California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

China Leads the Way on Electric Vehicle Production

by John Lawrence, September 19, 2020

A Chinese company has developed an electric car that can go 438 miles without recharging. They have developed an infrastructure of charging stations. China surpassed the United States to become the world's largest automobile market in 2009 with a record 13.9 million vehicles sold in the country, compared to 10.43 million cars and light trucks sold in the United States. China leads the world in deployment of electric vehicles. At the end of June 2019, almost half the electric cars and 99% of the electric buses in the world were in China. China reached its goal of 5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020. China is both the largest manufacturer and consumer market for electric vehicles in the world, accounting for more than half of all electric cars made and sold in the world in 2018. China also makes 99% of the world's electric buses. China manufactured and sold about 1.2 million plug-in electric vehicles in 2018, which was more than three times the sales in the US. China has become the fastest and largest growing market for electric vehicles in the world. New electric cars had a market share of 4.2% of new cars sold in China for the entire year of 2018. Big cities like Shenzhen and Beijing are rapidly adopting electric vehicles -- for example, all of Shenzhen's 16,000 public buses are now electric, and soon all of its 22,000 taxis will be electric cars as well.

You see, dear reader, the US needs to play catch up. That's exactly what Joe Biden wants to do. China subsidizes its electric vehicle industry and subsidizes the purchase of electric vehicles by the public which can be purchased for $30 to $40 thousand US before subsidies of $8000 or so making them very cost competitive with gas guzzling vehicles. So China has an industrial policy which is so far anathema in the US. For the US government to have an industrial policy or to subsidize certain industries smacks of socialism. But without Joe Biden's plan or some other plan, the US will fall far behind China in electric vehicle production and for the necessary R&D and infrastructure. China's EV production is also part of their plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They also need to replace their numerous coal fired electricity generating plants with renewables.

The number of EV charging stations in China is growing rapidly. In January 2019, the Chinese Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Promotion Agency (EVCIPA) reported 808,000 EV chargers in China (an 80% increase in one year). Of these, roughly 330,000 were public chargers, and 480,000 were home chargers. China has hundreds of auto manufacturers, many of which are owned in whole or in part by provincial or local governments. According to some reports, as many as 200 Chinese auto manufacturers have produced electric vehicles. In 2018, 1527 fuel cell electric vehicles also were sold in China, bringing the country’s total fuel cell electric vehicle fleet to 3428.

But it's not only China's government or SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) that are investing in China's EV market. It's China's private sector as well. In 2019 Evergrande, a Chinese firm believed to be the biggest real estate company in the world and backers of electric vehicle startups like Faraday Future and NEVS, announced a massive $23 billion investment in the production of 1 million electric cars and 500 GWh of batteries per year. With a valuation at more than $100 billion and revenues of over $40 billion, Evergrande is now looking to expand into electric vehicles. After acquiring large stakes in two electric vehicle companies, Evergrande claims to have “acquired key technologies in the sector” and now plans to launch its own production of electric vehicles in China in a big way. So why aren't American corporations making investments like these? They still seem committed to producing gas guzzlers. The Trump administration even has challenged California's attempts to set higher emissions standards. Trump revoked a longstanding waiver that allows California to set higher fuel emission standards than the federal government. The US is going backwards on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the earth burns and floods.

The waiver revocation is also part of the Trump administration’s longstanding attempt to roll back federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. Californians buy more cars than people in any other state, which means the emissions standards it sets for itself have big repercussions on the US economy as a whole. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have also adopted California’s vehicle emissions rules. So the California waiver was a big impediment to the Trump administration’s larger goal of rolling back regulations that were implemented to combat climate change. As a global warming denier, Trump is committed to dumping more rather than less greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere.

China's economy is a fusion of a socialist and free market economy so it's somewhat unique in the world. Like the US Federal Reserve, the Chinese central bank, the People's Bank of China, can print yuan, the Chinese currency. The Chinese market is more devoted to manufacturing for both internal sales and export while the US economy is now focused more on financialization which means making money off of money or betting in the Wall Street casino. The US is devoted to making money by any means necessary which has led to increasing inequality. The Chinese market is more devoted to making money from sales of actual goods and services and is less financialized. So US capital doesn't go so much into manufacturing as it goes into financial markets. China is more dedicated to decreasing greenhouse gas emissions while the Trump administration doesn't even believe in global warming and is a full steam ahead fossil fuel supporter.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Green Deal

by John Lawrence, September 18, 2020

Just as soon as progressives come up with something called a Green New Deal, Republicans set out to demonize it, the name that is. They don't even bother to argue the merits; they just demonize the name. That's their MO. So Joe Biden, not being a dummy, doesn't say that he's for a Green New Deal. He says he's for Biden's Green Deal. That phraseology is not as easily demonizable, but it amounts to the same thing. Here's the thing (as Biden would say): the jobs created by revolutionizing the US infrastructure in such a way that we reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is not only a Green New Deal, it's a big deal for job creation. The "full employment" economy pre-pandemic, which Trump likes to tout as being so great, was like a house built upon sand. 40% of the population could not cover an emergency expense of $400. It was an economy in which there were a few good jobs, but the rest of the jobs were service sector jobs like baristas, tattoo artists, bartenders, servers, nail salon artists and uber drivers. All these jobs didn't even exist when there was a full employment economy consisting of manufacturing jobs in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

Now Joe wants to recreate the equivalent of those manufacturing jobs, good paying union jobs recreating American infrastructure in such a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. One of his signature pet projects is the installation of electric car recharging stations on a massive scale. Joe has also committed to carbon free electricity generating plants by 2035. Right now many of these plants are powered by fossil fuels which emit tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Putting electric vehicles on the roads and building pollution free power generating plants will go a long way toward America becoming free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. So call it what you want - a Green New Deal or Joe Biden's Green Deal, it amounts to the same thing. In reality it's a Big Fucking Deal, as Biden himself once so famously said.

Another BFD is student loan debt forgiveness. Joe is committed to Elizabeth Warren's plan for student loan debt forgiveness. Right now there is over $1.5 trillion in student loan debt. This means that so many young people cannot afford to get married, start a family and get a mortgage on a house. They have to move back home and live in their parents' basement or sleep on their parent's couch (in my case). A lot of this money is money owed to the government which the government is even making a profit on. It's not right. Senators Schumer and Warren have called on President Trump to forgive student loans. He won't do it. Biden will. You can see the proposed legislation here.

There are so many new technologies that can be developed that will not only create solid American jobs (not gig work and tattoo artists), but will also create industries that will stay right here on American soil and not be sent to China like US corporations did with their outsourcing spree starting in the 1990s. Keep those industries here. Keep the jobs here. Keep the manufacturing here. This is what Joe Biden is all about. If this is socialism, so be it.

Off the Top of My Head

Worldwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Must Decrease 3.33% Per Year To Get To Net-Zero by 2050

by John Lawrence, September 17, 2020

This is just simple mathematics: 30 years times 3.33% = 100%. Instead GHGs have been increasing year over year every year since 1990 with the exception of 1992 (tied with 1991), 1998 (.1 Gt Eq lower than 1997) and 2009. In 2018, the world spewed 51.8 Gt CO₂ eq of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Gt is a billion tons. CO₂ eq includes methane and other greenhouse gasses. That means that on average there must be a 1.72 Gt CO₂ reduction every year from now to 2050 to get to net zero by that date. In 2009 there was a reduction of .5 Gt CO₂ from the year before. That was the only year with a substantial reduction and it does not even come close to 1.72. Meanwhile, in the last 10 years GHGs have been increasing not decreasing. Obviously, radical change throughout the world is required if planet earth is to reach net zero by 2050.

Since China and the US are the two largest GHG emitters, they must cooperate to lead the world in reducing GHGs. Particularly in India which is developing rapidly, coal fired electricity generating plants are increasing GHGs. China also has a lot of coal fired electricity generating plants, but is developing renewable energy rapidly. The US is using natural gas more and coal less, but natural gas, which is methane, is responsible for increased emissions of methane so it's no panacea. There are serious concerns about methane leakage in distribution systems and in fracking. At this point the US is producing more GHGs from methane than from coal.

This is from "All-Electric America":

Transforming the United States' current electricity capacity, which is roughly one million megawatts, will require developing approximately 60,000 megawatts of new renewable capacity a year over a thirty-five year time frame to supply all of our energy needs in 2050. In 2015 China planned to install roughly 40,000 megawatts of new renewable power and by 2030 is committed to add a total of 800,000 to one million megawatts, the equivalent of today's total US electrical capacity. There is no doubt that America can do the same if we decide to.

Joe Biden has a plan to develop the electrical recharging infrastructure equivalent to today's network of gas stations so that electric vehicles can be much more prevalent. There will also be incentives for people to purchase electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells are also a technology that can power trucks, ships and even airplanes. Hydrogen is a renewable energy since when it burns, the only by product produced is water. An all electric train system is also possible if the US is determined to do it.

Solar and wind power can serve all of America's needs. Storage of renewable power is also under development. Tesla's Powerwall is available today. It stores energy from solar panels when the sun is shining and delivers the power when the sun isn't. The problem isn't that renewable energy isn't available. The problem is that fossil fuel energy is cheap and plentiful, but if the earth is to remain a habitable planet, 75% of it must remain in the ground. The notion of a carbon budget is that there is an amount of GHGs that can be deposited in the atmosphere between now and 2050 that, if we go beyond that budget, earth's temperature increase will rise above 2 degrees C. As of 2018, the budget for staying below the 2°C threshold has been calculated at approximately 1170 Gt. Calculating approximately 100 Gt added in 2019 and 2020, we have approximately 1079 Gt left. That means we have approximately 20 years at the current rate before earth's temperature rises above 2 degrees C and all hell breaks loose.

As if all hell hasn't broken loose already. 12 million acres burnt in Australia in 2020; 6 million acres burnt in California in 2020. Major hurricanes landing in the Gulf coast faster than people can recover from the last one. Huge chunks of Arctic and Antarctic glaciers breaking off. The Antarctic glaciers have the potential of raising sea levels by 10 feet. What is President Trump doing? Hiding his head in the sand. He has stripped the EPA of environmental regulations and is a global warming denier. Meanwhile, our carbon budget is being exhausted while the US is literally doing nothing about it. That's why it's so important that Joe Biden is elected. He has promised to get us to net zero by 2050.

Off the Top of My Head

Will Conspiracy Theories Determine the Next Election?

by John Lawrence, September 7, 2020

Conspiracy theories are as old as time. Did Moses really get the stone tablets given to him by God on Mount Sinai that contained the Ten Commandments? Or did Moses make the stone tablets containing the commandments himself and make up the story that God gave them to him? Was this a conspiracy theory fashioned to make people believe in the importance of the Ten Commandments? That made it unthinkable to question their validity? Fast forward to today and we see conspiracy theories at the heart of right wing politics, particularly at the heart of Trump's campaigns both for the 2016 and 2020 election cycles. Going back through history we see conspiracy theories at the heart of Republican politics during Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations of communists in the 1950s. He had a lot of people believing there were communists everywhere until his allegations were eventually proven to be without any basis whatsoever.

More alarmingly, Trump's embracing of conspiracy theories is reminiscent of the days when Hitler had a hold on the minds and hearts of the German people. The Nazi party was comprised of a few old men drinking in a Munich beer hall until Hitler wandered in and started speaking. Very soon the beer hall was too small to hold the crowds that flocked in to hear Hitler speak, and we know the rest of the story. Trump is certainly not as dynamic a speaker as Hitler, but he knows the value of showmanship as Hitler certainly did. Hitler developed the symbols of the Third Reich, the flags, the torchlight parades , the entertainment value of telling the Germans that it wasn't their fault they lost the First World War. It was a Jewish conspiracy. Trump deals in racism as well. He gives his followers a good deal of symbolism and entertainment. His cohorts make up for the fact that Trump is not a great speaker like Hitler since social media amplifies whatever conspiracies anyone comes up with that give comfort and consolation to his followers who seem to need something to believe in even if it is at odds with the truth and with facts. In the process the truth gets distorted or forgotten about altogether. Fiction is so much more entertaining.

While the Ten Commandments have arguably had a constructive effect on history even though the story of how they were obtained may be apocryphal, this is not true of a lot of conspiracy theories including the ones Trump embraces today. The latest is Qanon which seems to be spreading like wildfire on social media. One Republican politician, Marjorie Greene, is getting herself elected to Congress as an upholder of that particular theory. It seems that nothing is too far fetched for right wing conspiracy theory followers to embrace. The most egregious example is that of Pizzagate. Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed that several high-ranking Democratic Party officials and U.S. restaurants were engaged in a human trafficking and child sex ring. One of the establishments allegedly involved was the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C. One true believer in this theory, Edgar Welch, went so far as to drive to Washington, DC, armed to the teeth, in an attempt to put an end to what he believed to be a child sex trafficking ring. He fired some shots into the restaurant, but luckily no one was hurt and Welch is now serving a four year term in prison as part of a plea deal while others are serving much longer sentences for possession of marijuana. This case shows, not only that one armed true believer could have done a lot of damage, but also how many people while enjoying the entertainment value of this conspiracy were not foolhardy enough to actually do something about it.

Don't underestimate the entertainment value of Trump's campaign rallies and symbolism and how that mirrors the entertainment value of Hitler's campaign rallies and symbolism. Trump came to most Americans' attention as an entertainer on a TV show, The Apprentice, and he clearly relishes the rallies he has held regularly during his Presidency until the coronavirus put a cramp in his style. The loss of these in person campaign rallies will probably hurt Trump's chances of reelection. In fact it may be a lucky break for the Biden Harris campaign. Hitler suffered from no such pandemic so he was able to entertain, spin conspiracy theories, console and comfort the German people many of whom came under his sway as true believers.

It is no joke that so many of the conspiracy theory true believers are also gun nuts. They represent the culture in which we find ourselves in which consists almost entirely of guns and criminality portrayed as entertainment in movies and on TV. Immersed in this gun culture some people come to see it as representative of real life in America today. Fortunately, not everyone acts on what for most represents entertainment, but some come to take politics, as espoused by Trump, as necessitating taking things into their own hands by means of a gun. From Timothy McVeigh to Edgar Welch to the Charleston church shooter, Dylan Roof, these people are usually white supremacists to whom Trump has given a dog whistle telling them it's OK to believe what they believe and for some to act on those beliefs.

Can the Democratic Party Landslide the Criminal Tyrant Trump?

Published on Saturday, September 05, 2020

by Common Dreams

Why has the Democratic Party been losing again and again at the federal and state level to the worst, cruelest, soft on corporate corruption, war-mongering, anti-worker Republican Party in history?

by Ralph Nader

 

20 Comments

Former vice-president and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden (L) and Senator from California and Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris greet supporters outside the Chase Center in Wilmington, Delaware, at the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, held virtually amid the novel coronavirus pandemic, on August 20, 2020. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

Why can't the Democratic Party landslide the serial corporate criminal and government outlaw Donald Trump? He is a servant of Wall Street and, by his deeds favoring the powerful, a proven "enemy of the people."

Why has the Democratic Party been losing again and again at the federal and state level to the worst, cruelest, soft on corporate corruption, war-mongering, anti-worker Republican Party in history?

"Biden should be thirty points ahead in the polls against the delusional, falsifying, lawless, selected occupant of the White House who spends most of his time tweeting insults, lies, and fictional accusations when he isn't watching the Fox News adoring bloviators. Instead, Biden's lead is in single digits."

 

The answers are many. The Democratic Party is indentured to monied interests and is incapable of taking responsibility for its losses and mistakes. Democratic operatives resist organized grassroots pressure and the party excludes/punishes any dissent inside its ranks. The shrinking trade unions that have historically pushed the Democratic Party are increasingly content with crumbs for workers and afraid of union members who have swallowed the Trump lies.

The two-party duopoly and an electoral system that obstructs challengers from smaller parties lets the Democratic Party stagnate. Unfortunately, the fate of the nation and our Constitutional Republic is in its hands. Joe Biden should be thirty points ahead in the polls against the delusional, falsifying, lawless, selected occupant of the White House who spends most of his time tweeting insults, lies, and fictional accusations when he isn't watching the Fox News adoring bloviators. Instead, Biden's lead is in single digits and he is having a hard time getting the offensive Trump on the defense. Here are some suggestions for the Democratic Party's quivering leaders:

1. Organize a mass demand for Trump/Pence to Step Aside and let experienced pandemic scientists and managers run the federal response to Covid-19, saving tens of thousands of lives and allowing the economy to recover. Trump's Virus, spreading daily owing to Trump's bungling, fabricating, quackering, chaos, denials, and grinding government scientists through his ignorant, ego-obsessed shredders, requires such a demand. It will encourage more people and state and local governments to be more assertive and insist on professional management and critical coordination by Washington.

   There are many Republicans in Congress who privately dread how the daily Trump Virus Show is diminishing their own electoral poll numbers.

2. Stop Coddling, Aiding, and Abetting Corporate Crooks who are cheating and endangering the health/safety of red state and blue state Americans alike. Demand Law and Order enforcement and greater funding for the corporate crime police. By massively dismantling government law enforcement, Trump is intensifying the corporate crime wave with subsidies, handouts, bailouts, and huge tax escapes. How's that for putting Big Business over Main Street? Let them steal, let them pollute, let them park their profits in tax havens abroad are elements of the Trumpian mantra which he brazenly applies to his own business interests.
   
   
3. Stop Trump from committing big-time violations of our Constitution and our federal laws in order to deepen his dictatorial regime. Trump illegally uses federal employees and property to promote his political campaign – a federal crime under the Hatch Act. He seizes the "power of the purse" from Congress, spending money for unauthorized domestic and foreign objectives thereby violating the criminal statute known as the Anti-Deficiency Act. He fires prosecutors and Inspectors General closing in on his and his crony's crimes and egregious misdeeds.

   Take on Trump when he declares phony national emergencies to grab more dictatorial powers making him the largest national emergency of them all. Trump makes it easy for the Democrats when he declares "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."Nixon was about to be impeached and convicted in 1974, before he resigned, for a tiny fraction of what the Democrats are letting Trump get away with.

4. Announce it is time to Vote Trump Out and Vote in the long-overdue Pay Raise. Ending the freeze on the $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage and raising some 25 million workers' wages to $15 per hour would answer the question: "Whose Side are You On?"  The House of Representatives has passed a $15 an hour minimum wage bill, though with a long implementation schedule. The Republican Senate, however, blocks passage and it has blocked the $600 a week relief payment to many millions of Americans without jobs due to Trump's Virus.
    

   Shouldn't the Democrats make these contrasting, notorious corporate-driven cruelties more vivid, and more front and center? Repetition is what reaches people who are numb to years of empty rhetoric and who want authenticity. Comparing Walmart's CEO making $12,000 an hour while many of his workers languish well under $15 per hour sharpens what should be the authentic contrast between the Republicans and Democrats.

5. Make Mitch McConnell, the self-styled "Grim Reaper" toady of big business, who buries scores of good bills passed by the House, the number two Ogre in the campaign. The evil McConnell is the worst suffocator of necessities for the American people, their children, and retirees in American congressional history. The Democrats have listed scores of bills under McConnell's chokehold – such as protections for poor children, fragile worker and retiree pensions (including those for coal miners in his state of Kentucky), lowering drug prices and expanding health care coverage, controlling climate disasters – to name a few. Yet, once again, they have not made "Moscow Mitch's" record (including blocking safeguards for election security and voter's rights) vocal, vivid, and front of center. The Democrats certainly have the campaign money to do so.

   The arrogant McConnell is up for re-election against a hyper-cautious conservative Democratic opponent. Democrats should take McConnell's pompous boast "The one thing I get to do that the other 99 /Senators/ don't get to do, is decide what we're going to do." and flood Kentucky with the truth about this malicious, destructive tyrant of the Senate and his  200 confirmed right-wing and corporate judges. McConnell's lapdog delivery of the Senate has made possible Trump's monarchical drive to repeal the American Revolution against Kings and for "a new birth of freedom."

6. Last November, 61% of women in a national CNN poll wanted Trump impeached and convicted. Certainly on their minds was Trump's long history of being a publicly bragging sexual predator and a terrible example for boys and young men. Over twenty brave women have come forward with credible accusations of sexual assaults by lying Donald. Why aren't the Democrats making this a campaign issue and making Trump pay a political price for such disgusting outrages? Democrats can turn the Republican Party's campaigns on "values" against Trump and his apologists.
   
   
7. The Democratic Party must choose to stand with the people by presenting a solemn covenant that improves all the livelihoods of all Americans and addresses the widespread anxiety, dread, and fear where they live, work, and raise their families. Help make people's dreams of a secure, fulfilling future a reality. This specific covenant would show that the Democratic Party stands for much more specific changes than not being Trump. Make it vivid and memorable, including empowering the people in distinct ways.

If you like these suggestions, add some of your own, and call or email Democratic National Chairman Tom Perez, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the House Democratic Caucus leader Hakeem Jeffries.

To Contact Chairman Tom Perez
Visit: https://democrats.org/contact-us/
or call (202) 863-8000

To Contact Members of Congress, call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author, most recently, of The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future. His new book, Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All, co-authored with Mark Green, is out next month.

Off the Top of My Head

Black Lives Ain't A Gonna Matter if Trump Gets Reelected

by John Lawrence, September 5, 2020

Right now peaceful protesters need to get off the streets in the lead up to the election. Why? Because they act as human shields for the rioters, looters, arsonists, gun nuts and counter protesters who come right in behind them and who have more nefarious purposes. Getting the protesters off the streets takes away Trump's law and order issue. People sitting on the fence are going to vote for Trump if they see cities going up in flames. It's as simple as that. We need calmness to prevail in American cities. When people see visuals of burning buildings on nightly news, it plays right into Trump's playbook.

I don't dispute the fact that black people have been treated differently by the police than white people. There is no question that there needs to be police reform, that there should be no choke holds, no 'no knock' warrants, that more social workers need to be dispatched to deal with people with mental health issues. However, it's no secret that at least some of these black men who have been shot and killed by police would be alive today if they had simply obeyed the cops' orders. Resisting arrest, giving the cops verbal back talk, physically struggling, trying to run away - all these things tend to make it more probable that a black person or any person is going to get killed. Rayshard Brooks, the man shot and killed in a Wendy's parking lot in Atlanta, would be alive today if he hadn't struggled with police and then tried to get away. When a situation escalates, things can get out of hand. Cops don't always act in such a way as to deescalate the situation. They should of course, but they are human beings. They can lose their cool. There is no question that police need more training as to how to handle tense situations and how to better control their emotions.

Right now this situation is playing out in Rochester. Mainly peaceful protesters are acting as cover for a relative few to do more dastardly deeds. There are skirmishes with the police. Tear gas spews out. Bottles are thrown. Trump tweets the whole scene. He couldn't be happier. Trump compared the cop's shooting of Jacob Blake to a golfer "choking" over a 3 foot put. While this is a horrible analogy, there is a kernel of truth there. The cop in question probably wishes he had handled the situation differently. However, if Blake had obeyed his orders in the first place, he wouldn't be paralyzed today.

There are 2 sides to every situation, and a lot of people sitting on the fence about who to vote for are people who just want to go about their lives as peacefully as possible. They are not necessarily Trump's base supporters. In battleground states, Trump won in 2016 by just a handful of votes. These fence sitting voters are very important to the outcome of the election. All those concerned that black lives matter have already been convinced and especially by the example of John Lewis who represented non violence and working within the system to vote, take power and get results that way. At this stage of the game it is totally redundant to react with street protests over every questionable situation in which a black man is killed by police. We have seen this movie many times before. And Trump's counter protesters are getting very active because they know that the more violence that occurs, the more this is only going to help Trump's chances of being reelected.

Sorry to put it this way, but that's the truth as I see it. I am totally in favor of police reform, economic reform, universal health care and a Green New Deal. But first Joe Biden has to get elected. I would have preferred Bernie Sanders, but he would have been an easier target for Trump to take down. The importance of this election is not only for the future of America. It is important for the whole world. The US and China are the world's 2 leading greenhouse gas emitters, responsible for about 40% of total world emissions. If these 2 countries don't cooperate to reduce GHGs and get the world using renewables, nothing else will matter. If Trump is reelected, not only will the US go up in flames, the entire earth will burn and very soon. The tension that the Trump administration is creating with China makes it less likely that GHGs will be reduced especially in light of the fact that Trump does not even believe in global warming and is telling the fossil fuel industry, in effect "Full steam ahead!"

In short street protests are counter productive at this time. Someone other than me needs to tell the protesters that.

Off the Top of My Head

Protesters Better Get Off the Streets if They Want Biden to Win

by John Lawrence, September 3, 2020

Right now street protests are counterproductive. They are giving Trump his main 'law and order' issue. The visuals of street violence only work in Trump's favor. There is a high probability that armed protesters and counterprotesters will clash with deadly results as they already have. #BlackLivesMatter has made its point. Now the protest movement is just helping Trump win. And it's giving cover to those who are looting and burning. I'm with John Lewis. He was willing to be beaten and jailed to make his point without fighting back. His way has been more successful than that of the others who have advocated violence. The Black Panthers made a splash for a few years. Then they were gone. There was no lasting influence or presence. Co-founder Huey Newton was murdered on the street allegedly because of a drug deal gone wrong. Stokely Carmichael took over the leadership of SNCC from John Lewis because John was non-violent and Stokely wanted to be more militant.

Unlike Huey Newton Stokely Carmichael had a fairly long life. He created the slogan #BlackPower which was the #BlackLivesMatter slogan of the 1960s. He was allied with the Black Panthers for a period of time until Huey Newton accused him of being a CIA agent. This idea was probably planted by J Edgar Hoover's FBI which was actively trying to destroy black leaders with its COINTELPRO operation. In his writings Carmichael espoused a separate black and white America, but many of his criticisms are valid today. From Wikipedia:

He promoted what he calls "political modernization." This idea included three major concepts: "1) questioning old values and institutions of the society; 2) searching for new and different forms of political structure to solve political and economic problems; and, 3) broadening the base of political participation to include more people in the decision-making process." By questioning "old values and institutions", Carmichael was referring not only to the established Black leadership of the time but also to the values and institutions of the nation as a whole. He criticized the emphasis on the American "middle-class." "The values," he said, "of that class are based on material aggrandizement, not the expansion of humanity."  Carmichael believed that blacks were being lured to enter the "middle-class" as a trap, in which they would be assimilated into the white world by turning their backs on others of their race who were still suffering. This assimilation, he thought, was an inherent indictment of blackness and validation of whiteness as the preferred state. He said, "Thus we reject the goal of assimilation into middle-class America because the values of that class are in themselves anti-humanist and because that class as a social force perpetuates racism."

Today we can be sure that the FBI and other government agencies are following in the footsteps of J Edgar Hoover and his COINTELPRO operation. The power of the American government is vast, and this is one reason why the way forward as suggested by the life of John Lewis and Martin Luther King is he best way. Rather than alienate white America John Lewis was non-violent and non-threatening while at the same time altogether willing to get into "good trouble." Stokely was right about the need to search for "new and different forms of political structure to solve political and economic problems." Who can argue that the gridlock and stalemate of the last 12 years in which one man, Mitch McConnell can block any legislation not to his liking represents an ideal democratic political system? Who can argue that an economic system in which 3 men have more wealth than half the American population represents an ideal economic system?

Solving poverty in the US would not only do the most to improve black lives, it would do the most to improve brown lives, Native American lives and poor white lives. The homeless situation in America is a disgrace and represents a dystopian American Dream. But even as important as making changes to the American political and economic systems are, even more important is the need to remedy and mitigate the issue of global warming or we will not have a planet and its resources to even fight over. That's why it's imperative to get Trump out of there and put someone and someones in who will address the global warming issue in a constructive way. That's why it's important to take away Trump's main issue - law and order - by getting peaceful protesters as well as rioters, counterprotesters and guns off the streets. The debate between capitalism and socialism will be moot if the earth becomes uninhabitable. It's no longer acceptable to go on peacefully protesting as long as this increases Trump's chances of being reelected.

With Biden-Harris Ticket Set, Climate Groups Demand 'Transformative Action From Day One' If Elected

Published on Wednesday, August 12, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Let's do our part to end this era of chaos and defeat Republicans up and down the ballot. Then, let's turn up to make a Biden-Harris administration lay the groundwork for a Green New Deal."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

6 Comments

Then-Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) speaks at a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa on August 12, 2019. (Photo: Alex Edelman/AFP/Getty Images)

Since presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Tuesday announced Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate, green groups have responded by welcoming the choice and expressing hope that the California Democrat will push for ambitious, justice-focused climate and environmental policies if they win in November.

As a 2020 presidential primary candidate until late last year, Harris "showed her responsiveness to activist and movement pressure to make climate a top priority, and demonstrated her willingness to be held accountable," Sunrise Movement co-founder and executive director Varshini Prakash said Tuesday. "She took our No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, ran on the Green New Deal as a core part of her platform, and mentioned it more in the presidential debates than almost any other candidate."

Harris was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced in February 2019 by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that calls for creating a 100% renewable U.S. energy system along with millions of jobs. She also signed on to a resolution urging Congress to declare a climate emergency and initiate a major mobilization in response to it.

Noting that Harris is a sponsor of that latter resolution, Matt Renner of the Climate Mobilization said that "her addition to this ticket is a good first step toward the future that the people are demanding, and serves as an opportunity to continue to push the Democratic Party toward emergency climate mobilization."

In recent weeks, Harris has also partnered with Ocasio-Cortez to unveil the long-anticipated Climate Equity Act and with other congressional colleagues for the Environmental Justice for All Act.

The Climate Equity Act "demonstrates her willingness to tackle environmental and racial injustice head on and we applaud her prioritization of communities most impacted by the climate crisis," said 350 Action North America director Tamara Toles O'Laughlin. "We're confident that Harris' stated commitments to climate action means that she will work with Biden to implement a Green New Deal that prioritizes Black, Indigenous, and communities of color and builds in a just transition that phases out fossil fuels by 2021 for our health and safety."

Greenpeace USA climate campaigner Charlie Jiang declared that "the Biden-Harris administration must take transformative action from day one to advance a Green New Deal and end the era of fossil fuels."

"The baseline for ambitious climate action has shifted dramatically for Democrats over the past year—it will be up to both Biden and Harris to move beyond false solutions like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and tackle social, environmental, and economic injustice at their roots," he said. "The evolution of Senator Harris' climate platform as a presidential candidate speaks to her commitment to holding big polluters accountable for their role in the climate crisis."

Jiang, whose group ranked Harris one spot above Biden in its 2020 primary climate scorecard, added that "we hope to see her continue this pursuit of climate justice for vulnerable communities as a vice presidential nominee and double down on ending fossil fuel production in the United States and around the world."

"Notably, she was one of the first candidates to publicly commit to abolishing the filibuster in order to make a Green New Deal the law of the land," Prakash said of Harris. "She took on Big Oil as California Attorney General, has consistently shown a strong record on ensuring environmental justice for Black, Brown, and poor communities, and has worked together with frontline communities, environmental justice organizations, and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez over the course of the last year to develop legislation that would ensure Green New Deal investments benefit and prioritize those communities."

Prakash also acknowledged concerns about Harris' past as a prosecutor, for which she faced criticism even before the latest wave of protests demanding systemic reforms to address how the U.S. criminal justice system impacts people of color:

Over the past few months, our country has had a reckoning over issues of policing and racial justice, and our movement has taken to the streets alongside allies demanding transformative change. As a young Indian-American woman, I am holding the significance of this moment to see the first mixed-race Black and Indian woman on a presidential ticket. I'm also deeply aware of Sen. Harris' record as a prosecutor and the ways in which a number of her decisions harmed communities of color, which our movement has spoken out about in the past and will continue to. We hope that she has learned from her past mistakes and continues listening to the activists who have taken to the streets as she has joined alongside them.

While praising Harris for showing "a solid understanding of the scale of the climate crisis" and committing to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, Toles O'Laughlin concurred that "as the contest unfolds, Harris has work to do to prove her support for the movement for Black lives, considering her record on police and prosecutorial misconduct. We need leaders who are ready to address the compound crisis of climate, racial injustice, economic inequity, and human health."

Given that Harris "has been known to be somewhat of a political chameleon" with a "habit of aligning her stance with the prevailing political winds," climate action advocates hope she will respond positively to political pressure for progressive policies. The impact of the planetary emergency on her home state of California, which Harris has previously discussed, could also compel her to act.

Harris "has come up against the effects of climate change firsthand in California, where wildfires, rising sea levels, and drought are near-constant sources of concern," Grist reported Tuesday. "As a result, her state has become a leader of the charge to tackle rising emissions in the United States. Let's hope Harris brings a little bit of that urgency to the ticket."

Biden—who is expected to formally accept the nomination to take on President Donald Trump next week—recently put forth a $2 trillion green energy plan that progressives celebrated as a "major step forward" and a signal that he is responding to calls for bolder climate policies from activists and Democratic voters who backed Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in the primary race.

"Meanwhile, Trump's climate policies are a raging dumpster fire," said Jiang of Greenpeace. "Communities across the United States are reeling from the compounding crises of climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic. But instead of taking action to prevent further suffering, Trump and his cabinet are bending over backwards to bail out fossil fuel CEOs."

Sunrise's Prakash vowed that "our movement remains committed to defeating Trump and Pence this November and hope to hold her accountable in office—just like we will with Joe Biden."

"Let's do our part to end this era of chaos and defeat Republicans up and down the ballot," she said. "Then, let's turn up to make a Biden-Harris administration lay the groundwork for a Green New Deal."

---

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

How Ya Gonna Pay For It?

by John Lawrence, July 27, 2020

This is the question they often asked Bernie Sanders when he talked about the various programs that he would seek to implement as President. Programs like a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, forgiveness of all student loan debt, free college, free pre-school etc. Bernie never really had a good answer except for taxing the rich. Well, that was a pretty good answer, but it is not even necessary to raise taxes on the rich to implement all of Bernie's programs. Modern Monetary Theory maintains that the US, as a currency issuer, can just issue the money into the economy. The US dollar, actually a Federal Reserve Note, is issued by the Federal Reserve bank. The Fed has created or "printed" trillions of dollars bailing out the banks in 2008, with its quantitative easing programs since then and now to fund the response to the coronavirus pandemic. It's obvious that the Fed can just print money and add it to the economy. It can buy up the national deficit and debt. There is no need to worry that the US, which has a sovereign currency can ever run out of money. While you and I, states and countries which do not have a sovereign currency or which have loans in other currencies do have to pay them off, any nation like the UK, Japan, the European Union and China do not have to worry about running deficits.

Republicans have traditionally run on the mantra that Democrats will raise your taxes. Remember George H W Bush's pledge: "Read my lips. No New Taxes." Then he did go ahead and raise taxes after he got elected. Well now it is becoming obvious that Americans don't have to worry about new taxes. Social programs as well as the military can be funded by the Fed just printing the money. Of course it would not be a good idea simply to flood the economy with money for which there is no good purpose. That would lead to inflation and to a loss of trust in the dollar. Under current conditions, however, the dollar is the world's reserve currency and that is not going to change any time soon. So prudent and responsible spending is still necessary. It's just that the US does not have to worry about deficit spending. Other central banks like Japan's are doing the same. In fact Japan has a greater deficit to GDP ratio than the US does.

Which brings us to social security. The conventional wisdom is that the Social Security Trust Fund is in deficit and will be exhausted by 2035. Modern Monetary Theory says that this is rubbish. The US as a sovereign currency issuer can never run out of money. Al Gore used to talk about putting social security in a lockbox. Not necessary. It is not even necessary to debit everyone's paycheck to provide revenues for social security. This is not a program that people who have worked all their lives have "earned." It is a social welfare safety net program pure and simple. To apply basic accounting to social security as if people's payroll tax contributions were necessary to fund it is not necessary or desirable. To argue over whether or not the payroll tax needs to be increased or whether the cap (the payroll tax is just taken on the first $137,700 of a person's earnings) needs to be lifted is pointless. There was an old saw about you can't have both "guns and butter." Well, you can have both and tax relief too! We just have to determine the prudent balance between guns and butter based on other criteria. It is not true that there is only a finite amount of money based on tax revenues that determines total expenditures.

Look at reality. The US has been running deficits for years. Now we're running trillion dollar deficits. Is any creditor coming after us? I don't think so. And there is no inflation. So we don't have to limit our thinking to the Federal government's just spending what it takes in in taxes. In fact we haven't done this in years since Clinton balanced the budget when he was President.

Joe Biden has some good benefits proposed for older retirees. From his website:

"The Biden Plan will provide the oldest beneficiaries – those who have been receiving retirement benefits for at least 20 years – with a higher monthly check to help protect retirees from the pain of dwindling retirement savings."

and

"Under the Biden Plan, workers who spent 30 years working will get a benefit of at least 125% of the poverty level"

The poverty level for a single individual is $12, 760. 125% of that is $15,950. So a minimum monthly payment would be $1329. This is over twice what I am now receiving so I would be very happy if Joe is able to implement this plank of his platform. There is no way a person can live on $641 a month. Fortunately, I don't have to. Currently, the minimum monthly payout for a single individual is $510 a month. That amount is approximately $2,000 less than the annual poverty threshold for an aged individual. Bringing monthly payments for the elderly up to snuff is something Republicans have resisted for years. Then, they have tried to defund all social and welfare programs. However, funding for the military-industrial complex has been relentlessly increased come hell or high water. For that expenditure, deficits don't matter. They shouldn't for infrastructure development and social safety net programs either.

Off the Top of My Head

It's Out of Control

by John Lawrence, July 19, 2020

The Trump policy is now clear: Let 'er rip. They are not going to spend any more money on testing, contract tracing and the CDC. The Obama administration had a plan in place to deal with a future pandemic. Trump did away with it, pulled the CDC out of China, withdrew the US from the World Health Organization. He is willing to sacrifice about 2% of the American people to get his economy back on the road before the election and hope that a vaccine will soon be available which would solve all his reelection problems. It's not going to work.

Biden has better plans not only for the pandemic, but also for the economy. His foreign policy, however, vis a vis China is still stuck in an antagonistic, competitive stance. It should be clear now that the major problems in the world including climate change in addition to the pandemic can only be resolved by cooperation, not competition. First of all the US is in no position to try and outcompete China. Both countries were essentially tied for the world's largest economy before the pandemic. Now China will be pulling ahead while the US languishes due to Trump's disastrous response to the pandemic. Instead of quibbling with China over the South China Sea, Hong Kong and the Uighuers, issues which amount to judging China's internal affairs and/or affairs in China's immediate territory, the US essentially should mind its own business and let China resolve the situations with its neighbors. There is much that China could criticize about America's internal affairs concerning human rights including both political and economic rights - #BlackLivesMatter, for instance. It is not constructive to be criticizing another country's internal affairs when a more constructive, cooperative and diplomatic approach could resolve the major issues between the countries instead of harping on issues within a country that don't affect the US at all.

China has achieved a lot in recent history even though it is a 5000 year old civilization, much older than either America or Europe. Disrespecting China at a time when China is actually becoming the most respected and dominant world player could be a disaster for America and also the whole world. If the world is to solve the climate change situation, all the world's players especially the most powerful and leading nations, must be on board, not indulging in criticism of one another. China is willing to do that. Is the US under either Trump or Biden?

There are seemingly intractable problems in every country of the world including the US and China. Working together, however, instead of alienating each other is something that is absolutely necessary at this time in human and world history. Otherwise, whoever wins the battle will surely lose the war as far as climate change is concerned. Other problems are trivial by comparison. It would be just like the human race to harp at each other while the planet Earth goes up in flames. Sorry but that's my opinion based on human history so far. Will the so-called 'better angels' of humanity rise up and do an about face with regards to that history?

'More Work to Do' But 'Major Step Forward': Progressives Welcome Biden's $2 Trillion Green Energy Plan

Published on Tuesday, July 14, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Biden gets a lot right... but he's still got a lot of room for improvement in increasing the scale, scope, and speed in which he addresses the climate emergency."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

44 Comments

Former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, speaks during a CNN climate crisis town hall on Wednesday, September 4, 2019. (Photo: CNN/Screengrab)

U.S. environmental and climate activists on Tuesday welcomed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's "Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future"—a proposal that is notably bolder than what he called for earlier in the primary.

"It's no secret that we've been critical of Vice President Biden's plans and commitments in the past. Today, he's responded to many of those criticisms."
—Varshini Prakash, Sunrise Movement

 

"Biden will make a $2 trillion accelerated investment, with a plan to deploy those resources over his first term, setting us on an irreversible course to meet the ambitious climate progress that science demands," his campaign website says, detailing related polices on agriculture, the automobile industry, buildings, electricity, environmental justice, housing, infrastructure, public transportation.

The plan calls for creating a million new jobs in the American auto industry, shifting to a power sector free from carbon pollution by 2035, and upgrading four million buildings and weatherizing two million homes over four years. Those building upgrades would create more jobs, as would the construction of 1.5 million sustainable homes and initiatives in "climate-smart agriculture, resilience, and conservation."

The New York Times reported that "in a call with reporters on Tuesday morning, senior Biden campaign officials said the proposal was the product of discussions with scientists, climate and environmental justice leaders, union members and leaders, mayors and governors, and representatives from the small-business and manufacturing communities."

In response to reporting on the proposal ahead of its official unveiling Tuesday, meteorologist and climate correspondent Eric Holthaus tweeted: "Wow. And wow in a good way." Julian Brave NoiseCat, vice president of policy and strategy at Data for Progress, acknowledged the plan's overlap with the Green New Deal.

👀 https://t.co/Z4gg2h3sbg pic.twitter.com/2nhrhN5Jsg

— Julian Brave NoiseCat (@jnoisecat) July 14, 2020

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a former challenger in the Democratic presidential primary race who ran with the climate crisis as his top priority and endorsed Biden in April, praised the proposal in a series of tweets Tuesday, saying that it "shows that he's serious about defeating climate change, and has a roadmap to become the climate president that America needs."

Evergreen Action, which is led by some former Inslee staffers, also welcomed the plan. In a Tuesday Medium post, Sam Ricketts, the group's co-founder, highlighted that Biden's proposal calls for major investments in a clean power-led economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic; includes enforceable, sector-specific benchmarks for a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy; and aims to hold polluters accountable for environmental injustice.

In a speech about his proposal Tuesday, Biden drew clear contrasts between himself and President Donald Trump. Climate reporter Emily Atkin, who tweeted some of his remarks, observed that "Biden's strategy here is to frame Trump's climate denial as costing America tons of money and jobs. And, to frame his climate plan as an economically exciting, job-heavy solution."

Biden's strategy here is to frame Trump's climate denial as costing America tons of money and jobs.

And, to frame his climate plan as an economically exciting, job-heavy solution

— Emily Atkin (@emorwee) July 14, 2020

Biden: When Trump looks at renewable energy, he sees “windmills somehow causing cancers.”

Biden sees “American manufacturing” and “dominating the global market”

— Emily Atkin (@emorwee) July 14, 2020

 

Evan Weber, co-founder and political director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, also noted the contrast that Biden drew between himself and the current president and pointed out the popularity of job-creating climate policies. As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, new Data for Progress polling shows majorities of U.S. voters support transitioning to a clean energy economy by 2035 and incorporating green infrastructure into the nation's recovery from the ongoing pandemic.

This was always the major narrative intervention at the heart of @sunrisemvmt's strategy: when people think climate change, they need to think "jobs," & if we achieve that we win.

If @JoeBiden runs aggressively on this through Nov 3, we can defeat Trump & maybe save society, too https://t.co/1DWfi9miiA

— Evan Weber 🌅🔥 (@evanlweber) July 14, 2020

Varshini Prakash is executive director of the Sunrise Movement—which endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the presidential primary race—and served on the Sanders-Biden Unity Task Force, which released its policy recommendations on climate and other key issues last week. She addressed Biden's new proposal in a statement Tuesday that noted her group's efforts to pressure every single candidate in this cycle to put out climate plans that matched the severity of the crisis.

"It's no secret that we've been critical of Vice President Biden's plans and commitments in the past," Prakash said. "Today, he's responded to many of those criticisms: dramatically increasing the scale and urgency of investments, filling in details on how he'd achieve environmental justice and create good union jobs, and promising immediate action—on day 1, in his first 100 days, in his first term, in the next decade—not just some far off goals."

"Our movement made this possible, but there's more work to do, and the urgency of this crisis demands that we keep pushing," she continued. "Vice President Biden must build on these commitments and make these actions an immediate and urgent priority on day 1. Our movement, alongside environmental justice communities and frontline workers, has taught Joe Biden to talk the talk. Now let's defeat Trump and mobilize in mass after the election to get Biden to walk the walk."

We previously gave Biden a 15% on Environmental Justice on our #GreenNewDeal scorecard b/c he lacked details.

Now he's filled in gaps, commiting to 40% of all investments going to frontline communities, establishing a new division in the DOJ, & more: https://t.co/iqsn4GcVPe

— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) July 14, 2020

Members of The Climate Mobilization also praised elements of Biden's new plan in a statement Tuesday while urging him to deliver concrete action addressing the planetary emergency and to consider even more ambitious policies in the future.

"Biden gets a lot right, especially around in the areas of racial and climate justice and equity for historically marginalized groups and working people; but he's still got a lot of room for improvement in increasing the scale, scope, and speed in which he addresses the climate emergency," said Matt Renner, the group's executive director. "Support for a Biden presidency from the climate movement should be contingent on his commitment to actually achieving climate safety in a just and equitable way, not simply going beyond what is considered politically possible."

Laura Berry, director of research and policy for The Climate Mobilization, argued that the proposed decarbonization targets don't go far enough.

"The last twelve months were the hottest we've ever experienced—an average of 1.3ºC above pre-industrial temperatures. Vice President Biden's plan, while a clear departure from the market-based solutions of the past two decades, ultimately fails to reckon with the massive climate risks we face within the next decade," Berry said. "Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector would only cut domestic emissions by 27%—but we need to be eliminating emissions across the economy as quickly as possible."

---

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

After Attacking Medicare for All as 'Unrealistic' During Primary, Biden Says Healthcare a 'Right for All' Amid Pandemic

Published on Thursday, June 25, 2020

by Common Dreams

"And the natural idea that follows from that is....?"

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden gestures as he delivers remarks about healthcare on June 25, 2020 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden left some progressives perplexed Thursday when he spoke at length about healthcare during a campaign stop in Lancaster, Pennsylvania—making a number of points that would suggest he supports Medicare for All, a proposal he denounced as "unrealistic" throughout the Democratic primary.

Washington Post reporter Jeff Stein noted that Biden mentioned the unemployment crisis that's grown out of the coronavirus pandemic in his speech, suggesting that the loss of employer-based health coverage has made a powerful case for the federal government to guarantee healthcare to all Americans.

Joe Biden notes in speech today that many people are losing their health insurance during the pandemic because it is tied to their employment

— Jeffrey Stein (@JStein_WaPo) June 25, 2020

"Families are reeling right now," the former vice president said, "losing their employers' plans in droves as their employers go out of business, or have to suspend business—they need lifelines now."

Thomas Kennedy, Florida state coordinator for the immigrant rights group United We Dream, suggested expanding the popular Medicare program to cover all Americans would be an effective lifeline for the 43 million people who could lose their employer-based health insurance during the pandemic, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

There is this thing called Medicare For All that would fix this. Biden should support it. https://t.co/kZtSFDKWqA

— Thomas Kennedy (@tomaskenn) June 25, 2020

However, Biden tied the crisis to his push for a public healthcare plan which would exist alongside the for-profit health insurance industry—not Medicare for All.

"We need a public option now more than ever, especially when 20 million people are unemployed," Biden said. "The public option will allow every American, regardless of their employment status, the choice to get a Medicare-like plan."

Biden is reportedly revamping some of the specifics of his healthcare plan in the coming weeks after forming a joint task force with former advisors to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who continues to advocate for Medicare for All following his presidential run. 

In his speech, Biden said Americans would have to pay no more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare costs; under the Affordable Care Act, the current limit is 9.86%, and was lower in previous years. Deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on top of premiums would still exist under Biden's plan, and as written, roughly 10 million Americans would remain uninsured. 

During the primary, Biden derided Sanders' Medicare for All proposal—which a Yale University study in February showed would save over $450 billion in healthcare costs annually—as "unrealistic." In an interview with MSNBC in March, days before the coronavirus pandemic was declared a national public health emergency and millions were left jobless overnight, Biden suggested that even if Medicare for All legislation were to pass in both chambers of Congress during his potential presidency, he would not necessarily sign it into law, citing concerns over cost.  

Objections to Medicare for All over its potential costs have been particularly irksome to proponents of the single-payer solution, with study after study showing overall expenditures would be less while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the country.

On social media during his appearance in Pennsylvania—where a 2018 Morning Consult/Politico poll found a majority of voters supported Medicare for All—Biden suggested that Sanders was correct to demand that the federal government ensure every American have healthcare coverage, referring to healthcare as a "right for all."

Health care is a right for all — not a privilege for the few.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 25, 2020

Medicare for All advocates implored Biden to commit to fighting to expand healthcare to all Americans—rather than just borrowing rhetoric from politicians who have pledged to do just that.

Health care is a right for all — not a privilege for the few.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 25, 2020

"So what are you going to do about that?" asked Lauren Ashcraft, a democratic socialist who ran for Congress in New York's 12th district this year.

---

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

 

America Self-Destructing From the Malignant Neuroses of its President & Republicans Gone Inhumanely Conservative

by Frank Thomas

A year ago, Trump told a crowd that he might remain in office “at least for 10-14 years.” He tweeted, “After serving two terms, do you think the people would demand that I stay longer?” Trump, the Great Divider, Liar, Egoist, revels in his megalomaniac illusions of being the Great Saviour who fits the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, even Churchill.

As crazy as Trump’s question and his self-proclaimed greatness are, the craziness gets wilder with a question addressed by Daniel Block of Washington Monthly: “How Could Trump Lose the Presidential Election and Remain President?” What would it look like if Trump refused to concede to a loss? Such a maddening prospect is scary as would also be his election to a second term. Daniel Block’s analysis obviously concludes the likelihood of that happening is NIL. (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2019)

Whatever happens, the above dramatizes the absolute necessity the Democrat Party captures the maximum registered and unregistered voter potential in November. In the 2016 presidential election, total voter turnout was 60.1%. As I noted in an earlier analysis, if the total voter turnout is in +65% range in November, Joe Biden will win the election for president. The Independent vote is well over 25% of the total voter turnout today. And at least 60% of that share (hopefully far more), will likely vote Democrat. The 18 to 34 and over 65 voter age groups are strongly behind Joe Biden as are the non-white Black/Latino voters, women voters, and white college-educated working class voters. The GOP’s suburban white non-college voters are shrinking; Trump has alienated Hispanic and minority voters in a number of states where the non-white share of the vote is growing. In states like Texas, Colorado, Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, Republicans are doing poorly in urban-suburban districts with growing non-white and white college educated voters. However, the Democrats must do a much better job of winning the loyalty of the white non-college educated working class voters.

Current polls show that in the race to win the Senate back, the Democrats have women candidates with good leads over the Republican opposition. And 3 or 4 other Senate races can go either way. Current polls show Biden to be nationally ahead in all swing states except North Carolina. In 2016, Trump won 30 out of 50 states, by a slim vote margin in some key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Iowa – all won by Obama in 2008 and 2012. Here are Trump’s winning popular vote margins:

	Winning Vote	Margin %	Electoral Votes
Pennsylvania	44,292	0.72%	20
Michigan	10,704	0.23%	16
Wisconsin	22,748	0.77%	10
Florida	112,911	1.20%	29
Ohio	446,841	8.13%	18
Iowa	147,314	9.41%	6
Arizona	91,234	3.54%	11
North Carolina	173,315	3.66%	15
Margin 50 States	2,868,686	2.09%
(Won By Hillary)
TOTAL VOTES
Hillary	65,853,514	48.17%	227 =42.8%
Trump	62,984,828	46.09%	304 =57.2%
			531

If Biden wins any four of above key states, he will win the presidency. Each state has as many electors in the Electoral College as it has Representatives and Senators in the Congress. (The District of Columbia has three electors). Given how well the Democrats won back the House of Representatives in 2018 and will likely maintain that margin in 2020 and possibly win at least 2 more Senate seats (or 49 Senate seats in total), this will help the Democrats win the Senate electoral majority vote in November.

With a sinking economy made worse by Trump’s late response to and mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic and the George Floyd protest movement, it’s no surprise his campaign strategy is hell-bent focused on suppressing voter turnout – e.g., by demonizing Joe Biden and by falsely discrediting mail-in voting as inherently fraudulent. He’s now repeating that mail-in voting is responsible for “thousands and thousands (later increasing that to millions and millions) of fake ballots.” When asked what’s the evidence, his deceitful reply was, “I think just common sense would tell you that massive manipulation can take place.”

This outrageous charge has led Trump to threaten to withhold government support funds from Michigan and Nevada – if they go ahead with plans to send absentee ballots to voters to help avoid the Covid-19 crisis. In his words: “People cheat … mail-in ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country because they (the voters) are cheaters.” Reckless, lying remarks like this now are now also being made in his calling Governors weak in controlling protesters and his pushing Governors to put protesters in prison for 10 years.

Stunningly, Republican Party members remain dead, dumb, and blind to all of Trump’s neuroses and deranged, misleading tweets. Once upon a time after WWII up to 1980, there were traditional moderate, pragmatic Republican norms that balanced individual and community interests. That supported prosperity and opportunities that raise all ships equitably. There was a spirit of mutual cooperation and plain decency in the country. That constructive, moderate relatively egalitarian period was uprooted by an army of angry men who rose to power through pure politics. Their ultra-conservative spokesman, Grover Norquest summed this up: “Bipartisanship is another term for date rape. I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Conservatives call it “starving the beast”, ^i.e.shrinking government by huge tax cuts for corporations and the Top 10% - ultimately causing net federal tax revenue losses offset by cuts in government spending, including basic social programs like Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, Welfare Support, etc. 

And now we have Trump carrying on the purest-ideology, survival-of-the-fittest, right-of-center Republican transformation – with his 24-hour tweeter drumbeat of warnings, alarms, insults, sudden policy switches, and personal harassments. All to keep the public uneasy, divided and distracted from his latest failing or deception.

We have a politically authoritarian and fundamentalist bully who wants to jail whistle blowers, journalists and protesters. A nihilist in golf pants who governs by surrounding himself with boot licking sycophants – many ending up in jail or fired for criminal acts or insubordination to their omnipotent RULER. To Hell with everyone who opposes him! Welcome to our DISUNITED democracy at work, thanks to Trump Inc.!

CONCLUSION:

Trump’s form of leadership is by nature a pernicious disuniting force – always adding oil to the endemic societal fires and problems stemming from the rampant tribalism, anger, inequality and racism tearing our nation apart. Empathy, mutual respect, harmony, common sense cooperation, plain decency amongst politicians, supporters, the public are becoming harder and harder to find. This is a great nation that wasn’t made so by an angry, shockingly divided people who felt that their country’s opportunities and prosperity weren’t raising the well-being of all equitably. In this regard, what a relief to hear now our esteemed Military Generals speaking up on our built-up SOCIETAL MESS, DIVISIONS & The CONSEQUENCES for our constitutional democracy that Trump’s dis-unifying, disarrayed, disingenuous leadership is only making worse.

Garrison Keiller had some ‘right-on-the-mark slams’ of conservative politics in past times that still apply to what’s happening now under Trump’s presidency:

“Lies pop up like toad stools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public through! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrises shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age, reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of DIVINE GRACE. The wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this!

ADDENDUM: My and The Economist’s Similar Forecast Conclusions: Biden Will Defeat Trump in Electoral College By Winning Key States

The Economist has just reported its study results, citing 9 key swing states for Biden to reach the minimum required 270 electoral votes (and more) to win the presidency in November. The Economist’s June 11th list of swing states is exactly the same as my June 3rd list above from my independent study, except for the addition of Georgia. Here’s the Economist’s ‘Big Picture’ conclusion on Biden’s chances of winning key swing states:

---

Key Swing States	Probability Biden Wins	Probability %	2016 Electoral Votes
Pennsylvania	LIKELY	65-85%	20
Michigan	VERY LIKELY	85-99%	16
Wisconsin	LIKELY	65-85%	10
Florida	LIKELY	65-85%	29
Ohio	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	18
Iowa	UNLIKELY	WELL BELOW 65%	6
Arizona	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	11
North Carolina	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	15
Georgia	UNCERTAIN	50-65%	16

---

As stated in my June 3rd writing, if Biden wins any 4 of the first 8 states above or any 4 of the Economist’s 9 states, he will win the required minimum of 270 electoral votes to become president. Most polls now show Biden ahead in the first 5 states and is moving closer to Trump in the Iowa race with its very small electoral votes. These are the very same six states Obama won in 2008 and 2012! Overall, Biden has an average polling margin lead of 6.7 percentage points. Races in Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia are also now getting closer between Biden and Trump.

The Economist predicts Biden will LIKELY WIN Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and is VERY LIKELY to WIN Michigan. My study of these states concludes the same, especially if there is a +65% total voter TURNOUT compared to 60.1% in the 2016 presidential election. If total voter TURNOUT is in the +65% range, my analysis indicates Biden will win at least 1, perhaps 2 , of the last 5 swing states, namely Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia. That scenario will surely bring Biden well over the minimum 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency (although Iowa and North Carolina are still ‘long shots’).

NOTE – Study Details 

The Economist: “Meet Our US 2020 Election-Forecasting Model,“ June 11, 2020.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/06/11/meet-our-us-2020-election-forecasting-model

https://projects.economist.com/united-states/2020/06/11/meet-our-us-2020-election-forecasting-model

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-latest-swing-state-polls-look-good-for-biden    

Frank Thomas, The Netherlands, June 3, 2020

Off the Top of My Head

Racist Economics

by John Lawrence, June 8, 2020

Is it racism when the schools in predominantly black neighborhoods are worse than schools in predominantly white neighborhoods? Schools in many parts of the country are funded with local property taxes. It stands to reason that property values in poor neighborhoods are less than property values in rich neighborhoods, and, therefore, property tax revenues and hence school funding is less. So the worse schools are found in poor "predominantly black" neighborhoods. A word you hear often these days is "predominantly". Nothing is totally black and white, but, when black people are affected in a way that is greater than their percentage of the population, one could say it is a "predominantly black" situation. When police arrest black people at a greater rate than they do white people, we could say that the police are a racist institution.

It has been said that the only mistake that the looters at the current protests made was that they didn't form a hedge fund first before they started looting. Martin Luther King said, “The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws—racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing the evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.” Republicans have breathed a sigh of relief that so far the Black Lives Matter movement has had little to say about poverty, economic inequality, militarism and materialism. Some though are getting to the heart of the problems in our society that affect us all but affect black people "disproportionately."

Writing in the New Yorker Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor said:

The [1992] uprising in L.A. shared with the rebellions of the nineteen-sixties an igniting spark of police abuse, widespread violence, and the fury of the rebels. But, in the nineteen-sixties, the flush economy and the still-intact notion of the social contract meant that President Lyndon B. Johnson could attempt to drown the civil-rights movement and the Black Power radicalization with enormous social spending and government-program expansion, including the passage of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which produced the first government-backed, low-income homeownership opportunities directed at African-Americans.

By the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties, the economy was in recession and the social contract had been ripped to shreds. The rebellions of the nineteen-sixties and the enormous social spending intended to bring them under control were wielded by the right to generate a backlash against the expanded welfare state. Political conservatives argued that the market, not government intervention, could create efficiencies and innovation in the delivery of public services. This rhetoric was coupled with virulent racist characterizations of African-Americans, who relied disproportionately on welfare programs. Ronald Reagan mastered the art of color-blind racism in the post-civil-rights era with his invocations of “welfare queens.” Not only did these distortions pave the way for undermining the welfare state, they reinforced racist delusions about the state of black America that legitimized deprivation and marginalization.

The 1990s saw Democrats agreeing with Republicans that problems in the black community were largely caused by overly generous social programs. President Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." Senator Joe Biden jumped right on board the push to reduce welfare programs by saying, "“the culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work. The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. And the culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life.” Biden championed the 1994 “crime bill” that pledged to put a hundred thousand more police on the street, called for mandatory prison sentences for certain crimes, increased funding for policing and prisons, and expanded the use of the death penalty. By the 1980s Ronald Reagan decried "welfare queens."

Taylor continues:

So, though Biden desperately wants us to believe that he is a harbinger of change, his long record of public service says otherwise. He has claimed that Barack Obama’s selection of him as his running mate was a kind of absolution for Biden’s dealings in the Democrats’ race-baiting politics of the nineteen-nineties. But, from the excesses of the criminal-justice system and the absence of a welfare state to the inequality rooted in an unbridled, rapacious market economy, Biden has shaped much of the world that this generation has inherited and is revolting against.

More important, the ideas honed in the nineteen-eighties and nineties continue to beat at the center of Biden’s political agenda. His campaign advisers include Larry Summers, who, as Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, was an enthusiastic supporter of deregulation, and, as Obama’s chief economic adviser during the recession, endorsed the Wall Street bailout while allowing millions of Americans to default on their mortgages.

Biden was chiefly responsible for the 2005 bill that took away bankruptcy protection from student load debtors (presumably disproportionately black). Credit card companies, many of whom are headquartered in Biden's state of Delaware, have been major Biden campaign contributors. Biden was known as the Senator from MBNA. Biden should just turn over the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders who has been on the right side of issues which are now coming to the forefront in American life.

Taylor continues:

In 1968, King, in the weeks before he was assassinated, said, “In a sense, I guess you could say, we are engaged in the class struggle.” He was speaking to the costs of the programs that would be necessary to lift black people out of poverty and inequality, which were, in and of themselves, emblems of racist subjugation. Ending segregation in the South, then, was cheap compared with the huge costs necessary to end the kinds of discrimination that kept blacks locked out of the advantages of U.S. society, from well-paying jobs to well-resourced schools, good housing, and a comfortable retirement. The price of the ticket is quite steep, but, if we are to have a real conversation about how we change America, it must begin with an honest assessment of the scope of the deprivation involved. Racist and corrupt policing is the tip of the iceberg.

We have to make space for new politics, new ideas, new formations, and new people. The election of Biden may stop the misery of another Trump term, but it won’t stop the underlying issues that have brought about more than a hundred thousand COVID-19 deaths or continuous protests against police abuse and violence. Will the federal government intervene to stop the looming crisis of evictions that will disproportionately impact black women? Will it use its power and authority to punish police, and to empty prisons and jails, which not only bring about social death but are now also sites of rampant COVID-19 infection? Will it end the war on food stamps and allow African-Americans and other residents of this country to eat in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? Will it finance the health-care needs of tens of millions of African-Americans who have become susceptible to the worst effects of the coronavirus, and are dying as a result? Will it provide the resources to depleted public schools, allowing black children the opportunity to learn in peace? Will it redistribute the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to rebuild devastated working-class communities? Will there be free day care and transportation?

In short we need good paying union jobs (Green New Deal) that will deal with the issue of climate change (Green New Deal), forgiveness of student loan debt (the least Biden can do since he was largely responsible for creating the situation), Medicare for All (since hospitals in black neighborhoods compare unfavorably with those in white neighborhoods), public housing (to end homelessness and guarantee everyone the right to have a roof over their head). If we want to solve the problem of institutional racism in this country, we need to address the fundamental problems of economic inequality. Where do we get the money? Not only by defunding the police which claim the lion's share of local budgets, but by demilitarizing the bloated military-industrial complex and taxing the rich at 1955 levels (91%). The Federal Reserve can always take a few more trillion on its balance sheet; it has taken trillions on its balance sheet already and given the money to the big banks. How about Quantitative Easing for the people? Economic inequality is a problem which affects black people disproportionately (there's that word again), but the solution of which will contribute to the benefit of white people as well.

Off the Top of My Head

Does Justice for George Floyd Include Economic Justice?

by John Lawrence, June 6, 2020

There is much that needs to be done with police and prison reform. A national ban against "carotid restraints." California has already banned them state wide. A national legalization of marijuana. Black people are disproportionately in prison due to being caught with small amounts of marijuana. Decriminalizing possession of small amounts of any drug. Let law enforcement go after the big guys - the dealers - instead of throwing every user in jail.

Black people are also disproportionately poor, so let's extend justice from race to class. What is justice for poor people? The end of homelessness? A Federal guarantee of adequate housing? Not all black people are poor, however. That's why economic justice has to consider class and not just race. There are a significant number of black people that are pretty well off. Take billionaires Robert Smith, Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan for example. So when we talk about economic justice, we have to talk about economic justice for poor people, many of whom are disproportionately black, but not all black people. Giving Oprah Winfrey an extra $1000. solves nothing.

So Bernie Sanders, where are you?  He was the foremost spokesman for economic justice. Let's start with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically Articles 23, 24 and 25.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

I would also say everyone should have a right to discharge debts through bankruptcy. However, in today's America student loan debtors don't have this right. Joe Biden voted to take this right away from student loan debtors. He backed a 2005 bill that stripped students of bankruptcy protections and left millions in financial stress. Too bad he's the presumptuous Democratic nominee. The mountain of student loan debt crushing borrowers across the country is having an even harsher impact on African-Americans in places like Brooklyn and Chicago when compared to white borrowers, according to none other than research economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Guardian reported:

The Republican-led bill tightened the bankruptcy code, unleashing a huge giveaway to lenders at the expense of indebted student borrowers. At the time it faced vociferous opposition from 25 Democrats in the US Senate.

But it passed anyway, with 18 Democratic senators breaking ranks and casting their vote in favor of the bill. Of those 18, one politician stood out as an especially enthusiastic champion of the credit companies who, as it happens, had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – Joe Biden.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voted against it. Student loan debt now stands at $1.5 trillion - greater even than mortgage debt in the US. The sum of outstanding educational loans borrowed from private financial entities was only $56 billion in 2005. More than 1 million people default on their student loans every year. By 2023 the proportion of borrowers falling behind with repayments is expected to reach 40%. This is a massive financial boot on the neck of many American citizens, disproportionately black. “This legislation breaks the bond that unites America, it sacrifices Americans to the rampant greed of the credit card industry,” Ted Kennedy said at the time.

Now Biden wants to change his tune if he becomes President. He announced in April that he is proposing to forgive all undergraduate federal student loan debt for borrowers who attended public colleges and universities. Sanders wanted to cancel all student loan debt tax-free with no limitations, including both federal and private student loans. So Biden is qualifying and nuancing his debt forgiveness plan. Only Federal, not private, student loan debt will be forgiven and then only for those who went to public colleges, and only undergraduate debt. This is stupid because much of the debt is to profit making institutions like the University of Phoenix, many of which were scam colleges producing worthless degrees. Of course something is better than nothing, but Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would have forgiven all student loan debt unconditionally.

Most of the protesters are millennials, the ones most afflicted with student loan debt. I'll vote for Biden if the race for President is Biden vs Trump. Anyone would be better than Trump. However, there's much about Biden's record that leaves a lot to be desired. Bernie would have been a much better candidate, and he's not officially out of the race yet. The times that we're in call for more profound action than the kind Biden is mildly espousing.

Ocasio-Cortez Warns Biden That Just Throwing Progressives a 'Couple of Bones' Will Not Be Enough

Published on Monday, April 13, 2020

by Common Dreams

"At the bare minimum, we should aspire to be better than what we have been before," says New York Democrat in new interview. "People need to feel hope."

by Eoin Higgins, staff writer

 

27 Comments

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), at the Capitol on Friday, March 27, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images)

In an interview with the New York Times published Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argues that presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has much work to do when it comes to motivating those within the progressive movement inspired and led by Sen. Bernie Sanders over the past five years.

"I don't think this conversation about changes that need to be made is one about throwing the progressive wing of the party a couple of bones—I think this is about how we can win," Ocasio-Cortez told the Times.

NEW: I interview @AOC abt Joe Biden and Democratic unity. What concessions she wants (plenty), if they've ever talked (no), whether we'll see a Biden-AOC unity rally (depends), and what she's thought abt his early health care outreach ("almost insulting")https://t.co/PytaBB0nk1

— Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) April 13, 2020

In the Times interview, Ocasio-Cortez made clear she intends to support Biden if he is the nominee but said that thus far the former vice president's overtures to the Democratic Party's progressive wing leave much to be desired. 

The New York Democrat—who was a prominent and galvanizing surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail before he dropped out of the race on April 8—said that while expectations for Biden's campaign should be realistic, there is a need for a forward-thinking agenda. 

"I think people understand that there are limits to what Biden will do and that's understandable—he didn't run as a progressive candidate," Ocasio-Cortez said. "But, at the bare minimum, we should aspire to be better than what we have been before."

At the same time, she said elsewhere in the interview, "people need to feel hope" when it comes to looking towards the next Democratic administration.

As Common Dreams reported last Thursday, a new policy proposal from Biden to lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 was met with disappointment from the left—and Ocasio-Cortez agreed.

"They floated this olive branch to the progressive left of lowering the Medicare age to 60. And it's almost insulting," she said. "I think Hillary was looking at policies that lowered it to 50. So we're talking about a 'progressive concession' that is 10 years worse than what the nominee had in 2016."

AOC seems to be on the same wavelength as me in this interview: a baseline commitment to defeating Trump, but no shilling, no enthusiasm, nothing besides the most nominal support if Biden doesn't offer us anything... and he hasn't offered us anything. https://t.co/3YMIYATTgn https://t.co/5S7TgqT2ZO

— David Klion (@DavidKlion) April 13, 2020

Ocasio-Cortez added that the exit polling from the primaries made clear that the majority of Democratic voters are on board with progressive policies, a sign that Biden's victories are not necessarily an endorsement of all of the former vice president's political positions.

"While Biden is the nominee, we also know that he didn't win because of policy—I don't think he won because of his agenda, he won because of different factors," said Ocasio-Cortez, referring to an unprecedented coalescing from the rest of the field around Biden after the South Carolina primary.

"In state after state after state," she added, "Democratic voters support a progressive agenda."

Asked about her willingness to rally with Biden, Ocasio-Cortez allowed it was a possibility. But ultimately, she said, the former vice president has to do a better job reaching out to supporters of Sanders and fellow former primary candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

"I've always said that I will support the Democratic nominee," said Ocasio-Cortez. "But unity is a process, and figuring out what that looks like is part of this whole conversation that I think Bernie and Warren and other folks are a part of as well."

---

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

Biden Must Become the Climate-Commander-in-Chief

Published on Saturday, April 11, 2020

by Common Dreams

Given the climate emergency, the difference between a candidate who is good enough on the issue and one who is great, could be the difference between a livable planet and not.

by Karyn Strickler

 

 

26 Comments

Over 150 middle and high school students demonstrated at the U.S. Capitol building urging senators to back the Green New Deal. (Photo: Sunrise Movement)

Now that Bernie Sanders has suspended his run for President Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee. But not so fast. Sanders’ voters are going to support Biden, when he earns it. Sanders blazed new trails of climate leadership, making it compulsory to have multi-billion dollar plans to decarbonize. He defined the terms of the climate change debate by relentlessly insisting that his fellow candidates understand the meaning of an existential threat and take appropriate action. Biden must follow Sanders’ example, not just for Sander’s voters, but for humanity itself.

A classic exchange during the last primary debate shows the gulf between lip service and true command of the issue, Sanders challenged Biden’s climate leadership. “I’m talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they’re going to stop destroying the planet,” Sanders said. Biden responded, “So am I.” Sanders pressed him, “Well, I’m not sure your proposal does that.” He said, instead of spending 1.8 trillion on weapons to kill each other, let’s fight our common enemy, which is climate change.

"He seems satisfied with half measures like his promise to recommit to the Paris Climate Agreement, a necessary, but insufficient idea. That approach will not suffice for Sanders’ voters. Biden must become the Climate-Commander-in-Chief."

Sure Joe Biden advocates for action on climate change, but not as an urgent, top priority issue. He seems satisfied with half measures like his promise to recommit to the Paris Climate Agreement, a necessary, but insufficient idea. That approach will not suffice for Sanders’ voters. Biden must become the Climate-Commander-in-Chief.

Excessive CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is driving up the average global temperature which is driving deadly, destructive weather extremes of all sorts. Joe Biden’s climate plan currently calls for a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by no later than 2050, likely two decades too late. He needs to commit to 100% renewable energy by 2030, as Bernie Sanders did.

In order to slow climate change, America must get off fossil fuels. Biden signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, but subsequently violated it by attending a fundraiser co-hosted by Western LNG’s co-founder Andrew Goldman, demonstrating a weak commitment, and an affinity for the fossil fuel industry and their money. You can’t fake your way off of fossil fuels, you can’t say one thing and do another and your commitment can’t waiver.

By contrast, Sanders was always ready to challenge the powerful fossil fuel industry. In the last primary debate where Sanders and Biden went mano e mano, Sanders said, “Look, in terms of the fossil fuel industry, these guys have been lying,” Sanders said, “They’ve been lying for years like the tobacco industry lied 50 years ago. ‘Oh we don’t know if, if fossil fuels, if oil, if carbon emissions, are causing climate change.’ They knew! ExxonMobil knew. They lied. In fact, I think they should be held criminally accountable.”

Biden supports a fee on carbon pollution, but needs to prioritize and publicly advocate for a fee on fossil fuels to dramatically reduce and ultimately eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide from those sources. Such a fee should set an ambitious, concrete goal for emission reductions that is adequate to slow climate change and its impacts. The fee itself, the price per ton of carbon dioxide, paid by the polluter, likely needs to start in the triple digits and rise from there, in order to get the job done.

At Mauna Loa, where the government tracks atmospheric carbon dioxide, it currently measures 414.5 parts per million (ppm). Carbon dioxide exceeded 400ppm for the first time in 3-5 million years, the first time in human history in 2014. In his paper, "Target Atmospheric CO2:  Where Should Society Aim," former NASA Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen said, “The safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 is no more than 350ppm." 

If Americans have learned one thing during this COVID 19 pandemic, it’s the critical importance of national leadership in a time of crisis. The World Health Organization warns that, “The climate crisis is a health crisis.” They say, besides health emergencies stemming from extreme weather events, climate change fuels the spread of infectious diseases.

Dr. Aaron Bernstein, a pediatrician and Interim Director of The Center for Climate Health at Harvard’s School of Public Health said, “The bottom line here is that if you wanted to prevent the spread of pathogens, the emergence of pathogens, as we see not just with people and COVID, but as well with wildlife, you wouldn't transform the climate. Because that forces species to come into contact with other species that may be vulnerable to infections.”

In 2018, the United Nation’s IPCC report said the world had 12 years to limit the climate change catastrophe and keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Given the climate emergency, the difference between a candidate who is good enough on the issue and one who is great, could be the difference between a livable planet and not, when electing a U.S. President in 2020.

With scientific estimates of about 11 years to slow climate change, the 2020 election may represent one of our last chances to prioritize climate change in the voting booth. The next 4 years is more than one third of the time we have for action, signaling the crucial need for Joe Biden to emulate Bernie Sanders’ tough stand and prioritize climate change. We have more immediate needs in the face of a global pandemic, which is itself exacerbated by climate change, but if we don’t slow climate change in short order, no other issue will matter.

Karyn Strickler is a political scientist, grassroots organizer and writer. She is the founder and president of Vote Climate U.S. PAC, working to elect candidates to get off fossil fuels and put a price on carbon. Karyn is the former producer and host of Climate Challenge on MMCTV. You can contact her at climatechallengetv@gmail.com.

---

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

'Why the Unnecessary 6?': Medicare for All Advocates Warn Biden That Lowering Age to 60 Solves Nothing

Published on Thursday, April 09, 2020

by Common Dreams

"These policies are what I would expect from Republicans. This is not a 'big overture' by any stretch of the imagination."

by Eoin Higgins, staff writer

 

38 Comments

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders listens as former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during the Democratic Presidential Debate at Texas Southern University's Health and PE Center on September 12, 2019 in Houston, Texas. (Photo:  Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Progressives on Thursday were quick to call foul after it was reported that Joe Biden, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, put forth a pair of policy proposals—one lowering the Medicare age to 60 and the other a student debt relief program—purportedly designed to win over supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders who instead saw the plans as woefully insufficient.

"We have to do more to ease the economic burden on working people," Biden said in a tweet announcing the plan. "So today, I'm adopting two new policies to help deliver relief."

We have to do more to ease the economic burden on working people. So today, I'm adopting two new policies to help deliver relief. As president, I will:

- Lower Medicare eligibility to age 60
- Forgive student debt for low-income and middle class families https://t.co/wtMnhJdCaR

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) April 9, 2020

But the proposals—one a lowering of the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 and the other a means-tested, complicated student debt forgiveness plan—were seen by progressives as at best insufficient.

"That he's willing to shift on these issues after telling us they were 'pie-in-the-sky' indicates that we can go further," tweeted Briahna Joy Gray, Sanders' campaign press secretary. 

Good.

That he's willing to shift on these issues after telling us they were "pie-in-the-sky" indicates that we can go further.

*Lower the age to 55 year one, 45 year two, 35 year 3, & cover everyone in year 4. That's #MedicareForAll.

*Tax Wall St & cancel ALL student debt. https://t.co/wOMJziQ1nZ

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) April 9, 2020

Gray's optimism, however, was not shared by everyone on the left. In a lengthy Facebook essay reacting to the proposals, CUNY professor Corey Robin questioned how Biden could hope to pass anything approximating his plans through Congress.

"The rule of politics is you never get 100% of what you want," said Robin, adding, "Our sense of political time is not keeping up with actual time, and I find the euphoria of complacency and incrementalism totally mystifying."

Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman of the Washington Post broke the story Thursday, reporting that Biden was announcing the shift in policy as a way to show Sanders supporters that what he now supports is "significantly more liberal than what he supported when he was vice president."

As Sargent and Waldman explained, the policy proposals show that Biden and his campaign are acknowledging the political reality that Sanders and his movement have changed the national conversation around domestic politics:

There will, of course, be many Sanders supporters who will see these proposals as insufficient, and there's a reasonable case to be made for that position. But you could also see them as a validation of Sanders' entire strategy.

Sanders ran for president not just to win, but also to get his ideas in wide circulation and pull the Democratic Party to the left. And that’s precisely what's happening. The party is going to nominate a candidate with establishment roots and centrist instincts, but that candidate is adapting his policy agenda to move in Sanders' direction.

In an email to the Post, Economic Policy Institute director of research Josh Bivens said the overtures were further proof that the Sanders effect on the party was real and making a difference.

"Both of these ideas represent really welcome U-turns from what was damaging conventional wisdom even in big swaths of the Democratic Party for years," wrote Bivens.

But other progressives were skeptical, at best, of the content of Biden's proposals, calling the Medicare age rollback in particular a transparent attempt to placate concerns over the former vice president's commitment to single-payer healthcare that would benefit the private insurance industry more than taxpayers. 

"These policies are what I would expect from Republicans," tweeted anthropolgist and political activist Michael Oman-Reagan. "This is not a 'big overture' by any stretch of the imagination."

In a tweet, healthcare advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) wondered sarcastically if Biden had added an unnecessary "6" to the eligibility age—a reference to Medicare for All's immediate eligibility at birth. 

Why the unnecessary "6"?#MedicareForAll https://t.co/0INA83EgCM

— Physicians for a National Health Program (@PNHP) April 9, 2020

PNHP president-elect Dr. Susan Rogers, in exclusive comment to Common Dreams, said that Biden's so-called "big" gesture is simply not sufficient to address  the healthcare crisis in the country, especially now that the coronavirus outbreak has paralyzed the economy and thrown millions out of work—and off of employer-provided insurance.

"One of the main benefits of Medicare for All is that it uncouples health coverage from employment, which is even more urgent now as our system of job-based private insurance is crumbling beneath our feet," said Rogers. "Reducing Medicare eligibility to age 60 does not resolve the underlying problem for the vast majority of working Americans and their families."

Only Medicare for All, added Rogers, packs the cost-saving punch to solve both the healthcare and fiscal crises now facing the country.

"By cutting out the waste of private insurance, Medicare for All could save nearly $600 billion a year while covering everybody for all medically necessary care," said Rogers.

The only explanation for lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and then stopping: protecting the profits of the private health insurance industry.

— chemo and insulin should be free, too! (@AllOnMedicare) April 9, 2020

"The net effect of Biden's Medicare expansion would be to slough the most expensive patients off private insurance rolls and instead put them into government-subsidized, extremely profitable privatized Medicare Advantage plans," said healthcare activist and author Timothy Faust. "Some overture."

Sanders aide David Sirota was among those pointing out that the Biden proposal is less ambitious than one defeated in the Senate by former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in 2010. 

"For reference, lowering Medicare to age 60 is actually a retreat from Senate Dems' own push 10 years ago to lower it to age 55," Sirota tweeted.

Meanwhile, as Gray noted, the student debt relief aspect of the plan has very narrow, means-tested prerequisites.

Joe Biden's plan appears to exclude:

🚫Graduates of for-profit colleges, who are among the most indebted;

🚫The 1/3 of college students who attend private schools (other than HBCUs);

🚫Graduates of trade schools;

🚫Graduate student debt;

🚫Those making over 125k. https://t.co/EdSmSe6wA2 pic.twitter.com/1AkI6VMhKW

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) April 9, 2020

The cost of offering all students relief, Gray added, is the equivalent of tax cuts for the rich pushed through Congress by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in 2018.

"Cancelling ALL student debt only costs $1.6 trillion—that's about the same as Trump's tax cut, which helped no one but the rich," said Gray.

Ultimately, the question is who should be taken care of, Gray tweeted.

"If we can bail out Wall Street," Gray said, "we can bail out students."

---

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

Bernie Bows Out ... Or Did He?

by John Lawrence, April 8, 2020

Bernie has suspended his campaign. That's not the same as ending his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. He's going to remain on the ballot. It could take a miracle, but it is still possible that Bernie could win the nomination. So far Biden has 1217 pledged delegates; Bernie has 914. 1991 are needed for the nomination. There are a total of 4051 delegates. That means there are still 1920 delegates outstanding. Suspending his campaign is not the same as conceding. Bernie still hopes to collect more delegates as that will give him more leverage at the convention. He could even still win, campaign or no campaign. The coronavirus has changed everything. You can't really campaign in the traditional sense anyway.

In Bernie's speech today he emphasized the point about Medicare for All as a human right independent of employment which is looking pretty good right now. Employer based health care has been exposed by the coronavirus as not too desirable especially if you have lost your job and with it your health insurance. This was the major difference between Joe and Bernie, and now that people have seen with their own eyes how flawed employer based health care is, they might have second thoughts about Medicare for All vs Medicare for All Who Want It as was touted by Pete Buttagieg and Amy Klobuchar.

I think that not too much should be read into Bernie's suspending his campaign. You can't campaign under the conditions represented by a pandemic. In fact I think Bernie's candidacy is looking better to a lot of people who have cast their ballots for Joe Biden. At any rate Bernie will have a lot of influence in setting the agenda of the Democratic party. Joe has already moved considerably to the left. Bernie is still a force to be reckoned with. Biden may be the presumptive nominee, but he's not the actual nominee ... yet.

Bernie asserted today that, while he may have lost the popular vote for the nomination, he has not lost the ideological argument. True, health care as a human right, free college, a Green New Deal, calling out corporate greed and for a living wage. These issues remain on the table. Economic inequality has also been brought home by the shutdown of the economy and the fact that half of American families have less than $400 in the bank. Most are highly in debt as well as a lot of corporations which have bought back their own stock instead of saving their money. They borrowed money for that purpose, and now they're in danger of going bankrupt.

In short the problems and issues that Bernie so ably brought to the fore will continue to demand the attention of the public even if Bernie passes from the scene which he won't any time soon. Remember he's still the Senator from Vermont. God bless him. He's done a lot for this country.

As Sanders Demands End to Iran Sanctions to Save Lives Amid Coronavirus Pandemic, Biden Says He Needs 'More Information'

Published on Monday, March 30, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Iran is facing a catastrophic toll from the coronavirus pandemic," said Sanders. "U.S. sanctions should not be contributing to this humanitarian disaster."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

17 Comments

A view of the fairground of Iran, Tehran's largest shopping mall, after it converted into a hospital for coronavirus (COVID-19) patients, in Tehran, Iran on March 30, 2020. (Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

After Sen. Bernie Sanders and other progressive lawmakers last week called on the Trump administration to end its economic warfare against Iran amid the coronavirus pandemic, 2020 Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden on Sunday refused to commit to even temporarily lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran that are severely restricting the country's access to essential medical supplies.

"There is no logic to these sanctions. They're cruel and unusual punishment, full stop."
—Sina Toossi, National Iranian American Council

"I don't have enough information about the situation in Iran right now," said Biden, the former vice president under the Obama administration, which negotiated the Iran nuclear accord that President Donald Trump scrapped in 2018.

"There's a lot of speculation from my foreign policy team that they're in real trouble and they're lying," said Biden. "But I would need more information to make that judgement. I don't have the national security information available."

Watch:

EXCLUSIVE: Would Joe Biden temporarily lift sanctions on Iran during the coroanvirus pandemic? #MTP #IfItsSunday@JoeBiden: "There's a lot of speculation ... that they're in real trouble and they're lying. But I would need more information to make that judgement." pic.twitter.com/d6KFmcm9FZ

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) March 29, 2020

The dire situation in Iran has been international news for weeks and the public outcry over U.S. sanctions has been coming from human rights groups as well as Biden's fellow Democrats.

Biden's remarks on Sunday came a week after more than dozen members of Congress—including Sanders, Biden's remaining 2020 Democratic presidential rival—sent letters to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin demanding that the White House immediately lift sanctions on Iran as the nation attempts to combat one of the largest coronavirus outbreaks in the world.

"Rather than continue to pile on sanctions in the Iranian people's hour of need, we urge you to substantially suspend sanctions on Iran in a humanitarian gesture to the Iranian people to better enable them to fight the virus," reads a letter signed by Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and six other members of Congress.

The letter was sent days after Pompeo announced that the Trump administration is imposing more sanctions on Iran in an effort to "deprive the regime of critical income from its petrochemical industry and further Iran's economic and diplomatic isolation."

Iran is facing a catastrophic toll from the coronavirus pandemic. U.S. sanctions should not be contributing to this humanitarian disaster.

As a caring nation, we must lift any sanctions hurting Iran’s ability to address this crisis, including financial sanctions. https://t.co/OBjff1nsxz

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 18, 2020

The U.S. reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran in 2018 after Trump violated the Iran nuclear deal, effectively killing a signature foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration. On the campaign trail, Biden has condemned Trump's decision to withdraw from the agreement and vowed to return to the negotiating table with Iran if elected president.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that U.S. sanctions against Iran—where the coronavirus has officially infected more than 41,000 people and killed nearly 2,800—"have limited Tehran's ability to finance and purchase essential items from abroad, including drugs as well as the raw materials and equipment needed to manufacture medicines domestically."

"There is no logic to these sanctions," tweeted Sina Toossi, senior research analyst with the National Iranian American Council. "They're cruel and unusual punishment, full stop."

An anonymous employee of a major Iranian pharmaceutical company told the Post that "the sanctions have definitely made the import and production processes longer and more expensive."

"Some suppliers are afraid and not willing to work with us anymore," the person said. "The sanctions have reduced Iran's capacity to control the outbreak."

---

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

Maybe the Shut Down of Non-Essential Businesses Should Be Made Permanent

by John Lawrence, March 27, 2020

As long as we have electricity, the internet, clean water, waste water disposal, full grocery markets, pharmacies, excellent health care, gas stations, trash collection and other essential businesses, perhaps the shut down of non-essential businesses is a good thing. Already it has cleaned up the environment and significantly reduced the emission of greenhouse gasses. What about all those unemployed people, you say? Put them to work in the Green New Deal building and repairing infrastructure throughout the country. If this COVID-19 thing lasts till January 20, 2021, I'm hoping President Joe Biden will do just that. And we should help build essential businesses in other parts of the world instead of engaging in military adventurism. Billions of people don't even have clean water, adequate sanitation, the internet, full grocery markets and other essential businesses.

Once these essential needs are taken care of for the entire world's population in such a way that GHG emissions are reduced to zero, then maybe some non-essential businesses could be reestablished. The pandemic goes to show that much of the US economy is based on non-essential businesses and the provision of non-essential goods and services. In fact not only are many of them non-essential, they are downright deleterious. Consider the gambling industry: downright deleterious. The movie and TV industry: about 70% deleterious. The fast food industry: 90% deleterious creating obesity and diabetes. Why isn't the school system educating people about nutrition? Many people have essentially a fast food diet. The food is cheap and ubiquitous, and people don't have time to create nutritious meals any more the way Moms used to when they didn't have to work to pay the mortgage and car payments.

The American way of life including may non-essential businesses is sickness producing. The profit oriented health care industry makes money off of sick people, not keeping people healthy. If everyone were healthy or were encouraged to lead healthy lifestyles, there would be far less sickness. But the stress induced by both spouses having to work leads to unhealthy lifestyles. Some families need 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. The children are also subjected to a competitively oriented style of learning in which they are forced to compete with other children to get good grades so they can get into the best colleges. Instead maybe they should be encouraged to think in terms of what they want to do in their lives which would be a service to society in addition to affording a comfortable living for themselves.

More businesses considered to be non-essential:

Theaters, Salons and Spas, Racetracks, Shopping malls, Bowling alleys, Sporting and Concert Venues, Liquor stores, Bars, Cruises, Golf Courses, Resorts, Hair and Nail Salons.

Highly polluting industries and activities which are non-essential:

Most airline travel, the cruise industry, the travel and tourism industry, most automobile travel (use mass transit instead), most of the trucking industry (use rail instead), the beef industry, the hog industry, agribusiness (encourage small organic farms instead), most military and military-industrial complex, the plastic industry, the fossil fuel industry.

In Coronavirus Will Change the World Permanently. Here’s How. Mark Lawrence Schrad writes:

America has long equated patriotism with the armed forces. But you can’t shoot a virus. Those on the frontlines against coronavirus aren’t conscripts, mercenaries or enlisted men; they are our doctors, nurses, pharmacists, teachers, caregivers, store clerks, utility workers, small-business owners and employees. Like Li Wenliang and the doctors of Wuhan, many are suddenly saddled with unfathomable tasks, compounded by an increased risk of contamination and death they never signed up for.

When all is said and done, perhaps we will recognize their sacrifice as true patriotism, saluting our doctors and nurses, genuflecting and saying, “Thank you for your service,” as we now do for military veterans. We will give them guaranteed health benefits and corporate discounts, and build statues and have holidays for this new class of people who sacrifice their health and their lives for ours. Perhaps, too, we will finally start to understand patriotism more as cultivating the health and life of your community, rather than blowing up someone else’s community. Maybe the de-militarization of American patriotism and love of community will be one of the benefits to come out of this whole awful mess.

The same sentiments hold true for teachers and other caregivers. People that take care of people and encourage people to have better lives are the true heroes. The Peace Corps and AmeriCorps should be the preeminent national services not the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines. We need to spread good will in the world by spades instead of bullying the rest of the world with US sanctions. We should develop the equivalent of China's Belt and Road initiative and start building clean water plants, sanitation plants, industries which decrease pollution and plastic trash in the ocean. We need to clean the environment around the world not contribute to dirtying it. We need to help bring home all the refugees in refugee camps and guarantee the safety and security of Latin Americans so they don't become migrants and refugees.

Off the Top of My Head

Bernie Slammed for Saying Something Positive About Cuba. Now Cuban Doctors Are Going to Italy to Help With Coronavirus.

by John Lawrence

Something the main stream media won't report: Cuban doctors are being sent to Italy. Previously, they helped with the Ebola crisis in Africa. Regardless of their form of government, give credit where credit is due. Joe Biden and the media jumped all over Bernie for saying one good thing about Cuba.  Biden sought to contrast Sanders’ comments with former President Barack Obama, noting that Obama “did not in any way suggest that there was anything positive about the Cuban government.” No, nothing positive? Not increased literacy? Not better health care outcomes than the US? The conventional wisdom about Cuba is bullshit, and you can't acknowledge that they have done one good thing without being slammed? Give me a break. Italy has no such compunctions about Cuba. They requested that the Cuban doctors come to Lombardy. That tells you something about what the rest of the world thinks about Cuba's proficiency in medical care. The rest of the world isn't as ignorant as US politicians and media stalwarts like Anderson Cooper. The US needs to wake up and realize that the meme that Cuba is all bad is outdated and factually incorrect. It is the meme of an ignorant electorate - Democrats included!

Reuters reported:

The Caribbean island has sent its “armies of white robes” to disaster sites around the world largely in poor countries since its 1959 revolution. Its doctors were in the front lines in the fight against cholera in Haiti and against ebola in West Africa in the 2010s.

Yet with the 52-strong brigade, this is the first time Cuba has sent an emergency contingent to Italy, one of the world’s richest countries, demonstrating the reach of its medical diplomacy.

This is the sixth medical brigade Cuba has sent in recent days to combat the spread of the new disease abroad. It has sent contingents to socialist allies Venezuela and Nicaragua as well as Jamaica, Suriname and Grenada.

“We are all afraid but we have a revolutionary duty to fulfill, so we take our fear and put it to one side,” Leonardo Fernandez, 68, an intensive care specialist, told Reuters late on Saturday shortly before his brigade’s departure.

Even staunch US ally, Britain, thanked Cuba for allowing a British cruise ship that had been turned away by several Caribbean ports to dock on the island and for enabling the evacuation of the more than 600 passengers onboard. Yet the US continues to sanction Cuba forcing it to forego much needed pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. Despite more than half a century of a US economic embargo, Cuba’s average life expectancy is greater than that in the US. As of 2015 Cuban life expectancies of 79.5 years and infant mortality rates of 4.3 per 1000 live births were better than rich nations like the US (78.7 years and 5.7 per 1, 000 live births) yet its per capita income of $7602. makes it one of the poorest economies in the hemisphere (World Development Indicators DataBank, 2017).

As for literacy, the rate was 77% in 1959 before the revolution. Two years after the revolution it was 100%.

Cuba has better health care outcomes than the US despite every attempt by the US from embargoes to sanctions to destroy their economy. Perhaps the American people should wake up and listen to Bernie Sanders for a change. He knows a helluva lot more about Cuba than the ignorant Joe Biden and the other Democrats who have attacked him about his remarks about Cuba and Latin America in general. At least admit the undeniable truth no matter how much you dislike their form of government.

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.

Off the Top of My Head

The Fed Keeps On Bailing Out Failing Businesses

by John Lawrence, March 17, 2020

The Fed announced recently that it would cut interest rates to zero. It has also promised to insert $1.5 trillion of "liquidity" into the markets. It's clear that the US is a society that runs on debt, and the biggest non profit producing industry that has gorged itself on humungus amounts of debt is fracking. But investors are getting weary. S&P Global Ratings this month cut credit ratings of six shale gas producers citing the outlook for natural gas prices. "We are particularly concerned about some of the issuers' ability to access the capital markets given investor aversion to the space," S&P said. But no worries. A Fed bailout is on the way. Zero percent interest. Free money. Whoopee. Frack away.

Just a few days ago, CNBC host Jim Cramer exclaimed, "I'm done with fossil fuel," after disappointing earnings reports from Dow Jones energy giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil. "We're in the death knell phase," he warned. The fracking industry is deathly afraid that, if Bernie Sanders is elected, the gravy train will be over. Fracking has provided a lot of jobs for a lot of people, but it is not profitable if the world oil price is less than $40 a barrel. Right now, thanks to Russia and Saudi Arabia, the price of oil is $30 a barrel. A Green New Deal would have to provide jobs for all those workers in the fracking industry who have been making pretty good money even though the industry as a whole is unprofitable.

The Fed is doing its job to create another tower of debt in the US. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pointed out that the $1.5 trillion the Fed has injected into the system for "liquidity" could wipe out all the student loan debt in the US which now stands at $1.5 trillion. But the Fed insists that any stimulus to the economy which would actually help working people as opposed to investors has to come from the fiscal side meaning that Congress would have to appropriate the money. The Fed's job is to make sure that no major business player in the US economy goes bankrupt including the US government itself which is wallowing in debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year thanks to Trump's tax cuts for the rich similar to Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich which quintupled the national debt. It took a Democrat, poor old Clinton, to reduce the deficit to zero.

The question naturally arises of why can't the Fed bail out American workers to the tune of $1000 a month as Andrew Yang has suggested especially now that the coronavirus has put a huge damper on consumption which is 70% of the economy. The Fed says, "Not my job. That's Congress' job." The Fed as it turns out is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. It is not a publicly owned entity. Congress will do nothing to bail out the American people because of the Republican controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell. Even if Democrats were to attain a majority in the Senate, the filibuster would prevent them from doing anything. So Joe Biden, even if elected, will get nothing substantial done including building on Obamacare. The only reason Obamacare was even passed in the first place was that Democrats had a majority in both Houses and a filibusterproof majority in the Senate (60 votes) for a very short period of time (4 months) during which Obamacare was passed. Good luck Joe.

If the Fed, instead of being privately controlled by Wall Street, were to become a truly public institution controlled by Congress, then maybe it could bail out the general American public instead of failing businesses. According to the rules of capitalism, failing businesses at some point should go bankrupt. The Fed is essentially preventing that from happening thus fueling the stock market. However, the stock market senses that at this point the Fed has used up all its tools and can do nothing further. There is probably too much liquidity in the markets already. Providing more wouldn't do any good. Interest rates are already at zero. The Fed could go to negative interest rates, but that would screw the economy up even more. Perhaps we'll all have to settle for a good old recession after all. But one thing is for certain. About six months from now, Trump will pull out all the stops to get the economy moving again just before the election since he is basing his reelection on a robust economy. However, it all depends on whether or not the coronavirus is under control at that point. If it is, Trump will take credit.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar Would Make a Good Team

by John Lawrence, March 12, 2020

Amy Klobuchar was really running for vice President anyway, and she would bring the midwest rust belt voters along with her neutralizing the influence of Mike Pence's Indiana midwest cred. Pete Buttagieg was just running to raise his profile which he successfully did. Same for Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Some of the candidates were never serious candidates for the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders is still in the thick of it despite Biden's commanding lead, and he will have a lot of influence over the party platform at the convention. The vice Predidential candidate is very important as Biden is basically a placeholder. His advanced age and apparent loss of some mental function means that whoever comes after him is very important. So Joe Biden may win the election, but his influence may wane compared to the resurgent Democrat progressives who will still be a force in waiting.

The main thing at this point in many voters minds is simply to get rid of Donald Trump. A Biden-Klobuchar team could do that. Amy is very proficient and she could make up for Joe's loss of a few marbles. Rejoining the Paris Accords on Day 1 is very important for climate change. Joe's plans for infrastructure are very good. A massive investment in infrastructure and a greening of infrastructure seems to be on his menu. A national infrastructure of electric charging stations, more electric vehicles on the road - these are very important things which Joe seems to have a handle on. He's even into high speed rail.

Biden's plans for Medicare and Social Security don't make many changes to these programs which are already available other than protecting them from assault by Republicans, not a piddling undertaking. I did notice one advantage for older Americans though. The Biden Plan will provide the oldest beneficiaries – those who have been receiving retirement benefits for at least 20 years – with a higher monthly check to help protect retirees from the pain of dwindling retirement savings. Huzzah! I will qualify for that in about 3 years so maybe finally, I'll get a monthly check which will be more than about one third of what you need to rent an apartment. Fortunately, I have other income, but I'm still in the situation of working, paying 15.3% of what I earn as social security and Medicare tax, while collecting a pitifully small amount of social security. I like this too: "The Biden Plan will revolutionize the Social Security’s minimum benefit, which has deteriorated over time to the point of being entirely ineffective. Under the Biden Plan, workers who spent 30 years working will get a benefit of at least 125% of the poverty level." The poverty level for one person is $12,490. 125% of that is $15,612.50. I've been working for about 50 years so I should qualify for that. That would double my monthly social security check. Huzzah!

Well, that's a good start. Unfortunately, no Medicare for All under Joe's plan, but maybe that will come later.

Joe Biden Would Be Donald Trump's Dream Opponent

by Conor Lynch, from truthdig, March 4, 2020

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden gives a speech in Iowa in 2019. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr)(CC BY-SA 2.0)

Donald Trump had the perfect opponent in the 2016 election. Running as a populist billionaire taking on the Washington elite, he couldn’t have asked for a better rival in Hillary Clinton, who carried heavy political baggage and who, for many, personified the so-called establishment. While Trump’s populist shtick was easy to pick apart, Clinton was the wrong person to promote the message she was trying to get across to voters.

By nominating a candidate whose place in the Democratic Party establishment was undeniable and who lacked credibility on issues like money in politics, the Democrats simply let Trump run as the anti-establishment candidate. Not only that, but the Clinton camp even tried courting establishment Republicans who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for their own party’s candidate.

Here was a man who had openly bragged about bribing politicians, yet Democrats couldn’t go after Trump on the issue because their own candidate was one of the politicians to whom he’d donated in the past. The Clinton camp raised (and spent) far more money than Trump, but whether this actually helped or hurt her is unclear, as it also gave credence to the perception that she was the candidate favored by big donors Meanwhile, Trump positioned himself as the self-financing candidate who couldn’t be bought.

As the Trump campaign’s onetime CEO, Steve Bannon, put it shortly after the election, “Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump’s message. From her email server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of.”

This time around, Trump should have zero credibility running as a “populist.” The president has presided over the most corrupt administration in modern history, plagued by investigations and numerous indictments that have led to convictions of some of his closest associates. Trump has nominated Supreme Court justices who defend money in politics, and his major legislative achievement has been to give billionaires and corporate elites major tax cuts.

Under Trump, corporate America has thrived while real-income growth has declined for most working- and middle-class people. Inequality has continued to reach historic levels, and billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg have seen their wealth surge. In 2020, Trump is no longer even pretending to self-finance his campaign. With his recent predatory budget proposal he has made it clear that he is getting ready to gut programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, during his second term.

It should be easy for Democrats to expose Trump as the corrupt charlatan that he is. In an age when a majority of voters rate political corruption as America’s biggest crisis and nearly 8 in 10 Americans agree that there should be “limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns, how hard can it be to defeat a hugely unpopular president who makes Richard Nixon look half decent? The surest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again would be to follow the same strategy as 2016 and nominate a candidate who embodies the establishment, carries a ton of political baggage and lacks credibility on issues like corruption.

By the looks of it, Democrats might just pull it off. After Super Tuesday, it appears that Trump will have another perfect foil for his message in 2020. Former Vice President Joe Biden has regained his place as the Democratic frontrunner after a successful showing on Tuesday, thanks in large part to party elites, and some of his former rivals, quickly consolidating around his campaign the day before. Though the race is far from over, Biden is now well-positioned to win the nomination. By selecting Biden, Democrats will effectively let Trump and his deeply corrupt administration off the hook yet again.

Biden is a lot like Clinton, but worse in almost every measurable way. On issue after issue, Biden has consistently been to the right of Clinton throughout his fifty-year political career. He has a record of advocating cuts to Social Security and Medicare; he helped write the 1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration; he played a critical role in passing the 2005 bankruptcy bill that stripped bankruptcy protection from some of the most vulnerable people. Biden also supported and championed the Iraq War.

This list goes on and on. Beyond his extremely problematic record, which will make it hard for Democrats to go after Trump about, say, cutting Social Security (which Biden himself supported not too long ago), Biden has his own personal scandals that will make it very difficult for him to cast Trump as corrupt.

While his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine may not qualify as corruption, it was doubtless unethical and sleazy for Biden’s son to take a high-paying consultant gig with a foreign firm while his father was vice president (and Biden’s refusal to acknowledge this conflict only makes it worse). The behavior of Biden’s family will haunt him in the general election. As Ryan Grim wrote in The Intercept last October, Biden’s son and brother have been “trading on their family name for decades, cashing in on the implication — and sometimes the explicit argument — that giving money to a member of Joe Biden’s family wins the favor of Joe Biden.” Predictably, a majority of voters believe it was inappropriate for Biden’s son to take a job with the Ukrainian firm, and Trump will exploit this and use it to defend his own family’s nepotism and corruption.

In the lead-up to the general election, Biden, who has recently struggled to string coherent sentences together, would provide the slick demagogue Donald Trump with all the ammunition he needs. We were given a little preview of what to expect in President Trump’s Super Tuesday commentary: “The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN!” he gloated on Twitter, once again positioning himself as the anti-establishment populist.

On Monday, the Democratic establishment proved that it still has far more control over the party than the Republican establishment did over their own party in 2016. No one stands to benefit more from an establishment triumph than Donald Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has the credibility to call out Trump on his corruption and neoliberal economic policies, is still in the race, but his chances are looking much slimmer than they were just a week ago.

Democrats have a choice: They can follow the same strategy that ended up costing them all three branches of government in recent years, or they can go another way. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

---

Conor Lynch is a freelance writer and journalist living in New York. His work has appeared in The Week, Salon, The New Republic, and other publications. You can follow him on Twitter.

'Give Us an Hour on MSNBC': Sanders Says He Would Love to Debate Medicare for All vs. For-Profit System With Joe Biden

Published on Thursday, March 05, 2020

by Common Dreams

"We're spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as the people of any other country and yet 27 million are uninsured, 30,000 people die, half a million people go bankrupt every year because of medical-related debt, and we spend far and away the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. You want to defend that system?" Sanders said. "Let's do it."

by Jon Queally, staff writer

 

104 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gestures as former Vice President Joe Biden listens during the Democratic presidential primary debate at Loyola Marymount University on December 19, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday night said he would "love to debate Joe Biden on this issue"—the difference between a Medicare for All plan that dozens of studies show would cover all people for less overall cost and the for-profit status quo that leaves an estimated 28 million Americans uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured, vulnerable to bankruptcies, or lacking care due to financial reasons.

"It's time to say it: Medicare for All is now the mainstream, popular, nationwide consensus position for the Democratic Party in 2020. Voters are sick and tired of awful deductibles, surprise bills, stifling networks, and begging strangers for help with medical bills on GoFundMe." —Wendell Potter, Medicare for All Now

"Medicare for All is wildly popular with working class and lower income people who understand that we have a dysfunctional health care system," Sanders said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

"We are spending twice as much—and by the way—I would love to debate Joe Biden on this issue, give us an hour on MSNBC," Sanders said, "where we can talk about how anyone can defend this system in which we're spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as the people of any other country and yet 27 million are uninsured, 30,000 people die, half a million people go bankrupt every year because of medical-related debt, and we spend far and away the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. You want to defend that system? Let's do it."

Watch:

"Medicare for All is wildly popular with working class and lower income people who understand that we have a dysfunctional health care system...I would love to debate Joe Biden on this issue, give us an hour on MSNBC... You want to defend that system? Let's do it." #Maddow pic.twitter.com/uvju5mdKDB

— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) March 5, 2020

While Sanders won the biggest-delegate state of California on Super Tuesday—along with victories in Colorado, Utah, and Vermont—Biden swept the other ten states leaving him with a slight lead in the national count for Democratic delegates in the party's primary. Strikingly, in every single one of the primary races held so far that had entrance or exit polls on the question, Medicare for All has shown to be more popular with Democratic primary voters compared to those defending the for-profit system.

Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive turned whistleblower who now runs the group Medicare for All Now, said the primary polling should be considered a "watershed moment" in public opinion:

A watershed moment in America: 16 states have voted in the Dem primary & been asked in exit/entrance polls about healthcare, and all 16 show majority support for replacing private health insurance with single-payer healthcare. As a former insurance exec my reaction is: wow. (1/5) https://t.co/alqPboYgJl

— Wendell Potter (@wendellpotter) March 4, 2020

"It's time to say it," Potter continued, "Medicare for All is now the mainstream, popular, nationwide consensus position for the Democratic Party in 2020. Voters are sick and tired of awful deductibles, surprise bills, stifling networks, and begging strangers for help with medical bills on GoFundMe."

"To my great shame," he added, "I spent years helping the private insurance industry trick the American people into thinking the for-profit healthcare system benefits them, when the very opposite is true. I've never been more glad to see my own legacy erased. It's a new era in America."

As study after study after study after study has shown, Medicare for All would cost the American people less money overall while providing comprehensive, free at point of service coverage to all—even as Biden continues to fearmonger over the pricetag.

Sanders has made Medicare for All a cornerstone of his 2020 campaign while Biden has attacked the progressive solution to the nation's healthcare woes by using GOP and insurance industry talking points and misleading mathematics to denounce it.

As Biden has repeatedly attacked the ten-year estimated cost of Medicare for All by saying it would cost $35 trillion, what he repeatedly leaves out is that, as Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus points out this week, citing figures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total spending under the status quo for-profit system "over the subsequent 10 years likely will reach a staggering $60 trillion — at least." As Lazarus writes:

That's the cost of doing nothing. It's what opponents of healthcare reform are saying is our best option.

And that, of course, is insane.

"We've gotten ourselves into a big hole by letting expenditures get out of hand," said Vivian Ho, a healthcare economist at Rice University. "It's happening right before our eyes, and we're not doing anything about it."

On Thursday morning, a new study by researcher Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute found that a Medicare for All system "would bolster the labor market, strengthen economic security for millions of U.S. households, and would likely boost the number of jobs in the U.S. labor market."

Medicare for All, according to the study, would:

• Provide a potential boost to wages and salaries by allowing employers to redirect healthcare spending to workers' wages.
• Increase job quality by ensuring that every job would come bundled with a guarantee of health care.
• Lessen the income loss, stress, and economic shock of unemployment and job transitions by eliminating the loss of health care that accompanies job-loss
• Support self-employment and small business development—which is low in the United States relative to other rich Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries—by eliminating the daunting cost of health care from startup costs.
• Inject new dynamism into the overall economy by reducing "job lock," by allowing workers to go where their skills and preferences lie, not just to workplaces with affordable health plans.

"A fundamental health reform like Medicare for All would be an unambiguously good policy for the labor market, for the economy overall, and for U.S. workers," Bivens said in a statement. "Besides the obvious benefits of expanding health care to millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans, Medicare for All could raise wages, boost productivity, and help small business owners."

---

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

Trump Will Make Mincemeat out of Biden; Not So for Bernie

by John Lawrence, March 6, 2020

Biden is just not as mentally sharp as Trump. Bernie is more mentally sharp than Trump. Trump will get under Biden's skin with his bit about Hunter Biden and Burisma. It was obviously corruption although probably not illegal. If Joe Biden were not vice President, there's no way his son would have got a $50,000 a month job with a foreign company doing business in a field he had absolutely no expertise in. Joe's speaking manner leaves a lot to be desired. He loses his train of thought in midsentence and then interpolates - Look! - and starts off in a new direction. Then after making his point he says time and again, "That's #1. (pause) #2." I'm tired of Joe's number ones and number twos. He uses the same device so often that he's doing his absolute best to turn it into the cliche it's destined to become if it hasn't become one already.

Bernie doesn't lose his train of thought and always goes back to his speaking points without being distracted or dismayed. Trump will not be able to get under his skin with his puerile and weak blatherings. Trump has the great advantage in that his loose connection with factuality and the truth actually liberates him from mental hiccups. Whatever self serving thing he says, people just totally overlook it rather than seeing it as an example of his total incompetence. Trump makes the laughable and ridiculous seem like some sort of joke which people can laugh at, some kind of humorous relief. Joe is much too serious and will react without humor to Trump's parries and barbs. Bernie will either ignore him or come back with a tart riposte.

Bernie's successful effort to make Burlington a sister city of Yaroslavl, Russia should be applauded rather than condemned. Like a lot of us especially in the period of Glasnost and Perestroika just before the Berlin wall came down, Bernie was concerned to establish a peaceful and friendly relationship with a country with which we had long been antagonistic in the interests of preventing nuclear war. A people to people relationship increases understanding and neutralizes hate and animosity. They are still sister cities to this day. A number of other sister city relationships have been established between American and Russian and even Japanese cities in an effort to foster peace and diminish the need for an oversized and bloated military establishment which consumes horrific amounts of money which could be used for more constructive purposes.

Trump will try to use any dirt he has at his disposal to dispatch either Bernie or Biden in the Presidential contest. He will have the full backing of Fox news and Rush Limbaugh if he's still around as well as many other right wing demagogues. It will be up to the Democratic hopeful to stick to his game plan and not be deterred or dissuaded by Trump's tactics. Trump will consistently hit below the belt. Republicans are known and famous for dirty tricks and verbal twists and turns in an attempt to make their opponent look bad and set off a defensive reaction in him. The problem is I don't think that Joe Biden has the mental acuity and wherewithal not to fall into some of Trump's traps which will be astutely laid for him by Trump's advisors because I don't think Trump himself has the cleverness to lay therm himself. Any debate between Biden and Trump could easily turn into a slugfest in which Trump stands to gain the most as he can probably upset Biden while he remains cool and collected showing to viewers that he is the more skilled candidate.