focusing more attention on the bottom 99% than the top 1% that is so heavily involved in politics (i.e., the political inequality gap) expanding their own greedy self-interests, then so be it. If this means a much higher minimum wage base; access to quality, affordable basic healthcare in some form similar to a single-payer system; paid family leave; partially subsidized public higher education; reasonable social safety nets; wealth-building programs like universal savings accounts; government accountability and protections for undocumented people; aggressive adoption of clean energy policies and related robust job growth, then so be it. Welcome to California where the state has been working hard to set and enforce the right, regulations, rules, ethics, transparency, and accountability to insure an equitable sharing in societal investments both short-term and long term.

In contrast, Trump and the conservative right apostles of the “unregulated market” are out to dismantle or in any event nullify the institutions making the rules that counteract the excesses of the free market, while considering human-induced climate change a costly scientific hoax (or conspiracy), a waste of government time and money. Over the last few decades, our nation has become frozen and blinded by the dogma that "the best government is the least government" - fostering a deeply polarized country caught in laissez-faire, self-interest-first, destructive capitalism that has stirred up the ugly economic, political “Mess” and divisive culture of “Class Tribalisms” we are now living in.

Pure capitalism without restraint, sensible laws, regulations, rules, a strong code of business ethics and environmental responsibility is little more than a license to exploit. Exploitation has consequences. As does the “lying trickle down” economic con-game that maximizing the wealth of the wealthy few will also maximize the well-being of all. The dark reality today is that technology (digitalizing, computerizing, robotisizing) is eliminating jobs far quicker than it’s creating them – while at the same time worker hours are brutal and worker wages continue on a trend of being squeezed or stagnant at bare survival levels.

The income/wealth gap inequality and political inequality is also magnified with the dismantling of public services and provision of a myriad complex mix of tax benefits enriching the already rich top 1%. Presently, 400 Americans have more wealth than 61% of the population. That’s 195 million Americans living in 74 million households – an accelerating, obscene wealth concentration that exceeds any conceivable need!  

Survival of the fittest in an unfettered free market system was NOT Thomas Jefferson's governmental doctrine. Prudence balanced with social concern for the common man's welfare were among his prima facie governmental values. As he said, "Some men look at institutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of covenant, too sacred to be touched ... Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind ... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

The responsible conservative Founding Father James Madison said it right: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary ... In framing government which is administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

In Jefferson's and Madison's time, there were no drugs, complex medicines, urban congestion with related multiple crime, health, social, infrastructure problems. There was no massive use of insecticides in food production nor resort to questionable food additives/preservative methods. There were no pervasively excessive eating habits and obesity problems. There was no exponential dependence on fossil fuels intensifying global earth warming. There were no global social-engineering in deadly sectarian wars taking place routinely with advanced weaponry. There were no issues of disappearing industrial production; of rapidly advancing automating, digitalizing, robotosizing, outsourcing of jobs in a "race-to-the-bottom Wal-Marting" of permanently destroyed blue and white collar jobs at a lightning speed that compensating new ideas and investments can’t keep up with – so far.

 The excesses of “unregulated capitalism” are seldom cured by businesses whose primary goal is profit making for shareholders. The market rarely if ever dictates healthy changes in minimum wages, environmental protection, protection of organized labor, unfair trade practices, hopeless poverty, structural unemployment, rampant stock manipulation and fraud, etc., etc. Although recently, there has been some evidence of more top business leaders speaking up about the social-economic inequities occurring on a grand scale in our country (e.g., replacing people with machines, exploiting cheap labor, vacating plants so critical in small communities, etc.) … and saying that corporations must start doing something about it.    

Normally, the public, through government, puts healthy changes in place. Problem is that we have had for some time now a corrupted by-money-and-special-interests governmental process of making changes that’s dangerously accelerating economic and class inequality among Americans; that's eliminating or neutering the only entities we have that are capable of responsible, fair regulation. Tragically, government, the public, and corporations seem incapable of reigning in the excesses of our pure, unfettered capitalism (not to mention our global social-engineering military adventures that are morally and money-wise bankrupting us).

And all this is happening while our infrastructure and pre-college educational systems continue to descend to 3rd world levels … while quality, affordable, decent basic healthcare coverage for everyone is a shameful failure compared to the successful and far lower-cost universal health care systems in other countries.

Frank Thomas, the Netherlands July 21, 2017

 

Chaos and Confusion Pervade Homeless Camps Downtown

From Voice of San Diego:

As homelessness rises in San Diego, so does police enforcement and questions about where the homeless are allowed to go – before and after they’re hit with citations and orders to stay away.

 

 

Photo by Jamie Scott Lytle

Signs posted on Harbor Drive in 2015 notify the homeless of an impending sweep.

 

By Lisa Halverstadt | July 20, 2017

When 22-year-old Alexis Leftridge became homeless in downtown San Diego, she was thrust into a constant battle.

Police cited or arrested Leftridge, a mother of a 3-month-old son, on at least 15 separate occasions over the past two years.

Her crimes? Most often, blocking the sidewalk with the tent she set up in East Village. Several citations and three jail stays later, Leftridge has grappled with warrants and orders barring her from the downtown blocks that are home to a cluster of homeless service providers. One of those nonprofits is now trying to help Leftridge and her son find a permanent home.

“They’re spending money on putting us in jail instead of spending money on putting us into programs or housing that will help us get off the street,” said Leftridge, who spent multiple nights in jail while she was pregnant. She considered her time there less chaotic than her experience on 16th Street.

Police citations and interactions have especially soared in downtown San Diego, where a business group’s most recent count tallied more than 1,200 living on the streets in those neighborhoods alone.

There, chaos and confusion are palpable. Homeless people pack some downtown blocks with their tents, tarps and shopping carts. In some cases, their camps even extend onto the street. By day, many leave their belongings on the sidewalk and head to parks, the library or elsewhere. Other blocks are mostly dormant.

continue reading ...

It’s Off to the Races at the Del Mar Death Track

From the San Diego Free Press:

July 19, 2017

by Doug Porter

10 Comments

It’s the time of year when the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club cranks up its well-oiled PR machine. Today, the $100,000 Oceanside Stakes, with a 14-horse field of 3-year-olds competing on the infield grass race track, will kick off a 36 day summer season. Are you excited yet? Don’t be.

There will be hats — outrageous hats, funny hats, and flamboyant head coverings–worn by people competing for a $5000 prize and 15 seconds of fame on local TV news. Later this year, the famed Breeder’s Cup, two days of racing moving from track to track each fall, will draw international attention to Del Mar.

The celebratory ‘cool as ever’ public relations slogan, opening day promotions, concerts and celebrity events barely mask the stench of death surrounding the Del Mar race track. It’s not just the (too many) horses dying; it’s the sport itself.

The Sweet Kiss of death…The story of jockey Frank Hays, who died (riding a horse named Sweet Kiss) mid-race from a heart attack, but whose body stayed upright to the finish line and won a 1923 race at Belmont Park (NY) is an apt metaphor for the state of the horse racing industry these days.

At Del Mar, the focus has been on the condition of the race track. The hope is spending money on upgrades will lead to a decline in negative publicity. I would argue there are deeper issues to consider, namely greed and inbreeding.

continue reading ...

Joining Single-Payer Chorus, Al Gore Says For-Profit System Had Its Chance

Published on

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

by

Common Dreams

 

 

 

"The private sector has not shown any ability to provide good, affordable healthcare for all. I believe we ought to have single-payer healthcare."

 

 

 

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

 34 Comments

Gore is the latest prominent Democrat to come out in favor of single-payer in the midst of Republican attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. (Photo: Dan Farber/Flickr/cc)

On the heels of what appeared to be Trumpcare's final collapse on Monday and in the midst of growing grassroots demands for Democratic lawmakers to embrace a "bold" agenda, former Vice President Al Gore said at an event on Tuesday that he believes the United States should move toward a single-payer system that guarantees healthcare for every American.

"I believe we ought to have single-payer healthcare." 
—Al Gore"The private sector has not shown any ability to provide good, affordable healthcare for all," Gore said at Borough of Manhattan Community College, where he was promoting his new climate change documentary. "I believe we ought to have single-payer healthcare."

As the Huffington Post's Alexander Kaufman notes, Gore has in the past unenthusiastically expressed support for single-payer.

"I think we've reached a point where the entire healthcare system is in impending crisis," Gore said in 2002. "I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should begin drafting a single-payer national health insurance plan."

Gore is one of the most prominent Democrats to speak publicly in support of a Medicare-for-All type system as Republicans attempt to move ahead with their long-shot effort to repeal Obamacare without a replacement. Others who have recently endorsed single-payer include Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).

After Six Months, A Detailed Look at 'Giant Bait and Switch' Trump Presidency

Published on

Wednesday, July 19, 2017 

by

Common Dreams

 

 

 

New report reveals how billionaire president has 'abandoned populism in favor of giveaways to industry'

 

 

 

 

by

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

 26 Comments

In his six months as president, Donald Trump has not lived up to his populist campaign promises, and has instead filled the White House with former lobbyists and opted for policies that favor special interests. (Photo: Donald Trump/cc/flickr)

It has been six long months since Donald Trump's inauguration, and unsurprisingly, the president has not parlayed his populist campaign promises into policy. In fact, he has often done the exact opposite—earning himself the lowest approval rating of any president in the past 70 years.

"Giant corporations are now designing and carrying out policy to an extent unequaled in American history." 
—Alan Zibel, Public Citizen

In a new report from the nonprofit group Public Citizen, researchers describe how President Trump has spent his first six months defying the pledges that carried him into office, instead favoring the corporate interests groups he condemed during his campaign.

Specifically, the report—aptly titled Trump's Corporate Con Job: Six Months Into Term, Trump Has Fully Abandoned Populism In Favor of Giveaways to Industry—details how Trump's policies benefit agribusiness; automakers; bankers; chemical producers; defense firms; predatory private colleges and student lenders; for-profit prison companies; the telecom, fossil fuel, and pharmaceutical industries; and wealthy people.

As Alan Zibel, research director of Public Citizen's Corporate Presidency Project, put it: "Giant corporations are now designing and carrying out policy to an extent unequaled in American history."

Despite Trump's campaign rallying cry to "drain the swamp" and "put the people back in charge of our government"—in which he directly targeted lobbyists and special interest groups—more than 100 former federal lobbyists now work within his administration. As ProPublica reported in March: "During the campaign, Trump said he would have 'no problem' banning lobbyists from his administration. But they have nonetheless ended up in senior roles, aided by Trump's weakening of Obama-era ethics rules that modestly limited lobbyists' role in government."

The billion-dollar budget item Garcetti didn't mention in his State of the City speech

From the LA Times:

Mayor Eric Garcetti gives his State of the City speech Thursday at the Los Angeles City Hall council chambers. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Jack Dolan Contact Reporter

 

When Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti unveiled his proposed budget last week, he called a $176-million effort to battle homelessness his top priority, highlighted a $35-million plan to mend broken streets and promised $2 million to clean up graffiti.

He did not mention the expenditure that dwarfs all of those combined: more than $1.1 billion to pay for city employees’ pensions and healthcare after they retire.

The cost of retiree benefits amounts to nearly 20% of the city’s general fund, which pays for basic city services. In 2002, the figure was less than 5%.

“Every municipal government is feeling this pain,” said Joe Nation, a former Democratic state legislator who teaches at Stanford's Institute for Economic Policy Research.

continue reading ...

 

6-Month Update for Trump Voters

by Robert Reich

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

So after six months, has he delivered what he promised you?

1. He told you he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “beautiful.” You bought it. But he didn’t repeal and he didn’t replace. (Just as well: His plan would have knocked at least 22 million off health insurance, including many of you.)

2. He told you he’d cut your taxes. You bought it. But tax “reform” is stalled. And if it ever moves, the only ones whose taxes will be cut are the wealthy.

3. He told you he’d invest $1 billion in our nation’ crumbling infrastructure. You bought it. But his infrastructure plan, which was really a giveaway to rich investors, is also stalled.

4. He said he’d clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. But he’s brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses, along with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who are crafting new policies for the same industries they recently worked for.

5. He said he’d use his business experience to whip the White House into shape. You bought it. But he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional, back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge.

6. He said he’d close “special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors but unfair to American workers.“ You bought it. But he picked a Wall Street financier Stephen Schwarzman to run his strategic and policy forum, who compares closing those loopholes to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

7. He told you he’d “bring down drug prices” by making deals with drug companies. You bought it. But now the White House says that promise is “inoperative.”

8. He said that on Day One he’d label China a “currency manipulator.” You bought it. But then he met with China’s president and declared "China is not a currency manipulator.”

9. He said he wouldn’t bomb Syria. You bought it. But then he bombed Syria.

10. He called Barack Obama “the vacationer-in-Chief” and accused him of playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer’s dime, not when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. But in his first 6 months he has spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the world on Trump business.

11. He said he’d force companies to keep jobs in America. You believed him. But despite their promises, Carrier, Ford, GM, and the rest are shipping jobs to Mexico and China.

12. He said he’d create coal jobs. You believe him. He hasn’t. But here’s what he has done: Since 1965 a federal program called the Appalachian Regional Commission has spent $23 billion helping communities in coal states fund job retraining, reclaim land, and provide desperately needed social services. A.R.C. helped cut poverty rates almost in half, double the percentage of high-school graduates, and reduce infant mortality by two-thirds. Trump’s first proposed budget eliminates A.R.C.

How the Rich Get Richer

People in Denmark Are Much Happier Than People in the United States

Trump and Treason

by John Lawrence

Trump famously said during the Presidential campaign that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and he wouldn't lose any votes. The situation is even worse now that he has become President. He could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't be impeached. Not only that but he can collude with the Russians or anybody he wants to and not be impeached. Why? Because the Republicans control both branches of Congress, that's why. The media and the Democrats can cry foul all they want. They can work themselves into an uproar over Trump's outrageous tweets. They can get all upset over Trump Jr. It doesn't mean a thing.

When Nixon resigned over Watergate, he knew he would be impeached. Why? Because both branches of Congress were controlled by Democrats. When Clinton was impeached, both branches of Congress were controlled by Republicans. That's how it works. It would be a cold day in Hades if a Republican Congress would impeach a Republican President. The media can have paroxysms and brouhahas all they want and Trump will never be impeached. He even has the Supreme Court on his side if he should be sued in Civil Court.

So all the hullabaloo over Trump's outrageous Tweets will get the Democrats and the media Trump haters exactly nowhere. He is useful to the Republican establishment even though they're embarrassed by him because they can pass all their legislation canceling the New Deal subterraneously while everybody is all encompassed in their outrage over tweets. They can denude the Federal establishment of every regulation, every department which protected the weak and vulnerable. They can give tax break after tax break to the rich and powerful, all while the media is foaming at the mouth over the latest outrageous happening in Trumpville.

So Trump suits the purposes of the Republican party. And he suits the purposes of the Republican tribe that voted for him. They want entertainment, and that's what they're getting with Trump. They can all thumb their collective noses and raise their middle fingers to the latte drinking, Volvo driving East and West coast establishments. Heartland America, gun toting, pickup driving, military loving, race car aficionados will vote for Trump because he's a red blooded American or so they think. What he has in common with them is saying FU to the Democrats and all the latte lovers.

Sacramento sees a startling surge in homeless people. Who they are might surprise you

From the Sacramento Bee:

 

By Anita Chabria, Cynthia Hubert, Ryan Lillis and Ellen Garrison

achabria@sacbee.com

Shawn Porter woke up in William Land Park on Friday and smoked a Marlboro Red for breakfast not far from the zoo where he worked selling popcorn as a kid.

A few miles away, behind a south Sacramento dumpster, Steve Devlin used the morning light to search for a set of dice his displeased lady-friend chucked into the bushes at his street camp close to the mobile home park where his parents once lived.

Deja Sturdevan’s day began by pushing past prickly branches guarding her sleeping quarters in shrubbery near a heavily trafficked boulevard in Antelope, blocks from a house she said she lived in for 14 years with her ex-husband before divorce and drugs put her in the weeds.

“This is my neighborhood,” said Sturdevan, blond hair in a ponytail and nails painted with glittery polish. “I’m comfortable here.”

This trio are among the 3,665 people living without permanent shelter in Sacramento County, according to a new count released Monday by Sacramento Steps Forward, the agency that coordinates local efforts to aid the homeless.

Homelessness rose by a startling 30 percent from 2,822 people the last time the transient population was counted in 2015, it said. It is the highest number of people living without permanent housing Sacramento has ever recorded.

 

continue reading ...

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article160423019.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article160423019.html#storylink=cpy

The Cost of a Hot Economy in California: A Severe Housing Crisis

From Capital and Main: https://capitalandmain.com/affordable-housing-introduction-to-a-crisis-0222

From the New York Times:

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CONOR DOUGHERTY

JULY 17, 2017

SACRAMENTO — A full-fledged housing crisis has gripped California, marked by a severe lack of affordable homes and apartments for middle-class families. The median cost of a home here is now a staggering $500,000, twice the national cost. Homelessness is surging across the state.

In Los Angeles, booming with construction and signs of prosperity, some people have given up on finding a place and have moved into vans with makeshift kitchens, hidden away in quiet neighborhoods. In Silicon Valley — an international symbol of wealth and technology — lines of parked recreational vehicles are a daily testimony to the challenges of finding an affordable place to call home.

Heather Lile, a nurse who makes $180,000 a year, commutes two hours from her home in Manteca to the San Francisco hospital where she works, 80 miles away. “I make really good money and it’s frustrating to me that I can’t afford to live close to my job,” said Ms. Lile.

The extreme rise in housing costs has emerged as a threat to the state’s future economy and its quality of life. It has pushed the debate over housing to the center of state and local politics, fueling a resurgent rent control movement and the growth of neighborhood “Yes in My Back Yard” organizations, battling long-established neighborhood groups and local elected officials as they demand an end to strict zoning and planning regulations.

Now here in Sacramento, lawmakers are considering extraordinary legislation to, in effect, crack down on communities that have, in their view, systematically delayed or derailed housing construction proposals, often at the behest of local neighborhood groups.

continue reading ...

The Constitution Project

by John Lawrence

From: http://gawker.com/the-constitution-old-bullshit-1723875534

We embark on a series of studies of the world's Constitutions. In particular we want to know how the representative portions of democracies are set up. That would have to do with the voting systems, whether the governments are set up as Parliaments, bicameral or monocameral Houses of Congress, how members are elected, how many branches or government there are and what are the functions of each etc.

The following is information supplied by Frank Thomas, an American ex-pat living in the Netherlands who has contributed much to the California Free Press, in particular on global warming:

From reports I've studied in the past, proportional representation voting is by far the dominant voting system among European countries. The basic approach of proportional representation is: legislators are elected in multi-member districts instead of single-member districts, and the number of seats a party wins in an election is proportional to the amount of its support among voters. So, in a 10-member district where Republicans win 50% of the vote, they receive five of the seats; if Democrats win 30% of the vote, they get three seats; and if a third party gets 20% of the vote, they win two seats.

 

Designers of electoral systems have devised several ways to achieve these proportional results. Thus, there are three basic kinds of PR: party list, mixed-member, and single-transferable vote (also called choice voting). Closed and open party list systems are by far the most common form of proportional representation.

 

Most European democracies use the open list form of party list voting including the Netherlands. This allows voters to express a preference for particular candidates, not just parties. Voters are presented with random lists of candidates chosen in party primaries. Voters vote for an individual candidate and this vote counts for the specific candidate as well as for the party.

 

So the order of the final list depends on the number of votes won by each candidate on the list. The most popular candidates rise to the top of the list and have a better chance of being elected. For example, if the Democrats won 2 seats, and Lawrence and Keller received the highest and next to highest number of individual votes, they would rise to the top of the list and be elected.

 

In Dutch elections (for example, to the House of Representatives), the voter can give his or her vote to any candidate on his party list (or to a candidate on another party's list assuming the voter wants to switch his or her vote to another party). The vote for this candidate is called a "preference vote." If, for example, a party list got 5000 votes and the electoral quota is 1000 votes, then the party wins five seats. Candidate(s) who get at least 25% of the electoral quota of 1000 votes, or 250 votes, would then take priority over other candidates in the list who got fewer preference votes.

 

As a rule, decades of experience shows that PR voting systems provide more accurate representation of parties, better representation for political and racial minorities, fewer wasted votes, higher levels of voter turnout, better representation of women, greater likelihood of majority rule, and little to no opportunity for gerrymandering so prevalent in America.

Eugene Debs and the Kingdom of Evil

From truthdig:

Posted on Jul 16, 2017

By Chris Hedges

Mr. Fish / Truthdig

 

TERRE HAUTE, Ind.—Eugene Victor Debs, whose home is an infrequently visited museum on the campus of Indiana State University, was the most important political figure of the 20th century. He built the socialist movement in America and was eventually crucified by the capitalist class when he and hundreds of thousands of followers became a potent political threat.

Debs burst onto the national stage when he organized a railroad strike in 1894 after the Pullman Co. cut wages by up to one-third but did not lower rents in company housing or reduce dividend payments to its stockholders. Over a hundred thousand workers staged what became the biggest strike in U.S. history on trains carrying Pullman cars.

The response was swift and brutal.

“Mobilizing all the powers of capital, the owners, representing twenty-four railroads with combined capital of $818,000,00, fought back with the courts and the armed forces of the Federal government behind them,” Barbara W. Tuchman writes in “The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914.” “Three thousand police in the Chicago area were mobilized against the strikers, five thousand professional strikebreakers were sworn in as Federal deputy marshals and given firearms; ultimately six thousand Federal and State troops were brought in, less for the protection of property and the public than to break the strike and crush the union.”

continue reading ...

The Trump Standard

by Robert Reich

Saturday, July 15, 2017

What did Trump say when confronted with proof that his son jumped at the prospect of meeting with a “Russian government attorney” offering to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support” for his candidacy?

Trump said: “many people would have held that meeting.” 

The next day, Trump revised “many” to “most,” saying: “I think from a practical standpoint, most people would have taken that meeting. . . . Politics isn’t the nicest business in the world, but it’s very standard.”

It’s true that politics isn’t the nicest business in the world. I’ve been there. Real estate development isn’t the nicest business in the world either, for all I know. But breaking the law and flirting with treason isn’t standard practice in either realm.  

Much ink has been spilled over the last six months documenting Trump’s tin ear when it comes to all matters ethical: His refusal to put his business into a blind trust, as every one of his predecessors in recent memory has done. His refusal to reveal his tax returns, like his predecessors. The never-ending stream of lies that he continues to spew even after they’re proven to be lies (three to five million fraudulent votes, Obama spied on me, fake news, and so on).  

None of this is “very standard” for presidents. It’s the opposite of standard.

I think we’ve been missing the boat by characterizing these as ethical breaches. Ethics assumes some sort of agreed-upon standard against which an ethical breach can be defined and measured.

But Donald Trump doesn’t live in a world that has any standards at all, and he never has. His entire approach to life, to business, and now to the presidency has nothing whatever to do with standards. It’s about winning, at all costs. Whatever it takes.

Winning at all costs is the only thing that’s standard in Trumpworld.