California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Has Changed the Narrative on Taxes

by John Lawrence

One of the great things that Biden has done is to take the tax issue away from Republicans. Remember when George H R Bush said, "Read my lips. No new taxes." The conventional wisdom at that time was that if taxes were raised, they would be raised on everyone from Joe Six Pack to Warren Buffet. It was also conventional wisdom that tax cuts would apply to everyone from the very rich to the very poor. The American public was not sophisticated enough to know that Republican tax cuts, although they would apply to everyone, were much more favorable to the rich than they were to the poor. Now Joe Biden has completely altered that narrative. In Joe Biden's world tax increases apply only to the rich and tax cuts apply only to the poor. What a major paradigm shift! Biden has repeated his mantra so many times that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 that now that scenario is starting to take hold in the American mind.

It's about time. The American public is starting to wake up to the reality that the very rich pay taxes at a lower rate than a nurse or a teacher or a fireman. If you're a hedge fund manager, you can take advantage of the 'carried interest' loophole to pay less than your fair share. As economic inequality has soared in the era of easy money, the very rich could take advantage of all sorts of games to make themselves even richer while most working people are living paycheck to paycheck. One way to restore some measure of equality is to increase taxes on the rich while cutting them on the poor. This idea was unheard of even a few years ago. Republicans rue the day when it was heard of thanks to Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders among others. Another way to restore some semblance of equality would be to tax wealth in addition to taxing income. People with assets, say, more than $50 million should pay a tax on their wealth while middle class and poor should be given help to start creating wealth for themselves. That would probably be something to do with home ownership since this is the way most middle class people have been able to create wealth for themselves.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for people of modest means to create wealth through home ownership because real estate prices have gone through the roof. It has become increasingly difficult for young people to come up with a down payment for a house, much less to make their monthly mortgage payments. The net result is that more and more people are forced into the situation of never owning property and being life time renters. This is the plan as private equity and hedge fund managers have accessed easy low interest money to buy up real estate and then rent it out so that the typical middle income young family is now renting a home from a hedge fund. NBC News reports: "The lack of supply of single-family homes has pushed up housing prices in many markets across the country — but would-be homebuyers find they are being outbid not just by other home seekers, but also by hedge funds." Hedge funds like the Blackstone group come in with all cash offers which are more attractive to sellers than the terms that average Joes and Janes can come up with. The Real Deal reports:

"Blackstone Group is planning to buy about 5,800 apartment units in San Diego for more than $1 billion.

"The New York-based private equity and investment firm has agreed to purchase 66 complexes across the city from the Conrad Prebys Foundation, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. It also plans to make $100 million in improvements to the properties.

"With the deal, Blackstone will own 6,700 units in the Southern California city. It already owns $4.5 billion of assets in the city, including the Legoland theme park and the historic Hotel del Coronado.

"“We look forward to ensuring that these properties continue to provide the community with a high-quality rental option at a good value,” Blackstone Real Estate’s global co-head, Kathleen McCarthy told the Union-Tribune.""

According to the San Diego Union, "The deal makes Blackstone one of the biggest real estate holders in San Diego County." The writing on the wall is that, if you want to own a home, you have to move out of San Diego where the median home price is $855,000. For instance the median home price in Indianapolis is $229,900.

Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year

"Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Our bill puts an end to that absurdity."

Kenny Stancil

Feb 13, 2023, from Common Dreams

 

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the program's solvency for decades by finally requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

 

The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced by Sanders (I-Vt.) and Warren (D-Mass.) in the Senate and by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) in the House, would put an additional $2,400 in beneficiaries' pockets each year and ensure the program is fully funded through 2096.

The bill would accomplish this by lifting the cap on the maximum amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a change that would not raise taxes on the 93% of U.S. households that make $250,000 or less per year, according to an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders.

Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which means that millionaires will stop contributing to the program later this month. The legislation proposes lifting this cap and subjecting all income above $250,000 per year to the Social Security payroll tax. If enacted, the bill would have raised more than $3.4 billion from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone in 2021, including $2.9 billion from Tesla and Twitter executive Elon Musk.

"The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years."

"At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50% of our nation's seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security," Sanders said in a statement.

“Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need," the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions continued. "The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system."

"Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year," the Vermont Independent added. "Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty."

As Sanders' office noted:

Before 1935, when it was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about 50% of the nation's seniors were living in poverty, as well as countless Americans living with disabilities and surviving dependents of deceased workers. Nearly 90 years later, the senior poverty rate is down to 10.3% and in 2021 alone, during the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors.

Despite this long legacy of combatting poverty, more must be done to strengthen the program, not cut it. While the average Social Security benefit is only $1,688 a month, nearly 40% of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income; one in seven rely on it for more than 90% of their income; and nearly half of Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all.

Schakowsky warned that "instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age."

Contrary to the claims of GOP lawmakers who are clamoring to slash benefits and postpone eligibility, the latest annual Social Security trustees report showed that the program has a $2.85 trillion surplus in its trust fund, enabling it to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2035, 90% for the next 25 years, and 80% for the next 75 years.

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage," said Hoyle. "With the rising cost of living, it's time to modernize and expand the program."

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage."

In addition to lifting the tax cap to boost benefits by $200 each month for all recipients, the Social Security Expansion Act would increase Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments by adopting a more accurate measure of inflation, improve the Special Minimum Benefit to help keep low-income workers out of poverty, and restore student benefits up to age 22 for children of disabled or deceased workers.

Endorsed by 56 labor unions and progressive advocacy groups, the legislation is overwhelmingly popular among voters, who have consistently expressed opposition to cutting or privatizing Social Security.

According to polling results published Monday by Data for Progress, 78% of likely voters support the Social Security Expansion Act, including 85% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans. The survey, commissioned by Social Security Works, was conducted online from January 27 to January 30.

"Social Security Works is proud to endorse the Social Security Expansion Act," the group's executive director, Alex Lawson, said in a statement. "This bill is the answer to any politician or pundit who claims we 'can't afford' Social Security. It protects and expands benefits, and it is fully paid for by finally requiring the wealthy to contribute their fair share."

"During the State of the Union, nearly every member of Congress stood and clapped for protecting seniors," Lawson noted. "They should prove it by passing this bill into law."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

'It's One Deal': Warren Says She Won't Vote for Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan Without Climate, Child Care

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks to reporters prior to a vote on June 22, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

 

Jake Johnson, staff writer

June 24, 2021

 

"We can't let the infrastructure train leave the station while child care and clean energy get left on the platform—or while billionaires and big corporations don't pay their fair share in taxes."

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren made clear late Wednesday that she will not go along with a newly announced bipartisan infrastructure framework unless the Democratic leadership simultaneously presses ahead with a legislative package that includes child care, major investments in green energy, and other progressive priorities that are excluded from the emerging deal with Republicans.

"They may be voted separately, but it is one infrastructure deal," Warren said in an appearance on MSNBC. "I can't vote for some small subset that, you know—the infrastructure train leaves the station and child care gets left on the platform, green energy gets left on the platform."

"It's that all of the pieces have to move because, ultimately, it's one deal," added the Massachusetts Democrat, who also cited tax hikes on the wealthy as a necessary component of any infrastructure agreement.

Warren's comments came just as a bipartisan group of senators led by Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) announced a tentative deal with White House aides on an infrastructure blueprint calling for $559 billion in new spending over the next five years—a package far smaller than President Joe Biden's original $2.2 trillion American Jobs Plan.

"We demand no climate, no deal. Any Democrat who votes for this inadequate version of an infrastructure bill that doesn’t channel massive investments towards stopping the climate crisis is betraying our generation."
—Lauren Maunus, Sunrise Movement

While senators in the 21-member bipartisan group stressed that details still need to be ironed out at a meeting with Biden on Thursday, one unnamed source familiar with the negotiations told Politico that the agreement "is basically cooked."

"All that's left are the handshakes," Politico reported.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the two top Democrats in Congress, told reporters Wednesday that they "support the concepts that we have heard about" but are awaiting additional details on the bipartisan framework.

In an apparent effort to assuage progressives' fears that climate action and other key priorities could be left on the cutting room floor, the Democratic leaders vowed Wednesday to use the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process to simultaneously advance legislation that includes key agenda items omitted from the bipartisan deal. Given Democrats' slim margins in the House and Senate, they cannot afford many defections, meaning progressives have significant leverage over infrastructure developments if they're willing to use it.

"We can't get the bipartisan bill done unless we're sure we're getting the budget reconciliation bill done," said Schumer, who has been working with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on a sprawling $6 trillion reconciliation package that includes Medicare expansion and major climate investments.

"We can't get the budget reconciliation bill done unless we're sure of the bipartisan," Schumer added, alluding to conservative Democrats' opposition to using reconciliation without a bipartisan infrastructure deal in hand. "I think our members are—you know, across the spectrum, realize that."

Asked when the public can expect a vote on the bipartisan deal in the House, Pelosi responded, "As soon as we see a reconciliation bill."

Pelosi made similar comments to reporters on Thursday. "We will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill," she said. "If there is no bipartisan bill then we'll just go when the Senate passes a reconciliation bill. But I'm hopeful that we will have the bipartisan bill."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the whip for the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), welcomed Pelosi and Schumer's remarks as a positive sign, noting that "it was always unlikely for many members to support a bipartisan bill on infrastructure without a guarantee on a bold reconciliation bill moving simultaneously."

"It's time to deliver big on behalf of our constituents," Omar added.

Speaking to Punchbowl News on Wednesday, CPC chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) stressed that both the bipartisan package and the Democrat-only reconciliation bill—which can pass with a simple-majority vote—must advance at the same time to win her support, preemptively rejecting any leadership promises to tackle the reconciliation bill at some later date.

“We don't have a lot of faith in, 'I promise I'll do this,'" said Jayapal.

Huge questions remain about the contents of both packages as lawmakers continue to haggle over the details and demand inclusion of their priorities.

In recent days, as Common Dreams reported, advocacy organizations have raised concerns about the bipartisan group's proposal to finance their infrastructure package using so-called public-private partnerships and "asset recycling," practices that progressives rejected as thinly veiled attempts to hand public infrastructure over to corporations and Wall Street investors.

It's unclear whether progressives in Congress would be willing to tank the bipartisan deal over objections to those proposed pay-fors, which have not yet been finalized.

In a statement on Thursday, the youth-led Sunrise Movement reiterated its position that any agreement on infrastructure must come with substantial public investments in combating the climate crisis as the Western United States experiences a record-breaking heat wave and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reach all-time highs.

"Not since 2009 have Democrats held control of both houses of Congress and the White House. This is a historic, narrow opportunity to combat the climate crisis, and we can't afford to kick the can down the road any further," said Lauren Maunus, Sunrise's advocacy director. "We demand no climate, no deal. Any Democrat who votes for this inadequate version of an infrastructure bill that doesn’t channel massive investments towards stopping the climate crisis is betraying our generation."

“Our leaders must step up," Maunus added. "We expect Schumer to pass the boldest budget resolution as soon as possible, go through reconciliation in July, and pass a robust infrastructure package by August recess. There can be no compromise and no excuses to get this done for the American people."

---

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

Warren Blasts 'Unconscionable' $740 Billion Pentagon Budget While Millions Suffer From Poverty, Joblessness, and Covid-19

Published on Tuesday, February 02, 2021

by Common Dreams

"A budget is about priorities," said the Democratic senator.

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer

 

34 Comments

"Spending $740 billion dollars a year on this one piece of the federal budget is unconscionable," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said to Kathleen Hicks, one of President Joe Biden's Pentagon appointees, on Tuesday, February 2, 2021. (Photo: Screengrab from PBS NewsHour)

"We continue to overinvest in defense while underinvesting in public health and so much more."

"We can spend less on the military and obtain not only the same amount of security, but more."
—Stephen Wertheim, Historian

That's what Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Kathleen Hicks, President Joe Biden's nominee for deputy defense secretary.

"The size of the defense budget... has long been a concern of mine," said Warren, "but after the past year, watching more than 400,000 fellow Americans die, tens of millions unemployed due to Covid-19, millions more who are lined up at food banks, and even millions more who are on the threshold of losing their homes and being put out on the street, spending $740 billion dollars a year on this one piece of the federal budget is unconscionable."

"A budget is about priorities," said Warren. When the senator asked if the U.S. can reduce defense spending "without sacrificing our security," Hicks said no.

Even though "I certainly understand" how the coronavirus crisis "calls into question what the priorities are across our government," said Hicks, "I also... believe that we are a nation that can afford the defense that it needs to have."

"The focus on the top-line number can really obscure a more important conversation around what is it we want our military... to do," Hicks said, sidestepping Warren's point, which was that the national budget should reflect the issues that people in the U.S. want their representatives to focus on, like implementing policies to mitigate compounding public health, economic, and environmental emergencies.

 

"We can spend less on the military and obtain not only the same amount of security, but more," asserted Stephen Wertheim, deputy director of research and policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and research scholar at Columbia University.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, pointed out that Warren was the only lawmaker at the hearing to juxtapose the nation's bloated military budget with the surge in unmet social needs.

As Common Dreams reported Monday, all 10 senators behind the GOP's $618 billion coronavirus relief counterproposal voted in favor of spending $740 billion on endless wars in fiscal year 2021.

Those members of Congress were joined in supporting the National Defense Authorization Act by the majority of their fellow Republicans as well as the bulk of Democrats in the House and Senate, providing additional evidence of the extent to which most American lawmakers' priorities aren't aligned with those of the public.

---

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

Biden Could Eliminate Student Loan Debt on Day 1 by Executive Order

by John Lawrence, December 2, 2020

Total U.S. student loan debt is $1.67 trillion, and 2018 college grads with loans owe $29,200 on average. $1.54 trillion of this is held by the Federal government. The rest is held by private companies. During his campaign, Biden said he would forgive $10,000 of federal student loans as part of his Emergency Action Plan for the economic recovery. He could do even more. He could forgive all government held student loan debt outright. He probably won't do that, but what he might do is lower monthly payments in accordance with monthly incomes. He could also lower interest rates. He also has said that he would forgive more for people who had done or are doing community or national service. Elizabeth Warren in her Presidential campaign said that she would forgive all federal student loan debt on Day 1. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Warren in September called on the next president to forgive $50,000 in student loans for every borrower as soon as he entered the White House. In an interview earlier this month with The.Ink, Schumer said Biden could cancel the debt “with the pen as opposed to legislation.” More than 230 organizations and non-profits, including Americans for Financial Reform, the NAACP and the National Consumer Law Center, signed a letter on Nov. 18, calling on Biden to cancel student loans on his first day as president.

It would be appropriate if Joe Biden forgave all student loan debt on Day 1 since he voted in 2005 for the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, a law that made it vastly more difficult for struggling former students to rebuild their lives by discharging the debts and starting over. This was a gift to the credit card companies many of which had given Joe Biden campaign contributions. Many of them are registered or headquartered in Delaware. Biden was even known as the Senator from MBNA. So it's ironic that Biden will be the one to give relief in one form or other to student loan debtors.

What is so pernicious about student loans is that they can be given to anyone without any consideration given to the person's ability to repay, and since they can't be discharged in bankruptcy, the for profit schools piled on encouraging students in subjects which had no financial future to take on as much debt as they wanted. It seemed like a free lunch which is always what debt seems like until it comes time to repay Many students got deferments or forbearance putting off the day when they would have to start paying even further into the future. That made the deal that much sweeter, but to paraphrase James Baldwin, a debt deferred one day becomes a nightmare. When you make a deal with the devil what always happens is that eventually it comes time to pay.

The Guardian reported:

Despite his protestations, it is indisputable that Biden was an avid supporter of the 2005 bill as a whole and of its overall thrust of tightening up the bankruptcy code largely to the benefit of lenders at the expense of distressed families who would find it harder to file for bankruptcy.

“Biden was one of the most powerful people who could have said no, who could have changed this. Instead he used his leadership role to limit the ability of other Democrats who had concerns and who wanted the bill softened,” said Melissa Jacoby, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill specializing in bankruptcy.

Other leading Democrats and consumer advocates did say no. In the Senate debate on the 2005 bill, Ted Kennedy was scathing about its implications.

“This legislation breaks the bond that unites America, it sacrifices Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry,” he said. Kennedy warned that even before the new provision kicked in young people were dropping out of college “because of the costs of student loans – they can’t pay them”.

So now Joe Biden gets a chance to redeem himself. He doesn't need campaign contributions from the credit card companies any more because he will never be in another campaign. He should rise to the occasion and forgive the student loan debt held by the government on Day 1, but he also needs to restore bankruptcy protection for privately held debt. This might require the cooperation of Congress, and, if Republicans maintain control of Congress, they will put roadblocks in the way of everything Joe Biden tries to do. Let's hope that the Democratic candidates in the runoffs in Georgia both win. Only then will Democrats control both Houses of Congress. If that comes to pass, the Senate will have to vote to eliminate the filibuster rule as well. Unless they do that, as long as there is one Republican in the Senate, that Republican will filibuster anything and everything Biden and the Democrats want to do. This is despite Joe's supposed ability to "work across the aisle."

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Commitment to Student Debt Bankruptcy Will Attract Bernie's Supporters

by John Lawrence, March 20, 2020

Joe Biden is being smart now. In 2005 "middle class Joe" voted for the most anti-middle class legislation of the 20th century. Biden voted against borrowers drowning in medical debt, student loan debt, seniors, service members, union members and victims of deadbeat dads. He helped make it impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy court. Now, thanks to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, he's on board for a reversal of that bill if he's elected President. The record makes clear that as a senator, Biden used his clout to push for the law’s passage and to defeat amendments to shield service members, women, and children from its harsh treatment. Particularly, after the 2008 Great Recession the lack of bankruptcy protection at a time when trillions of dollars were being pumped into the banking system was draconian by its very nature.

The American Prospect reported:

Biden also consistently voted against efforts to soften BAPCPA’s blow on vulnerable populations. He voted against three amendments to ease bankruptcy requirements for consumers whose financial troubles stem from medical expenses. He voted against an amendment that would have helped seniors keep their homes. He voted against exempting service members and widows of service members killed in action from the law’s eligibility restrictions. He voted against an amendment to exempt women whose financial troubles stemmed from deadbeat husbands’ failure to pay child support or alimony. And Biden even voted against an amendment that would have ensured that children of debtors could still be given birthday and Christmas presents. Biden also voted against allowing debtors to pay their union dues during bankruptcy, potentially imperiling their employment and ability to achieve financial rehabilitation.

It’s not as if Joe Biden was opposed to all amendments to the legislation: He voted to enshrine a “millionaire’s loophole” that allows wealthy, well-counseled debtors to shield their assets from creditors by placing them in asset-protection trusts. Nor did he act to cut off the loophole that shields assets placed by wealthy families in “dynasty trusts,” such as are offered by Delaware.

Good ol' middle class Joe. Well, finally, he's had a come-to-Jesus revelation that just maybe he was wrong about all those things he had previously voted for. Will he hang his head and ask for forgiveness? I doubt it. However, if he has seen the error of his ways and is willing to reverse his support of all the credit card companies headquartered in his home state of Delaware, then just maybe I will support him over Donald Trump for President. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote. Bernie and Elizabeth have been consistent in their stands for the middle class. Biden is a Johnie-come-lately. He likes to reference himself to Barack Obama, and he certainly has a lot of African-American support, but he's just as phony as most politicians and served well all the financial interests in the state of Delaware at the expense of the middle class. Don't you think Trump will point this out?

Now it's all about Biden's running mate. Bernie is effectively out of the race although he and Elizabeth Warren have had a major effect  in pushing Biden to the Left. His agenda is not all that bad. See joebiden.com. His infrastructure plans are great. His proposals to increase income for seniors is great. I think Amy Klobuchar would be an ideal running mate. She has flyover state cred. She's a woman. Biden is committed to choosing a woman as a running mate. She's proficient and experienced.

Biden is a major asshole, but he's the lesser of two evils when compared to Trump. In short he's our asshole. When it counted, Joe Biden looked out for millionaires and the banks, not the middle class. Let's hope he has seen the error of his ways and will come out from hiding behind the cloak of Barack Obama.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Approach to a Carbon Free Infrastructure

by John Lawrence

I guess you could say Joe Biden is a railfan. I remember that he always rode the Amtrak from Washington to his home in Delaware. Now at joebiden.com I read about some of his innovative ideas for revolutionizing the transportation system in this country starting with a national network of recharging stations for electric cars. He'll also invest in a national high speed rail network for moving people and goods. These are good ideas. We need to completely electrify transportation in the next few years as automobile emissions are the greatest contributor to greenhouse gasses right now. The transportation system is much in need of revitalizing including roads and bridges. Research in carbon neutral propulsion systems for ships and planes also needs to be part of it. The more that goods and people can be moved by train, the more the streets and roads will be made available for car traffic cutting down on the need to build more and more freeways or toll roads.

Power generating plants need to be converted to 100% renewable energy ASAP. Joe is intending to do that too. Good news! "As president, Biden will partner with utilities and regulators around the country to build a 21st-century power grid, able to distribute clean energy reliably and safely to households and businesses across the United States. Specifically, he will appoint commissioners to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who will drive market reforms, like expanding regional electric markets, integrating renewables, building in demand-response, and promoting long-term infrastructure planning to achieve a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by 2050. " Well, Joe, we need this long before 2050 when we'll both be pushing up daisies.

Biden's plans to have community colleges launch new Apprenticeship Readiness Programs is a great idea. Not everyone needs to attend university per se. Programs that enable people to do actual work rather than sitting behind a computer screen all day will give incentives to people to train for more meaningful jobs. Those who want to become true professionals like doctors, lawyers, professors etc. need to go to college. There should be no stigma attached to those who want to work with their hands, not sit at a desk all day, and actually build something.

Joe's plans for infrastructure development are excellent. More money needs to be put behind them though and they need to be accelerated time wise. Joe has also said he would support Elizabeth Warren's plan to allow student loan debtors to discharge their debt in bankruptcy court. This is a major step for Joe since he was instrumental in changing the law in 2006 which prevented students from discharging their student loan debt in bankruptcy. Let's hope that Joe Biden will now be the former Senator from MBNA.

Biden endorses Warren's bankruptcy plan, calling it 'one of the things that I think Bernie and I will agree on'

By Eric Bradner and Arlette Saenz, CNN

March 14, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden-Warren feud re-emerges on campaign trail

Former Vice President Joe Biden says he now backs Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy plan, endorsing his former Democratic rival's proposal to repeal portions of a law they had clashed over 15 years earlier.

Biden touted his support for Warren's plan as an olive branch to supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in a virtual town hall for Illinois voters Friday night, calling it "one of the things that I think Bernie and I will agree on."

He highlighted a portion of Warren's plan that would allow student loan debt to be eliminated in bankruptcy just like other debts.

"I'm going to endorse -- I've endorsed -- Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy proposal, which in fact goes further, allows for student debt to be relieved in bankruptcy, provides for a whole range of other issues that allows us to in fact impact on how people are dealing with their circumstances," Biden said. "So there's a whole range of things we agree on."

Biden's move to back Warren's plan shows that, as he moves toward clinching the Democratic presidential nomination and seeks to soothe over tensions from a year-long intra-party battle, the former vice president is taking steps to embrace his former rivals and adopt planks of their platforms -- and is willing to move left to do so.

Warren's team got a heads-up from the Biden camp that he would be endorsing the senator's bankruptcy plan ahead of his public announcement on Friday, a Warren aide told CNN's MJ Lee. The two teams were in touch leading up to the announcement, the aide said.

A Biden campaign aide said he would likely say more about his support for Warren's bankruptcy plan in his debate against Sanders on Sunday night.

Biden and Warren's high-profile battle over a 2005 bill that made it more difficult to declare bankruptcy, when he was a Delaware senator and leading advocate of the measure and she was a Harvard professor and vocal opponent, played a key role in inspiring Warren's move into politics.

As a presidential candidate, she used it to highlight her differences with Biden. On the day in April 2019 that Biden entered the race, she said at a rally that Biden had been "on the side of the credit companies."

The law, which was heavily backed by the banking and credit card industries, made it harder for Americans to get out of debt by filing for bankruptcy. Supporters of the measure said it would prevent financially irresponsible people from abusing the system, while opponents denounced it, saying it would hurt struggling people by increasing the regulation, documentation and costs of seeking bankruptcy protection. Bankruptcies plummeted after the law took effect, but not for the right reasons, consumer advocates argued.

Biden was seen as a leading proponent of the bill at the time, though it was largely backed by Republicans and passed by a GOP-controlled Congress. Biden's campaign has argued he successfully fought for changes to the bill that prioritized child support and alimony in front of lenders and required credit card companies to warn borrowers about their interest rates.

The Warren plan targets a series of provisions that she has criticized for years, arguing that they benefit credit card companies and big lenders at the expense of Americans struggling with consumer, household and student debt.

Warren's proposal would make the bankruptcy system "simple, cheap, fast, and flexible," she wrote in a Medium post when she unveiled it in January. It would merge the two types of consumer bankruptcy filings -- Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 -- into one, offering filers a "menu of options" for dealing with their unpaid debt. It would eliminate what she termed "burdensome paperwork" that makes bankruptcy more expensive, deterring some from filing. It would reverse the 2005 law's requirement that filers seek pre-filing credit counseling, as well as the additional rules it placed on consumer bankruptcy attorneys.

She would also reduce the cost of filing and make it easier for people to keep their homes and cars during bankruptcy. The proposal would make it harder for the wealthy to shield assets in trusts and would crack down on companies that violate consumer financial protection laws while trying to collect on debts. And her proposal would end the ban on shedding student loan debt in bankruptcy.

CNN's Gregory Krieg and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

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.

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.

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.

Off the Top of My Head

My Amazing Day

by John Lawrence, September 19, 2019

It started off with an email I received from Mike Wofford, who is a great jazz pianist, having to do with the plight of Betty Bennett, a jazz singer who was married to Mundell Lowe, a great jazz guitarist for 42 years. Mundell died a couple of years ago at the age of 95. Betty is 98 and she's run out of money, a plight that will become increasingly common as people are living into their 90s and 100s. Their money runs out before their life does. Betty's daughter had set up a Go Fund Me website for her to raise money so they could hire another caregiver to spell her daughter and so that she could stay in her own home the equity of which had been drained out. Another problem for older people especially when they get no break on property taxes which are considerable in California.

Betty was a WW II veteran, but so far she hasn't been able to obtain VA benefits. This is from her Wikipedia page:

Her first major signing was with the Claude Thornhill band in 1946, the band in which her husband, bassist Iggy Shevak, was playing. Shortly after her husband left to join Alvino Rey, Bennett followed him there. In 1949, she joined Charlie Ventura's band before going on to join Benny Goodman in 1959.

Her second album featured arrangements by Shorty Rogers and her second husband, André Previn. Bennett later married guitarist Mundell Lowe.

Betty had two daughters with Andre Previn who died last February 2019. Previn was involved in the music industry having worked on the music for over 50 films in his career. He won four Academy Awards for his film work and ten Grammy Awards for his recordings (and one more for his Lifetime Achievement). He was also the music director of the Houston Symphony Orchestra, the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and the Oslo Philharmonic, as well as the principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. He was also a jazz pianist.

A little about Mundell's career: In 1965 he moved to Los Angeles and worked for NBC as a staff guitarist, composer, and arranger. He wrote music for the TV shows Hawaii Five-O, Starsky & Hutch, and The Wild Wild West, and the movies Billy Jack and Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask. He recorded with Carmen McRae and Sarah Vaughan. During the 1980s, he worked with André Previn, Tete Montoliu, and the Great Guitars. He was a teacher at the Guitar Institute of Technology and the Grove School of Music. For several years, he was music director of the Monterey Jazz Festival.

So this extended family was as close as you can get to American musical royalty.

I donated to Betty's Go Fund Me campaign, and then I went on the road as an Uber and Lyft driver. Later that day, during my 4 hour break and after my nap, I spoke on the phone with my friend, Grace Rich, who is in a retirement home facility in Flagstaff after having had a several month serious bout with anxiety and depression. She used to give water and Vienna sausage to the homeless in Tucson. Thank God, she is doing much better and we plan to talk more after several months of being incommunicado. Then I Facetimed with my oldest granddaughter, Jasmine. It was so good to see her beautiful face and hear that she's going to community college and working. She looks great!

Then I went back on the road driving for Uber and Lyft. I had a long ride from El Cajon near where I live to Miramar Road up near Mira Mesa, then another from there back to San Diego. When I saw the woman's destination, it rang a bell. Wasn't that the street that Mundell and Betty lived on? See I knew their house very well because I had cleaned the windows there a whole bunch of times in my former career as a window washer. Sure enough we went right by their house before I dropped the woman off a few houses down the street. What a coincidence I thought! My daughter Justine said, "That was no coincidence, Dad." That was Mundell's way of thanking you. By the way I had presented Mundell in concert with the San Diego State Jazz Orchestra under the direction of Bill Yeager when I was President of the San Diego Jazz Society back in the 80s. The last time I had seen Mundell and Betty at their house, they were both in their 90s but in good health. Betty gave me one of her CDs, and then she went out walking.

After I dropped the woman off I dropped in on my good Swedish friends, Britt and Olof, who lived only a few doors away. I just turned off the Uber and Lyft which I can do any time at my discretion and convenience at least for now. That may be changing, however, since Governor Newsom just signed a bill making Uber and Lyft drivers employees rather than independent contractors. This means I could lose flexibility with my driving habits and lifestyle. Right now it's perfect the way it is insofar as it works for me. Britt invited me to stay for dinner, and we talked politics. She likes Kamala. I like Elizabeth Warren. Of course we all think Trump is an ignoramuis who wants to reduce California's stricter tailpipe emission standards so cars can pollute more. What a backwards shitass! We talked about how this Friday school children were going to walk out of class protesting climate change and about how the Swedish teen ager, Greta Thunberg, is leading the movement in which children, who will inherit the earth, are realizing that, if we don't step it up regarding climate change, they will be inheriting a hellhole.

Then I came home after an amazing day. I'm sure the close knit San Diego jazz community and perhaps the jazz community all over America will come to Betty Bennett's aid. Already after 3 days the Go Fund Me site had collected over $5000.

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.

Elizabeth Warren to Restore Bankruptcy Protection for Student Loan Debtors

From Alan Collinge

Great News!

Elizabeth Warren announced her student loan cancellation plan in April.  We were interviewed by Vice News about this, and we were quite critical.  We lamented the fact that Warren taught bankruptcy for years, yet didn't mention bankruptcy at all in her press release.
Well...I received a note yesterday from one of her staffers to inform me (and I have confirmed) that Senator Warren has modified her plan to include the full return of bankruptcy rights- precisely as it does for S. 1414 and HR. 2648, and the bill that they recently introduced in the Senate which reflects this!
So...THEY ARE LISTENING TO US!
I hope you are all pleased.  This puts us in a position to push both Warren and ALL the candidates to go the FINAL STEP, and pledge to issue an executive order (if necessary) that calls for the Department of Education to cease challenging student loan filers in bankruptcy court.  This would give us the certainty we need to give them a full-throated endorsement.  I think we can do this. See the video above.
Folks, we REALLY need donations right now.  Will you please help?

http://www.studentloanjustice.org/Support

Our recent move into our new digs has depleted our reserves, as expected.  We REALLY have to shore up our funds as soon as possible.  It is getting quite critical.

I hope you are happy with all that we are getting done, and all that we are poised, now, to get done.  We really are kicking butt over here and moving the needle.  To not have to worry about fundraising, and be able to focus on the mission at hand would be hugely helpful for us.  I hope that you agree, and will help. 

Ok folks.  Pretty excited.  It really is "GO TIME"!!!

Best Regards,

Alan

ps.  THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN STEPPING UP LATELY.  YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!

'Warning Lights Are Flashing,' Says Elizabeth Warren, Detailing Plan to Stave Off Impending Financial Crisis

Published on Monday, July 22, 2019 by Common Dreams

Democratic presidential hopeful warns of "a number of serious shocks on the horizon that could cause our economy's shaky foundation to crumble."

by Andrea Germanos, staff writer

 

2 Comments

Democratic presidential hopeful U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks during the AARP and The Des Moines Register Iowa Presidential Candidate Forum on July 19, 2019 in Sioux City, Iowa. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

"Warning lights are flashing," Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote Monday, predicting an economic crisis within two years unless federal regulators and Congress take swift action.

The Democratic presidential contender outlined the reasons for her concerns and plans to address them in a Medium post entitled "The Coming Economic Crash—And How to Stop It."

.@ewarren warned us about the 2008 crisis years before it hit. Now she's seeing serious warning signs again—and she's calling for action. Read, share, and join the fight: https://t.co/eUniHdD9p8

— Team Warren (@TeamWarren) July 22, 2019

As she did in the years leading up to the 2008 economic crisis, Warren now sees "a lot to worry about again." According to the Massachusetts Democrat, there are "a number of serious shocks on the horizon that could cause our economy's shaky foundation to crumble."

"The country's economic foundation is fragile. A single shock could bring it all down," she wrote. "And the Trump administration's reckless behavior is increasing the odds of just such a shock."

Among the potential triggers she laid out is the level of household debt. Warren referenced recent data showing that household debt is now $869 billion higher than the $12.68 trillion peak it hit in 2008.

To remedy that, she cued up several of her already-released plans, including raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, canceling most student loan debts, offering free public higher education, and making child care affordable.

She also called on federal regulators to swiftly address the potential shock that lies in leveraged corporate lending. "Leveraged lending—lending to companies that are already seriously in debt—has jumped by 40 percent since Trump took office, spreading 'systemic risk' throughout our financial system," wrote Warren.

Federal regulators, she wrote, should "enforce leveraged lending guidance that is intended to stop banks from issuing these risky loans in the first place."

Warren also cited the current manufacturing recessions—a problem she said could be flipped by enacting her Green Manufacturing Plan.

Inoculating the economy from "potential shocks" also will happen by "strengthening critical American industries, instead of undercutting American companies" and eliminating the debt ceiling, she wrote.

A crisis could be averted, wrote Warren, "if we take bold action now to address the underlying problems in the economy."

Warren's new plan rollout came the same day as Democracy for America's latest straw poll showed her closing in on Bernie Sanders's lead among the progressive group. The Vermont senator notched just over 32 percent to Warren's roughly 26 percent, both well ahead of third place Kamala Harris's 12 percent. The group's previous survey in April showed Sanders as the frontrunner and with a 30-point lead over Warren.

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.

Warren's New $2 Trillion Green Manufacturing Plan Welcomed as 'Win-Win' for Climate and Workers

Published on Tuesday, June 04, 2019 by Common Dreams

"With this plan, Elizabeth Warren is seizing the enormous opportunity that transitioning to 100 percent clean energy represents for people across the country."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

31 Comments

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a 2020 presidential candidate, unveiled her broad "agenda of economic patriotism" in a post on Medium Tuesday. (Photo: Elizabeth Warren/Facebook)

As new polling showed Tuesday that public support for Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign has continued to rise as she's introduced a series of ambitious policy proposals, the Democratic candidate unveiled a $2 trillion renewable energy and green manufacturing plan welcomed by climate campaigners as a boon for both the planet and U.S. workers.

"With this plan, Elizabeth Warren is seizing the enormous opportunity that transitioning to 100 percent clean energy represents for people across the country," Greenpeace USA senior climate campaigner Jack Shapiro said in a statement. "The renewable energy economy is a win-win for our climate and communities, and should be at the core of any plan to create jobs and spur innovation."

In a Medium post published Tuesday, Warren detailed her green manufacturing plan, which she described as "part of how I'll implement my commitment to a Green New Deal" and just the first of several proposals under her new economic patriotism agenda.

This is not a question of more or less government: It’s about who the government works for. And in the weeks ahead, I’ll be releasing more plans on how this vision of economic patriotism should shape our economy, from trade policy to Wall Street. Here's my first proposal:

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 4, 2019

Noting that "over the next decade, the expected market for clean energy technology in emerging economies alone is $23 trillion," Warren wrote that she hopes to enable the United States to dominate that market by developing, manufacturing, and exporting "the technology the world needs to confront the existential threat of climate change."

To achieve market dominance, she explained, the U.S. government would use revenue from her proposed Real Corporate Profits Tax to "invest $2 trillion over the next 10 years in green research, manufacturing, and exporting — linking American innovation directly to American jobs, and helping achieve the ambitious targets of the Green New Deal."

My green manufacturing plan rewards American companies who invest at home. It's funded by my Real Corporate Profits Tax on giant companies who try to dodge their fair share in taxes. It'll create 1M new jobs & make the U.S. the leader in the global fight against climate change.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 4, 2019

Warren's green manufacturing plan has three parts:

• The Green Apollo Program would commit "$400 billion in funding over the next 10 years for clean energy research and development — more than 10 times what we invested in the last 10 years."
• The Green Industrial Mobilization would involve "a $1.5 trillion federal procurement commitment over the next 10 years to purchase American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy products for federal, state, and local use, and for export."
• The Green Marshall Plan would include the creation of "a new federal office dedicated to selling American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy technology abroad and a $100 billion commitment to assisting countries to purchase and deploy this technology."

"The climate crisis demands immediate and bold action," Warren wrote, reiterating her support for a fair and just transition that's called for in the Green New Deal resolution introduced in Congress earlier this year.

Referencing the World War II era, she added, "Like we have before, we should bank on American ingenuity and American workers to lead the global effort to face down this threat — and create more than a million good jobs here at home."

The youth-led Sunrise Movement, in a series of tweets, said Warren's plan "shows clearly that she understands the frame of the #GreenNewDeal, the lessons from our history it draws upon, and that she is committed to mobilizing the federal government towards the scale of its ambition if elected."

A MAJOR 🔑of @ewarren's Green Manufacturing Plan is that she commits to equitable investment & a "fair and just transition for all communities & workers" including "financial security,  job training, union protections, & benefits...& wage and benefit parity for affected workers."

— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) June 4, 2019

In a statement, Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, the North America director for 350 Action, praised "the international focus of her plan, the acknowledgement of the United States's disproportionate pollution, and the commitment to aiding underinvested countries that are already suffering from the climate crisis as a critical part of America's responsibility to the world."

The green manufacturing plan, according to Warren, is the first of many plans she intends to unveil in the coming weeks that fall under her broader "agenda of economic patriotism," which she described as "using new and existing tools to defend and create quality American jobs and promote American industry."

One of the other ways Warren would pursue this agenda is by creating a new federal agency, the Department of Economic Development, which would "replace the Commerce Department, subsume other agencies like the Small Business Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office, and include research and development programs, worker training programs, and export and trade authorities like the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative."

Warren outlined her vision of economic patriotism in a video posted on social media Tuesday:

Some big, “American” companies will ship jobs overseas and hollow out our cities if it'll save them a nickel. And many already have. I've got a plan to make sure a Warren administration will defend and create good American jobs. pic.twitter.com/mztmtUHwGW

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 4, 2019

Zach Carter, in a piece for HuffPost Tuesday, pointed out that Warren's broad economic platform follows a series of "ambitious, meticulously detailed" plans on everything from breaking up big tech giants like Amazon and Google to forgiving student debt and establishing universal childcare. However, he argued, the economic platform that she discussed in Detroit Tuesday "is a little different."

The Massachusetts Democrat's economic agenda for the nation "retains Warren's wonk-flair," Carter wrote, "but the heart of her proposal is ideological rather than technical. Warren is making a crystal-clear statement of principles, and an equally plain break with the past 30 years of American trade policy―up to and including the presidency of Donald Trump."

The presidential hopeful's "astonishing plan for economic patriotism" was celebrated by Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, as "in a class by itself, even for Warren."

"Warren's proposal does nothing less than turn inside out the globalist assumptions pursued by the past several administrations, Democrat and Republican alike," Kuttner wrote Tuesday. "With this plan, Warren has begun an overdue debate that she deserves to win, both intellectually and politically. And she has demonstrated once again her potential as a powerful force against Donald Trump."

---

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

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 US Tax on Wealth Is Long Overdue

Published on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 by Boston Globe

Between 1930 and 1980, the rate applied on the highest incomes was on average 81 percent, and the rate applied to the highest inherited estates was 74 percent. Clearly this did not destroy American capitalism.

by Thomas Piketty

 

2 Comments

Carefully calculated by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), now running for president, sets a rate of 2 percent on fortunes valued between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3 percent above $1 billion. (Photo: Getty Images)

What if the final blow for French President Emmanuel Macron came not from the yellow vests but from US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Warren, who announced her candidacy for president on Saturday, has proposed what will doubtless be one of the key points of her campaign — the creation of a genuine federal progressive wealth tax.

Carefully calculated by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the Warren proposal sets a rate of 2 percent on fortunes valued between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3 percent above $1 billion. The proposal also provides for an exit tax equal to 40 percent of total wealth for those who relinquish their American citizenship. The tax would apply to all assets, with no exemptions, with dissuasive sanctions for people and governments that do not transmit appropriate information on assets held abroad.

The debate has only just begun and the proposed schedule could still be extended and made more progressive — with rates rising, for example, to 5 to 10 percent per annum for multibillionaires. What is certain is that the issue of fiscal justice will be central to the presidential campaign. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has suggested a rate of 70 percent on the highest incomes, while Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont defends a tax rate of 77 percent on the highest inherited estates. While the Warren proposal is the most innovative, the three approaches are complementary and should be mutually beneficial. Advertisement

To understand this, let’s look back. Between 1880 and 1910, while the concentration of industrial and financial wealth was gaining momentum in the United States and the country was threatening to become almost as unequal as old Europe, a powerful political movement in favor of an improved distribution in wealth was developing. This led to the creation of a federal tax on income in 1913 and on inheritances in 1916.

Between 1930 and 1980, the rate applied on the highest incomes was on average 81 percent, and the rate applied to the highest inherited estates was 74 percent. Clearly this did not destroy American capitalism. Far from it. It made it more egalitarian and more productive, at a time when the United States had not forgotten that educational advancement and investment in training and skills — not the religion of property and inequality — were the backbone of prosperity.

Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump subsequently endeavored to destroy this heritage. They turned their backs on the egalitarian origins of the country by counting on historical amnesia and by fueling identity-based divisions. With the hindsight we have today, it is obvious that the outcome of this policy was disastrous. Between 1980 and 2020, the rise in per capita national income was halved in comparison with the period 1930-1980. What little growth there was ended up being swept up by the richest, the consequence being a complete stagnation in income for the poorest 50 percent. There is something obvious about the movement of a return to progressive taxation and greater fiscal justice that is emerging today and which is long overdue.

The innovation is that it is now a question of creating an annual wealth tax in addition to the income and inherited estate taxes. This is a crucial innovation in terms of justice and efficiency. Numerous one-shot capital levies have been successfully applied to real estate, professional, and financial assets subsequent to the world wars to pay off public debts, in particular in Japan, Germany, Italy, France and in many European countries. Collected only once, the rates applied to the largest private estates often rose to 40 and 50 percent, or even more.

With an annual wealth tax designed to be applied on a permanent basis, the rates are of necessity more restricted. However, they must be high enough to enable genuine mobility of wealth. From this point of view, the tax on inherited wealth comes much too late. We are not going to wait until Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg reach the age of 90 before they begin to pay taxes. With the 3 percent annual rate proposed by Warren, a static estate worth $100 billion would return to the community in 30 years. This is a good beginning but, given the average rate of progression of the highest financial assets, the aim should undoubtedly be higher (5 to 10 percent or more).

It is also crucial to allocate all the revenue to the reduction of inequalities. In particular, the American property tax, like the French real estate tax, weighs heavily on those with limited resources. Those two venerable property taxes, contrary to what is sometimes stated, tax not only the ownership of housing but also tax business assets (offices, plots of land, warehouses, etc.). The problem is that they have never been genuinely rethought since the 18th century. The time has come for them to become progressive taxes with graduated rates on net assets, with the key element being strong reductions for indebted households who are seeking to accede to property ownership. Let’s hope that the forthcoming American campaign, like the French discussion around the yellow vests, will at last afford the opportunity for an in-depth discussion on the taxation of property and fiscal justice.

---

Thomas Piketty is a French economist and the author of the best-selling book, Capital in the 21st Century.

All-Time Highs for Stock Buybacks and Bank Profits as Workers Languish in Trump's America

Published on Tuesday, May 22, 2018 by Common Dreams

"We've got to repeal the outrageous corporate welfare of this tax plan and pass real tax reform that actually helps working families—not the one percent," said Sen. Bernie Sanders

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

8 Comments

For years, armies of bank lobbyists and executives have groaned about how financial rules are hurting them. But there's a big problem with their story—banks are making record profits," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) concluded in a tweet on Tuesday. (Photo: Alex Proimos/Flickr/cc)

As America's largest corporations continue their unprecedented stock buyback spree in the wake of President Donald Trump's $1.5 trillion tax cut, new government data published on Tuesday showed that U.S. banks are also smashing records thanks to the GOP tax law, raking in $56 billion in net profits during the first quarter of 2018—an all-time high.

"The Trump/Republican tax plan has been nothing but a giant gift to corporations so that executives and shareholders can get richer."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

 

The new data, released by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), comes as the House of Representatives is gearing up to pass a bipartisan deregulatory measure that would reward massive Wall Street banks like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup while dramatically increasing the risk of another financial crisis.

As Common Dreams reported, the Senate easily passed the bill in March with the help of 16 Democrats.

The banking industry's record-shattering profits fit with an entirely predictable pattern that has emerged following the passage of the GOP tax bill last December: America's most profitable corporations are posting obscene profits and using that cash to reward wealthy shareholders through stock buybacks while investing little to nothing in workers, despite their lofty promises.

"For years, armies of bank lobbyists and executives have groaned about how financial rules are hurting them. But there's a big problem with their story—banks are making record profits."
—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

 

According to a CNN analysis published on Sunday, "S&P 500 companies showered Wall Street with at least $178 billion of stock buybacks during the first three months of 2018." As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, major corporations are on track to send $1 trillion to rich investors through buybacks and dividend increases by the end of the year.

Most Americans, meanwhile, have said they are seeing very few noticeable benefits from the massive tax cuts and—according to a new study by United Way—nearly half of the U.S. population is still struggling to afford basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare.

"The Trump/Republican tax plan has been nothing but a giant gift to corporations so that executives and shareholders can get richer," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a Facebook post on Tuesday. "We've got to repeal the outrageous corporate welfare of this tax plan and pass real tax reform that actually helps working families—not the one percent."

How corporations are spending their tax breaks:

✅ Stock buybacks for their wealthy investors

❌ Long-term investments in their workershttps://t.co/sR1x3OYzoq

— Tax March (@taxmarch) May 22, 2018

Instead of addressing the deep-seated financial struggles much of the American public is facing even as the stock market continues to soar and as Trump boasts of an economic boom, Congress is preparing to provide an even greater windfall to wealthy bankers on Tuesday by gutting crucial post-crisis regulations and putting taxpayers on the hook for yet another bailout.

This morning, it was announced that America’s banking sector hit a new record high of $56 billion in net income in the first quarter of 2018.

This afternoon, the House is set to pass the #BankLobbyistAct to supposedly "provide relief" to the banking sector. What a shameful day. pic.twitter.com/OYNUc7FQf6

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) May 22, 2018

"For years, armies of bank lobbyists and executives have groaned about how financial rules are hurting them. But there's a big problem with their story—banks are making record profits," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) concluded in a tweet on Tuesday. "Congress has done enough favors for big banks—the House should reject the Bank Lobbyist Act."

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

Watch: Sanders, Warren, Moore Headline National Town Hall on Inequality and Oligarchy

Published on Monday, March 19, 2018 by Common Dreams

 

"We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask: who owns America, and who has the political power? Why, in the richest country in the history of the world are so many Americans living in poverty?"

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

55 Comments

Streaming live on Facebook at 7pm EDT on Monday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will be joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Michael Moore, along with other advocates and experts, as they explore inequality, the rise of oligarchy, and the death of the middle class. (Photo: senate.sanders.gov)

On Monday night, from 7:00pm to 8:30pm EDT, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is hosting a nationally televised town hall tonight focused on U.S. inequality and the threat posed by an increasing powerful oligarchy that has corrupted the nation's economy and politics.

"The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time."

In partnership with The Guardian, NowThis, The Young Turks and Act.tv, the event—officially titled "Town Hall on Inequality in America: The Rise of Oligarchy and Collapse of the Middle Class"—will feature a wide-ranging coversation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, filmmaker and activist Michael Moore, and other expert panelists who will discuss the economic issues that mainstream and corporate news too often ignore.

Watch it live here:

"We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask: who owns America, and who has the political power? Why, in the richest country in the history of the world are so many Americans living in poverty? What are the forces that have caused the American middle class, once the envy of the world, to decline precipitously?" Sanders wrote in an op-ed promoting the event last week. "We need to hear from struggling Americans whose stories are rarely told in newspapers or television."

Tonight at 7pm ET: Join me, @MMFlint and @SenWarren for a conversation about a topic too often ignored by the corporate media – wealth and income inequality. #InequalityTownHall pic.twitter.com/K9JRCnG3KL

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 19, 2018

"The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time," Sander tweeted on Monday. "Join us at 7 PM ET tonight on Facebook Live for conversation about inequality in America."

 

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