California Free Press

In Historic Shift, Second Largest Physicians Group in US Has New Prescription: It's Medicare for All

Published on Monday, January 20, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Major changes are needed," declares the 159,000-member American College of Physicians, "to a system that costs too much, leaves too many behind, and delivers too little."

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

36 Comments

More than 2,000 physicians announced an open letter to the American public, prescribing single-payer Medicare for All, in a full-page ad in the New York Times that will run in the print edition on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. On Monday, in a separate but related move, the American College of Physicians (ACP), a national organization representing 159,000 internists, officially endorsed single-payer Medicare for All reform. The ACP is the largest medical specialty society and second-largest physician group in the country after the American Medical Association (AMA). (Photo: PNHP)

The fight for Medicare for All received a two-handed boost from tens of thousands of doctors on Monday when the American College of Physicians—in a move described as a "seachange for the medical professions"—officially endorsed a single-payer system as among only one of two possible ways to improve the nation's healthcare woes.

Representing 159,000 doctors of internal medicine nationwide, the ACP is the largest medical specialty society and second-largest physician group in the country overall after the American Medical Association (AMA).

"All over this country, a growing number of doctors are sick and tired of the enormous waste and bureaucracy that exists in our cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

The ACP delivered its case in a 43-page position paper—titled "Envisioning a Better U.S. Health Care System for All: Coverage and Cost of Care"—published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Monday. According to the paper:

Although the United States leads the world in health care spending, it fares far worse than its peers on coverage and most dimensions of value. Cost and coverage are intertwined. Many Americans cannot affford health insurance, and even those with insurance face substantial cost-related barriers to care. Employer-sponsored insurance is less prevalent and more expensive than in the past, and in response, deductibles have grown and benefits have been cut. The long-term solvency of U.S. public insurance programs is a perennial concern. The United States spends far more on healthcare administration than peer countries. Administrative barriers divert time from patient care and frustrate patients, clinicians, and policymakers. Major changes are needed to a system that costs too much, leaves too many behind, and delivers too little.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and the author of the The Medical for All Act of 2019 now in the U.S. Senate, welcomed the development.

"I am delighted that the American College of Physicians has come out in support of a Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare system," Sanders said in a statement emailed to Common Dreams.

"All over this country, a growing number of doctors are sick and tired of the enormous waste and bureaucracy that exists in our cruel and dysfunctional healthcare system," Sanders added. "They are sick and tired of spending time filling out reams of paperwork and arguing with insurance companies. Medicare for All will give doctors the freedom to focus on making their patients healthy, not making health insurance executives wealthy." 

"Major changes are needed to a system that costs too much, leaves too many behind, and delivers too little."
—The American College of Physicians (ACP)

The ACP's detailed review of the current for-profit system—even with some of the improvements resulting from the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—found that "too many Americans are uninsured or underinsured" and that current spending is "high and unsustainable"—especially as other developed nations show their ability to achieve better or similar outcomes for less while offering universal, government-guaranteed coverage to all.

While it did not say that Medicare for All was the only way to achieve a more equitable, accessible, and sustainable healthcare system, the ACP laid out four key recommendations for achieving universal coverage in the United States. They are:

1. The American College of Physicians recommends that the United States transition to a system that achieves universal coverage with essential benefits and lower administrative costs.

2. Coverage should not be dependent on a person's place of residence, employment, health status, or income.

3. Coverage should ensure sufficient access to clinicians, hospitals, and other sources of care.

4. Two options could achieve these objectives: a single-payer financing approach, or a publicly financed coverage option to be offered along with regulated private insurance.

While acknowledging that a transition to Medicare for All could be "highly disruptive" to the healthcare system, the ACP said "single-payer financing approach could achieve [its] vision of a system where everyone will have coverage for and access to the care they need, at a cost they and the country can afford. It also could achieve our vision of a system where spending will have been redirected from health care administration to funding coverage, research, public health, and interventions to address social determinants of health."

Medicare for All, the paper continued, could also "achieve other key policy objectives, including portability, lower administrative costs and complexity, lower premiums and cost sharing, lower overall health care system costs, better access to care, and better health outcomes, depending on how it is designed and implemented."

"As physicians, we see daily the harm that our fragmented, private-insurance based system does to our patients." —Dr. Adam Gaffney, PNHP

While the ACP in its backing of a single-payer approach also co-endorsed the more incremental step of creating a federally-administered "public option" as a pathway to universal coverage, Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, co-founders of Physician for a National Health Program (PNHP), argue the latter would be an inferior avenue if the aim is to cover everyone while reducing overall costs.

According to an op-ed by Woolhandler and Himmelstein, also published in the Annals alongside the ACP's new position paper, "Achieving universal coverage would be costlier under the "public choice" model the ACP co-endorses along with single payer."

Unlike a public-private mix of coverage that the public option would represent, the pair write, a single-payer Medicare for All  would allow hospitals and doctors to "save billions on billing-related costs" each year, and those savings could be re-purposed "to expand care" to millions for less cost than the status quo.

In a separate but related move to the ACP's announcement, more than two thousand physicians on Monday announced an open letter to the American public, prescribing single-payer Medicare for All, in a full-page ad in The New York Times that will run in the print edition on Tuesday, January 21, 2020.

Among the doctors "prescribing" Medicare for All as the only serious solution to the nation's healthcare crisis, said PNHP—which helped organize the effort—"are towering figures in American medicine" and include Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine; Dr. Bernard Lown, developer of the defibrillator; Dr. Paul Farmer, infectious disease expert and founder of Partners in Health; and Dr. Mary Bassett, former New York City Health Commissioner.

The full text of the open letter follows:

We are doctors from across the spectrum of our profession. We serve patients rich and poor, in hospitals and clinics, private offices and public agencies.

We witness daily the inhumanity and irrationality of the current health care system. America funds health care more generously than any other nation, and our hospitals and medical workforce are second to none. Yet despite an abundance of medical resources, care is too often meager.

For the thirty million who remain uninsured and millions more whose insurance is inadequate to their needs, life-saving treatment is often out of reach, deepening health disparities. Oppressive costs and the fear of financial ruin amplify the suffering of illness. Meanwhile, doctors and nurses struggle to provide good care in a bad system. We waste countless hours complying with arcane billing requirements and, along with our patients, imploring insurers to fulfill their promises of coverage.

It is time to transform the way we pay for care — to embrace improved Medicare for All.

Medicare for All would curb soaring drug prices and dismantle the wasteful bureaucracy of private insurance companies, freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars to expand and improve care — while ensuring free choice of doctor and hospital.

Vested interests who profit from the current broken system raise false alarms of dislocation and disruption to incite fear of change. They are wrong. Improved Medicare for All would bring welcome relief to patients, lower costs for families and communities, and allow doctors and nurses to focus on what matters most: caring for our patients.

"As physicians, we see daily the harm that our fragmented, private-insurance based system does to our patients," noted Dr. Adam Gaffney, president of PNHP and a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School and the Cambridge Health Alliance. "Patients go without the care they need, and physicians squander time and resources on wasteful billing and clerical tasks. Medicare for All would be a much better way — for patients and doctors both." 

As physicians, the signatories of the letter said, the answer is obvious: "we prescribe Medicare for All."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

CNN Moderators, Alarmed by Cost of Medicare for All, Ignore Price Tag of Endless War

Published on Tuesday, January 14, 2020

by Common Dreams

"None of the candidates who said they support keeping troops in Iraq were asked how they were going to pay for it."

by Eoin Higgins, staff writer

 

98 Comments

Former Vice President Joe Biden listens as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) makes a point during the Democratic presidential primary debate at Drake University on January 14, 2020 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Democrats onstage Tuesday night at the CNN/Des Moines Register debate in Iowa were challenged repeatedly by moderators on the cost of major plans like Sen. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All—scrutiny that was missing in the first half hour when the questions focused on endless war and a potential attack on Iran.

"Wonder if CNN asked how much going to potential war with Iran cost?" asked artist Karla Ortiz.

"Amazing how the moderators didn't ask how the candidates plan to pay for wars."
—Sarah Lazare

 

Questions on costs and how the presidential candidates proposed to pay for their proposals appeared to use an analysis provided to CNN Tuesday by Larry Summers on the cost of the Sanders agenda. The majority of the questions on cost were directed to Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). 

But those questions only came in the second hour of the debate, and were absent during the discussion on foreign policy. 

Progressives quickly noted the disconnect. 

"None of the candidates who said they support keeping troops in Iraq were asked how they were going to pay for it," tweeted Sanders campaign national organizing director Claire Sandberg.

Policy analyst Dan Riffle was incredulous at the line of questioning.

"They just asked 27 questions about sending troops to the Middle East and preventing Iran from developing nukes and not once asked how they'd pay for it," said Riffle. "But not letting poor people die? Whoa, what's the price tag on that?!"

Social media lit up with commentators and observers from the left taking aim at the difference in approach from the moderators. 

Amazing how the moderators didn’t ask how the candidates plan to pay for wars

— Sarah Lazare (@sarahlazare) January 15, 2020

Why do Dems have to show how they will pay for it when Trump straight up says Mexico will pay for the wall? When Republicans haven't explained how they will pay for their disastrous tax cut? When this country spends trillions on useless wars? We can't find money for health care?

— Wajahat "Abu Khadija" Ali (@WajahatAli) January 15, 2020

Amazing how that works. No question about “how we’re gonna pay for it” when Wolf spent 15 questions grilling candidates on whether or not they want to keep troops in the Middle East forever https://t.co/fqTepf4yYd

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 15, 2020

"If you didn't ask 'how do you pay for it' when it comes to the disastrous war budget, bank bailouts, or oil company subsidies, you have little to stand on," said Sanders surrogate Nina Turner. "Show the receipts!"

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

The Democratic Debate

by John Lawrence

We'll see how Iowa turns out. It should be possible to make some kind of prognostication soon. It'll be either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the poll position. I don't think the billionaires will make it nor do I think Pete Buttigieg will. You have to pair either Bernie or Elizabeth with an African-American of the opposite sex, namely either Corey or Kamala. Trump will run on the economy, but also appeal to his base on the miles of wall he's completed. If the economy holds up, Trump will be in a formidable position - lowest unemployment in 50 years and highest stock market. Those individuals with regular jobs, 401ks and employer sponsored health insurance will probably vote for Trump as will all people working for the military-industrial complex or associated with the military in any way.

Who will vote for the Democrats are people with a ton of student loan debt, part time jobs and little or no health insurance. Also people concerned about the environment and climate change. Younger people, millennials and others not fully vested in the "system" will vote for a Progressive Democrat. African Americans, Latinos and other minorities will vote Democratic. The demographics are changing. Younger people are losing out while older people have had their real estate and stock market bubbles run up. They are vested in the system.

Trump may choose not to debate in which case advertising might be a significant factor. Unless the economic status quo changes between now and the election or Trump goes off the deep end and starts a war, his chances of being reelected are pretty good. The Democrats are very idealistic, and their ideas deserve to be manifested. Changes need to be made. However, if there are enough people who are not marginalized by the economy but are in the mainstream, they may not want any big changes. They would probably vote for Trump. It'll come down to whose demographic wins out: the marginalized or the mainstreamers.

Off the Top of My Head

Les Nouveaux Pauvres

by John Lawrence, January 9, 2020

The new poor are basically millennials who have gone to college and acquired a huge amount of student loan debt. They were promised that graduating college would catapult them into the middle class. Instead, whatever job they were fortunate enough to get (and many of them landed at Starbucks or equivalent) does not pay enough to make debt payments and also provide the normal amenities of life. Most of their budget consists of paying interest on their debts. Student loan debt has soared from $260 billion in 2004 to $1.4 trillion in 2017; average debt jumped from $18,650 to $38,000 over that same period; and the number of people over 60 with student loan debt has quadrupled in the last decade from 700,000 to 2.8 million.

It used to be that the majority of the working class were either farmers or unionized manufacturing workers who were protected by unions. Then the propaganda machine got busy and told all those farm children that they would be much better off, instead of going to work on their father's farm, going to college instead. Many proudly became "the first in their family to graduate college." What did it matter that, in order to do so, they had to take out massive student loans. Workers, who had lost their unionized jobs, were told the same thing. Go to college and become part of the new (nonunionized) economy because everyone knows that college graduates don't need unions. While farmland may stretch far and wide, farmers and ranchers themselves make up just 1.3% of the employed US population, totaling around 2.6 million people. Today, there are about 2 million farms in operation in the US, a steep decline from 1935, when the number of farms peaked at nearly 7 million. Why milk cows and shovel manure when you can have a professional desk job!

Manufacturing historically created good paying jobs for workers without a college education, particularly for men. The jobs paid well enough so that women did not have to work when they had young children. Unions were strong and owners did not want to risk strikes in their factories due to large capital investments and significant on the job training. Such jobs are much less available in the post-2001 era in the U.S. though they remain available in Germany, Switzerland and Japan. So the solution we are told is for those workers and especially their childrenn since there is no future in being a worker in the manufacturing sphere, to go to college. It's the American way. Each generation has to move a step up the ladder, and the step up for children of manufacturing workers without college educations is to be "the first in their families" to get one. Of course this necessitates their taking on a huge amount of student loan debt, but no worries, this step up will make them better off even if their spouse has to work to afford a house and pay off student loan debt.

However, much student loan debt goes into default because the debt burden is just too big a load to carry. More than 1 million student loan borrowers each year go into default. For many, the payments are proving unmanageable. By 2023, nearly 40 percent of borrowers are expected to default on their student loans. That’s when a person has not made a payment toward their education debt in roughly a year, triggering it being sent to a third-party collection agency. They are les nouveaux pauvres, the New Poor. That's in contrast to les nouveaux riches, the likes of Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg who have made billions off the high tech industry. But for many whose parents were farmers or manufacturing workers, they were sold a bill of goods that getting a college degree would not only resolve the stigma of being "uneducated," it would also land them a good paying job. Today most plumbers and electricians are doing better precisely because they don't have student loan debt.

Instead, many young people, and millennials especially, have not only a gargantuan load of student loan debt but credit card debt, and car loan debt as well. It's no surprise that the New Poor are mainly young people who can't afford either to buy a house or pay skyrocketing rents. Their parents and grandparents, however, are sitting pretty with assets consisting of a house which is skyrocketing in value and either a defined benefit pension (nonexistent today) or a 401k consisting of stocks which have also skyrocketed in value.They will naturally vote for Trump because of a booming economy (for them).

Meanwhile, the Democratic party, whose base used to consist of farmers and unionized workers, has lost them due to a change in demographics. Their new base naturally should be the New Poor, young people, millennials, student loan debtors and those who are concerned about the planet they're inheriting after climate change ravages it. They are turning to the progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They are smart enough to figure out that every other advanced industrialized country has a government sponsored public health care plane. They know that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes which would alleviate them from some of the horrendous economic burdens they are now experiencing, that is if those increased taxes on the rich were used by government to pay for college and health care for all. They want government expanded to provide more benefits not contracted to the point where you could drown it in the bathtub which arch conservative Grover Norquist so famously said.

Les nouveaux pauvres want a Green New Deal, relief from student loan debt, a New Economy. They aren't committed to the capitalism which has made three billionaires more wealthy than 150 million lower income Americans. They want the elimination of the fossil fuel economy replacing it with renewable energy. They want the end of a military-industrial complex which has spent a trillion dollars on disastrous wars in the Middle East. There is a better way these New Poor millennials are finally figuring out, a way out of the mess created by short term profits and rugged individualism, a way that might just win back America's high moral position and leadership in the world.

Sanders Vows to Create National Clean Drinking Water Standards to End Corporate Contamination

Published on Tuesday, December 31, 2019

by Common Dreams

"Corporate greed is threatening one of the most basic necessities of life: clean water."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

10 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the leading contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, told AP that the national drinking water standards would target perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances as well as other hazardous chemicals. (Photo: wonderisland/Shutterstock)

Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed Tuesday that if elected president in 2020, he would create national clean drinking water standards forcing corporations to stop contaminating the nation's water supply with dangerous chemicals.

"Corporate greed is threatening one of the most basic necessities of life: clean water," Sanders said in a statement to the Associated Press. "Not only will we support state efforts to enforce stronger clean water laws, we are going to create federal clean water standards that force these companies to clean up their mess."

Sanders, one of the leading contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, told AP that his national standards would target perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as well as other hazardous chemicals.

The goal of the standards, Sanders said, would be to guarantee clean drinking water "as a human right."

The Vermont senator's pledge comes as states across the nation, from New Jersey to Michigan to New Hampshire, are battling drinking water crises due to outdated pipes, corporate pollution, and other factors.

AP noted that New Hampshire "recently set some of the nation's toughest standards for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances... but a judge temporarily blocked enforcement in November after chemical company 3M sued."

"More than 700 homes in New Hampshire whose drinking water was contaminated by PFAS have been connected to new water, and the state estimates that more than 100,000 other people eventually could be affected," AP reported. "The contamination is the result of the chemicals leaking into groundwater from industrial facilities, as well as a former Air Force base."

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is moving to gut federal regulations designed to prevent corporations from freely polluting the nation's water supply.

Environmentalists warned the EPA's rollbacks, set to take effect next year, could have devastating consequences for millions of Americans.

"Unfortunately, we have a president who has really made himself the polluter-in-chief and is making our air and water dirtier rather than cleaner," Bill Magavern, policy director of the California Clean Air Coalition, told The Progressive.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

America’s Next President: Warren Sanders

by Robert Reich

 

Monday, December 16, 2019

There aren’t twenty Senate Republicans with enough integrity to remove the most corrupt president in American history, so we’re going to have to get rid of Trump the old-fashioned way – by electing a Democrat next November 3.

That Democrat will be Warren Sanders.

Although there are differences between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, I’m putting them together for the purpose of making a simple point.

These two have most of the grass-roots energy in the 2020 campaign, most of the enthusiasm, and most of the ideas critical for America’s future.

Together, they lead Biden and every other so-called moderate Democrat by a wide margin in all polls.  

That’s because the real political divide in America today is establishment versus anti-establishment – the comparatively few at the top who have siphoned off much of the wealth of the nation versus everyone else whose wages and prospects have gone nowhere.

Warren and Sanders know the system is rigged and that economic and political power must be reallocated from a corporate-Wall Street elite to the vast majority.

This is why both Warren and Sanders are hated by the Democratic Party establishment.

It’s also why much of the corporate press is ignoring the enthusiasm they’re generating. And why it’s picking apart their proposals, like a wealth tax and Medicare for All, as if they were specific pieces of legislation.

And why corporate and Wall Street Democrats are mounting a campaign to make Americans believe Warren and Sanders are “too far to the left” to beat Trump, and therefore “unelectable.”

This is total rubbish. Either of them has a better chance of beating Trump than does any other Democratic candidate.

Presidential elections are determined by turnout. Over a third of eligible voters in America don’t vote. They go to the polls only if they’re motivated. And what motivates people most is a candidate who stands for average people and against power and privilege.

Average Americans know they’re getting the scraps while corporate profits are at record highs and CEOs and Wall Street executives are pocketing unprecedented pay and bonuses.

They know big money has been flooding Washington and state capitals to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy; roll back health, safety, environment, and labor protections; and allow big business to monopolize the economy, using its market power to keep prices high and wages low.

Most Americans want to elect someone who’s on their side.

In 2016 some voted for Trump because he conned them into believing he was that person.

But since elected he’s given big corporations and Wall Street everything they’ve wanted – rollbacks of health, safety, and environmental protections, plus a giant $2 trillion tax cut that’s boosted stock prices and executive pay while nothing trickled down.

Trump is still fooling millions into thinking he’s on their side, and that their problems are due to immigrants, minorities, cultural elites, and “deep state” bureaucrats rather than a system that’s rigged for the benefit of those at the top.

But some of these Trump supporters would join with other Americans and vote for a candidate in 2020 who actually took on power and privilege.

This is where Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders come in.

Their core proposals would make the system work for everyone and alter the power structure in America:Medicare for All based on a single payer rather than private for-profit corporate insurance; a Green New Deal to create millions of good jobs fighting climate change; free public higher education; universal childcare.

All financed mainly by a tax on the super-rich.

They’d also get big money out of politics and rescue democracy from the corporate and Wall Street elites who now control it.

They’re the only candidates relying on small donations rather than trolling for big handouts from corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy – or rich enough to self-finance their own campaigns.

Only two things stand in their way.

The first is the power structure itself, which is trying to persuade Democrats that they should put up a milquetoast moderate instead.

The second is the possibility that, as the primary season heats up, supporters of Warren and Sanders will wage war on each other – taking both of them down.

It’s true that only one of them can be the Democratic nominee. But if the backers of both Sanders and Warren eventually come together behind one of them, they’ll have the votes to take the White House, and even flip the Senate.

President Warren Sanders can then start clearing the wreckage left by Trump, and make America decent again.

Bernie Sanders Should Be Democrats' First Choice

by Jeff Cohen

from truthdig, December 12, 2019

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr)

Less than two months out from the Iowa caucus, the Democratic primary has become a four-way race featuring Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg. But while a recent war of words between Warren and Buttigieg has done little to bolster the prospects of either, it has served to underscore what makes Sanders such a unique candidate—more specifically, his remarkable consistency.

In case you missed it, Warren said this about Buttigieg last Thursday: “The mayor should be releasing who’s on his finance committee, who are the bundlers who are raising big money for him,” adding that Buttigieg should “open up the doors so that the press can follow the promises he’s making in these big-dollar fundraisers.” Earlier, Warren had complained that Buttigieg had “not released the names” of his corporate clients when he worked for three years at the controversial McKinsey & Co. consulting firm.

Warren was completely correct here. In the face of demands for transparency, Buttigieg had declined to name his corporate clients, claiming he was bound by a non-disclosure agreement. On Monday, amid sustained public pressure, Buttigieg released a full list, including Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan, Best Buy and the Canadian supermarket chain Loblaws, among others.

Meanwhile, big money continues to flood into the South Bend, Indiana, mayor’s campaign from corporate executives, lobbyists and billionaires. While Warren and Sanders don’t hold events for wealthy donors, Buttigieg and Biden do. But unlike Biden, Buttigieg had denied the press access to those events. On Monday afternoon, the Buttigieg camp gave into Warren, announcing it would name its bundlers and allow reporters into his numerous high-dollar fundraisers.

Returning fire at Warren last week, the Buttigieg campaign labeled the Massachusetts senator a “corporate lawyer” and demanded that she release her tax returns prior to 2008—years in which she earned outside income representing corporations as a law professor.

Warren did work for some big corporations while also representing consumer interests, and on Sunday, she provided the details of her legal work, compensation included. Warren, it should be said, has been far more transparent than Buttigieg. Still, it probably wouldn’t hurt for her to further discuss her legal career, particularly when she was a registered Republican.

While I’m impressed by Warren’s campaign and supportive of her far-reaching proposals to tax the wealthy to fund programs benefiting poor, working-class and middle-class people, Buttigieg highlighted—albeit in a hypocritical and overheated fashion—the main concern I have about her: Her past career as a legal scholar who supported the “Law and Economics” movement that preached a corporate-friendly, free-market ideology.

Both Biden and Sanders have longer and more consistent histories than either Warren or Buttigieg. But while the former has spent his career defending corporate interests, the latter’s history is unabashedly progressive. Biden was among the minority of Democrats in Congress who supported the devastating NAFTA trade pact; Sanders led its opposition. The then-senator of Delaware also voted for media conglomeration via the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and supported Wall Street deregulation that led to the Great Recession. Biden has long served the interests of banks and credit card companies and was instrumental in the passage of a 2005 bankruptcy bill that continues to harm those with student debt. Warren, for her part, vigorously opposed the legislation.

Biden’s civil rights record is spotty at best. He has proudly championed the notorious 1994 crime bill as the “Biden Crime Bill,” diverging sharply from Sanders at the time. In 2002, Biden was the most prominent Senate Democrat to push for George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq, while the Vermont senator helped lead the anti-war opposition in Congress.

Sanders’ history, by contrast, is beyond reproach. He’s been a fighter for the most vulnerable Americans his entire life in public office, not to mention a champion of civil rights since his college days. He has not only defended the environment and unions but resisted business-friendly trade deals that undermine workers and the planet alike. His anti-imperialist bona fides speak for themselves, and as the longest-serving independent in Congress, he’s proved himself a uniquely skilled legislator willing to pull all of the levers of power at his disposal.

The Democratic establishment may bleat that he’s not even a member of the party, but it is his independence that attracts the young and the disaffected. If defeating Donald Trump is their first priority, Warren and Buttigieg supporters would be wise to take note.

 

Off the Top of My Head

Bernie Sanders Has Been Consistent in His Politics from Day 1 and Should Be Dem Nominee

by John Lawrence, December 16, 2019

Biden has been in the pocket of the credit card companies as the Senator from MBNA, and supported the disastrous bill that prevents student loan debtors from filing for bankruptcy. He voted for the Iraq war and wrote the controversial 1994 crime bill that resulted in the mass incarceration of black men. How can he with a straight face call himself middle class Joe? If he represents the normal that he's asking people to go back to, who wants to go back to that? He has also been involved in the quagmire of Ukraine where his son Hunter got a $50,000 a month job on the board of a gas company. We're assured it was all legal, but it sure looks like old Joe pulled a string or two. Elizabeth Warren had her stint as a corporate lawyer making a lot of money defending LTV steel and other corporations. LTV steel formerly owned a bunch of coal mines and didn't want to contribute to a retired miner's health care fund. Her hands are not totally clean.

In short both Warren and Biden have their hands dirty. Money is also flooding into the Buttigieg campaign. While I like Buttigieg, I don't think he's ready for prime time in a nation which is far from free of prejudice against gays. That's probably why the Repubs want him to be the nominee. Then they can run ads showing him kissing his husband, and they know it will be all over for the Democrat agenda. Bernie is the only one who has been consistently on the side of civil rights and poor and working people. He has been true to his cause. He doesn't accept money from wealthy donors or do legal work for corporations. He has been totally open about his campaign something that neither Warren or Buttigieg or Biden has. He is the only one who hasn't been a political hack of one sort or another.

If you combine Bernie's and Elizabeth's poll numbers together, they easily outpoll Biden. It's not hard to imagine that Elizabeth's voters would vote for Bernie if she was out of the race since their political proposals are by and large similar. If it comes down to Bernie or Biden, it should be a no contest win for Bernie after people realize all the collusion with corporations Biden represents and has represented, and all the money Biden has taken in political contributions from them. Bernie has also been in the Senate a long time and knows where the bodies are buried. He knows his way around. The same could be said for Biden and Warren but not Buttigieg who has only been the mayor of a tank town.

The progressive wing of the Democratic party is just starting to come around to the positions that Bernie has held and espoused for years. The others taking up the progressive cause are Johnnie-come-latelies compared to him. I used to hear Bernie on Thom Hartman's podcast years ago when he had him on for "Lunch with the Senator" every Friday.

Off the Top of My Head

The Two Gilded Ages

by John Lawrence, December 8, 2019

The first Gilded Age was in the 1890s. The second Gilded Age is today. By the midpoint of the first Gilded Age about 4000 families owned as much wealth as the remaining 11.6 million. Today in the second Gilded Age the 3 richest Americans own as much wealth as 50% of the rest of the population or 160 million people. In the first Gilded Age 87% of private wealth belonged to 20% of the population and the bottom 40% had no wealth at all. Today in the second Gilded Age the top 0.1% of the population own as much wealth as the bottom 90% while the bottom half of Americans own negative net wealth meaning they're actually in debt.

In the first Gilded Age student loan debt was zero. Today there is $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. Authorities don't want you to know this but as late as 1980 the total amount of student loan debt was zero. During the 1980-1981 school year, an average student paid just over $2,000 each year for tuition, room and board at a public, four-year school. People could work their way through college or their parents could afford to help them on a middle class income. I was on a work-study program in the 1960s where I went to school a quarter and worked a quarter. I graduated in 5 years instead of 4. There was no grade requirement to participate in this program as I was barely in the upper third of my class and just barely gained entrance to Georgia Tech. I did do well on the SAT test or whatever the college admission tests were called at that time.

Today there are much better options to gain an education than going to a 4 year college and taking on an enormous amount of debt that you will never be able to pay off. That means you will never be able to get a mortgage and own a house. You will be in debt peonage for the rest of your life. The college industry has falsely advertised that you will make more money over a lifetime than a non college graduate. That is simply not true, but no matter how much money you make, what difference does it make if all you do with that money is to pay on your student loan plus paying rent. You will still be in debt when you retire and the government will take your student loan debt payments out of your social security.

That is why Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax wealth is a good one. It's the only thing that will reduce the inequality gap which is growing exponentially. Most Americans have been led to believe that the American Dream is to have a good paying job requiring a college education. Wrong! Financially speaking, the American Dream should be to acquire wealth at least not to end up at the end of your life a debtor no matter how much money you've made. I'm not talking wealth like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates has. I'm talking wealth as in a fully paid for house and maybe some rental property. It could include a stock portfolio as well, but stocks have a way of plummeting about the time you want to convert them into cash. This is not as likely to happen with real estate. Since pensions are a thing of the past, it's a good idea to own enough wealth to support a decent lifestyle for the rest of your life. That means rental property which is the gift that keeps on giving. It doesn't run out if properly managed whereas a fixed amount in savings will run out probably sooner than expected.

There are a lot of good paying jobs that one can qualify for which don't require a college education or that provide free training. One can also migrate to Europe and attend great universities there for little or no money. In 2014, Germany's 16 states abolished tuition fees for undergraduate students at all public German universities. This means that currently both domestic and international undergraduates at public universities in Germany can study for free, with just a small fee to cover administration and other costs per semester. Education is free in Italy and free education is available to children of all nationalities who are residents in Italy. People of Italian descent can also claim full dual citizenship in Italy and gain many other advantages like access to visa free travel throughout the European Union and access to universities in other countries. As an EU citizen, you are entitled to study at any EU university under the same conditions as nationals.

In short any American who goes to a 4 year college and accumulates student loan debt usually at the rate of $25,000 a year is a sucker. Also a 4 year degree doesn't buy you much in the labor market. You need at least a Masters Degree. And don't forget bankruptcy protection is not available to student loan debtors. More than sufficient reason to vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They will not only make public universities free, but will restore bankruptcy protection for those currently in student loan debt.

At COP 25 Kickoff, Spain's Socialist Leader Rips 'Fanatics' Like Trump Who Deny Climate Crisis

Published on Monday, December 02, 2019

by Common Dreams

"No one can escape this challenge by themselves. There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

4 Comments

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez delivers a speech during the first day of the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25) on December 02, 2019 in Madrid, Spain. (Photo: Europa Press News/Europa Press via Getty Images)

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez kicked off COP 25 in Madrid, Spain on Monday by condemning the "handful of fanatics" who continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis as it wreaks havoc across the globe and threatens to render large swathes of the planet uninhabitable.

Sánchez, leader of the Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and proponent of a Green New Deal for Spain, did not condemn any nations or world leaders by name. But Sánchez implored the international community to combat "alternative facts," an apparent shot at the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.

"No one can escape this challenge by themselves. There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is."
—Pedro Sánchez, Spanish prime minister

"For years, several versions of climate change denial were in circulation," said Sánchez. "Today, luckily only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence. No one can escape this challenge by themselves."

"There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is," Sánchez added in another thinly veiled jab at the Trump White House, which took the first step toward withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord last month.

Sánchez said Spain will "lead by example" by crafting climate policy that phases out fossil fuels with sufficient urgency while ensuring a just transition for workers and vulnerable communities.

The PSOE emerged victorious in parliamentary elections in April and November after running on a Green New Deal platform. Following its November win, the PSOE agreed to form a coalition with the left-wing Podemos party as the far-right, climate-denying Vox party quickly gained ground in parliament.

As HuffPost's Alexander Kaufman wrote Sunday, "if Sánchez's center-left vision of a Green New Deal could be criticized for not being ambitious enough, the inclusion of the anti-austerity Podemos could make the country the first to seriously attempt the kind of Green New Deal progressives elsewhere have laid out to curb soaring economic inequality and planet-heating emissions."

"Green New Dealers on both sides of the Atlantic argue that addressing both crises at once is key to staving off a resurgent neo-fascist right wing," Kaufman wrote.

During his speech on Monday, Sánchez stressed the importance of ensuring that the "ecological transition" away from fossil fuels is fair and equitable.

"It must be the lever of change against inequality, it must imply justice and equity," said Sánchez. "Our country has assumed that mandate and is determined to act. Progress, if not sustainable, does not deserve to be called progress."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Increasing Instead of Decreasing

by John Lawrence, November 29, 2019

Last year more Greenhouse gasses were emitted into the environment than ever. This trend is going in exactly the opposite direction that it needs to if planet earth will ever be a safe and welcoming place for our species and many others in years to come. Scientific American reported:

Global carbon emissions reached an all-time high in 2018, an extraordinary watermark in Earth’s history that underscores the need for faster and stronger action to address accelerating climate change, according to dozens of scientists.

A report released yesterday by a consortium of researchers known as the Global Carbon Project finds that global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are likely to have increased by about 2.7 percent in 2018, after a 1.6 percent increase in 2017.

What are we thinking? That the free market system is going to solve this planetary crisis? It is going to take concerted government action and the cooperation of governments around the world to deal effectively with this problem. The Green New Deal is absolutely essential in order the switch from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable economy. The US needs to lead the rest of the world in this development in cooperation with China and other nations. If the earth is to survive as a livable planet, radical action needs to be taken now although nothing will be done till Trump and his Republican henchmen are out of office. That means that 2019 and 2020 will probably see even further increases in global greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever is happening now in this regard is totally ineffective.

It is going to take the rapid development of India assisted in great part by the US and China in bringing the poverty stricken in that country up to developed world standards in clean water and sanitation. They have to be pulled into the modern world by outside forces and at the same time converted to a renewable energy economy. It is going to take radical changes from a cow based diet to a plant based diet. It is going to take a whole new mindset regarding food, transportation, housing and everything else. The inhabitants of planet earth will either make these radical changes or else future generations, not those living now, will have to live with the consequences or die with them as the case may be.

Sustainability, not economic growth, has to be the bellwether and the keynote. A sustainable economy will be one unlike the economic systems existing on planet Earth now. We will need to consume less not more in an attempt to grow the economy. The economy has to fundamentally change, not grow but become sustainable, plant based and renewable energy based. People will have to radically alter their lifestyles. Consumption will have to decrease. The basics of life will have to be provided for all people. Poverty and war must be eliminated replaced by cooperation if Earth is to survive climate change.

High taxation nations like Sweden are full employment economies because they provide everyone with a job. If they can't find one in the private sector, government creates one by taxing the wealthy to get the money. Very little money is, therefore, spent on unemployment related welfare. This has to happen here with a Green New Deal providing the jobs. Sweden is what social democracy is all about. Bernie Sanders is well acquainted with this form of economy, and that's why he is the best candidate to lead this country and win the election in 2020. We don't need moderate action at this time. We've tried that, and it has failed. We need radical action before the Earth becomes a terminal case destroying the lives of future generations.

If Democrats Don’t Go Bold With Social Reform Right Now, Then When?

Published on Wednesday, November 27, 2019

by Chicago Sun Times

We can afford these things. With inequality reaching new extremes, and corporations and the wealthy rigging the tax code to their benefit, we can pay for them without raising taxes on middle- and low-income Americans.

by Jesse Jackson

 

7 Comments

How can our society thrive if we condemn the best of the next generation to a life burdened by debt? (Photo: Alex Edelman/AFP/Getty Images)

“Too radical, impractical, too costly, impossible, can’t pass the Senate.”

 Those are the terms centrist Democrats use to describe the bold reform ideas put forth by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential primaries.

“Venezuela, socialist, communist tripe, crazy” are the jibes preferred by President Donald Trump and Republicans.

All this begs the same question: What do they plan to do to meet the challenges we face?

For most Americans, this isn’t a rhetorical question. The economy, Trump boasts, is as good as it has ever been in terms of the top line unemployment figures, but it still doesn’t work for most Americans.

Wages have been inching up, but they aren’t rising as fast as the cost of basics—housing, college, health care. Working families—whether middle or low income—are struggling simply to stay afloat.

Depths of despair are soaring, particularly among the young. Illness is still the leading cause of bankruptcy.

Half of all Americans have no retirement plan other than Social Security. The climate emergency is a clear and present danger, costing more lives, more displacement and billions in damage each year.

If we are going to address these challenges, we need reforms that correspond with the size of the problem. An adhesive bandage won’t stop a leg hemorrhage. A wall can’t shut out the cataclysmic storms, droughts, floods and tides of the climate emergency.

The Green New Deal—mocked by Trump and Republicans who continue to deny the existence of manmade climate change—is ambitious and costly—but only because it tries to meet the goals that scientists say are necessary if we are not to become an endangered species.

Getting to a clean energy, zero carbon emissions economy requires massive investment, new innovation and dramatic changes in transportation, housing, energy and more.

The transition will generate millions of new jobs, while displacing some from old jobs. The Green New Deal proposes a job guarantee to make certain that no one is left out in the transition.

Critics say it costs too much—but it costs far less than the price we will pay if we don’t act boldly and now.

Or consider higher education. Student loan debt continues to rise, now over $1 trillion, exceeding even credit card debt.

More students have to put off college or drop out for years in order to earn enough to get the education that all agree is vital to our country and to their future.

 

More students graduate with debt that will burden their lives, making it harder to afford to have children, to save for a house, to put money away for retirement.

Debt is crushing a generation that tries to do the right thing. It is particularly brutal on people of color who have less of a chance to have parents with the wealth to help pay for tuition.

These basic reforms—the right to adequate health care, the right to an education, the addressing of the existential threat posed by the climate emergency—are not left or right. They represent the moral center.

 

Tuition-free college—mocked as a costly giveaway—simply argues that publicly provided education or advanced training should be extended beyond kindergarten through 12th grade.

At a time when college education or advanced training is deemed essential not simply for the individual but for the country, why wouldn’t we make that available for all who qualify?

How can our society thrive if we condemn the best of the next generation to a life burdened by debt?

This is one of the richest countries in the world. We can afford these things. With inequality reaching new extremes, and corporations and the wealthy rigging the tax code to their benefit, we can pay for them without raising taxes on middle- and low-income Americans.

The argument that these necessary reforms are not "practical" makes no sense.

Centrists suggest that only modest, piecemeal, admittedly inadequate reforms have a chance to gain the support needed to pass. But pre-emptive compromise doesn’t inspire fear or fervor.

What’s needed is a clarion call that lays out what is essential—and builds the public support necessary to tackle those standing in the way.

Republicans opposed Social Security and Medicare as socialism, or communist notions. They passed because Roosevelt and Johnson built the majorities and claimed the mandate to get them passed.

The argument that these reforms are too radical, too “left” also fails on its face.

These basic reforms—the right to adequate health care, the right to an education, the addressing of the existential threat posed by the climate emergency—are not left or right.

They represent the moral center. The values they express are not un-American; they are central to the American dream.

It isn’t radical to suggest that all have health care, or all have access to a good education. It is just common sense. And we are badly in need of a strong dose of that.

© 2019 Chicago Sun Times

Jesse Jackson is an African-American civil rights activist and Baptist minister. He was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988 and served as shadow senator for the District of Columbia from 1991 to 1997. He was the founder of both entities that merged to form Rainbow/PUSH.

'We're Going to Win', Says Sanders, After New National Poll Shows Him Tied for Lead With Biden in 2020 Democratic Primary

Published on Thursday, November 21, 2019

by Common Dreams

"Senator Bernie Sanders is gaining momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination," said Emerson Polling.

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

52 Comments

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) smiles during the Democratic presidential debate at Tyler Perry Studios November 20, 2019 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

"We're going to win," declared Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday in response to a new national Emerson poll showing the Vermont senator and former Vice President Joe Biden tied for the top spot in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race.

Sanders and Biden are tied with 27% support, according to Emerson. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) polled in third place at 20%, and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg trailed far behind at just 7%.

"Senator Bernie Sanders is gaining momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination, increasing 2 points from October," Emerson noted. Biden's support has held steady since Emerson's October survey, while Warren declined one percentage point.

The poll had a margin of error +/- 4.6% and a sample size of 468 likely Democratic voters.

"Biden and Sanders continue to hold their bases, which should concern Warren, as she has waited for one of the front runners to slip these past few months—yet, their support seems to be crystalizing," said Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling.

NATIONAL POLL: @JoeBiden and @BernieSanders lead the #Democratic Primary, followed by @ewarrenhttps://t.co/fo1JIHyQCR pic.twitter.com/6s8JK9oJAo

— Emerson Polling (@EmersonPolling) November 21, 2019

Compared to Biden, the Emerson poll found Sanders has much stronger support among key demographics. According to the survey, Sanders garnered 37% support from voters under 50 compared to Biden's 15%. Among Latino voters the split was 36% for Sanders and 23% for Biden. And for voters who identify as "very liberal," Sanders, not surprisingly, claimed 45% compared to Biden's 16%.

According to the new survey, the Vermont senator is the only 2020 Democrat leading President Donald Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup.

NATIONAL POLL:

General Election Head to Heads:

Trump 49% | Sanders 50%
Trump 50% | Warren 50%
Trump 51% | Biden 49%
Trump 52% | Buttigieg 48%https://t.co/fo1JIHyQCR pic.twitter.com/gHlUwmiBEI

— Emerson Polling (@EmersonPolling) November 21, 2019

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Medicare For All: the Real Deal

by Robert Reich

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Republicans and even some Democrats are out to scare you about Medicare for All. They say it’s going to dismantle health care as we know it and it will cost way too much. 

Rubbish.

The typical American family now spends $6,000 on health insurance premiums each year. Add in the co-payments and deductibles that doctors, hospitals, and drug companies also charge you — plus typical out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceuticals – and that typical family’s health bill is $6,800.

But that’s not all, because some of the taxes you now pay are for health insurance, too — for Medicare and Medicaid and for the Affordable Care Act. So let’s add them in, again for the typical American household. That comes to a whopping $8,975 a year. Oh, and this number is expected to rise in the coming years.

Not a pretty picture. If you’re a typical American, you’re already paying far more for health insurance than people in any other advanced country. 

And you’re not getting your money’s worth. The United States ranks near the bottom for life span and infant mortality. Or maybe you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance coverage at all.

You see, a big reason we pay so much for health insurance is the administrative costs involved in private for-profit insurance. About a third of what you pay goes to the people who oversee billing and collections. And then of course there are the marketing and advertising expenses, and the profits that go to shareholders or private-equity managers.

What happens if we have Medicare for All? 

Let’s first consider a limited version that keeps private insurance — as proposed by candidates including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris. The insurance costs remain the same because it’s the same private insurers and the same co-payments and deductibles. The only difference is more of this would be paid through your taxes, rather than by you directly, because the government would reimburse the insurance companies.

This could help bring down costs by giving the government more bargaining leverage to get better prices. But we don’t know yet how much.    

Now, let’s talk about a different version of Medicare for All that replaces private for-profit health insurance, as proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In this version, total costs — including a possible combination of premiums, co-payments, deductibles, or taxes — are even lower. This option is far cheaper because it doesn’t have all those administrative expenses. It’s public insurance that reimburses hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies directly and eliminates the bloat of private insurance companies.

Economists at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst say Medicare for All that replaces private for-profit insurance would reduce costs by about 10 percent, mostly from lower administrative and drug costs. The Urban Institute estimates that households and businesses would save about $21.9 trillion over ten years, and state and local governments would save $4.1 trillion.

You’d pay for it through a combination of premiums, fees, and taxes, but your overall costs would go way down. So you’d come out ahead.  And everyone would be covered.

You’d keep your same doctor or other health-care provider. And you could still buy private insurance to supplement Medicare for All, just like some people currently buy private insurance to supplement Medicare and Social Security. The only thing that’s changed is you no longer pay the private for-profit corporate insurers.

Any Medicare for All is better than our present system, but this second version is far better because — like Medicare and Social Security — it’s based on the simple and proven idea that we shouldn’t be paying private for-profit corporate insurers boatloads of money to get the insurance we need.

It’s time for true Medicare for All.

Democrats Not Headed Too Far Left, Says Ocasio-Cortez, 'We Are Bringing the Party Home'

Published on Sunday, November 17, 2019

by Common Dreams

"I want to be the party of the New Deal again," says the progressive congresswoman from New York. "The party of the Civil Rights Act, the one that electrified this nation and fights for all people."

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

52 Comments

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during the Climate Crisis Summit before introducing Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at Drake University on November 9, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa. Ocasio-Cortez has been campaigning in support of Sanders after endorsing him last month in New York City. (Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

As part of a wave of reaction to comments made by former President Barack Obama who reportedly suggested to "liberal wealthy" party donors late last week that some Democrats were going "too far left," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded by saying progressives are not pushing in some new, radical direction but rather trying to bring it back to where it came from.

"I want to be the party of the New Deal again," tweeted the freshman Democrat from New York on Saturday, referencing the era of progressive change under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt last century.

"The party of the Civil Rights Act, the one that electrified this nation and fights for all people. For that, many would call us radical," she said.

"We aren't 'pushing the party left,'" Ocasio-Cortez concluded, "we are bringing the party home."

The tweet also included a new campaign ad for Sen. Bernie Sanders, who Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed in the Democratic presidential primary. The two recently campaigned together in Iowa where they championed the need for a Green New Deal and spent time with local residents in the early voting states.

I want to be the party of the New Deal again.

The party of the Civil Rights Act,
the one that electrified this nation and fights for all people.

For that, many would call us radical.
But we aren’t “pushing the party left,”
we are bringing the party home.pic.twitter.com/wLeDaxCHkZ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 17, 2019

"This is about a people's movement in the United States," Ocasio-Cortez tells Iowans during a living-room meeting featured in the ad, "and this campaign is a part of that and electing Bernie Sanders is the beginning of a transformational movement in the direction of working people in America."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

'Pure Propaganda': New York Times Condemned for Comparing Sanders Green New Deal to Trump Border Wall

Published on Friday, November 15, 2019

by Common Dreams

"Article misses a key 'expert' perspective: The climate scientists who are saying we need to radically transform every aspect of our economy in the next decade if we want even a 50 percent chance of averting catostrophic climate crisis."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

28 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduce public housing legislation as part of the Green New Deal outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, November 14, 2019. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

The New York Times sparked fierce backlash from environmentalists Friday for publishing a news story that leads with a matter-of-fact comparison between Sen. Bernie Sanders' plan to finance the Green New Deal by taxing and fining the fossil fuel industry and President Donald Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for the construction of a border wall.

"Sanders' $16 trillion vision for arresting global warming would put the government in charge of the power sector and promise that, by 2030, the country's electricity and transportation systems would run entirely on wind, solar, hydropower, or geothermal energy, with the fossil fuel industry footing much of the bill much as Mexico was to pay for the border wall," wrote Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman in her article's opening paragraph.

"Why in the hell are youth striking in every country on Earth? It's because of shit like this."
—Eric Holthaus

 

Friedman appeared to be referring to the portion of Sanders' sweeping Green New Deal proposal that calls for "making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies"—which constitutes just one part of Sanders' plan to finance the Green New Deal.

Critics were quick to condemn the notion that Sanders' call for taxes and fines against big oil is in any way on par with Trump's farcical insistence that Mexico would foot the bill for his proposed wall on the southern border.

"The difference? The [fossil fuel] industry owes Americans and global community an uncountable debt for poisoning our communities," tweeted Isa Flores-Jones, a press fellow with the youth-led Sunrise Movement. "Not to mention all those billions of dollars in subsidies owed to the American people. Which brings us to a daily reminder that we pay FF industry $5.2 trillion a year to destroy us."

Josh Orton, Sanders' national policy director, ridiculed the Times story:

BERNIE on FOSSIL FUEL EXECS: they knew of deadly product for 30 years, made hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars killing planet and badly harming communities of color. They should pay.

TRUMP on MEXICO: they’re sending rapists and we need a racist wall

NYT: eh basically the same https://t.co/zq5f9KC4jP

— Josh Orton (@joshorton) November 15, 2019

Progressives didn't merely have a problem with the opening paragraph of the Times story.

The headline of the article states that "experts aren't impressed" by Sanders' ambitious Green New Deal plan, which calls for a 10-year mobilization to transition the U.S. economy to 100 percent renewable energy.

But as the left-wing magazine Current Affairs and others pointed out on Twitter, the "experts" cited by the Times include an adviser to South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a business professor and maxed-out Hillary Clinton donor, and a Democratic strategist who does public relations work for the chemical industry.

"This is pure propaganda, nothing whatsoever to do with science," tweeted Current Affairs. "If you want a scientific assessment have climate scientists evaluate the plan. Pretty galling that the New York Times doesn't disclose the obvious political biases of its sources."

NYT article claims that "experts" think Sanders' climate change plan is unscientific, implying it means experts on climate change. But actually quotes people like: a business school professor/maxed out Hillary donor and a former Hillary staffer & PR guy for the chemical industry pic.twitter.com/hGiSD4cVq9

— Current Affairs (@curaffairs) November 15, 2019

🙄How does the @nytimes publish an article about "expert" takes on climate policy w/out discussing climate science?

Maybe this article should mention the fact that we're heading towards civilizational breakdown & need an energy revolution to salvage any shot at a livable future https://t.co/NDB6ki8hcl

— Zina Precht-Rodriguez (@zina__pr) November 15, 2019

Critics also took aim at the Times story's broad assertion that "climate scientists and energy economists say the plan is technically impractical, politically unfeasible, and possibly ineffective."

Meteorologist Eric Holthaus tweeted that the "experts quoted here get it wrong."

"The Bernie Sanders GND is the only federal climate policy ever proposed in line with what [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] scientists say is necessary: 'transformative change' in 'all aspects of society,'" said Holthaus. "If experts don't agree with that, they're not experts."

Why in the hell are youth striking in every country on Earth? It's because of shit like this.#loggingoff

— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) November 15, 2019

In a series of tweets Friday, Sunrise Movement political director Evan Weber said the Times "article misses a key 'expert' perspective: The climate scientists who are saying we need to radically transform every aspect of our economy in the next decade if we want even a 50 percent chance of averting catostrophic climate crisis."

"As someone who spends almost all of his time straddling policy experts, political strategists, and social movements... I'm incredibly disappointed but not surprised by this article," Weber wrote. "Where has 'reasonable and measured' gotten us in the last 40 years? It's gotten us to the point of societal extinction. Now is the time to demand what we need, not what we think might be feasible."

"Fossil fuel CEOs didn't hold back for fear of it being 'impossible' for them to get away with cooking the planet for decades," said Weber. "We need to be as relentless as our opponents."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

To Solve Multiple Crises at Once, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Unveil 'Green New Deal for Public Housing'

Published on Thursday, November 14, 2019

by Common Dreams

"This bill shows that we can address our climate and affordable housing crises by making public housing a model of efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

2 Comments

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) field questions from audience members at the Climate Crisis Summit at Drake University on November 9, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Framing the climate crisis as both an existential threat and a "tremendous opportunity" to fundamentally transform American society, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday unveiled a Green New Deal for Public Housing that would eliminate carbon emissions from federal housing, invest $180 billion over ten years in retrofitting and repairs, and create nearly 250,000 decent-paying union jobs per year.

"Faced with the global crisis of climate change, the United States must lead the world in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy," Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, said in a statement.

"We can create millions of jobs in this country by actually rising to the challenge of addressing what this crisis is going to represent."
—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

/p>

"The Green New Deal is not just about climate change," the Vermont senator added. "It is an economic plan to create millions of good-paying jobs, strengthen our infrastructure, and invest in our country's frontline and vulnerable communities. This bill shows that we can address our climate and affordable housing crises by making public housing a model of efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency."

The 54-page Green New Deal for Public Housing Act (pdf), which Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez will introduce at a press conference Thursday afternoon, was co-sponsored in the Senate by Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and endorsed by more than 50 climate and affordable housing organizations.

In an interview with the Washington Post Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez said the bill demonstrates that fighting the climate crisis "is not a jobs versus environment paradigm."

"We need electrical workers. We need construction workers. And it doesn't have to just be fossil fuel pipelines that create these kinds of jobs," said the New York Democrat. "We can create millions of jobs in this country by actually rising to the challenge of addressing what this crisis is going to represent."

Today is a very big day!

We’re unveiling our FIRST-ever Green New Deal infrastructure bill!👷🏽‍♀️🌎

The GND for Public Housing Act will:
🏙 Decarbonize the entire US public housing stock
👨‍👨‍👧‍👦 Improve quality of life for residents
📈 Create 100s of thousands of jobs in the process https://t.co/z8h3EPby00

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 14, 2019

According to a summary (pdf) released by Sanders' office, the legislation would:

• Transition the entire public housing stock of the United States, as swiftly and seamlessly as possible, into zero-carbon, highly energy-efficient developments that produce on-site renewable energy;
• Address the substantial public housing capital backlog by ensuring all public housing is brought up to safe and sanitary condition;
• Expand federal programs to provide residents with meaningful work investing in their communities;
• Expand resident councils so that public housing residents have a seat at the table for important decisions regarding their homes; and
• Repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which limits the construction of new public housing developments.

HuffPost's Alexander Kaufman called the bill "one of the boldest efforts yet to legislate the Green New Deal movement that, since its debut in mainstream politics with a series of protests a year ago, has reframed the global climate policy debate, providing a popular alternative to the market-friendly dogma that's dominated Western politics for decades."

Last weekend, Sanders was joined by Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed the candidate's presidential bid last month, at a rally in Iowa focused on the climate crisis and the need for a Green New Deal.

According to a Data for Progress analysis released Thursday, the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act "would retrofit over 1 million public housing units, vastly improving the living conditions of nearly 2 million residents and creating over 240,000 jobs per year across the United States."

"These green retrofits would cut 5.6 million tons of annual carbon emissions—the equivalent of taking 1.2 million cars off the road," Data for Progress found. "Retrofits and jobs would benefit communities on the frontlines of climate change, poverty, and pollution and the country as a whole. Our analysis shows the legislation would create 32,552 jobs per year in New York City alone."

In a statement, Ocasio-Cortez said the legislation would "improve the quality of life" for all public housing residents.
 
"I am proud to begin the hard work of codifying the Green New Deal into law with my friend and colleague, Senator Bernie Sanders," Ocasio-Cortez added.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

WATCH: Sanders Joined by Naomi Klein and Sunrise Movement at Climate Crisis Summit in Iowa

Published on Saturday, November 09, 2019

by Common Dreams

"The world is on fire and our most credible hope of beating the arsonists is Bernie Sanders."

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

40 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders will be joined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, author Naomi Klein, climate activists Isra Hirsi and Zina Precht-Rodriguez, and his Iowa campaign co-chair Stacey Walker at a summit on the climate emergency in Des Moines on Saturday. (Photo: Bernie Sanders)

This is a developing story and may be updated.

Sen. Bernie Sanders was joined at a Climate Crisis Summit in Des Moines Saturday afternoon by author Naomi Klein, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other influential figures in the grassroots effort to pass a Green New Deal and achieve environmental justice for all.

Ahead of the summit, Klein said on Twitter that she was planning at the event to announce her endorsement of the senator's 2020 presidential campaign.

"The world is on fire and our most credible hope of beating the arsonists is Bernie Sanders," Klein tweeted.

I’ve written about my preferences but I have never formally endorsed a candidate for President in my life - never mind spoken at a campaign rally.

That ends today in #Iowa.

The world is on fire and our most credible hope of beating the arsonists is #Bernie2020 #NotMeUs

— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) November 9, 2019

The Sanders campaign sent an email to supporters on Friday highlighting a number of polls showing that the Vermont independent senator is seen as a climate leader in the Democratic primary.

"Bernie's leadership on climate is set to be particularly critical to his Iowa campaign, because the state has already been so battered by climate change," wrote the campaign. "Climate-intensified flooding in Iowa has caused billions of dollars of damage and bludgeoned the state’s agriculture sector—all while fossil fuel corporations have polluted the state with pipeline leaks and oil spills."

Also joining Sanders at Drake University on Saturday was Isra Hirsi, a leader of the U.S. Climate Strike movement; Zina Precht-Rodriguez of the Sunrise Movement, and Sanders's Iowa campaign co-chair, Stacey Walker.

The summit was scheduled to begin at 12:00pm central time/1:00pm Eastern.

Watch the summit below:

 

An overarching message of the summit echoed Ocasio-Cortez's call at a rally in Council Bluffs on Friday night, where she asked the 2,400 people gathered in the room to join in solidarity with people across the country whose struggles may differ from theirs.

 

The congresswoman again introduced Sanders, garnering applause as she spoke about her rejection of the perennial question "How are we going to pay for it?" regarding the Green New Deal and explained how her answer lies within frontline communities across the country. Americans across the country, she argued, have spent years paying for the inaction of a government beholden to the climate-warming fossil fuel industry.

"As though the Midwest wasn't underwater this year, as though 3,000 Americans didn't die in Puerto Rico in Hurricane Maria, as though Hurricane Katrina didn't happen," she said. "As though sea levels aren't rising, as though California isn't on fire. How do we pay for that? The way that we pay for this is through a people-powered movement, we're going to come together."

"When it comes to a #GreenNewDeal, people say 'How Are You Going To Pay For It,' as tho we're not paying for it now. As if the midwest wasn't underwater, as if Hurricane Katrina didn't happen, as if sea levels aren't rising, as if CA isn't on fire. HOW DO WE PAY FOR THAT?" @AOC pic.twitter.com/p73AEkEbNX

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) November 9, 2019

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

The Radical Vision of a 'Homes Guarantee' for All

from truthdig, October 22, 2019, by Celisa Calacal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez / AP)

In late September, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled The Place to Prosper Act, one plan out of a larger policy package called “A Just Society,” dedicated to protecting and enforcing tenants’ rights. That same month, before the introduction of that plan, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders had released his own housing plan to address this country’s growing housing crisis through such proposals as a national rent cap and a $70 billion investment into public housing.But before these two progressive leaders publicized their plans, a grassroots coalition of affordable housing advocates came out with its own housing policy, called a Homes Guarantee, dedicated to eradicating homelessness and providing affordable, sustainable housing for all Americans.

But before these two progressive leaders publicized their plans, a grassroots coalition of affordable housing advocates came out with its own housing policy, called a Homes Guarantee, dedicated to eradicating homelessness and providing affordable, sustainable housing for all Americans.

At its core, the Homes Guarantee seeks to tackle the growing housing crisis in large cities and small towns across the U.S. by decommodifying housing and divorcing the need for housing from its current market-based, capitalist-driven system. To accomplish this, the Homes Guarantee calls for building 12 million new social housing units—a public option for housing, in which rents are set at below-market rates—over the next 10 years and offering at least 600,000 “permanent supportive housing” units, which combine affordable housing with social services to help people who face chronic homelessness. The plan also calls for a $30 billion reinvestment in public housing over the next five years, a stark contrast to the federal government’s massive disinvestment in public housing over the past few decades.

In late September, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled The Place to Prosper Act, one plan out of a larger policy package called “A Just Society,” dedicated to protecting and enforcing tenants’ rights. That same month, before the introduction of that plan, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders had released his own housing plan to address this country’s growing housing crisis through such proposals as a national rent cap and a $70 billion investment into public housing.

While the left has seen bold visions in the form of the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” to address the climate crisis and health care, respectively, it hasn’t yet seen a similar plan or movement to address the housing crisis in the U.S. The coalition behind the Homes Guarantee hopes to change that.

“We want it to be in the same string of other progressive demands, like Medicare for All, Green New Deal,” said Tara Raghuveer of the grassroots movement People’s Action, who helped put the plan together. “We think it is that vision—what is the boldest set of structural reforms? It’s a Homes Guarantee.”

The publishing of the Homes Guarantee, in addition to Ocasio-Cortez’s Place to Prosper Act and Sanders’ plan, reflects a growing effort by grassroots advocates to demand more political action addressing the housing crisis impacting millions across the country.

No, Warren and Sanders Are Not the Same

Published on

Friday, October 18, 2019

by Truthdig

Do progressives want the candidate who may be feeling pressured to move to the left or the person whose candidacy is setting the progressive standard?

by Sonali Kolhatkar

 

4 Comments

Sanders has been calling himself a socialist for decades, and he most recently distinguished himself from Warren’s self-proclaimed capitalist label in an interview. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)

When Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had two heart stents inserted into his arteries in early October, media pundits were quick to foresee the end of his pioneering, movement-based candidacy. Some questioned why it took three days for his family and campaign to confirm the details of his medical condition and others wondered whether age and health would be important factors in his candidacy. Given the documented media bias against Sanders, it is certainly not surprising to see Sanders’ health scare exploited to undermine his candidacy. (Sanders, on the other hand, in his typical fashion, exploited his situation to demand that health care ought to be “a human right.”)

Los Angeles Times opinion writer Rich Benjamin pushed the bias further by saying, “any perception of fatigue and frailty can undercut his effectiveness in competing for the nomination and in the dogfight against Trump if he does beat the rest of the Democratic field.” Benjamin demanded that it was time for “Bernie and his bros”—using a sexist, racist and discredited smear that assumes Sanders’ supporters are mostly pig-headed white men—“to get behind Elizabeth Warren.” In fact, men and women are roughly evenly split among Sanders’ supporters, and people of color are more likely than whites to back him.

Benjamin is echoing a sentiment that has been gaining traction: that Warren is a good enough emulation of Sanders and has adopted enough of his progressive policy proposals for Sanders’ supporters to unreservedly support her. But while a Warren nomination would certainly be a strong sign of progress, particularly in the era of Donald Trump, there are serious distinctions between Sanders and Warren that should not be dismissed.

For example, on health care, although they both back the idea of a “Medicare for All” plan, Warren and Sanders do not take identical positions. Health care is the most important issue for the American electorate. During Tuesday’s Democratic presidential candidate debate, Warren repeatedly avoided admitting that backing a Medicare for All plan would mean that taxes would go up across the board. She sidestepped questions twice, saying, “I will not sign a bill into law that raises their costs, because costs are what people care about.”

But in fact, people care about getting the health care they need more than anything. According to a new poll released on the same day as the debate, “Fifty-six percent of Americans think providing access to affordable health care coverage for all Americans is the responsibility of the federal government, and two-thirds favor the creation of a national, government-administered health insurance plan similar to Medicare that would be available to all Americans.” Vox.com writer Tara Golshan explained that although Warren has endorsed Sanders’ health care plan, “she speaks about Medicare-for-all more in terms of expanding public options for health care, rather than eliminating private insurance altogether.”

Sanders, on the other hand, was far more candid about the cost of his plan during the debate, saying, “I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly for the wealthy. And for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less — substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.” By acknowledging that taxes will go up while premiums, co-payments, deductibles and “all out-of-pocket expenses are gone,” Sanders was far more honest about what his bill to expand Medicare to every American would entail while also demolishing the right-wing argument about high costs. Later in the debate, he went further and slammed the Democratic Party, challenging it to have “the guts to stand up to the health care industry, which made $100 billion in profit.”

There are differences in other policies too. For example, Sanders’ plan to tax the wealthiest Americans goes much further than Warren’s. His tax rate for billionaires is more than twice that of Warren’s, leading one commentator to declare that Sanders’ plan to tax extreme wealth “makes Warren’s wealth tax look moderate.” Sanders has even said he doesn’t think billionaires should exist.

It has become more and more apparent that Sanders is the only Democratic candidate to have a lengthy track record on progressive politics, compared to those who have discovered their progressive backbones more recently, because they know it plays well to the party’s left-leaning base. Seven years ago, Warren did not back Medicare for All, and 23 years ago she was a registered Republican. In fact, she maintains she is an avowed capitalist. Meanwhile, Sanders has been backing the idea of a Medicare plan expanded to all Americans for at least 10 years. He has been calling himself a socialist for decades, and he most recently distinguished himself from Warren’s self-proclaimed capitalist label in an interview.

When Sanders ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, media outlets ignored him until he began winning primaries, and even then, experts routinely underestimated his pull and popularity. Progressives were thrilled to finally see a bona fide leftist candidate on a national stage echoing the issues that we longed to hear about, analyzed in ways that targeted corporate profiteers.

After the election ended, the movement that was borne from his candidacy flourished and proliferated into multiple organizations determined to challenge establishment politics from inside and outside the electoral system. Among the successes of that movement was the 2018 election of the outspoken and staunchly progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

While recent polls show Sanders’ popularity as a candidate dipping a few percentage points behind Warren, his performance this week during the Democratic debate (including his characteristic dismissal of concern over the state of his health, saying only that he was “healthy” and “feeling great”), may bump his numbers up in the next poll. Perhaps even more important is the announcement that Ocasio-Cortez will be endorsing his candidacy. Both Warren and Sanders had sought the endorsement of the young and very popular progressive Democrat, and now that Sanders has clinched it, it may well boost his standing.

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who are considered part of the four-member “squad” of prominent progressive congresswomen of color, have also decided to throw their weight behind the Vermont senator. Sanders and Omar just co-sponsored a bill to feed all schoolchildren three free meals a day regardless of income. Clearly Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib see a distinction between Warren and Sanders.

There is one thing Warren has going for her over Sanders: She’s far more charismatic than he is. At a recent LGBTQ event in Los Angeles, Warren won over the crowd when she was asked how she might respond to a supporter who claimed that marriage should be between one man and one woman. She replied, “I’m going to assume it is a guy who said that. And I’m going to say, ‘Well, then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that.'” With the perfect timing of an improv artist, she waited for applause and added, “Assuming you can find one”—which of course resulted in even more applause.

Yes, Warren’s candidacy would be huge step in the right direction for the United States in the Trump era—especially if she were the most progressive front-runner in the race. But she’s not. In fact, she is arguably being pulled to the left by Sanders’ candidacy. CNBC’s Jim Cramer suggested that if Sanders dropped out of the race, “she doesn’t have to be worried about that [far-left] flank anymore.” So, do progressives want the candidate who may be feeling pressured to move to the left or the person whose candidacy is setting the progressive standard?

Sonali Kolhatkar is a columnist for Truthdig. She also is the founder, host and executive producer of "Rising Up With Sonali," a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV (Dish Network, DirecTV, Roku) and Pacifica stations KPFK, KPFA, and affiliates. She is the former founder, host and producer of KPFK Pacifica’s popular morning drive-time program “Uprising." She is also the co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission, a U.S.-based non-profit solidarity organization that funds the social, political, and humanitarian projects of RAWA. She is the author, with James Ingalls, of "Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence" (2006).

© 2019 TruthDig

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden Least Articulate of Dem Candidates

by John Lawrence, September 16, 2019

Give the man credit for his past service, but his time has gone. He can't complete a sentence and gets lost in his own verbage. Talks about playing the record player for your kids? Give me a break. Records ceased being produced about 30 years ago. I don't want a President that has to be scripted, somebody that's just a figurehead, someone that's a safe bet to beat Donald Trump. These times demand someone who has the energy, boldness and fighting spirit to take on the fossil fuel and the gun lobbies. Someone who understands that drastic changes have to be made in the way we consume energy in all its different forms and capacities. Oil and gas must be replaced by renewables. Planet earth is still going to experience the terrible effects of climate change even if we undergo a planet wide conversion to renewables tomorrow. But if we don't do everything possible in the next ten years, planet earth will become a catastrophe for human beings.

Trump has set back America and the world by years in all arenas. The next Democratic President will have to make up for his idiocy before we have a hope of getting back on the right track. And one way or another the roadblocker-in-chief in the Senate, Mitch McConnell has to be nullified. If it takes getting rid of the filibuster, so be it. The budget reconciliation process could help. A budget reconciliation bill is considered under expedited procedures that limit debate and amendments. Like the budget resolution, a reconciliation bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate and therefore needs only a simple majority to move to a final vote. Whatever it takes to restore majority rule and democracy to the US should be undertaken.

The Republicans only want to talk about all the threats to the US while ignoring the biggest one - climate change. They only want to talk about how much more money we should give to the Defense Department, and they equate taking the money away to help actual Americans and fight climate change as socialism. Pretty soon, if we do nothing, our military will be fighting over a few scraps left on the table after climate change devastates the earth. I guess their goal is to let the rest of the earth go to hell while we defend ourselves against all the climate change refugees. Let's get real. The fall of the Roman Empire did not threaten the whole earth. The American empire and Trump's fiddling while earth burns is doing just that. While the US threatens every country in sight that does not kowtow to its imperialism, China is going around the planet building infrastructure. That's why they're a threat to the US. We can't sit back and let China do all this good.

For Christ's sake they're building roads and ports in Papua New Guinea of all places. Of course they are the biggest threat to the US. The world needs to sit back and let us control it by the use of our military with its 800 bases scattered around the world and by our use of sanctions. The US is the world's bully threatening every country that does not do its bidding with military action or sanctions. Climate change refugees from Central America, where there has been massive crop failures due to heat and drought, must be fought back.

That's why Joe Biden's time has past. He never met a credit card company that he didn't do the whims of. As a senator from Delaware -- a corporate tax haven where the financial industry is one of the state’s largest employers -- Biden was one of the key proponents of the 2005 legislation that effectively prevents the $150 billion worth of private student loan debt from being discharged, rescheduled or renegotiated as other debt can be in bankruptcy court. Now the restoration of bankruptcy protection for student loan debtors is a big campaign issue for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Why didn't they bring this out in the Democratic debates?

My pick is for the team of Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. They have the energy, the vision, the smarts, the right ethnic and genderific combo and the fighting spirit to put America back on the right track. I love Bernie. He's put all these issues before the American public for years. For years he was a voice crying out in the wilderness. Now his views are almost mainstream, but I think Bernie's approach is too basically monotone. Warren and Booker are much more vibrant and energetic, and they have basically the same agenda as Bernie's. I also think Bernie is too dogmatic with his Medicare for All proposal. Medicare for All Who Want It is a better approach.

All the Democratic Presidential hopefuls on the stage at the last debate were far more articulate and spoke far more intelligently than did Joe Biden. We need a bold new America not Obama 2.0. Thank you.

Challenging Biden on Iraq War Vote, Sanders Denounces Bloated Trump Pentagon Budget During Democratic Debate

Published on Friday, September 13, 2019

by Common Dreams

"I don't think we have to spend $750 billion a year on the military when we don't even know who our enemy is."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

8 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, asks for time to speak during the third Democratic primary debate of at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas on September 12, 2019. (Photo: Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

Distinguishing himself from his 2020 presidential rivals on the issue of America's obscene military spending—which continues to soar year after year with bipartisan support—Sen. Bernie Sanders touted his record as the only candidate on stage during Thursday night's Democratic debate who has opposed all of President Donald Trump's Pentagon budget proposals.

"I think... I am the only person up here to have voted against all three of Trump's military budgets," the Vermont senator said to applause. "I don't think we have to spend $750 billion a year on the military when we don't even know who our enemy is."

"The Pentagon is set to grow by $90 billion and reach $738 billion next year. For $90 billion, we could double nutrition assistance or provide $7,000 to every child in poverty."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

In 2017, Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and then-Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas.)—the only other 2020 contenders on stage Thursday who were in Congress at the time—all voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, which handed the Pentagon $700 billion. Sanders voted no.

Sanders also voted against the 2019 NDAA and a procedural motion for the 2020 NDAA. The House and Senate still have to reconcile the 2020 NDAA before both chambers take a final vote on the legislation.

"I think that what we have got to do is bring this world together—bring it together on climate change, bring it together in fighting against terrorism, and make it clear that we as a planet, as a global community, will work together to help countries around the world rebuild their struggling economies and do everything that we can to rid the world of terrorism," said Sanders.

"But dropping bombs on Afghanistan and Iraq was not the way to do it," added the senator.

Watch:

"I think I am the only person up here to have voted against all three of Trump's military budgets. I don't think we have to spend $750 billion a year on the military when we don't even know who our enemy is" @BernieSanders #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/YhAYjZ0DcT

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) September 13, 2019

Sanders also took aim at former Vice President Joe Biden's support for the Iraq War, a record Biden attempted to obfuscate in the days leading up to Thursday's debate in Houston.

"You talked about the big mistake in Iraq and the surge. The truth is, the big mistake, the huge mistake, and one of the big differences between you and me, I never believed what Cheney and Bush said about Iraq," said Sanders, addressing Biden. "I voted against the war in Iraq and helped lead the opposition."

As Common Dreams reported in August, Sanders has called for slashing America's enormous Pentagon budget and using the funds to invest in domestic priorities like healthcare, tuition-free college, and assistance for the poor.

At a time when the U.S. already spends more on the military than the next 10 countries combined, Trump is proposing an $861 billion increase in base defense spending over 10 years.

For the same cost, we could make public colleges and universities tuition-free for a decade.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 11, 2019

"The Pentagon is set to grow by $90 billion and reach $738 billion next year. For $90 billion, we could double nutrition assistance or provide $7,000 to every child in poverty," Sanders tweeted last month. "We cannot keep handing over billions to the military-industrial complex."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Bernie Sanders Calls To Seize the Means of Electricity Production

The presidential candidate’s new climate plan includes moving toward 100% public ownership of power.

BY JOHANNA BOZUWA, In These Times, August 22, 2019

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during a town hall meeting about climate change on August 22 in Chico, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A year after a neglected Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) power line sparked a wildfire that tore through northern California, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday visited Chico, Calif., where many who fled the fire made a new home. He held a town hall the same day he released a new climate plan, in which he declared that the days of investor-owned utilities—with their profit incentives to underinvest in the electric grid and double down on fossil fuels—have to end.

He’s right: It is time for a massive public takeover of the nation’s electric grid.

The for-profit companies that reign over our energy system now have shown no meaningful sign of being willing to transform our energy system; they are much more interested in shareholder gains and business as usual. Together, for-profit utilities and fossil fuel companies have created powerful political-economic machines across the country to solidify the status quo of extraction and extortion. In contrast, democratic public ownership of our energy system could prioritize community benefit over profit, paving the way for a just and equitable energy system.

“We will end greed in our energy system,” says Sanders’ climate plan. “The renewable energy generated by the Green New Deal will be publicly owned.”

His plan comes as public power ownership campaigns mobilize across the country. California’s movement took off after the state’s largest for-profit utility, PG&E, requested a bailout after the fire forced the utility to declare bankruptcy under the weight of liability claims. Communities across the state are now demanding public ownership, and the company’s hometown of San Francisco has begun looking into municipalization.

In New York, in the midst of a July heat wave, Con Edison sacrificed low-income communities of color in Brooklyn by cutting their power to avoid a larger blackout. Residents responded with outrage, and Mayor Bill de Blasio, another presidential contender, called for kicking out the utility in favor of public ownership.

The birthplace of the monopoly for-profit utility, Chicago, just introduced an order to study the feasibility of taking over Commonwealth Edison after years of rate hikes and inaction on climate change. Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa said that “through municipalization, Chicago could accelerate decarbonization, and implement a progressive rate structure that ensures better rates for working-class Chicagoans.”

Over the past months, multiple Democratic presidential candidates have come out in favor of democratizing our energy system. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (who this week dropped out to run again for governor) centered much of his plan for a clean energy economy on community-owned and community-led renewables. And Julian Castro—the former mayor of San Antonio, where one of the more progressive public utilities is located—has voiced support for policies that empower the public to set up democratic utilities not only for electricity but also internet services and water.

But Sanders has voiced the most direct support for 100% public power, and this demand is fundamental to his climate plan. Unlike other proposals to date, Sanders’ plan explicitly commits to using public dollars for everything, refusing to leave the transition to corporate investors who so far have failed the public. By doing so, the Green New Deal proposal also ensures that the benefits of the plan don’t disappear into the pockets of billionaires like Elon Musk but are directed toward a more equitable society. Publicly funded projects, when structured so communities have a say in the types of projects and jobs they create, also have the potential to be more accountable, and can prioritize marginalized communities’ access to high-paying, unionized public jobs and respect the rights of the communities where this new infrastructure is built.

Sanders’ plan envisions harnessing and expanding the four already-operating federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), as well as creating a fifth PMA, to build out renewable energy. It would inject $1.52 trillion into renewable energy expansion and $852 billion into energy storage, working particularly with publicly or cooperatively owned utilities. By 2035, this plan would essentially decommodify energy generation through the federal authorities. Unlike the TVA of the past, designed largely for the benefit of white men in search of work in the South, the entire plan is based on the Jemez Principles of environmental justice that focus on bottom-up organizing and including all people in decision-making.

At the municipal, district and state levels, Sanders explicitly commits to supporting the growth of public and co-op utilities. Already, public and cooperatively owned utilities serve 49 million people in the United States, atlower costs and with generally more reliable service. In fact, the entire state of Nebraska runs fully off of public power after the state expelled the for-profit utility in the 1940s because of its extortionist rates. Unlike their for-profit counterparts, these entities are ultimately beholden to the public and any profits are reinvested into the community’s schools, parks and public services. This plan would help this sector expand its reach and invest more in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and much more.

It also provides express assistance to states and municipalities so they could start their own democratically owned utilities—ones driven by the public interest and a climate-resilient future. This could be key for places like New York or Chicago that are starting the process of taking over their utility, seeking guidance and expertise throughout the process. By taking energy utilities into public ownership, we can catalyze renewable energy deployment at the same time we redistribute wealth and power.

Elements of Sanders’ proposal are similar to a proposal for a Community Ownership of Power Administration that was co-created by The Democracy Collaborative (where I work) and grassroots energy groups.

Sanders’ plans for public ownership don’t stop at electricity. He would also allocate funds to massively increase public broadband projects to give people access to a new and necessary public good: the internet. An estimated 19 million people, largely located in rural America, still do not have access to broadband. He offers a vision for integrated and effective local public transportation systems with high-speed rail connections. He stresses the importance of building high-quality, low-carbon-footprint public housing, as well as weatherizing already-standing homes to end energy poverty. The plan reinstates the federal Civilian Conservation Corps jobs program to restore our public lands. It invests dramatically more in public regional development agencies like the Appalachian Regional Commission. It even creates spaces for cooperatively owned grocery stores to facilitate local agriculture not held hostage by monopolies like Monsanto.

Sanders is not alone in his call for more public ownership. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has similarly audacious plans for services like broadband, and both Warren and Sen. Cory Booker have invoked the Civilian Conservation Corps as a model. However, Sanders’ Green New Deal proposal stands alone in its comprehensive commitment to public funding and programs.

The future is public. It is accountable to the principles of environmental justice. It is democratic. It is decommodified. Sanders’ plan is the latest to set the bar for a new economy shepherded in by the green energy transition. We learned long ago that private interests won’t solve for climate and justice at the same time—that change will have to come from united and empowered people. Now, this realization is firmly on the presidential political agenda. 

 

Off the Top of My Head

China Has Done More Than Any Other Nation to Alleviate Poverty

by John Lawrence, August 31, 2019

According to the World Bank, more than 850 million people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty as China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms. So Bernie Sanders brings up an inconvenient point when he says, "But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and it’s leadership is, if I’m not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they’ve done a lot of things for their people.” Oh how Fox News doesn't like someone bringing up an inconvenient fact about a country they're doing their level best to make into an adversary. Laura Ingraham made this comment: "It really shouldn't be all that surprising, I guess, that Bernie has a soft spot for the Chinese thugs. Socialism ultimately leads to more power for the state. And less power for you and your family." What she leaves out is the inconvenient truth that America, rather than alleviating poverty, has continued to increase it.

From 2016 to 2017, homelessness increased in America by 0.7 percent. The largest increases were among unaccompanied children and young adults (14.3 percent increase), individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (12.2 percent increase), and people experiencing unsheltered homelessness (9.4 percent increase). According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, as of 2018 there were around 553,000 homeless people in the United States on a given night, or 0.17% of the population. So while China has made miraculous strides in decreasing poverty, the US has done nothing or next to nothing and homelessness which represents extreme poverty is increasing year after year.

In May 2019, The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) released its 2019 “State of Homelessness in America” report. NAEH’s interactive report allows users to explore national and state level data on the trends and progress toward ending homelessness in the United States. According to the report, homelessness has increased slightly by 0.3%, or 1,834 people, between 2017 and 2018 nationally. Approximately 552,830 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States on a single night in 2018 during the Point-in-Time (PIT) count. So while China makes gigantic strides in reducing poverty, the US, supposedly the world's richest nation, does little or nothing while poverty increases. But instead of focusing on a comparison of the two countries with respect to how much each has decreased poverty, Laura Ingraham instead criticizes Bernie Sanders for having the audacity to even bring up the subject puting the US in an unfavorable light with respect to China.

Maybe China is doing something right which, of course, Fox News is reluctant to admit. And while the US has made little progress in its "War on Poverty" since President Lyndon Johnson declared an ""unconditional war on poverty" 55 years ago, China lifted 850 million people out of poverty in 35 years! Not only is China’s success in reducing poverty without precedent, Beijing is best equipped to help reduce poverty globally – a fact that the Western media seems happy to skip over, preferring instead to criticise Beijing’s actions wherever possible. China is helping many other nations with its "Belt and Road" initiative. But the US sees China's alleviation of poverty and assistance in economic development in other parts of the world as a "threat" undercutting its own valiant efforts which have produced nothing but war and destruction.

China spent $250 billion on its military in 2018 while the US spent $649 billion, considerably more. How much did the US spend on economic development in other nations compared to China? China spent $460 billion in the five years since 2013 while in the US total spending was roughly $49 billion in 2016, the last full fiscal year analyzed. This accounts for about 1.2 percent of the federal budget. So while the US spends over twice as much as China on war, China spends about twice that of the US on foreign aid.

In the South China Morning Post, John F. Cooper writes in an opinion piece in April 2019:

China’s two government bodies reached decisions to alleviate rural poverty both at home and in developing countries. The sentiment was that China had done both before.

In fact, China’s accomplishments in these two realms are mind-boggling, having removed some 500 million to 700 million people from the poverty rolls. In fact, poverty in China has been cut to just a fraction of what it once was.

But China has not merely reduced poverty at home. The UN Millennium Development Goals project launched in 2000 was realized, UN officials said, with help from China’s generous, no-nonsense, market-oriented and unfettered foreign aid and investments.

According to the UN (recorded in its Sustainable Development Goals project), there are 783 million people living in poverty around the world.

The Western media has not cottoned to the fact that China had done a yeoman’s job in promoting economic growth by privatizing its economy and promoting competition, and has applied these principles to its foreign aid.

Liberals favor other means. Nor do they like Beijing’s undermining of the liberal, Western world order by proffering its own model of governance. Now, the media is unhappy that China can help the world’s poor when the West can do little.

Recently, Italy formally became the first G7 country to join China’s monumental Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious effort to coordinate trillions of dollars of infrastructure investment across the regions of Africa, Europe and Asia historically bound by the Silk Road. Investment from China’s Cosco Shipping rescued Greece’s Piraeus port three years ago, turning it into one of Europe’s fastest growing. According to the German newspaper, Die Zeit, Piraeus will displace Hamburg as Europe’s third-busiest port this year.

We dare not say that China is outcompeting the US on the world stage with its approach to helping people around the world instead of bullying them. Of course Laura Ingraham and Fox News, Trump's propaganda arm, will never admit that nor will they ever admit that perhaps China's version of capitalism is superior to the US version. No, they will continue to set up the divide between the capitalist US and the socialist China. Bernie Sanders is a truth teller and that is something that can't be allowed to stand unchallenged by Fox News.

Bernie Sanders Announces a $16.3 Trillion Green New Deal

BY DINO GRANDONI with Paulina Firozi - THE LIGHTBULB, from the Washngton Post

        Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)

Bernie Sanders released a comprehensive plan to address a “climate crisis” he says is on par with that America faced during the Second World War, vowing to declare the global buildup of planet-warming gases a national emergency and to spend more than any other Democratic candidate has proposed to address the issue.

The independent Vermont senator, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, published a nearly 14,000-word “Green New Deal” on Thursday that aims to eliminate the use of fossil fuels from power plants and cars by the end of the next decade and to completely decarbonize the rest of the U.S. economy by the middle of the century.

It is also distinguished from the plans of his 2020 rivals by the fact that it would attempt to empower Sanders, if he is was in the White House, to impose many of its components through executive action, a popular tool during the Trump and Obama administrations to enact environmental change.

But the self-proclaimed democratic socialist's proposal comes with a steep price tag of $16.3 trillion, far eclipsing that of former vice president Joe Biden's $1.7 trillion climate plan.

Sanders is the last among the 2020 race's top-tier candidates to release a comprehensive climate plan. Spurred in part by dire warnings from climate scientists and regulatory rollbacks by the Trump administration, the issue of climate change is being transformed from an electoral afterthought into a top issue in the Democratic primary. Att the same time, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee, who was running a single-issue campaign on global warming, on Wednesday night dropped out of the presidential contest.

Many of the 2020 contenders have embraced some form of a Green New Deal — a pitch to dramatically and quickly roll back carbon emissions and guarantee jobs for all — but the version backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who supported Sanders in his 2016 run, was defeated in the Senate.

As oil field workers, coal miners and other laborers would lose their jobs under such a plan, Sanders is promising a “fair transition” by providing them with job training, health-care coverage, five years of unemployment insurance and, for those who want them, early retirement packages.

Typical of the senator's sharp-elbowed style, Sanders leaves little room for compromise with fossil-fuel interests. Like his stances on health care and college education, Sanders's purist approach to addressing climate change may endear him to the Democratic Party's left flank while turning off more moderate members.

“We need a president who has the courage, the vision, and the record to face down the greed of fossil fuel executives and the billionaire class who stand in the way of climate action,” his Green New Deal reads. “We need a president who welcomes their hatred.”

At the same time, Sanders is keen to court unions, many of which have expressed skepticism of the Green New Deal as articulated by Ocasio-Cortez over fears that aggressive environmental regulations could eliminate jobs. Sanders hopes to allay those fears with a comprehensive set of benefits for laid-off industrial workers. He made a similar tweak to his Medicare-for-all program yesterday by endorsing a move to increase the power of unions in negotiating with health-care providers.

“He just has a lot of credibility to say, 'This is what I’ll be fighting for,' " said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental organization that reviewed parts of the plan for the Sanders campaign.

The high cost of Sanders's plan is due in part to eschewing partnership with the private businesses to erect the wind turbines and solar panels needed to hit his goal of 100 percent renewable energy in the power sector by 2030. Instead Sanders wants to establish a new federal electric utility to provide power to Northeast and Midwestern states while expanding the four existing federal power administrations that cover most of the rest of the Lower 48.

The Sanders campaign says it will pay for the plan through a combination of cutting military spending, increasing corporate taxes and suing fossil-fuel companies.

Echoing legislation he introduces perennially in Congress, Sanders wants to eliminate government subsidies for fossil-fuel companies. And going a step further than his two main Democratic rivals, Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, he promises to pursue a nationwide ban on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a controversial technique for extracting gas that can sometimes contaminate groundwater.

Sanders's plan, like most Democratic climate proposals, has virtually no shot of being passed by a Republican-controlled Senate. But it is Sanders's willingness to marshal the emergency powers of the executive branch that set him apart from most of the rest of the Democratic field.

“If the Senate and Congress are going to be bogged down, he will have the authority to enforce many of the pieces he needs to enact to address the climate crisis,” Pica said. “This proposal recognizes the presidential power he would have.”

President Trump's own embrace of emergency powers to fund the construction of a border wall has spurred Democrats to talk more openly about ways to wield executive power. Most of the Democratic field, including Sanders, has said they will end coal, oil and natural gas leasing on federally controlled lands, for example.

While there is some precedent for such a moratorium — the Obama administration implemented one for coal — it is an open question as to whether the conservative majority on the Supreme Court would sanction Sanders's use of emergency powers to reshuffle federal funds to address climate change.

Many of Sanders's ideas would also face stiff resistance from within his own Democratic caucus over what Paul Bledsoe, an energy fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and former Clinton White House climate adviser, calls his “radical climate purity.”

“I’m afraid it’s going to be written off by moderates,” Bledsoe added.

Citing the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl explosion, Sanders's plan calls for a moratorium on not just new nuclear power plants but also on the license renewals of existing ones — despite the fact that currently one fifth of U.S. power comes from nuclear reactors, making it by far the nation's largest sources of low-carbon energy. Sanders also rejects the use of technologies that do not yet exist at scale — such as the capturing of carbon dioxide before it exits coal plants' smokestacks — calling them “false solutions.”

To transform the way Americans move around on the ground, Sanders wants to provide $2.09 trillion in grants for consumers to buy electric passenger vehicles and $407 billion for school districts and other local governments to buy electric buses. He also wants to resurrect an Obama administration plan to invest $607 billion in building a high-speed rail system.

But the goal of taking every gasoline-guzzling car, pickup truck and SUV off the roads by 2030 is simply unrealistic, said Josh Freed, head of the clean energy program at the center-left think tank Third Way.

“It undermines the seriousness of the plan, and shows that it's just a political document,” he said.

While he promises to rejoin the Paris climate accords, Sanders calls the agreement brokered by the Obama administration “not perfect” for falling short of emissions reductions needed to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. On the international stage, Sanders wants to invest $200 billion abroad in Asia, Africa and South America for building out renewable energy and adapting to rising seas and other effects of climate change.

To readers: As the summer winds down, this is the last edition of The Energy 202 for the month of August. We return to our full schedule after Labor Day.

Sanders Unveils Plan to End Cash Bail, Ban Private Prisons, and 'Fundamentally Transform' US Criminal Justice System

Published on Sunday, August 18, 2019

by Common Dreams

"If we stand together, we can eliminate private prisons and detention centers. No more profiteering from locking people up."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

47 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, speaks during a town hall at the Aratani Theater in Los Angeles on July 25, 2019. (Photo: Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images)

Decrying America's status as the "world's leading jailer," Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday released a comprehensive plan to confront the crisis of mass incarceration, end the criminalization of poverty, and dramatically overhaul the U.S. criminal justice system.

"We have a criminal justice system that is racist and broken, and working together we're going to fundamentally transform it," said Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

The platform, which Sanders unveiled at an event in Columbia, South Carolina on Sunday, condemns America's "overly-punitive approach to public safety" and urges investments "to rebuild the communities that mass incarceration continues to decimate."

"We have over two million people in jail and prison, more than any other nation on earth, and they are disproportionately African-American, Latino, and Native American," Sanders wrote in an email to supporters on Sunday. "We spend $80 billion a year keeping people behind bars, money which could be used for education, job creation, and affordable housing."

"We spent, and I want everybody to hear this, $80 billion a year in tax dollars at the local, state, and federal level to lock up fellow Americans... It might be a better idea to take some of that $80 billion and start investing in our young people." @BernieSanders pic.twitter.com/KyEv2q9hsf

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) August 18, 2019

To remedy this dysfunctional and devastating system, Sanders' platform—detailed on his website—calls for:

• A ban on private prisons as part of a broader effort to "end profiteering in our criminal justice system";
• An end to cash bail, which traps poor Americans in a cycle of debt;
• Halting excessive sentencing "with the goal of cutting the incarcerated population in half";
• Transformation of policing by ensuring oversight and accountability for law enforcement, banning use of facial recognition software by law enforcement, and ending "programs that provide military equipment to local police";
• Abolishing the death penalty;
• Legalization of marijuana and erasure of past marijuana convictions; and
• An end to the criminalization of addiction by funding adequate treatment for those addicted to opioids.

"If we stand together, we can eliminate private prisons and detention centers. No more profiteering from locking people up," Sanders said during his speech in South Carolina.

"If we stand together we can end the disastrous 'war on drugs,'" the senator added. "If we stand together we can end cash bail. No more keeping people in jail because they're too poor. If we stand together we can enact real police department reform and prosecute police brutality. If we stand together, there is nothing, nothing, nothing that we cannot accomplish."

Watch the speech:

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Is there a middle road on Medicare-for-all? Kamala Harris thinks so

.     BY PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM with Paulina Firozi from the Washington Post THE PROGNOSIS Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) speaks at the 25th Essence Festival in New Orleans. (Gerald Herbert/AP) Is there a way to do Medicare-for-all without wiping out the country's private insurance system? Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) says there is. Here's her solution: Let people keep private plans, but have the government help pay for it. Harris aims to reach universal health coverage by expanding Medicare to everyone, but through private plans that are paid by the government to administer medical benefits. Harris released her proposal yesterday, adding to the proliferating pile of health policy proposals from the Democratic candidates, who are preparing for their second debate tonight and Wednesday. The 2020 presidential candidate has finally clarified where she stands on the perplexing issue, after months of confusing statements about whether or not she'd eliminate commercial health insurance. In the past, Harris signed onto the sweeping Medicare-for-all bill envisioned by her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who wants the federal government to directly cover the health expenses of all Americans. Democratic presidential hopefuls Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris speak during the Democratic primary debate in June. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images) But what Harris is proposing now isn’t quite Medicare-for-all. It’s more like Medicare Advantage-for-all, a popular alternative version of Medicare that currently covers about 1 in 3 seniors. In Medicare Advantage, private plans bid for the rights to sponsor Medicare plans, in contrast to traditional Medicare, in which doctors and hospitals directly bill the federal government. The program is basically Republicans’ favorite flavor of Medicare, because it so heavily involves the private sector. So using Medicare Advantage as a starting point for health reform could be smart politics for Harris, especially if she eventually finds herself in the general election. Expanding coverage via private means is a more comfortable idea for many Americans. It certainly is for Tom Scully, former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under GOP President George W. Bush, who called the idea a “brilliant masterstroke.” “There’s a hell of a big difference between Medicare-for-all and Medicare Advantage-for-all,” Scully told me. “I think [Harris] was brilliant to figure that out.” In her plan, laid out via a Medium post, Harris wants to give people the option of either enrolling in traditional Medicare or buying a Medicare Advantage-type plan while tacking on more benefits, such as mental health care. She’d let people immediately start buying into traditional Medicare and over a 10-year period would phase in privately run Medicare plans to cover newborns, the uninsured and, eventually, everyone who currently has workplace or Obamacare coverage. The approach allows Harris to embrace the most popular parts of Medicare-for-all — its generous set of medical benefits — while dodging its most controversial aspect of eliminating private health coverage. Harris had wavered on that question for months, on two separate occasions appearing to advocate banning private plans and each time walking back those remarks. “Essentially, we would allow private insurance to offer a plan in the Medicare system, but they will be subject to strict requirements to ensure it lowers costs and expands services,” Harris wrote. “If they want to play by our rules, they can be in the system. If not, they have to get out.” Andy Slavitt, who headed CMS under President Barack Obama, called her plan “an effort to balance idealism and pragmatism.” “The use of Medicare Advantage is a clever approach to getting there,” he told me. Indeed, Harris’s plan could be viewed as a middle ground between the dramatic health insurance overhaul suggested by Sanders and the incremental approach of a government-financed “public option” backed by former vice president Joe Biden. If you’re watching the debate, stay tuned for potential clashes between Biden and Harris on the subject when they share the stage Wednesday night. Harris’s rivals were already jumping all over her yesterday, slamming her for trying to have the best of both worlds and charging that it would instead lead to the worst of both worlds. “This new, have-it-every-which-way approach pushes the extremely challenging implementation of the Medicare for All part of this plan ten years into the future, meaning it would not occur on the watch of even a two-term administration,” said Biden spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield. “The result? A Bernie Sanders-lite Medicare for All and a refusal to be straight with the American middle class, who would have a large tax increase forced on them with this plan,” she added. Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir told Politico that Harris's plan “introduces more corporate greed and more profiteering within Medicare.” And the health-care industry, which has formally banded together to fight Medicare-for-all-like proposals, appears no more open to Harris’s proposal than to what Sanders or Biden have suggested. The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, a coalition that includes the major trade groups for health insurers, hospitals and other players, released a statement calling it a “one-size-fits-all government-run system.” “No matter how candidates try to thread the needle, Medicare for all, Medicare ‘buy-in’ and the ‘public option’ would all lead to the same harmful consequences — including unaffordable tax increases, the elimination of consumer choice, threats to patients’ access to their doctors and treatments and a diminished quality of care,” Lauren Crawford Shaver, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. Today the coalition is launching a six-figure ad campaign that includes digital ads in Detroit and Washington, and this national television ad: Harris’s proposal is too new for there to be polling data on it. But a new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation underscores how Americans seem to prefer step-by-step approaches to getting everyone covered versus a system-wide transformation that might cost them their own coverage. Nearly two-third of respondents said they favor a public option that would compete with private plans and be available to all Americans. Just over half of respondents said they favor a national Medicare-for-all plan, slightly down from 56 percent who expressed support in April.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Counter China's BRI Initiative: A Worldwide Green New Deal

by John Lawrence, July 24, 2019

The American political establishment is all worried about China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) because it forges alliances with many countries especially, but not limited to, those of the Eurasian land mass including Russia. They do this by partnering to build infrastructure in those countries thereby increasing trade with China primarily. The Chinese approach is basically the equivalent of Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People." The American approach is to threaten other countries with its military might or its weaponized dollar. These are the only things in the American playbook. Other American interactions with third parties have been left to the private sector because the American government has been hollowed out to the point that all activities with the exception of the military and the use of sanctions have been left to the private sector. America cannot even repair its own infrastructure much less build infrastructure in the rest of the world like China is doing. China can do this because it has a government capable of launching huge initiatives. Unless those initiatives are of a military nature, the US can do nothing of the sort.

Therefore, I have a great idea (I think). The Democrats should think big and their agenda should be (in addition to universal health care which I will discuss later) a Worldwide Green New Deal (WWGND). Climate change will not be ameliorated that much by just greening America. Most of the greenhouse gasses are being emitted elsewhere. So a Green Marshall Plan or a Worldwide Green New Deal is in order, and it will counter China, not militarily like the Washington Republican establishment is trying to do (after all if all you possess is a hammer every problem must be solved by hammering), but by peaceful green development exactly like China is trying to do although I don't know how much the emphasis with the BRI is on green.

Some quibbles with the Green New Deal as presently constituted: it guarantees a government job for anyone who needs a job. No, leave this part out, because the Republicans will slaughter you over this. A Worldwide Green New Deal is necessary not only to save the planet, but to counter China's growing influence in the world. This would be a peaceful competition instead of the military one that has borne no fruit over the last years since WW II. The wars since then have been a waste and a tragedy that have only destroyed infrastructure and alienated major parts of the world's population. A WWGND will also be a change in foreign policy vis a vis the rest of the world. It will say we are not here just to try and control you militarily or to destroy your economies with sanctions if you don't obey our orders. It would be saying to the world "let's have a peaceful competition with China and save the world from the worst effects of climate change at the same time."

The US political establishment is apprehensive about China. It is getting defensive about China. That's why it is taking the attitude towards Huawei which is outdcompeting American companies. The US is trying to use sanctions to block Huawei's progress since it is on the losing end of the competition. But America has no industrial policy; China does and this makes all the difference. America can only react defensively using threats both military and dollarized.

Now regarding universal health care, as much as I like Bernie Sanders, I think Medicare for All as a plank in the platform has to go. The Republicans will slaughter us over that. Hickenlooper and others have a better idea: Medicare for All Who Want It. The rest can stay with their private insurance. Evidently, 180 million Americans are covered by employer based insurance, and, evidently, they like it. This would be similar to restoring the public option that was lobbied out of Obamacare. Let people opt in to Medicare, but don't force them to. This is the winning agenda item. Over the years as more and more people become disenchanted with private insurance, they will start opting in until the point will be reached that effectively Medicare For All will be realized. This is the way to make universal health care evolutionary instead of revolutionary.

The American Republican poltitical establishment is taking a defensive, fearful attitude towards China's BRI. They are trying to control the world not by military supremacy but by peaceful development in conjunction with their neighbors. How dare they! The US has invested the whole ball of wax into military domination of the world to put America first. After all we beat communism leaving America as the world's dominant empire. But if America doesn't change course it will be left in the position of trying to hold back China's peaceful initiatives with its threats of military action and sanctions.

One last note: the US will have to replace the privately owned Federal Reserve with a public central bank in order to fund a WWGND. Ellen Brown has discussed this in detail. Lincoln essentially did this with his issuance of greenbacks to fight the Civil War and build the transcontinental railroad. It worked for him and us.

'The Difference Is Thousands of Lives': Sanders Releases Chart Contrasting Biden's Incremental Healthcare Plan With Medicare for All

Published on Tuesday, July 16, 2019

by Common Dreams

"Biden's plan would preserve a broken system," said Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2020 presidential campaign

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

7 Comments

Local politicians and hospital workers protest the imminent closure of Hahnemann University Hospital at a rally outside the Center City facilities in Philadelphia on July 11, 2019. (Photo: Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

As Joe Biden continued his misleading attacks on single-payer during an AARP forum in Iowa on Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2020 presidential campaign circulated a chart highlighting the sharp and deeply consequential differences between the former vice president's newly unveiled healthcare plan and Medicare for All.

While Medicare for All would provide "health coverage to everyone," the chart says, Biden's plan to bolster the Affordable Care Act and add a public option would leave "nearly 10 million people uninsured" and hit tens of millions more with "high co-pays and deductibles that will leave too many people at the mercy of insurers and drug companies."

"Biden's plan would preserve a broken system," said the Sanders campaign. "According to a recent survey, as many as one in four adults go without insurance at some point in a given year. That's fifty million people. By age 50, the average worker has held 12 jobs. Under Biden's plan, this broken and fractured system would be maintained."

"The difference is thousands of lives," tweeted Jacobin magazine founder Bhaskar Sunkara in response to the chart.

As Common Dreams reported on Monday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project estimated that Biden's healthcare plan would lead to the deaths of 125,000 people in the first decade by leaving millions uninsured.

The Sanders campaign's chart, sent to the press late Monday, came after Biden told an audience of around 200 Iowa seniors that, under Medicare for All, "Medicare as you know it goes away"—a line that quickly drew comparisons to President Donald Trump's claim last year that Medicare for All would lead to "Medicare for none."

 Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, slammed Biden's attack on Medicare for All in a statement late Monday.

"He needlessly scared seniors today by telling them that Medicare for All would mean 'Medicare as you know it goes away,'" said Lawson. "In fact, Medicare for All would greatly improve the program for current beneficiaries."

This is completely false. #MedicareForAll would make Medicare much better by adding:

- Dental
- Hearing
- Vision
- Long Term Care

while eliminating co-pays, premiums, and deductibleshttps://t.co/KA065kQLji https://t.co/nIMjBC8194

— SocialSecurityWorks (@SSWorks) July 15, 2019

In a video posted on Twitter Monday night, Sanders highlighted Iowa seniors' lukewarm response after Biden asked whether they liked their private insurance providers before they retired.

Sanders, the lead Senate sponsor of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, contrasted the seniors' response to Biden with the enthusiastic applause Medicare for All received during the Vermont senator's Fox News town hall in April.

"At the end of the day," Sanders tweeted, "you've either got to be on the side of the people or the side of the health insurance companies. I know which side I'm on."

At the end of the day, you’ve either got to be on the side of the people or the side of the health insurance companies. I know which side I’m on. pic.twitter.com/P2ZVzSSXM2

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 16, 2019

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely

Off the Top of My Head

Are Americans Amusing Themselves to Death?

by John Lawrence, July 16, 2019

I was waiting for Joe Biden to formalize an agenda, but so far his only agenda is that he is the likeliest candidate to beat Trump. That's not good enough. The next President and vice President need to set a bold agenda. The media likes to label that :progressive." So be it. Perhaps the next President can save the Iran nuclear deal and rejoin the Paris climate change accords. But he or she must do much more. While Trump and the media will try to sidetrack the issues and get everybody concerned with his outrageous tweets, Bernie and Elizabeth will concentrate on informing the American people about the real issues: infrastructure, climate change, universal health care, the growing dichotomy between rich and poor and what to do about it.

Trump and the media want you to take your eye off the ball; they want to distract and confuse. They want the issues to be all about superficial nonsense. Even Chuck Todd on Meet the Press tried last Sunday to distract Bernie, but Bernie always comes back to the real issue no matter what the question asked. The American people have to get used to the fact that a Presidential election should not be a circus. It should not be entertainment, but, of course, the American people have gotten used to the fact that practically everything in American life is about entertainment.

The book by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business hits the nail right on the head. In comparing Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" to George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four ", Postman said that the contemporary world was better reflected by Huxley's book, whose public was oppressed by their addiction to amusement, than by Orwell's work, where they were oppressed by state control. I would have to agree with him. Postman observed that people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", the fictitious pleasure drug in Brave New World, by means of which the citizens' rights are exchanged for consumers' entertainment. The opioid crisis can certainly be seen in that light.

Drugs and entertainment are the hallmark of American society. Reckless lifestyles instead of touch football are pursued with vigor as John Kennedy would say. It's Devil May Care in terms of climate change or any concern for future generations. Sex, Drugs and Rock n Roll are the order of the day. A few people are concerned about bettering their own and other peoples' lives, but not very many. Trump is a manifestation of that. Ronald Reagan ushered in the "Me First" age, and Trump has solidified it.

This is from Wikipedia:

Postman asserts the presentation of television news is a form of entertainment programming; arguing that the inclusion of theme music, the interruption of commercials, and "talking hairdos" bear witness that televised news cannot readily be taken seriously. Postman further examines the differences between written speech, which he argues reached its prime in the early to mid-nineteenth century, and the forms of televisual communication, which rely mostly on visual images to "sell" lifestyles. He argues that, owing to this change in public discourse, politics has ceased to be about a candidate's ideas and solutions, but whether he comes across favorably on television. Television, he notes, has introduced the phrase "now this", which implies a complete absence of connection between the separate topics the phrase ostensibly connects. Larry Gonick used this phrase to conclude his Cartoon Guide to (Non)Communication, instead of the traditional "the end"

In the age of social media, rather than the medium being the message, the newsmaker is the message. We're endlessly distracted by the likes of Jeffrey Epstein and his escapades. Who cares? I guess a lot of people would rather be titillated by a scumbag like Epstein than to contemplate the real issues that Bernie and Elizabeth are talking about. The real issues that all the progressive Democrats are concerned with. The American people, large segments of them, just don't care. They want to get on with their selfish pursuits just like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush told them to do. They are amused by the antics of a clown as President of the US where his every word, no matter how ridiculous, is reported on and televised. America is more concerned with rubbish and entertainment than it is with the real issues facing the country and the world today.

What America Needs to Understand About Capitalism

Published on Saturday, July 13, 2019

by Project Syndicate

The United States has the resources to create a better capitalist system, and it is clear which policies can improve wellbeing today and create a more equitable and sustainable economy for future generations. Now the country needs to elect a president and Congress that can build this system

by Clair Brown, Simon Sällström

 

36 Comments

Either Warren or Sanders would be a better bet for reform than Biden. (Photo: Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/Rex)

The candidates in the 2020 U.S. presidential race are proposing an array of economic policies frequently described as either free-market or socialist. These labels often confuse the American public. In particular, capitalism is widely—and wrongly—understood to be synonymous with free markets. In fact, it includes all economic systems with private ownership of property, from free markets to social democracy.

These various forms of capitalism require basic rules governing how markets operate, such as protection of property and the rule of law. Most capitalist societies also have social programs to protect the most vulnerable. Governments in capitalist economies therefore face two fundamental choices. First, they can either set market rules for the common good, or delegate this task to big business under the guise of "free markets." Second, they can design universal social programs with the aim of reducing inequality and protecting the environment, or scale them back in order to minimize government spending in these areas.

The choices governments make strongly influence levels of inequality, greenhouse-gas emissions, and overall well-being. To evaluate the Democratic candidates' economic policies properly, therefore, we must understand their proposals for structuring markets and creating or expanding social programs.

U.S. President Donald Trump disparages such measures as "socialism," and instead praises free markets without acknowledging that markets need rules to function. Rather than having government set the rules, Trump prefers to let multinational corporations decide how to operate their own markets. Yet in Big Tech and many other increasingly concentrated sectors, deregulation does not increase competition; on the contrary, it allows big companies to rig things in their favor.

Consider the energy sector, where Trump has put Big Coal, Oil, and Gas in charge of U.S. climate policies. Corporate bosses now determine how much they may pollute and how fast they need to develop renewable-energy capacity, while the U.S. remains addicted to fossil fuels. In the health-care industry, big pharmaceutical companies are free to set drug prices, and large insurers reap one-quarter of the sector's revenues. The military-industrial complex rules the Pentagon, investment banks control Wall Street, and big agricultural conglomerates hold sway over America's farmland.

Market concentration allows a few large multinationals to control an industry, resulting in high prices and excessive executive pay. Big incumbents crush newcomers in order to maintain their market power, and then use excess profits to help elect friendly lawmakers and lobby for policies that support their continued dominance—often undermining the power of popular democratic movements.

Several Democratic presidential candidates have highlighted these problems. Elizabeth Warren, for example, blames big-business corruption for worsening inequality and the climate crisis, and undermining American democracy. Bernie Sanders has called for a grassroots political revolution to create a social democracy in the U.S.

Although Warren and Sanders differ on the details, both want to put government back in charge of structuring markets for the common good—including higher taxes on the wealthy and big business, along with stricter enforcement of antitrust and environmental laws. Both candidates also advocate government social programs aimed at providing everyone with health care, childcare, higher education, adequate housing, and decent jobs, along with a social safety net to support them in hard times.

Other Democratic hopefuls have also advocated some of these measures, but more centrist candidates say such programs would be too expensive or even undermine freedom, thereby echoing a standard right-wing critique. Former Vice President Joe Biden, for example, recently told wealthy donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he became president. Yet the U.S. capitalist system needs a major revamp in order to tackle the climate crisis and unacceptably high levels of inequality. European countries have demonstrated how broad government programs, flourishing economies, and freedom go hand in hand.

Some are mapping the way forward. Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz says progressive capitalism could greatly help to reduce wealth-snatching and create a more sustainable, equitable economy. And the Poor People's Moral Budget advocates progressive social programs funded via taxes and the redirection of existing federal spending.

Our research team at the University of California, Berkeley, has created the Sustainable Shared-Prosperity Policy Index (SSPI) to measure policies that support a meaningful life in a sustainable world. The SSPI ranks 50 countries based on three broad criteria: policies that structure markets with rules and taxes; measures to protect the environment; and government programs that support healthy, educated people along with the infrastructure and human rights that establish a well-functioning society. By gathering data on over 50 policy indicators, the SSPI provides a practical roadmap toward creating an economy that cares for people and the environment.

All U.S. presidential candidates should present their plans for the economy so that voters can assess how the alternatives will affect their quality of life. People need to know whether they will have access to health care, higher education, and childcare, along with a secure job that pays a decent wage and allows time for a balanced life with family, friends, and community.

This is surely not too much for citizens of a rich country to expect and demand. America has the resources to create a better capitalist economy, and we know which policies can improve wellbeing today and for future generations. Now the country needs to elect a president and Congress that can build this new system.

© 2019 Project Syndicate

'We Welcome Their Hatred': Sanders Unveils Anti-Endorsement List of Billionaire CEOs and Wall Street Bankers

Published on Wednesday, July 10, 2019

by Common Dreams

"I am proud to announce the modern-day oligarchs who oppose our movement."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

44 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, speaks during a press conference to introduce college affordability legislation outside the U.S Capitol in Washington, D.C on June 24, 2019. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Asking the American public to judge his 2020 Democratic presidential campaign by both its supporters and its powerful enemies, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday unveiled an "anti-endorsement" list consisting of prominent billionaires, Wall Street bankers, and corporate CEOs who have attacked his candidacy and policies.

"These people have a vested interest in preserving the status quo so they can keep their grip on power so they can continue to exploit working people across America."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

"You can tell who is truly fighting for working families by the enemies they make, and we've made a lot of enemies," Sanders said in a statement. "We understand that nothing will fundamentally change for working Americans unless we have the guts to take on the most powerful corporate interests in this country."

"Therefore it should come as no surprise that corporate CEOs and billionaires have united against our movement," Sanders added. "These people have a vested interest in preserving the status quo so they can keep their grip on power so they can continue to exploit working people across America. We welcome their hatred."

The Sanders campaign lists the Vermont senator's anti-endorsements on a new webpage. The page includes billionaire Democratic mega-donor Haim Saban, who attacked Sanders as a "disaster zone" in an interview published Wednesday.

The rest of the list consists of:

• Billionaire Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone;
• Former CKE Restaurants CEO Andy Puzder;
• Former Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam;
• JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon;
• Disney CEO Bob Iger;
• Former General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt;
• Former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein;
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan;
• Centrist think-tank Third Way;
• Former Goldman Sachs partner Leon Cooperman;
• Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus; and
• Billionaire hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller.

"As we fight for an agenda that guarantees basic human rights for all Americans, we will be opposed by the most powerful forces in America," Sanders wrote on his website. "I am proud to announce the modern-day oligarchs who oppose our movement. In the words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 'They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.'"

"We will overcome their greed," said Sanders, "and create an economy and a government that works for all, not just the one percent.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

San Diego's Emergency Room Crisis

by John Lawrence, July 11, 2019

There were 42,268 mental health visits to San Diego County emergency room hospitals in 2028 up 60% from 2008. These visits in and of themselves caused further trauma to the mentally ill. First, as anyone knows who have visited an emergency room lately, you have to wait for hours - some times for days -  in the emergency room before you're given a hospital bed in a regular room. Sometimes patients have to wait for hours on a gurney just to get a bed in the emergency room. Such was the case when I hurt my back when my car was rear ended, and I was transported to the hospital by ambulance.

Lisa Halverstadt reported in Voice of San Diego in an article, "Mental Health Patients Are Pouring Into Local Emergency Rooms":

Three large local hospital systems reported to VOSD that their patients wait an average of about 20 hours to move onto more specialized inpatient beds while a separate hospital association analysis released last year suggested patients can often wait up to 36 hours for those beds.

Those waits and the frenzied environment of an ER only escalate patients’ suffering while taxing the emergency departments of hospitals dealing with an array of urgent care needs. Patients who spoke to VOSD described increased anxiety, agitation and depression as they laid in gurneys – some waiting as long as two days for an inpatient bed – and going for hours without water or food.

But this situation isn't unique to mental illness patients. People that go to emergency rooms with stroke symptoms, for example, often wait long hours to be admitted to a hospital bed without food or water. That's where a patient advocate comes in. When my late wife went to the emergency room several times with stroke symptoms, I always went with her. I was her "go to" person for everything she needed. If she was hungry or thirsty, I would track down a nurse to bring her food or water. Without me there she would never get an extra blanket if she was cold or anything else she needed. I would track down the nurse and demand it. You could buzz them on the intercom all you wanted, and they would never come. Such is the situation in hospitals. For people with mental illness, it is only more frustrating and agonizing.

Halverstadt continues:

Vincent Dimeo recalls feeling relieved as he left his friend Ann Ruhlman at Sharp Grossmont Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation in December 2017.

On their way to the hospital, Dimeo said his friend was behaving erratically and he twice had to slap her hand away she tried to scratch her right eye. Now she was safe and checked into the emergency room. Dimeo could head to work.

“They said she’d be in good hands,” Dimeo said.

About nine hours later, Ruhlman gouged out her right eye in Grossmont’s ER.

So Dimeo's mistake was not staying with her in the ER. Everyone going to the hospital in the ER or in a regular room needs someone with them, a loved one or friend, to be their advocate. Without them, you are at the mercy of the hospital staff who responds only when they please. With all due respect they are very busy, even overworked, in this glorious of all non-socialistic health care systems. My wife could wait for hours to have her bed changed since she couldn't control her bowel movements if I were not there demanding that a CNA come, clean her up and change the bed. It got to be a fight between me and the nurses.

Halverstadt continues:

Three large local hospital systems reported to VOSD that their patients wait an average of about 20 hours to move onto more specialized inpatient beds while a separate hospital association analysis released last year suggested patients can often wait up to 36 hours for those beds.

Those waits and the frenzied environment of an ER only escalate patients’ suffering while taxing the emergency departments of hospitals dealing with an array of urgent care needs. Patients who spoke to VOSD described increased anxiety, agitation and depression as they laid in gurneys – some waiting as long as two days for an inpatient bed – and going for hours without water or food.

Ruhlman’s case is especially tragic.

Hospital and legal records obtained by VOSD reveal ER staff declared Ruhlman a threat to herself after her arrival at Grossmont. After she checked in, hospital workers restrained her for about an hour after she dug her fingers into her eyes and tried to stand on the hospital gurney. ER workers ordered tests that showed Ruhlman, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and anxiety, had methamphetamine in her system. It was unclear whether doctors had initially decided Ruhlman needed an inpatient bed, an outcome that Ruhlman said followed other ER visits.
A few hours into her ER stay, medical workers saw Ruhlman scratching her right eye again shortly after she was released from restraints and ordered a CT scan. The scan and a separate exam documented swelling around the lower lid and an abrasion on the eye she later tore out.
Dimeo felt sick when he learned days later what had happened.

“I shouldn’t have left,” he said.

Of course he shouldn't have. Patients are left alone for hours in their ER beds. No food, no water. My wife was at the same hospital that Ruhlman was. They don't even have plans for food service in the ER. If you complain loudly enough, the nurse will sneak you a sandwich or something, but there is no provision to feed you there.

Halverstadt continues:

In a statement, Sharp Healthcare wrote that patient safety is a high priority and described Ruhlman’s case as “most unfortunate.”

“Sharp Grossmont Hospital provides high quality care and complies with all regulatory requirements specific to the use of physical and chemical restraints,” Sharp wrote in the statement. “Due to patient privacy concerns, we are unable to provide any specific details regarding care provided to patients, however it is the hospital’s policy to provide care to its patients based on clinical presentation. The acuity level of a patient determines the level of care and observation needed.”

Other patients and advocates who spoke to VOSD also described harrowing experiences in local ERs.

“I’ve had people go through the emergency room process and say, ‘I’m never doing that again. That was more traumatic than the thing that brought me to this point to begin with,’” said Michelle Routhieaux, who leads San Diego’s Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance and has accompanied patients on dozens of ER trips over the last 15 years.

Medical experts, county health officials, patients, advocates and law enforcement leaders agree that ERs can further traumatize patients who are already suffering.

Yet ERs have long been the front line of a broken mental-health system with insufficient resources for both patients in crisis and those seeking to avoid one. And in more recent years, bolstered by an explosion in Medi-Cal enrollment tied to the Affordable Care Act, patients in crisis have rushed in.

Just remember this, folks. If a loved one has to go to the ER for mental health or any other reason, stay there with them as their advocate. Otherwise, the staff will let your loved one lay there without food or water for hours, and that goes for after you're admitted to a hospital bed as well. However, there you will get regular meals. You could still lie in your own filth for hours before a CNA comes to change you if you don't have an advocate by your side. That's just the way it is in this expensive, capitalist society where money talks and shit walks. But whatever you do, don't go socialist. Seriously, Bernie Sanders has a better idea: Medicare for All and take the profit motive out of medicine.

CBO Analysis Shows $15 Federal Minimum Wage Would Raise Pay for 27 Million Workers and Lift 1.3 Million Out of Poverty

Published on Tuesday, July 09, 2019

by Common Dreams

"It has been more than 10 years since congress raised the minimum wage—the longest stretch in history. This is a shameful benchmark. Congress should immediately pass the Raise the Wage Act."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

4 Comments

People demonstrate for a higher minimum wage on a National Day of Action in Miami, Florida. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A Congressional Budget Office analysis published Monday showed that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would significantly increase pay for over 27 million workers and lift 1.3 million people—including hundreds of thousands of children—out of poverty.

The CBO also found that more than doubling the federal minimum wage would boost the income of families earning less than three times the poverty rate by nearly $22 billion.

"Every time a minimum wage increase has been proposed, the extreme right wing and their billionaire campaign contributors claim that jobs will be destroyed. They have been proven dead wrong. It is time to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

While corporate media headlines emphasized the CBO's estimate that a $15 minimum wage could wipe out over a million jobs, economists disputed this finding as overly pessimistic and noted that—even if such a gloomy prediction is accepted—the analysis showed the benefits of a $15 minimum would still far exceed the costs.

"CBO nevertheless substantially overstates the costs," said Heidi Shierholz, senior economist and director of policy at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). "CBO finds that the policy would lead to a decline in employment of 1.3 million—though in choosing the parameters that resulted in that conclusion it failed to appropriately weight the highest quality studies in the vast academic literature on this issue."

"As a result," Shierholz added, "policymakers must be skeptical of their assessment of the employment impact, given that other careful reviews of the minimum wage literature have shown that the average study finds small-to-no employment effects of minimum wage increases."

As Common Dreams reported last week, a far-reaching study by economists at the University of California, Berkeley found that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024 would result in "substantial declines in household and child poverty" without any negative impact on employment or hours worked, even in low-wage states.

"It has been more than 10 years since Congress raised the minimum wage—the longest stretch in history," Shierholz said. "This is a shameful benchmark, reducing the living standards of working families in this country and exacerbating poverty and inequality. Congress should immediately pass the Raise the Wage Act and give this country's lowest wage workers a raise."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and the lead sponsor of the Raise the Wage Act in the Senate, echoed Shierholz in a tweet late Monday.

"Every time a minimum wage increase has been proposed, the extreme right-wing and their billionaire campaign contributors claim that jobs will be destroyed," Sanders wrote. "They have been proven dead wrong. It is time to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour."

Every time a minimum wage increase has been proposed, the extreme right wing and their billionaire campaign contributors claim that jobs will be destroyed.

They have been proven dead wrong. It is time to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. https://t.co/4d2WSrdX8u

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 9, 2019

The CBO analysis comes as House Democrats are expected to vote on the Raise the Wage Act as early as this month. If passed, the legislation would phase in a $15 federal minimum wage by 2024 and index it to inflation thereafter.

Though the Raise the Wage Act has over 200 Democratic sponsors in the House and is backed by nearly 75 percent of Democratic voters, so-called moderates have attempted to derail the bill by pushing for a "regional wage" adjusted to local living costs, arguing that a $15 minimum would lead to job losses in low-wage states.

New York Magazine's Eric Levitz argued Monday that the CBO analysis leaves congressional Democrats with no good reason to stop short of a $15 federal minimum wage.

"Given the scale of CBO's projected benefits, and the uncertainty of its findings on a wage hike's potential drawbacks," Levitz wrote, "[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's caucus has no substantive excuse for failing to pass the Raise the Wage Act. And given the state of polling on the $15 minimum wage, Democrats don't have any political excuse, either."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

AOC, Bernie Sanders to Introduce Resolution Calling 'Existential Threat' of the Climate Crisis an 'Emergency'

Published on

Monday, July 08, 2019

by

Common Dreams

"We are facing a climate emergency that requires a massive and immediate federal mobilization."

by 

Eoin Higgins, staff writer

 21 Comments

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks to the media after the second night of the first Democratic presidential debate on June 27, 2019 in Miami. (Photo: Cliff Hawkins/Getty Images)

A cohort of progressive Democrats plan to introduce a resolution declaring a climate emergency Tuesday in Congress, a move that could open the door to decisive action on the crisis.

The Guardian's Emily Holden reported Monday afternoon that Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) are expected to introduce a resolution calling for naming the climate crisis an "emergency" on Tuesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, also plans to introduce the resolution in the upper chamber, according to the reporting.

In comment to The Guardian, Blumenauer's office said that the congressman "decided to draft the resolution after Donald Trump declared an emergency at the U.S. border with Mexico so he could pursue building a wall between the two countries."

In her reporting, Holden urged caution.

"Even if the resolution passed and was signed by the president, it would not force any action on climate change," wrote Holden. "But advocates say similar efforts in Canada and the United Kingdom have served as a leverage point, highlighting the hypocrisy between the government position that the situation is an emergency and individual decisions that would exacerbate the problem."

A spokesperson for Sanders said the senator was moving forward on the resolution because President Donald Trump's policies are making things worse. 

"On the existential threat of climate change, Trump insists on calling it a hoax," said the spokesperson. "Senator Sanders is proud to partner with his House colleagues to challenge this absurdity and have Congress declare what we all know: we are facing a climate emergency that requires a massive and immediate federal mobilization."

The news came just before Trump delivered a climate address dismissed by the Environmental Working Group as an "utter fantasy."

On Twitter, Sanders leveled criticisms on the president donning the mantle of a climate advocate. 

"We don't have time for more lies," said Sanders. "We must address the climate crisis now."

News of the upcoming resolution was welcomed by progressive organizations. 

"The climate crisis is a true emergency, and it must be dealt with as such," the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee tweeted, thanking the lawmakers for their action. 

The Democratic Socialists of America said on Twitter that Sanders understands "this isn't just climate change, it's a climate emergency."

"The solution is to reorganize our economy so it works for both people and the planet, not the profit of fossil fuel companies," the group added.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

'No, No I Do Not': Kamala Harris Clarifies She Does Not Support Abolishing Private Insurance

Published on Friday, June 28, 2019

by  Common Dreams

"I am a proponent of Medicare for All. Private insurance will exist for supplemental coverage," the California senator said

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

11 Comments

Former Vice President Joe Biden looks on as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) raise their hands during the second night of the first Democratic presidential debate on June 27, 2019 in Miami, Florida. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

For the second time in a period of five months, Sen. Kamala Harris was forced to clarify Friday morning that she does not support eliminating private health insurance just hours after making it seem to many that she did.

"No, no I do not," Harris said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when asked if she supports abolishing private insurance. "I am a proponent of Medicare for All. Private insurance will exist for supplemental coverage."

Harris's remarks came after she raised her hand in response to an "awkwardly phrased" question from NBC's Lester Holt during Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate.

"Many people watching at home have health insurance through their employer," Holt said. "Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan?"

Tonight's candidates who raised their hands to abolish private insurance: Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris pic.twitter.com/MG58k71hUV

— Axios (@axios) June 28, 2019

Harris said she interpreted the question as asking whether she would be willing to give up her own private insurance plan in favor of a government-run program like Medicare for All.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead Senate sponsor of the Medicare for All Act of 2019, was the only other candidate on the stage who raised his hand in response to Holt's question.

According to The Hill, "Sanders's plan would cover every medically necessary service, including dental, vision, and long-term care for people with disabilities. That would leave little room for private insurers to cover anything except cosmetic surgery."

"Harris has seized on this technicality in the past," The Hill reported, "to argue that Medicare for All wouldn't eliminate private insurance and that 'supplemental coverage' would still exist."

Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Washington Post in May that, "As a technical matter, the Medicare for All bill would allow private insurers to sell supplemental policies for benefits not covered by the government plan."

"As a practical matter," Levitt said, "the government plan covers such a comprehensive set of benefits that there would be virtually no role for private insurance."

Harris's comments Friday mark the second time this year she has clarified her position on private health insurance following a television appearance.

During a CNN town hall in January, Harris suggested she would support eliminating private insurance. Just hours later, a Harris campaign aide put out a statement saying the senator is open to multiple incremental healthcare plans that would keep private insurance intact.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Financed by Tax on Wall Street Speculators, Sanders Plan Would Wipe Out All $1.6 Trillion in US Student Loan Debt

Published on Monday, June 24, 2019

by Common Dreams

"We bailed out Wall Street in 2008. It's time to tax Wall Street's greed to help the American people."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

16 Comments

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks to the crowd during the 2019 South Carolina Democratic Party State Convention on June 22, 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo: Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

As part of a bold legislative package that would make public colleges and universities tuition-free, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday will unveil a plan to wipe out the $1.6 trillion in student loan debt that is saddling an estimated 45 million Americans.

"In a generation hard hit by the Wall Street crash of 2008, it forgives all student debt and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the 'crime' of getting a college education."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

"This is truly a revolutionary proposal," Sanders told the Washington Post, which reported the details of the Vermont senator's bill late Sunday. "In a generation hard hit by the Wall Street crash of 2008, it forgives all student debt and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the 'crime' of getting a college education."

Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, will introduce his proposal alongside Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who plan to unveil the Student Debt Cancellation Act and the College for All Act in the House.

"I am one of the 45 million people with student debt—45 million people who are held back from pursuing their dreams because of the student debt crisis," Omar tweeted Sunday. "It's why I'm proud to stand with Sen. Sanders and Rep. Jayapal to pass college for all and cancel student debt."

The three lawmakers introduced their proposals in a press conference Monday morning outside the U.S. Capitol building. Watch:

Vox's Tara Golshan called Sanders's legislative package the "most ambitious higher education plan in the Democratic 2020 presidential primary so far."

Unlike means-tested plans introduced by other 2020 contenders, Golshan observed, Sanders's legislation would cancel student debt for everyone "regardless of their income or assets."

"While this is a universal program—students from any financial background would benefit from the elimination of tuition—the proposal specifically targets lower-income students by increasing the federal Pell Grant program, tripling funding for the work-study program, and creating a dollar-for-dollar federal match to states to eliminate additional costs related to going to college," Golshan wrote.

According to the Post, Sanders would pay for his plan with "a tax on Wall Street his campaign says will raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years."

"Sanders is proposing to pay for the legislation with a new tax on financial transactions, including a 0.5 percent tax on stock transactions and a 0.1 percent tax on bonds," the Post reported. "Such a levy would curb Wall Street speculation while reducing income inequality, according to a report by the Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank."

Warren Gunnels, Sanders's staff director, tweeted, "If we could give a multi-trillion bailout to Wall Street, yes we can make college for all a reality."

We'll pay for #CollegeforAll & our #CancelStudentDebt plan through a tax on Wall Street speculators that's estimated to raise $2.4 trillion over 10-years. The middle class bailed out Wall Street in 2008. Now, it's Wall Street's turn to return the favor. https://t.co/58YPvXQ9JK

— Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) June 24, 2019

Sanders echoed Gunnels in a tweet Sunday night, writing, "We bailed out Wall Street in 2008. It's time to tax Wall Street's greed to help the American people."

According to the Post, the Vermont senator's new plan will go beyond the tuition-free public college proposal that was a key plank of his 2016 presidential campaign platform.

"Sanders's bill includes $1.3 billion a year for low-income students at historically black colleges and universities," the Post reported, "and $48 billion per year for eliminating tuition and fees at public schools and universities."

The Vermont senator's debt cancellation proposal comes just weeks after he unveiled a sweeping K-12 education platform that includes a national ban on for-profit charter schools, free universal school meals, and a significant raise for teachers.

"More than one million people default on their student loans each year," Sanders tweeted Sunday. "We have got to make public colleges and universities tuition-free."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Repubs Would Crucify Bernie on the Cross of Socialism, But Elizabeth Warren Will Genuflect at the Altar of Capitalism

by John Lawrence, June 21, 2019

I used to want Bernie for the Demo nominee, but I've changed my mind after realizing that Elizabeth is proclaiming herself as a diehard capitalist. It's just labels, folks. They're meaningless except for the fact that Elizabeth has taken away the Repubs one track attack against the Demo nominee, whoever it is. Elizabeth's policies are just as radical as Bernie's except she doesn't call them socialist. They both want more or less the same things: 1)Tax the rich; 2) Eliminate student loan debt; 3) Free public college education; 4) Medicare for All Sorta; 5) $15 per hour minimum age; 6) Green New Deal Sorta. Warren's plans are both more realistic and less dogmatic than Bernie's. I like Bernie Sanders very much. I just think the Repubs will slaughter him over his self selected label: democratic socialist. Elizabeth will neutralize the Repub strategy on this while retaining most of Bernie's agenda.

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Thank you, William Shakespeare for providing the perfect metaphor for the socialist vs capitalist brou ha ha. It's the policies that Bernie or Warren would enact not what they call themselves that is of utmost importance. In that regard they are both more or less the same. Grist reported:

In February, Warren co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution that Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York introduced. In April, Warren released a public lands plan, promising to sign executive orders to ban new fossil fuel leases on federal acres and demarcate more areas for renewable energy. In May, she outlined a plan to dramatically slash emissions generated by the U.S. military, one of the world’s biggest polluters.

On Tuesday, the Warren campaign released its most comprehensive climate plan yet, a $2 trillion package that commits the federal government to spend $150 billion a year over the next decade on low-carbon technology, increases energy research funding tenfold, and funds a $100 billion Green Marshall Plan to aid the poorer countries projected to suffer the worst as global temperatures rise.

In modeling her proposals on the post-World War II Marshall Plan aid package that helped rebuild Western Europe, Warren takes stock of the global nature of the crisis.

So call it a Green New Deal or call it something else. Jobs, Climate Change, Infrastructure - all these things are really important to deal with under whatever umbrella you like. Elizabeth's proposal also covers other countries so it would become a part of her foreign policy instead of the Trump foreign policy of slapping sanctions and tariffs on every country that doesn't agree with him and a lot that do. This would counter or complement in a positive way the Chinese Belt and Road initiative which is building infrastructure and gaining friends all over the world. Let's have a competition based on peace initiatives instead of war for once. Then maybe the planet, which may become uninhabitable otherwise, would be worth saving from global warming.

Elizabeth's concentration on free college and forgiveness of student loan debt up to $50,000. will get the attention of a lot of millenials. They then will be able to get on with their lives and afford to buy houses instead of spending all their income just paying off student loan debt.

The next question is who would be a good running mate should Elizabeth get the nomination. My vote is for Cory Booker. The VP would have to be a man and preferably a man of color. Cory fits that description and he is running pretty high in the polls. I think he is a fighter as well, and wouldn't allow Trump to intimidate Elizabeth the way he intimidated Hillory. He would call Trump out for what he is - a blowhard, a phony, a liar and an ignoramus. Elizabeth is a fighter as well. Neither of them would allow Trump to get away with the stuff he got away with in 2016.

Bernie Sanders' Radical New Proposal Could Transform America

Michael Nigro / Truthdig

by Marjorie Cohn, truthdig, June 16, 2019

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivered a full-throated defense of democratic socialism in his June 12 speech at George Washington University. Sanders quoted FDR’s 1944 State of the Union address: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”

Sanders, like FDR, proposed an Economic Bill of Rights, including the rights to health care, affordable housing, education, a living wage and retirement.

“Economic rights are human rights,” Sanders declared. “That is what I mean by democratic socialism.”

Sanders cited figures of vast wealth disparity in the United States, where “the top 1 percent of people own more wealth than the bottom 92 percent.” He said there is higher income and wealth inequality today than at any time since the 1920s. And, Sanders stated, “despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, the average wage of the American worker in real dollars is no higher than it was 46 years ago and millions of people are forced to work two or three jobs just to survive.”

He also noted, “in America today, the very rich live on average 15 years longer than the poorest Americans.”

Economic Rights Are Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets forth two different categories of human rights: (1) civil and political rights, and (2) economic, social and cultural rights.

Civil and political rights comprise the rights to life, a fair trial and self-determination; freedom of speech, expression, assembly and religion; and freedom from torture, cruel treatment and arbitrary detention. Economic, social and cultural rights include the rights to health care, education and social security; the right to form and join unions and to strike; and the right to equal pay for equal work, unemployment insurance, paid maternity leave, and the prevention, treatment and control of diseases.

These two types of human rights are enshrined in two international treaties — the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The United States has ratified the ICCPR, but not the ICESCR. U.S. policy since the Reagan administration has been to define human rights only as civil and political rights, excluding economic, social and cultural rights from the realm of human rights.

The ICESCR, which has been ratified by 169 countries, guarantees the rights to work with favorable conditions, to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, to education, to housing, to an adequate standard of living, and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and cultural freedom. It protects the rights to form and join trade unions, social security and social insurance, equal rights for men and women, and protection and assistance to the family.

Cuba, whose human rights record is frequently criticized by the U.S. government, puts the United States to shame with its recognition of economic rights. Cubans enjoy universal health care, universal free education including higher education, the right to form and join unions, and government-subsidized abortion and family planning. Cuba has a higher life expectancy than the U.S., as well as a relatively small ecological footprint due to low energy consumption.

Democratic Socialism vs. Corporate Socialism

Trump and his fellow oligarchs oppose democratic socialism, Sanders said, but “they don’t really oppose all forms of socialism.” Indeed, “they absolutely love corporate socialism that enriches Trump and other billionaires.”

Sanders cited the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street in 2008 by the Treasury Department “after their greed, recklessness and illegal behavior created the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression — with millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes and their life savings — Wall Street’s religious adherence to unfettered capitalism suddenly came to an end.”

He also mentioned tax breaks and loopholes for fossil fuel companies, pharmaceutical companies, Amazon, and the Trump family who “got $885 million worth of tax breaks and subsidies for your family’s housing empire that is built on racial discrimination.”

As Dr. King observed, the United States “has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”

Embracing Socialism Is a Winning Strategy

Sanders noted that FDR and his progressive coalition were successful, and their legacies continue to flourish in programs and protections like Social Security, regulation of Wall Street and unemployment compensation. He pointed out that Roosevelt aimed to go further.

“In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfill that vision. Our job, 75 years later,” Sanders said, “is to complete what Roosevelt started.”

He then set forth his vision of a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights, which would recognize that all Americans should have:

• The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
• The right to quality health care
• The right to a complete education
• The right to affordable housing
• The right to a clean environment
• The right to a secure retirement

Sanders listed Democratic presidents vilified by the oligarchs of their time for their programs of alleged “socialism.” Lyndon Johnson was attacked for Medicare, Harry Truman’s proposed national health care program was dubbed “socialized medicine,” and Newt Gingrich called Bill Clinton’s health care plan “centralized bureaucratic socialism.”

Although none of the other leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has embraced socialism, the party’s base has. Candidate John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado, was roundly booed at the California Democratic convention earlier this month when he said, “If we want to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the answer.”

Indeed, Thomas Piketty, author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, argues, “Without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same coalition and to deliver a reduction in inequality.”

Keith A. Spencer, writing at Salon, cites Piketty for the proposition that “nominating centrist Democrats who don’t speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting.”

Moreover, a 2018 Gallup poll determined that a majority of young Americans have a positive opinion of socialism. According to a recent Axios poll, 55 percent of women ages of 18 to 54 would prefer to live in a socialist country.

Sanders said the U.S. and the rest of the world face two different political paths. “On one hand,” he noted, “there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country. On the other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people who, in ever increasing numbers, are fighting for justice.”

After his speech, Sanders told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, that real change is generated by mass movements. He cited the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay movement and the labor movement.

“It is time for the American people to stand up and fight for their right to freedom, human dignity and security,” Sanders affirmed. “This is the core of what my politics is all about.” He clarified, “the only way we achieve these goals is through a political revolution.”

Off the Top of My Head

What the Hell Does Socialism Have to Do With It at This Point?

by John Lawrence, June 5, 2019

The Repubs are determined to castigate socialism as their strategy to defeat the next Democratic Presidential hopeful. Socialism is totally irrelevant both as a party and as a philosophy at this point. What is important is Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. In the American political system third parties only damage the party they are ideologically closes to. That's just the way the American system is set up by the Constitution. So membership in a socialist party is a waste of time. In Europe where they have a parliamentary system, multiple parties have some meaning because they can gain representation in Parliament proportional to their numbers. So trying to tag a Green New Deal as socialist has little meaning. Americans by and large vote their self-interest whatever that may be regardless of political affiliation. However, even the Democrats and Republicans are irrelevant to the extent that there are now two tribes in America rather than two parties - the Southern White Tribe and the Left and Right Coast Tribe. Some people will vote with their tribe even when it's not in their self-interest. The Southern White Tribe, for example, has been largely co-opted by rich Republican interests.

Regardless of tribes or parties, there is not much time left to do something about climate change. We have maybe a decade to turn it around so that the planet earth isn't visited with the most devastating effects thereof. If joining practically every other nation on earth (except Zimbabwe) with a rational, effective national health care system which Medicare for All represents is socialist, well I guess pretty much all nations of earth have decided to be socialist. The US and in particular Trump's America has totally abandoned any pretext as far as any concern for the American people is concerned in terms of the environment, protection from predatory lenders, safety of consumer products etc. Their theme song is "Buyer Beware", Caveat Emptor! Trump promised to put America First, but he's just putting America behind the eight ball and doing a pretty good job of fucking up the whole world.

Here are the relevant issues which Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and other mainly progressive Democrats are talking about which will not be discussed much in the mainstream American media: universal health care, a World War II type effort to forestall climate change and  convert to renewable energy, rebuilding and improving American infrastructure, diminishing the economic divide between the ultra rich and the rest of us, diminishing the ridiculously high military budget, reining in the national debt which will soon cost the American people $1 trillion per year just in interest alone, providing housing for the homeless. There's a lot more, but these issues will do for now. Republicans are not interested in doing anything about these issues. They love the status quo because it's making them rich. Any Republican elected to Congress can easily become a millionaire. It's a no brainer.

Joe Biden is an amiable guy, and probably the one who can get down and dirty in the mud with Trump and take him out the best, but there are more important issues on the table, namely the ones mentioned above. It's not just a question of taking down Trump. It's a question of solving major problems that Trump and other Republicans, mainly, have created. Dems need to go for broke on this one. Middle of the Road Joe is just not the man or woman for the job. Major changes have to occur and Dems cannot afford to have some middeof the road, go slow, restore the status quo ante type of guy as their Presidential candidate. Bernie and either Kamala or Elizabeth Warren should be the ticket. I prefer Kamala over Elizabeth only because we only need one, not two, policy wonks on the ballot. Kamala adds more in terms of beauty and ethnicity to balance Bernie's wonkiness.

A Message From Bernie

One of the great crises facing the global community today is that democracy, the right of ordinary people to control their own lives, is on the defensive while authoritarianism is growing stronger.

And at its root is the fact that a handful of incredibly wealthy people are exerting enormous economic and political power over the planet. Unbelievably, in the global economy today, the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, and a handful of billionaires own more than the bottom half of people around the world — that’s 3.7 billion people.

That is the reality.

People in our own country, and around the world, are angry and betrayed, and they feel that nobody is listening to their pain.

And one of the results of that reality is that in Europe, in Russia, in the Middle East, in Asia and elsewhere we are seeing movements led by demagogues who exploit people’s fears, prejudices and grievances to achieve and hold on to power.

Next week, Donald Trump is set to welcome one of those leaders into the White House: Hungary’s far-right authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.

Now, I have always found it very strange that Trump has such a hard time getting along with leaders of the world’s major democracies but feels very comfortable with authoritarians like Orbán, Putin, Xi Jinping, Bolsonaro and Mohammad bin Salman.

But the truth is, while they all differ in some respects, they share a number of key attributes: hostility toward democratic norms, antagonism toward a free press, intolerance toward ethnic and religious minorities, and a belief that government should benefit their own selfish financial interests.

This trend certainly did not begin with Trump, but there’s no question that authoritarian leaders around the world have drawn inspiration from the fact that the leader of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy seems to delight in shattering democratic norms.

Other authoritarian states are much farther along this kleptocratic process. In Russia, it is impossible to tell where the decisions of government end and the interests of Vladimir Putin and his circle of oligarchs begin. They operate as one unit. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, there is no debate about separation because the natural resources of the state, valued at trillions of dollars, belong to the Saudi royal family. In Hungary, far-right authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán is openly allied with Putin in Russia. In China, an inner circle led by Xi Jinping has steadily consolidated power, clamping down on domestic political freedom while it aggressively promotes a version of authoritarian capitalism abroad.

So the question is: Where do we go from here?

To effectively oppose right-wing authoritarianism, we cannot simply go back to the failed status quo of the last several decades. In order to fight this trend, we need to strengthen the global coalition of progressive democrats.

While authoritarians promote division and hatred, we promote unity, inclusion, and an agenda based on economic, social, racial, and environmental justice.

The people of the world must come together to end the absurdity of rich and multinational corporations stashing over $21 trillion in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and then demanding that their respective governments impose an austerity agenda on their working families.

It is not acceptable that the fossil fuel industry continues to make huge profits while their carbon emissions destroy the planet for our children and grandchildren.

It is not acceptable that a handful of multinational media giants, owned by a small number of billionaires, largely control the flow of information on the planet.

It is not acceptable that trade policies that benefit large multinational corporations and encourage a race to the bottom hurt working people throughout the world as they are written out of public view.

It is not acceptable that, with the Cold War long behind us, countries around the world spend over $1 trillion a year on weapons of destruction, while millions of children die of easily treatable diseases.

In order to effectively combat the rise of the international authoritarian axis, we need a global progressive movement that mobilizes behind a vision of shared prosperity, security and dignity for all people and that addresses the massive inequality that exists, not only in wealth but in political power as well.

Such a movement must be willing to think creatively and boldly about the world that we would like to see.

We must take the opportunity to reconceptualize a genuinely progressive global community based on human solidarity, that recognizes that every person on this planet shares a common humanity, that we all want our children to grow up healthy, to have a good education, have decent jobs, drink clean water, breathe clean air, and live in peace.

Our job is to reach out to those in every corner of the world who share these values and who are fighting for a better world.

In a time of exploding wealth and technology, we have the potential to create a decent life for all people. Our job is to build on our common humanity and do everything that we can to oppose all of the forces, whether unaccountable government power or unaccountable corporate power, who try to divide us up and set us against each other.

We know that those forces work together across borders. We must do the same.

Thank you for reading.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

Sanders Says Biden's "Middle Ground" Approach to Climate Crisis Would "Doom Future Generations"

Published on Friday, May 10, 2019

by Common Dreams

The Vermont senator and 2020 presidential candidate said the U.S. must commit to "fully transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels"

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

26 Comments

"There is no 'middle ground' when it comes to climate policy," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 2020 presidential candidate. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Without mentioning Joe Biden by name, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday slammed the centrist climate policy reportedly being crafted by the former vice president's 2020 campaign as a dangerously inadequate approach that would "doom future generations."

"There is no 'middle ground' when it comes to climate policy," the Vermont senator tweeted, quoting from a Reuters report on Biden's efforts to develop a climate plan that would leave the door open to so-called "fossil fuel options."

"If we don't commit to fully transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels, we will doom future generations," wrote Sanders, who is also a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. "Fighting climate change must be our priority, whether fossil fuel billionaires like it or not."

There is no “middle ground” when it comes to climate policy. If we don't commit to fully transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels, we will doom future generations. Fighting climate change must be our priority, whether fossil fuel billionaires like it or not.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 10, 2019

As Common Dreams reported in April, Sanders won praise from environmental groups after he unveiled a sweeping climate agenda calling for a Green New Deal, an end to oil exports, a complete ban on fracking, and a moratorium on all new fossil fuel infrastructure projects.

Environmentalists were not pleased with reports of Biden's middle-of-the-road approach to confronting the climate crisis, which has pushed a million species to the brink of extinction and threatens the future of human civilization.

Echoing Sanders and the chorus of green groups voicing their concerns, Greenpeace USA climate campaigner Charlie Jiang said in a statement, "There is no such thing as a middle ground on climate change."

"We either doom millions of people to climate catastrophe or we don't," said Jiang.

Author and climate activist Naomi Klein also weighed in, tweeting, "there is bold, transformative action or there is sinking ground, burning ground, and churning ground."

No Joe, there is no "middle ground" on climate breakdown - there is bold, transformative action or there is sinking ground, burning ground and churning ground. "Presidential hopeful Biden looking for ‘middle ground’ climate policy" https://t.co/8q2WPzU7w0

— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) May 10, 2019

Climate scientists joined environmentalists in criticizing what is known of Biden's draft plan—which will reportedly center around re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement—as insufficient to the task of dramatically curbing carbon emissions, as the scientific evidence says is necessary to avert planetary disaster.

"The greatest fault in his proposal is the suggestion that natural gas can be part of the solution," Michael Mann, head of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, told HuffPost. "The solution to a problem created by burning fossil fuels cannot be the burning of fossil fuels."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

New CBO Report on Medicare for All Is a Serious and Positive Contribution

Published on Saturday, May 04, 2019

by Common Dreams

Contrary to some press reports, the CBO study should be seen as useful and encouraging to advocates of Medicare for All

by Robert Pollin

 

0 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks while introducing healthcare legislation titled the "Medicare for All Act of 2019" with Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) during a news conference on Capitol Hill, on April 9, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report on May 1, 2019 titled "Key Design Components and Considerations for Establishing a Single-Payer Health Care System." This report reviews a range of considerations as regards the design and implementation of a single- payer system as applied to the United States. The Medicare for All bills currently before both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, as introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal and Senator Bernie Sanders respectively, both advocate the adoption of a single-payer system for the U.S.

The CBO report (pdf) properly examines both the positive potential as well as matters of concern in establishing a single-payer system in the U.S. As the report states, "A single-payer system would present both opportunities and risks for the health care system."

Overall, the CBO report, as with all such analyses, needs to address two fundamental issues with respect to the establishment of a single-payer system for the U.S. These are: 1) Is a single-payer system capable of providing good-quality care to all U.S. residents; and 2) Is a single-payer system capable of significantly reducing overall U.S. health care costs while still delivering universal good-quality care? The report does not provide explicit answers, yes or no, to these questions. But it does present a framework for understanding how the U.S. could, in fact, establish a successful single-payer system.

"A single-payer system would provide coverage for the 114 million U.S. residents who are presently either uninsured or underinsured. Healthcare outcomes for these 114 million people—35 percent of the U.S. population—will therefore almost certainly improve under a single-payer system."

 

It is crucial to provide some context for recognizing the potential of a U.S. single- payer system as presented within the CBO report. It is especially illuminating to consider some basic indicators on the operations of the current U.S. health care system in comparison with those of other high-income economies. Thus, as of 2017, the U.S. spent $3.3 trillion on health care. This equaled 17 percent of US GDP, with average spending at about $10,000 per person. By contrast, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, the UK, Australia, Spain and Italy spent between 9 – 11 percent of GDP on health care, averaging between $3,400 - $5,700 per person. Yet, by most measures—including those based on the “amenable mortality rate,” which tracks medically preventable deaths—average health outcomes in all of these countries are superior to those in the UnitedStates.

The most basic cause of this poor U.S. performance is inadequate access to good- quality care. Roughly 9 percent of the U.S. population, 28 million people, are uninsured. Another 26 percent, 86 million people, are underinsured—i.e. they have insurance but are unable to access medical care because their deductibles or co-pays are prohibitively high. A large share of the remaining 65 percent of the population who are adequately insured still face high costs as well as anxiety over whether they could manage financially when they face any serious health issue.

Within this context, how, then, does the CBO assess the prospects for a U.S. single-payer system delivering good-quality universal coverage as well as significantly reduced overall health-care spending? We can summarize their perspectives briefly.

Good-quality universal coverage

The CBO is clear, first of all, that a single-payer system would achieve universal coverage, in dramatic contrast with our present system. The report states, "People who are currently uninsured would receive coverage and some people who are currently insured could receive additional benefits under the single-payer system, depending on its design." In other words, a single-payer system would provide coverage for the 114 million U.S. residents who are presently either uninsured or underinsured. Healthcare outcomes for these 114 million people—35 percent of the U.S. population—will therefore almost certainly improve under a single-payer system.

The CBO does not take an explicit position as to whether a single-payer system will also deliver benefits for the 65 percent of the population which presently has full health-insurance coverage. On the one hand, the report does note both the prospects for both improved outcomes as well as reduced costs as regards this population cohort, observing that:

Unlike private insurers, which can experience substantial enrollee turnover over time, a single-payer system without that turnover would have a greater incentive to invest in measures to improve people’s health and in preventive measures that have been shown to reduce costs.

It is also the case that both the Jayapal and Sanders bills offer more extensive coverage than is currently provided under a typical employer-sponsored policy, including significant support for long-term care. Expanding coverage in such ways should further improve overall health outcomes for those already insured. But the CBO also recognizes that the expansion of coverage to the uninsured and underinsured will entail increased overall demands on the country’s supply of health care resources. It is therefore possible, as the report notes, that this could produce shortages in terms of availability of providers, which, in turn, could mean reductions in quality of care. This is a legitimate issue which the CBO has properly highlighted.

More specifically, the single-payer system will need to be capable of establishing measures through which the provision of provider services can increase to match the increased demand resulting from universal coverage. I examined this question in depth in a 200-page peer-reviewed study with co-authors released last November, "Economic Analysis of Medicare for All." In our study, we conclude that a single-payer system will produce major reductions in the administrative burdens throughout the whole health-care system. The CBO report also recognizes this prospect for major reductions in administrative burdens under single-payer. These dramatic cuts in administration will then mean significantly less paperwork for doctors and nurses, freeing them to spend more time treating patients. On balance, our study concluded that this effective increase in the providers’ available time to treat patients should roughly match the increased demand for their services resulting from universal coverage.

Reducing Health-Care Costs

Much of the CBO report is focused around specific issues in designing the payment system. These include: provider payment methods; global budgets; capitated payments; payment rates for providers; and the setting of prescription drug prices. These are all critical concerns, and the CBO report is now a valuable resource in summarizing them. But the report does not take a position as to whether a U.S. single-payer system will be able to successfully control costs. Rather, the study concludes that:

The cost of a single-payer system would depend on various design choices such as the services covered, cost-sharing requirements, and provider payment rates.

In addition to those design choices, policymakers could consider using two other techniques to contain the growth of government spending on the single-payer plan and total health care spending: global budgets and utilization management. (p.26)

The CBO assessment here is indisputable. It is therefore incumbent on the designers of a single-payer system to consider the range of design choices with great care, to achieve the potential cost savings that are available through a well-designed system. It is evident from comparing the U.S. health care system with those of other high-income economies that there is massive potential for cost savings in the U.S. system, with, as noted above, the comparison countries spending between 9 – 11 percent of GDP on health care while the U.S. spends 17 percent. Within the present U.S. economy, every percentage point of GDP amounts to roughly $200 billion. Thus, even reducing our current health care spending by 2 percentage points relative to GDP would yield an astronomical $400 billion in savings, even while our healthcare system budget, as a share of GDP, would remain far above those of other advanced economics.

The CBO study is therefore to be commended for describing a range of measures through which a U.S. single-payer system can successfully implement significant cost savings while still delivering good-quality care for all residents. As such, the CBO study makes a positive contribution toward understanding the possibilities for creating a fair and workable health care system in the United States.

---

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

Off the Top of My Head

Medicare For All (Who Want It)

by John Lawrence, April 29, 2017

Bernie Sanders and other progressives want to change the health care system to a single payer system - Medicare For All. The main blowback by the health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations who like things just the way they are is that half of all Americans have employer provided health care and they like it just like that. So to finesse the whole issue I'm suggesting that what Bernie and other progressives should be talking about is Medicare for All Who Want It. In other words if someone like the health care they currently have, let them keep it. The Medicare system is already set up. It would be so easy to just accept more people under that umbrella with minimal disruption.

What could be simpler? You let the current system exist, but you open up the possibility that anyone can opt in to the Medicare system if they should so desire. You are not creating a new health care system from scratch. You are not imposing it on anyone. Obama said, if we were creating a health care system from scratch, he would be in favor of single payer. But since we were not, he and other Democrats came up with the fatally flawed system of Obamacare whose main strong point was that no one could be refused health care because of preexisting conditions. All well and good, but Obamacare had no cost containment features. I wouldn't be surprised if a Medicare for All Who Want It system were set up - and it could be implemented by  simply changing of the law in Congress - that a lot of people would abandon their employer based health care system and join it.

Sanders proposed plan is almost too generous which is out of line with other countries that have universal health care. Vox reported:

The biggest difference between this plan and the version Sanders introduced in 2017 is the addition of a long-term care benefit that would cover care for Americans with disability at home or in community settings. This benefit was also added into the House version of the Medicare-for-all bill earlier this year.

The plan is significantly more generous than the single-payer plans run by America’s peer countries. The Canadian health care system, for example, does not cover vision or dental care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, or home health services. Instead, two-thirds of Canadians take out private insurance policies to cover these benefits. The Netherlands has a similar set of benefits (it also excludes dental and vision care), as does Australia.

What’s more, the Sanders plan does not subject consumers to any out-of-pocket spending on health aside from prescriptions drugs. This means there would be no charge when you go to the doctor, no co-payments when you visit the emergency room. All those services would be covered fully by the universal Medicare plan.

Bernie's plan is not the last word. Most other universal health care systems have co-pays. There's no reason why a Medicare for All system shouldn't have them too. I and Frank Thomas have written extensively about the health care system in the Netherlands which is a universal system, but is not government provided health care. You can read about it here. I am not that concerned about paying for a Medicare for All system. We have no problem paying for a trillion dollar defense budget which is not even capable of defending our borders. Of course, the wealthy should be taxed more, but the point is that there are myriad ways of paying for it especially if it is adopted incrementally which a Medicare For All Who Want It system would be. It could be set up in such a way that only so many would be let in every year so as not to overwhelm the system. Maybe we should start with 55 to 65 year olds first.

'That Backfired': Watch Bernie Sanders Counter Right-Wing Talking Point, Make Case for Medicare for All on Fox News

Published on Tuesday, April 16, 2019 by Common Dreams

The Fox town hall audience cheered when moderator Bret Baier polled support for transitioning to a single-payer system

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

22 Comments

 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) participates in a Fox News town hall on April 15, 2019, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. (Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)

During a town hall hosted by Fox News Monday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders countered one of the most common right-wing talking points against Medicare for All and made the case for transitioning to a single-payer system—sparking applause from the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania audience.

"Democratic socialism, to me, is creating a government and an economy and a society which works for all, rather than just the top one percent."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

"Millions of people, every single year, lose their health insurance. You know why? They get fired. Or They quit. And they go to another employer," said the Vermont senator and 2020 presidential contender after Fox moderator Bret Baier suggested 180 million Americans with employer-provided insurance would lose coverage under Medicare for All.

"Every year, millions of workers wake up in the morning and their employer has changed the insurance that they have," Sanders added. "So this is not new... Now what we're talking about actually is stability. That when you have a Medicare for All [program] it is there now and it will be there in the future."

Bernie counters talk-point about losing employer-based insurance. Points out that Medicare For All would provide everyone with long-term health care stability. #Bernie #BernieFoxTownHall #berniesanderstownhall pic.twitter.com/rdzZ7oB7Hh

— Digital Left (@DigitalLeft) April 16, 2019

When Baier polled the town hall audience to gauge support for switching to a Medicare for All system, most hands shot up and many cheered.

As activist Jordan Uhl put it, Baier's question "backfired spectacularly." According to recent polling, a majority of Republican voters support Medicare for All.

That backfired... #BernieTownHall pic.twitter.com/NCKNDIQauZ

— DSA for Medicare for All (@dsam4a) April 15, 2019

In addition to highlighting specific planks of his policy platform—from Medicare for All to tuition-free public college to a living wage—Sanders also used his Fox News town hall to explain his broader vision of a more egalitarian U.S. society, in which wealth and political power are not concentrated at the very top:

Democratic socialism, to me, is creating a government and an economy and a society which works for all, rather than just the top one percent. It means ending the absurd inequalities that exist today. And I want to lay this out, because you're not going to hear this much on Fox. And you're not going to hear this much in the media in general. And the American people have got to conclude whether we think it is appropriate, and what America is about... to have three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society—160 million people. Whether it's appropriate for the top one percent to own more wealth than the bottom 92 percent. 

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont on Fox News: "Democratic socialism to me is creating a governor and an economy that works for all rather than just the top 1%.. we want to create a political system based on one person one vote not billionaires buying elections" #BernieTownHall pic.twitter.com/NzBjhisfux

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) April 15, 2019

Sanders closed his Fox appearance with call-and-response with the town hall audience on a broad array of issues, including infrastructure, wages, and taxes on the ultra-wealthy:

.@BernieSanders closing statement at #BernieTownHall on @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/mrpB9jTgwn

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) April 15, 2019

Watch the full town hall:

Part 1

Part 2

---

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

Off the Top of My Head

Democrats Could Lose to Trump if They Don't Play Their Cards Right

by John Lawrence, April 16, 2019

Big article about Joe Biden in Time magazine. Only nothing mentioned about the fact that he cast a vote taking bankruptcy protection away from student loan debtors and he never met a credit card company he didn't like. After all his state, Delaware, is where they're all incorporated. In the media it's all about Biden's touchy-feeliness which is irrelevant. Biden's too old and too associated with the status quo. I don't care if he's the most popular Democrat. He'll lose to Trump.

The fact is that the Republican base - about 30% - will vote for Trump even if he takes out his dong in the middle of Fifth Avenue and waves it around, let alone shooting somebody as he has stated. The same holds for the Democratic base. So the game is about peeling away just those voters who voted for Obama in 2012 and then turned around and voted for Trump in 2016. As Trump has been a disrupter so should the Democrat be a disrupter in the 2020 election. The best person to do that is Bernie Sanders. He sticks to a very simple economic message which is what the Democrats should be all about. They should forget all the peripheral issues, but they're prone to getting all tied up in them because the media prefers that and the Republicans would prefer that. Bernie has a clear message: Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. That's it.

Democrats also need to co-opt Trump's main issue: immigration. They need to take a realistic look and realize that Trump is right about some things. The asylum situation is a mess and smugglers are actively recruiting people in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to come to the US and seek asylum. They are organizing bus rides to the border. This is the reality, not some figment of Trump's imagination. The Democrats need to make this their issue as well and nullify Trump's appeal based on this single issue. Instead they are for the most part taking the totally unpopular side on this and letting the Republicans and the hate talkers define them as "open borders." Come on, Democrats, get real. I'm for humane treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers, but the point is that they are being professionally organized with only one thing in mind - to overwhelm the asylum system and thereby effectively gain permanent entry into the US.

The choice for Bernie's running mate is very important. Elizabeth Warren is great but she's too much like Bernie. Too much of a policy wonk and a firebrand. We need someone more mild and appealing but someone who has the same values as Bernie. Someone like Kamala Harris. Kamala is a very appealing person. First of all she's a beautiful woman, and, let's face it, beauty and personal appeal count for a lot in politics and in life. She's mixed race and did I say she's a woman. She would be a great contrast and a great balance for Bernie. She's young, and that's a point in her favor also. She's everything Bernie's not in terms of personal appearance, but they're both on the same wavelength politically.

I hope the Democratic establishment does not screw this up. We need Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. Stick to the economic issues and leave the peripheral and cultural issues for another day. The Left is going to vote for a Democrat anyway just like the Right will vote for Trump. The Democratic candidate for President in 2020 needs to be someone who can peel away enough Trump voters to win, and it will not be someone like Joe Biden running as a status quo candidate.

'I Felt Americans Needed to Know': Insurance Industry Whistleblower Gives Glimpse of Effort to Crush Medicare for All

Published on

Friday, April 12, 2019

by

Common Dreams

"The business model of for-profit health insurance depends on denying care to people who need it. These corporations can't be reasoned with, only defeated."

 

 

 

by

 Jake Johnson, staff writer

 50 Comments

"When the people begin organizing against private insurance, the lonely insurance executives turn to their only friends: the elected officials beholden to their cash," said Medicare for All campaigner and policy expert Tim Faust. (Image: Miami Business School)

In an effort to inform the public about the corporate forces working to crush Medicare for All, an employee at the insurance giant UnitedHealthcare leaked a video of his boss bragging about the company's campaign to preserve America's for-profit healthcare system.

"I felt Americans needed to know exactly who it is that's fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not a privilege." 
—whistleblower

Stein reported on Friday, UnitedHealthcare CEO Steve Nelson boasted about how much his company is doing to undermine Medicare for All, which is rapidly gaining support in Congress.

"One of the things you said: 'We're really quiet' or 'It seems like we're quiet.' Um, we've done a lot more than you would think," Nelson said. "We are advocating heavily and very involved in the conversation. Part of it is trying to be thoughtful about how we enter in the conversation, because there's a risk of seeming like it's self-serving."

According to the Post, which did not publish the video of Nelson's remarks, the executive said his company "opposes Medicare for All because it excludes the private sector, which he said does a better job of delivering healthcare than the government, and said he doubted how a single-payer system could be funded or effectively administered."

The UnitedHealth employee who leaked The Post this video says: “I felt Americans needed to know exactly who it is that’s fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not a privilege."https://t.co/fQAXmVTmdf

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) April 12, 2019

Nelson's remarks were leaked just days after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 presidential contender, unveiled his improved Medicare for All bill with the support of 14 Democratic senators and over 60 progressive organizations representing nurses, physicians, and consumer advocates.

Sanders called out insurance and pharmaceutical industry greed in a statementfollowing the introduction of his bill, which would virtually eliminate the private insurance industry and provide comprehensive healthcare to every American.

"When the people begin organizing against private insurance, the lonely insurance executives turn to their only friends: the elected officials beholden to their cash." 
—Tim Faust

"In my view, the current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with healthcare. It's all about greed and profiteering," said the Vermont senator. "It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows the top five health insurance companies to make over $20 billion in profits last year."

On Friday, Sanders took to Twitter to send Nelson a message.

"When we are in the White House your greed is going to end," Sanders wrote.

 

The UnitedHealth employee who leaked The Post this video says: “I felt Americans needed to know exactly who it is that’s fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not a privilege."https://t.co/fQAXmVTmdf

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) April 12, 2019

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of United Healthcare, raked in around $17 billion in profits and "spent about $8 million on lobbying efforts" in 2018, Stein reported.

UnitedHealthcare's fight against single-payer, Stein noted, comes "amid a broader push from the health insurance industry to prevent legislation to enact Medicare for All from getting off the ground, including by trying to direct Democrats toward more centrist efforts and reject plans that would effectively legislate many of the companies out of existence."

"[A]bout half a dozen representatives of lobbying firms said they had pushed for meetings with Democrats over single-payer and other proposed government expansions of healthcare," according to Stein.

In a statement to the Post, Medicare for All campaigner and policy expert Tim Faust said, "When the people begin organizing against private insurance, the lonely insurance executives turn to their only friends: the elected officials beholden to their cash."

The business model of for-profit health insurance depends on denying care to people who need it.

These corporations can't be reasoned with, only defeated: https://t.co/YY6K6xawzU #MedicareForAll

— SocialSecurityWorks (@SSWorks) April 12, 2019

One of the industry-backed groups leading the fight against Medicare for All is the Partnership for America's Health Care Future, which is comprised of major pharmaceutical and insurance interests.

The Partnership launched a six-figure ad campaign against Medicare for All earlier this year, warning the popular proposal "would cause massive disruption to the current healthcare system."

After the Partnership launched its first digital ad against Medicare for All in January, Wendell Potter—an insurance industry executive-turned-whistleblower—said, "It's almost impressive how many lies they're able to fit into such a short clip."

Watch Potter's breakdown of the Partnership's ad:

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

With Trillions in Safety Net Cuts, Bernie Sanders Says Trump Budget 'Breathtaking in Its Degree of Cruelty'

Published on Monday, March 11, 2019 by Common Dreams

"This is a budget for the military industrial complex, for corporate CEOs, for Wall Street, and for the billionaire class."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

65 Comments

Copies of volume 1 of President Donald Trump's new budget for Fiscal Year 2020 that has been delivered to the House Budget Committee, on March 11, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

If a budget is a statement of values and priorities, President Donald Trump's proposal for fiscal year 2020 clearly displays his commitment to enriching the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.

"Make no mistake about it: Trump's budget is a massive transfer of wealth from working class families to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in America."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

 

That was how Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) characterized Trump's $4.7 trillion budget request on Monday after the White House released details of the plan, which includes a massive increase in military spending and trillions of dollars in total cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

"The Trump budget is breathtaking in its degree of cruelty and filled with broken promises," Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement. "Donald Trump promised the American people that he would be a different type of Republican, that he would be a champion of the working American and that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But his budget does the exact opposite of what he promised the American people."

Over the next decade, Trump's budget—officially titled "A Budget for a Better America"—would slash Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, Medicare by $845 billion, and Social Security by $25 billion, according to Sanders' office. The president's blueprint also requests $8.6 billion in border wall funding.

"This is a budget for the military industrial complex, for corporate CEOs, for Wall Street, and for the billionaire class," Sanders said. "It is dead on arrival."

This is a budget for the military-industrial complex, for corporate CEOs, for Wall Street and for the billionaire class.

We don’t need billions of dollars for a wall that no one wants. We need a budget that works for all Americans, not just Trump and his billionaire friends. https://t.co/qKf8iXpYzF

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 11, 2019

Giving the Pentagon "even more than it hoped for," Trump's budget calls for an $861 billion increase in base military spending over the next ten years.

That sum, Sanders said, "could make public colleges and universities tuition-free over the next decade."

Warren Gunnels, Sanders' staff director, tweeted: "We don't need a magic wand or a genie to make public colleges free. We need to get our priorities right."

Over the next 10 years, Trump's budget would cut:
- $1.5 trillion from Medicaid
- $845 billion from Medicare
- $25B from Social Security
- $207B from college education
- $220B from food stamps

While base defense spending would increase by $861 billion https://t.co/o7IW4SQIMq

— Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) March 11, 2019

As the Washington Post's Jeff Stein and Amy Goldstein reported, Trump's budget proposal calls for coverting Medicaid into a block-grant system and handing states the power to set coverage rules—a move that would endanger the healthcare of millions of low-income Americans.

"Make no mistake about it: Trump's budget is a massive transfer of wealth from working class families to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in America," Sanders concluded.

---

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

To Defeat Trump With People-Powered Political Revolution, Bernie Sanders Announces 2020 Run

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

 

What's going to be different this time? "We're going to win," said the Senator from Vermont

 

 

Jon Queally, staff writer

 

 164 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced his 2020 run on Tuesday morning. "We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign," he told Vermont Public Radio, "and now it's time to move that revolution forward." (Image: USAmurica)

With an interview with Vermont Public Radio that aired early Tuesday morning, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) officially announced his candidancy for president in 2020, telling listeners in his home state he is determined to defeat President Donald Trump while building a grassroots-style campaign—with a network of "at least a million people"—designed to win Medicare for All, a national $15 minimum wage, reduced student debt, bold climate action, criminal justice and immigration reform, and create a political and economic system that works for the many and not just the few.

"If we are prepared to stand together, there is no limit to what the great people of our nation can accomplish." —Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)"I wanted to let the people of the state of Vermont know about this first," Sanders told VPR's Bob Kinzel. "And what I promise to do is, as I go around the country, is to take the values that all of us in Vermont are proud of—a belief in justice, in community, in grassroots politics, in town meetings—That's what I'm going to carry all over this country."

Sanders added, "We began the political revolution in the 2016 campaign, and now it's time to move that revolution forward."

Shortly after his radio appearance, Sanders released the following campaign video via Twitter:

I'm running for president. I am asking you to join me today as part of an unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign that will begin with at least 1 million people from across the country. Say you're in: https://t.co/KOTx0WZqRf pic.twitter.com/T1TLH0rm26

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 19, 2019

Highlighting some of the key issues he has fought for throughout his political career—and notable victories he has achieved as a lawmaker in the Senate—the video concludes with a unifying theme and a voiceover of Sanders declaring, "If we are prepared to stand together, there is no limit to what the great people of our nation can accomplish."

In his interview with VPR, Sanders explained he was running for president for two basic reasons: "Number one, I think the current occupant of the White House is an embarrassment to our country. I think he is a pathological liar, everyday telling one lie after another—and it gives me no pleasure to say that. I also think he is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, somebody who is gaining cheap political points by trying to pick on minorities, often undocumented immigrants."

Sanders said that he "cannot recall—certainly not in my lifetime or in modern history—that we've had a president that actually goes out of his way to try and divide the American people up based on where we were born or the color of our skin or our gender or whatever it may be. I think what a president has got to do is bring our people together and not divide us up."

The second reason, he added, is to complete the progress he started in the 2016 campaign by bringing serious solutions to the table—solutions once said to be too radical but, in fact, supported by large majorities of the American people.

In a letter sent to supporters, Sanders declared: "Together we can create a nation that leads the world in the struggle for peace and for economic, racial, social and environmental justice.  And together we can defeat Donald Trump and repair the damage he has done to our country."

Asked by CBS News in a separate interview that will air Tuesday what would be different in 2020 compared to 2016, Sanders said: "We're going to win."

In addition to vowing victory, Sanders said his campaign is going to "launch what I think is unprecedented in modern American history and that is a grassroots movement."

Powerful special interests may have the money, but we have the people. Supporters from all 50 states have donated to our unprecedented grassroots campaign. Say you're in: https://t.co/4YhCuNlKEk pic.twitter.com/d32UxxRi9q

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 19, 2019

Though not unexpected—with speculation rife in recent days and weeks about making his decision known—Sanders' status as the former candidate who won a number of state primaries and caucuses in 2016 and still the most popular elected lawmaker in the country, according to many polls, puts him in a strong position as the crowded Democratic field comes into further focus.

Supporters of Sanders who have been waiting patiently for the official announcement, celebrated the news:

IT'S HAPPENING: @BernieSanders is running.

Let's do this. Together: https://t.co/SVwNxmzZNs #FeelTheBern #Bernie2020 pic.twitter.com/ueKyirZNK8

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) February 19, 2019

He's running! #Bernie2020 pic.twitter.com/GgBLfQBTGl

— #Bernie2020 (@OFB2020) February 19, 2019

Norman Solomon, national coordinator of the independent Bernie Delegates Network in 2016 and now a coordinator of the relaunched Bernie Delegates Network, said Sanders is by far the most exciting candidate now in the running, especially because of his long history as a champion of grassroots campaigning and a proven commitment to transformative change.

"For decades he has made it clear he understands that the transformational power we need isn't handed down from on high—it's gained through grassroots activism and organizing to challenge injustice and the vast numbers of ills related to corporate power." 
—Norman Solomon, Bernie Delegates Network"Bernie is the only candidate for the Democratic nomination who has always been part of progressive movements," Solomon told Common Dreams. "For decades he has made it clear he understands that the transformational power we need isn't handed down from on high—it's gained through grassroots activism and organizing to challenge injustice and the vast numbers of ills related to corporate power."

Despite the virtues of other candidates in the Democratic field, Solomon believes Sanders "is qualitatively way ahead" of them all.

"The Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign offers us a much deeper and more sweeping vision of a humanistic society, in which great wealth and huge corporations will not only be strictly regulated—they'll also be compelled to serve the common good instead of the drive to maximize profits," Solomon said. "Whether the goal is Medicare for All, truly progressive taxation, tuition-free public college or absolute dedication to environmental protection, Bernie has been there first—and, by far, he remains the clearest, most authentic and most trustworthy candidate. For progressives, he's the real deal, not someone trying on progressive garb because of current political fashion."

Will it be easy? Not even close, Solomon acknowledged.

"Hold onto your hat," he warned. "The anti-Bernie mass media onslaught will become gale force. The only way to overcome that manifestation of corporate power will be via people power."

---

Frank Thomas' comment:

Speaking about people power to defeat Trump, Nate White, an articulate, witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response to the question:

WHY DO SOME BRITISH PEOPLE NOT LIKE DONALD TRUMP?

"A few things come to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditonally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom,no subtlety, no sensittivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honor and no grace - all qualties, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generally blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty, or even faintly amusing - not once ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically. I mean it quite literally; not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact . He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults, - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There’s never an under-layer of irony, complexitity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans may see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heros are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedty fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privelege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a sniveling side kick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He paticularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans llook at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little stress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer to us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
‘My God … what … have… I… created?’
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

---

A brilliant, humourously crunching critique of Trump’s character written in a typically British self-deprecating style to point out personal weaknesses and shortcomings - this time to put down our president’s self-obsessed, self-immortalizing, megalomaniacal qualities.

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

Medicare for All Has Been Embraced by 2020 Democrats for One Key Reason: Bernie Sanders

Published on Sunday, February 03, 2019 by Al-Jazeera English

Just a few years ago Sanders' call for 'Medicare far all' was deemed too extreme, but things are very different now.

by Cristina Tzintzun

 

7 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during a health care rally at the 2017 Convention of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee on September 22, 2017 in San Francisco, California. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

When all is said and done, there may be as many as two dozen Democratic hopefuls for the 2020 presidential nomination. But nearly all of them will have one thing in common: they'll be trumpeting one of Bernie Sanders' signature causes - upending our healthcare system in favour of a single payer system. We progressives call it, Medicare for All.

Since 2016, when the Independent senator from Vermont used his White House bid to call for Medicare for All so that all Americans have access to high-quality healthcare, the Democratic Party has bolted to the left. Nearly all of the candidates who have, up to now, announced their intentions to run for president in 2020 - and many of those who seem to be preparing to enter the race - support Medicare for All. 

"Nearly every American has experienced up-close the failures of our current system. That's why Bernie's initiatives on healthcare have taken hold with voters and the cast of Democratic hopefuls."

 

Julian Castro has said that passing Medicare for All would be his first priority as president. Elizabeth Warren has declared that she supports Medicare for All so "everyone gets covered and no one goes broke" because of the cost of healthcare. And Beto O'Rourke has said, "Medicare for All is the best way to get people covered."

It wasn't that long ago that advocating for a single payer system was thought to be political suicide. Yet, today, running on Medicare for All is one of the most popular positions. A recent poll showed that 70 percent of Americans supported Medicare for All. 

Ultimately, providing affordable healthcare for every American will be an uphill battle for any presidential candidate. In fact, some may still question the viability of a healthcare for all system. But the undeniable truth is that our current system has failed. It has left millions of Americans uninsured and struggling to get the healthcare they need even if they have insurance.

I ought to know. I live in the state with the highest uninsured rate in the country - Texas. While our state's elected leaders have long touted the expansive benefits of the so-called "Texas economic miracle", that miracle apparently did not include access to basic things like healthcare. You see, one in six Texans don't have health insurance.

Medicare for All could be an effective rallying cry for Democratic candidates. After all, Americans are tired of footing the bill for the most expensive healthcare in the world that still leaves millions of them uninsured. While Obamacare helped close the uninsured gap significantly, it didn't go far enough. The costs of healthcare are still soaring, and millions of Americans still don't have healthcare coverage. 

Nearly every American knows someone who doesn't have healthcare. My mother is one of the estimated 27 million that don't have health insurance. She has diabetes, and she is forced to cut her $12 pills in half to manage the disease because she can't afford the full cost for the medication she needs. When she is sick, she is afraid to go to the doctor because she can't afford it. Yet, she also can't afford to not get the medical care she needs.

Even if you are lucky enough to have health insurance, it is a bureaucratic nightmare of a system that often still leaves you owing thousands of dollars after an illness or injury.

Of course, some say that - because healthcare makes up one-sixth of the US economy - the issue is too challenging to tackle. But who are we kidding? An inefficient and expensive healthcare system is crippling our economy. Besides, surely, the most prosperous nation in the world can do a better job of caring for the citizens who helped make it so prosperous in the first place. 

Nearly every American has experienced up-close the failures of our current system. That's why Bernie's initiatives on healthcare have taken hold with voters and the cast of Democratic hopefuls. Those candidates have to know that it won't be enough in 2020 to simply say that you want to reform our current system or just try or make prescription drugs more affordable. Voters aren't looking to make gains on the margins, they are looking to end a system that they believe has wholly failed them. That's why we need Medicare for All. 

In 2016, Sanders' ideas were thought to be too extreme for the Democratic Party establishment. But, just a few years later, they are now the mainstream. It's unclear whether Sanders will once again enter the race for President. But this much is clear: his ideas have already won it.

---

© 2019 Al-Jazeera English