Obama Rejects Tax Cuts for the Rich, Calls for Big Oil to Pay Fair Share

by Joel Wendland
This article originally appeared at PoliticalAffairs.net, Sept. 9, 2010

The President came out swinging in a major economic policy speech in Cleveland, Sept. 8, against Republican Party obstructionism on economic recovery. He flatly rejected GOP plan's to give mammoth new tax cuts to the richest Americans and accused its leaders of pushing the "same philosophy that was tried for the last decade which led to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression: tax cuts for millionaires, cut rules for corporations, and leave the middle class to fend for itself."

Instead, President Obama called for a new package of tax cuts for working families, tax credits for businesses to purchase new equipment and for research and development, and infrastructure projects to spur job growth.

To pay for these proposals, administration officials told reporters the President wants to close tax loopholes for big oil companies and other companies that move jobs out of the country.

President Obama said he favors extending tax cuts for Americans earning $250,000 or less, while letting the Bush tax cuts for the very richest Americans sunset.

"We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less," the President said. "For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton."

He rejected Republican claims that this move would be bad for the economy, citing the high deficit. "We can’t afford the $700 billion price tag [for tax cuts for the rich]." He also recalled that with a similar tax code in place in the 1990s, the U.S. economy created 22 million jobs.

When the economic crisis began, President Obama said, "My hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, Democrats and Republicans, to pull together and tackle our problems in a practical way. "

"But as we all know, things didn’t work out that way," he said. Ideological and partisan considerations caused "[s]ome Republican leaders [to figure] it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess."

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, R, Ohio, offered his party's views on the economy late last month, but, the President said, they were awfully familiar.

"There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner," he explained. "There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade – the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place."

Instead Republicans want to scale back the major accomplishments of the past year and a half. They want to allow health insurance companies to once again deny care for people who are sick and allow the credit card companies to raise interest rates unfettered, Obama pointed out. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and voted against family tax credits for higher education.

Indeed, the President continued, Republicans have kept tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs out of the country. "For years, Republicans have fought to keep these corporate loopholes open," he said.

"In fact, when Mr. Boehner was here in Cleveland he attacked us for closing a few of these loopholes – and using the money to help states like Ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firefighters on the job," the President noted.

Referring to the jobs bill passed by Congress last month, President Obama explained that the closed tax loopholes will help pay to keep teachers in schools, cops on the beat, and firefighters protecting our families.

But Boehner "dismissed these jobs … as quote 'government jobs' – jobs that I guess he thought just weren’t worth saving," President Obama added.

"Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail," Obama emphasized.

"Though I should say that didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and trying to take credit," he said, referring to to the fact that numerous Republicans who voted against the recovery act have claimed credit for money brought to their home districts. "That’s always a sight to see."

Republican obstructionism and hypocrisy earned additional fire from White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer who told reporters by a teleconference with the press, Sept. 8, Boehner and the Republicans want to return to the same policies that caused the crisis and hurt America's working families in the first place.

"We know the policies that Leader Boehner and the Republicans are advocating," Pfeiffer said, citing the huge deficits, the financial meltdown, and jobs crisis. "We know what they'll do. We're still reaping the consequences of that."

Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Jason Furman touted the Obama administration's accomplishments in the economy. In addition to the recovery act, President Obama's legislative accomplishments include the "cash for clunkers" program, extension of the homebuyer tax credit, tax credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and those involved in infrastructure projects, and the passage of the new jobs bill last month.

Furman also noted that new tax credits the President has proposed would be designed to benefit companies who do research and development here in the U.S. He added that the President wants to pay for new tax credits and infrastructure projects by ending massive government tax subsidies for the biggest oil companies.

"The big oil companies actually pay lower tax rates on their profits than most other corporations in the economy," he said. "Get rid of those tax breaks so the big oil companies are being treated just the same as every other corporation when it comes to taxes."

Furman added that new revenue could be created by closing some 350 remaining loopholes that still provide incentives for companies who move their profits, investments and jobs out of the country.

Military spending comes at the expense of local communities...

[The following was adopted at the CPUSA convention]

Whereas, U.S. military spending for FY 2011 is projected to be $1.4 trillion and this massive, wasteful spending is the might behind US transnational corporate domination and the enrichment of the military-industrial complex;

Whereas, It comes at the expense of states and local communities, struggling with a $180 billion collective deficit, devastating cuts to social services and education, and massive layoffs of public workers;

Whereas, US military spending plus the cost of two wars and hundreds of U.S. military bases worldwide are a chief obstacle to funding massive federal jobs creation, public education, health care, mass transit, affordable housing, other infrastructure needs and aid to the states and municipalities;

Whereas, Militarization of the economy negatively impacts economic growth, the same money could create far more jobs in the public sphere. Deep cuts in military spending are a social imperative;

Whereas, Despite the Obama administration exemption of cuts in military spending, there is a growing recognition of the destructiveness of high military spending and the costs of militarism;

Whereas, A 2009 Pew Research Poll revealed a total of 55% of Americans wanted to decrease (18%) military spending or keep it the same (37%); only 40% wanted it to increase. Some members of Congress have renewed a call for a 25% cut and the elimination of Cold War weapons systems as a first step;

Whereas, The Obama administration is under intense pressure from the right wing, some corporate ruling and military circles to continue militaristic policies and the historic imperialist trajectory of US foreign policy. However, the Obama administration, also reflecting counter-currents, has taken some important steps in the opposite direction. This creates new opportunities to demilitarize the economy and change our foreign policy;

Read the whole post here...

Read other resolutions adopted here...

Corporations hate Obama

A measure of who is going in the right direction...

The Old Enemies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 23, 2010

So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.

Much reporting on opposition to the Obama administration portrays it as a sort of populist uprising. Yet the antics of the socialism-and-death-panels crowd are only part of the story of anti-Obamaism, and arguably the less important part. If you really want to know what’s going on, watch the corporations.

How can you do that? Follow the money — donations by corporate political action committees.

Read the whole story here...

Time of Day

by Jack Kurzweil

When asked what time it was, Yogi Berra responded, "You mean, right now?"

For those who are involved in politics, the question is "What's the political time of day, like right now?" What's happening in this country on the large scale? What's the Obama Administration trying to do? What are its internal limitations and its external constraints? And what should progressives be trying to accomplish?

When, during the election campaign, Obama said that he admired Reagan for having captured the mood of the country and shifting the governance of the country according to that mood, I don't believe that he was conveying his approval of the character of the changes. Rather, I think that he was admiring the process of transformation because he envisions his administration initiating a process of change of direction of the nation as well.

Reagan's "revolution" was to distance government on all levels from responsibility for infrastructure, corporate regulation, and social safety net while strengthening the military industrial complex, setting the stage for globalization, breaking the unions, and initiating the most extraordinary transfer of wealth to the ruling classes that this nation had not seen since the 1880's. The slogan, then as now, was free markets and limited government. And that slogan has taken hold; it now represents a deeply held feeling in this country, even among those for whom the absence of government has been crippling.

The Clinton administration, an eight year long hiccup preceded by eight years of Reagan and four of Daddy Bush and followed by eight of Baby Bush, was unwilling or unable to resist the Reagan revolution. Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and happily proclaimed that the "era of big government is over". Even so, the right wing attack machine proclaimed the illegitimacy of the Clinton presidency. The neocon warhawks, who came to power with Baby Bush, had pilloried Clinton and yearned to implement their plans for US global domination. They accomplished this goal with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we have had 28 years of growing globalization, shrinking domestic manufacturing, deregulation of just about everything, a massive increase in the prison population, two debilitating wars, and a vast increase in the resources of the military – industrial complex. Accompanying and justifying all of this is the complex of right wing think tanks, media and the like. The right has, along with these institutional shifts, succeeded in changing the thinking of a significant portion of the American people, persuading them to organize and vote against their own economic interests. In the process, they have left the United States a wreck.

In the broadest terms, I think that Obama has set his administration the task of beginning the process of reversing the Reagan revolution and bringing government back to the job of providing for the common good, a return to a contemporary version of Keynesian economics and the New Deal. The difficulty is that although Obama is moving many things in a progressive direction, there is great disappointment among progressives about how far he is willing to go. His problems arise when the 'common good' requires taking steps against the prerogatives and interests of large corporations - when those interests stand in the way of the reforms needed to solve the problems facing our society. That's where he vacillates - and fails to fight for a truly effective reform program. The refusal to consistently and adequately pursue the 'common good' where it conflicts with corporate interests is, I believe, the main thing separating Centrists from Progressives. They are trying to ride two different horses.

And I think that in the broadest terms, Obama is looking for ways to stand down from the vision of a permanently engaged US military. I do not think that this should be understood as moving toward a progressive foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States will remain that of a hegemon, but Obama's team seems somewhat more ready to adjust to the realities of the world.

Obama came to the presidency with the support of significant sections of the ruling elites, including many who had financially benefited from the policies of the past decades. For progressives to wrap their arms around this complexity, we must try to understand that some rich and powerful people, movers and shakers can simultaneously work to advance and protect their own wealth and be in favor of changing the direction of this country as a whole. But he also came to the Presidency with the hopes and energy of energy of a people that were disgusted with Republican rule and wanted a different direction.

I would also caution against overstating Obama's mandate for change. Although Obama won a resounding victory in the Electoral College, the popular vote in his favor was a mere 53 - 47. And this was with a Republican ticket that came from a Monty Python show. Obama was trailing McCain until the economic crisis exploded. Were that explosion to have happened a few months later, McCain could very well have won. That's how close the election was. And that's an illustration of the divided mindset of the American people, not only about race, but also about the role of government.

I think that the issue of the role of government is at the core of what the current struggles in DC, as well as in state and local government, are all about. Since the election the Republican Party has shown itself to be interested in just one thing - bringing down the Obama administration and its political vehicle has been "big government". I want to emphasize this point. Although progressives were and continue to be strong advocates for Medicare for All and the Public Option, the resistance of Republicans and conservative Democrats was not, in my view, in the first place to those proposals. Rather, it was resistance to the IDEA that government had a place in health care at all or should be considered a right.

I think that discussing the Republicans should be a starting point for progressives. To restate what everyone knows, the Republicans have continually moved farther to the right in the past decades to the point that there no longer is any significant entity that could be called "moderate Republicans". Those few who could be so characterized have been captured and are held hostage by the right - wing core of the Party. They now have 41 seats in the Senate, making them able to stop most things unless there is full Democratic unity. That power gives conservative Democrats power well beyond their numbers and that power will continue for the foreseeable future unless the Democrats are able to defeat some of the Republicans who now come from quite conservative states. As we have seen, this political and structural reality has dramatic political consequences.

It is important to remember that the Democrats split on issues of globalization during the Clinton administration and that split continues to this day. Clinton Democrats allied themselves with the majority of the corporate (as opposed to libertarian and protectionist) Republicans in opposition to the progressive Democrats to win NAFTA and to loosen financial regulations. The Democrats split over the war in Iraq as well. That means the New Democrats were among globalization's ideological leaders. Major sections of Wall Street, once a Republican bastion, are now firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party, although that may not last as the Obama administration presses for financial reform.

The next big fight, the one that has already started, is over whether big financial institutions should be regulated at all. The Republicans are saying NO and the conservative Democrats will pull the debate to the right. There is no doubt in my mind that Progressives should be prepared to be disappointed with the specific legislative outcomes of this fight. The same thing will happen with legislation about energy and environment, with workers rights, with immigration, and with every other issue of consequence that will arise during this administration.

Aside from taxing the rich, military spending is the elephant in the room. I would argue that the power of the military - industrial complex has increased dramatically in the past decades, not only because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also because of the extraordinary level of privatization of the military establishment during that period.

On all of these issues, the fight that will be fought will be over whether the government should be acting for the common good of all of society or for the narrow interests of the most conservative of the corporate elites. It will not be fought over what is the progressive solution to the problem at hand.

Given all of this, I think that progressives should be giving a continuing shoutout and support for the Progressive, Black, and Latino Caucuses that, for the most part, have been at the cutting edge of advancing progressive legislation, often being forced to retreat and regroup, and remaining the core of efforts to achieve peace and justice.

So all of this poses some interesting challenges to progressives. Who must hold in mind multiple contradictory ideas and realities while reflecting on these goals:

1. supporting the shift that the Obama administration represents, moving to have government assume responsibility for the well-being of the country and its people.

2. advancing progressive solutions to the burning problems of the day.

3. ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. increasing the power of progressives in the Democratic Party and build independent progressive movements.

5. defeating Republicans at the polls.

6. holding conservative Democrats to account, pressuring them to support the movement away from Reaganism and support reforms of our corporate culture.

For political activists on the left, this is not simply a mind game. It is at the core of what we do. We do want to advance a progressive agenda; we do want the most progressive proposals to see the light of day, we do want the opportunity to win support for a progressive agenda beyond the ranks of progressives, and we do want to challenge the Democratic Party to consider these more fundamental reforms.

At the same time, we want to defeat the Republicans. We really want to do that because we are now seeing what the Republicans really are. And it's very scary.

I think that we are now in the fight of our lives. The Obama victory has provided an opening for the struggle to place government back into the role of being the economic and structural champion of working people. But it does so with the legacy of Reaganism and neo-liberalism having captured the high ground of the political conversation in this country and the thinking of a major portion of the American people.

I am not offering a playbook or a solution, but rather an invitation to complex and contradictory thinking about complex and contradictory circumstances.

I suggest that this is the time of day.

With thanks to Nancy Friedman and Matthew Hallinan

Obama-hater Jon Voight feels picked on by Communists

Wait a minute, is calling for "bringing an end" to Obama protected by free speech, or is it a threat against a President, which violates law?

Voight rebuts 'hate speech' tag
Dissent, he says, isn't 'hate'
By Jennifer Harper
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Washington Times

Free speech got a loud boost from Hollywood on Wednesday. Jon Voight has responded to accusations from a critic sympathetic to the American Communist Party, who said the actor had used hate speech and threatened the well-being of President Obama during a recent appearance before Republicans in Washington.

Mr. Voight denied both charges, saying that those who speak out against the Obama administration are "demonized" and "attacked," often with hate speech.

The Academy Award winner's speech before the National Republican Congressional Committee on June 7 was both a political and cultural moment. As a paragon of a new Hollywood conservatism, Mr. Voight spoke bluntly of Republican strategies for 2012 and what he sees as the shortcomings of the Obama administration.

Yet the actor also ignited a public discussion about bitter partisan rivalries and what constitutes threatening language.

Toward the end of his speech, Mr. Voight lauded a list of 23 high-profile Republicans, saying "Let's give thanks to them for staying on course to bring an end to this false prophet, Obama."

The phrase "bring an end" was quickly caught in the echo chamber of news reports and Op-Eds in the aftermath, framed out of context.

Read more... (if you have the stomach for it)

US and Venezuela move forward on relations

From an exchange between a reporter and Ian Kelly, State Department spokesperson at the State Department's daily news briefing, June 24th:

QUESTION: What about Venezuela? She asked --
MR. KELLY: Oh, Venezuela, yeah, sorry. I think I have something on Venezuela. Yes.
Since Secretary Clinton and President Chavez spoke during the Summit of the Americas, both our governments have worked toward the goal of returning ambassadors to our respective capitals. We are currently taking the necessary measures to accomplish this goal. And we think that exchanging ambassadors is in the best interests of both countries. But I don’t have any names for you right now or dates.
QUESTION: So the decision is taken? It means --
MR. KELLY: The decision has been taken to – there was a – what happened was there was a – Assistant Secretary Shannon spoke to Foreign Minister Maduro, and we agreed to move forward. This was on June 22^nd, on Monday.

Obama's Cairo speech a "home run"

Obama Hits A Home Run
by Robert Dreyfuss on 06/04/2009
The Nation

I watched President Obama's Cairo speech from Dubai, the sprawling and frenzied city of gold and shopping malls on the shores of the Arabian--er, Persian--Gulf. (I'm on my way to Tehran tomorrow, to report on the July 12 presidential elections there, and I'd better keep my "Arabian" and "Persian" Gulfs straight.)

Based on early returns from a decidedly unrepresentative sample of Arab public opinion, Obama hit a home run. I agree. (Incidentally, it's not easy to find Arabs in Dubai, a desert kleptocracy run by a super-rich ruling clan, whose population is overwhelmingly from South Asia, East Asia, southern Sudan, and other parts of Africa.) In Dubai, at least, and in its media, Obama's speech was topic one, two and three all week.

Read more...

Obama calls for public health insurance option

President Barack Obama on Wednesday said he was open to the idea of a public funding of health insurance, the latest twist in his ambitious and difficult goal to reform the country's health care system by year's end.

The White House on Wednesday made public a letter detailing how the president hopes to make health care available to the 46 million Americans -- about 15 percent of the population -- who have no coverage.

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," Obama said

"This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest," Obama said.

The US health care system is largely in private hands. Americans with health care coverage normally have it through their employers, their spouse's employer, or through an employed parent.

Read more...

US Muslims urge Obama to take concrete steps toward peace

U.S. Muslims Seek Policy Initiatives in President’s Cairo Address
CAIR: ‘This decisive moment in history requires clarity of purpose and a commitment to practical action’

WASHINGTON - May 29 - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy organization today released an open letter to President Obama and to the Muslim world offering specific policy recommendations for the president's historic address in Cairo on June 4th.

In the open letter, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wrote in part: (For an Arabic translation of the open letter, click here.)

"As you prepare for your historic address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4th, I would like to offer an American Muslim perspective on what governments, leaders and individuals can do to improve the prospects for international peace and prosperity.

"As an American, I will first focus on what you can do to help repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered such damage in recent years. Your statements since the inauguration have raised the level of hope for real change in our nation's foreign and domestic policies.

"It is imperative that your positive statements now be backed up with concrete policy initiatives that will help move us all toward a more peaceful and prosperous future. Otherwise, we as a nation risk wasting the good will that has been garnered by your ongoing outreach to Muslims.

Read more...

Obama and the Supreme Court

by Norman Markowitz

Justice David Souter is retiring from the Supreme Court and President Obama will soon be choosing a replacement. There is extensive speculation in the media over who his choice will be and reports that the Republican Right is"gearing up" to fight whoever the nominee will be.

The second point can be dispensed with quickly. The Republican right doesn't have the votes in the Senate to block any Obama appointee to the court barring some scandals that would discredit that nominee.

As for the first point, what is most important is that President Obama choose a militant progressive in the tradition of Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, William O Douglas, and Thurgood Marshall, someone with the intelligence and strength to actively fight against the Supreme Court's present right-wing majority, which will not in itself be changed, since Justice Souter, considered a conservative Republican when George Bush I nominated him to the court, angered the Republican Right by voting with non right-wing Justices on many important issues over the years, including the crucial December 2000 5-4 vote in which five center-right Republicans on the court ended the Florida recount and in effect appointed George W. Bush president of the United States.

It took Franklin Roosevelt five years to get a Supreme Court appointment and the Supreme Court's vetoes of major New Deal legislation and expected veto of social security, unemployment insurance, and the National Labor Relations Act led to the most momentous court reorganization struggle in U.S. history in 1937, a struggle that FDR lost in terms of expanding the number of Justices but eventually won in terms of pressuring centrist conservatives to join progressives in not vetoing New Deal legislation and beginning, in 1938 the appointment of progressives who over time produced the post WWII Supreme Courts which expanded Civil Rights and Civil Liberties protections while sustaining progressive labor and social welfare legislation.

Richard Nixon as President began the assault on a "liberalized judiciary" forty years ago and Ronald Reagan and George Bush I greatly expanded that assault in order to produce our present business friendly people hostile federal judiciary. In his eight years in the White House, Bill Clinton moderated but did not change that judicial balance of forces. Clinton's appointments were usually business friendly centrists or what I and others call weak "process liberals," those much more interested in formal processes than in justice, seeing themselves as "non-ideological" professionals as against Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and the very slick right-wing Chief Justice, Roberts, for whom right-wing ideology has usually been front and center in their decisions and have determined the character of their decisions. At times they were amenable to compromise, especially once Justice Sandra Day O'Connor served as a swing vote on the court, but since her retirement they have rarely compromised.It is interesting to note that most of the decisions seriously challenging the Republican Right in recent years have come from the oldest appointee to the court, John Paul Stevens, an Illinois Republican whom Gerald Ford appointed over thirty years ago. Breyer, very much of a "non ideological" centrist, and Ginsberg, more of a traditional liberal but not a strong one, have certainly not staked out a serious principled opposition to the Roberts court rightwing majority, although they, along with Souter and Stevens, have usually voted against it.

President Obama should follow in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, not Bill Clinton, in this first Supreme Court appointment. He should look for a candidate who will reflect his commitment to "change we can believe in" just as Franklin Roosevelt looked in early appointments to Hugo Black, William O Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and others whom he knew would support New Deal regulatory and social legislation. Unfortunately, Stevens is in all probability the next Justice to retire and that will not change the present 5-4 balance of forces. But Scalia has been on the court for a generation and Thomas for nearly two decades. Obama will, assuming that he wins a second term, be in the position to craft a progressive Supreme Court majority and change by his appointments the federal judiciary as Franklin Roosevelt did. Now is the time for him to begin and for us to call upon him to begin and to support him in that endeavor.

Obama Favors Increasing Cap to Protect Social Security

This snippet comes from the Alliance for Retired Americans:

In Arnold, Missouri on Wednesday, President Obama said that raising the payroll tax cap is the "best way" to secure the retirement program's future. While stating his preference for raising income levels over reducing benefits, Obama also rejected increasing the retirement age, noting it as a burden for older workers. Calling Social Security a "solvable problem" and refuting the idea that the system will go bankrupt, the President suggested he might hold another White House summit to deal with the issue. "After eight years of focus on a privatized Social Security tied to the roulette wheel of the stock market, it is refreshing to hear ideas that are truly aimed at protecting Social Security," said Ruben Burks, Secretary-Treasurer of the Alliance.

Pres. Obama Meets Pres. Chávez at Summit of the Americas

From the Venezuelan Embassy:

Before the inaugural session of the 5th Summit of the Americas, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, walked up to the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, to greet him.

Both presidents shook hands in a historic greeting, following years of tension during the Bush Administration when relations between Washington and Caracas deteriorated.

President Chávez expressed his hope that relations between the two countries would change to President Obama. “Eight years ago with this same hand I greeted Bush. I want to be your friend,” President Chávez said upon receiving a greeting from President Obama.

President Obama then thanked the Venezuelan President.

On several occasions, President Chávez has stated that the only thing he wants from the United States is respect for Venezuela and its sovereignty.

Those Gallup people are sharp

by Joel Wendland

A recent Gallup poll astutely found that language and framing play a huge role in constructing and reflecting public opinion. Focusing on the financial crisis late last month, Gallup asked people two questions: 1) "Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily taking over major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilize them?" 2) "Do you favor or oppose the federal government nationalizing major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilize them?"

54% of respondents to question 1 said yes. Only 37% of respondents to question 2 said yes.

Gallup's conclusion is that public support for the issue depends on what you call. Astute.

But Gallup's own method might be inherently flawed. Four additional questions, at least should have been asked in order to get at the truth of public opinion on this question: 1) Should major banks in danger of failing be allowed to fail? 2) Do you favor permanently taking over major US banks in an attempt to keep them from failing? 3) Do you favor permanently nationalization major banks in an attempt to keep them from failing? 4) Do you favor creating a permanent national bank to compete with private banks?

I might be inclined to say yes to all of these.

What's most amusing about the survey's results is the extent of support for "taking over" banks. Suggests may be that the new GOP mantra that President Obama is a socialist might not have much in the way of legs.

Notes on the stimulus bill

By Joel Wendland

The Republicans in Congress hated the economic recovery bill from the beginning. I think it reminded them too much of the past eight years and Bush's failure to handle economic matters in any intelligent way. It reminded them of how they toed Bush's economic line without deviation and voted for every single one of his budgets and his $3 trillion war in Iraq blindly. It reminded them of all the reasons they lost power.

This psychological turmoil combined with the humiliation of the loss in November prompted a bad decision-making process on how to handle the new political and economic reality in the country. When Obama and the Democrats introduced the stimulus package, top Republicans said to each other, let's fight the election battle all over again. Let's put our free-market fundamentalist, trickle-down ideology and policies that lost us the election out front – even with John McCain leading the way – and have it out all over again with Barack Obama.

So McCain led the way with an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have cut all the job-creating provisions in favor of hundreds of billions in new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Needless to say, it flopped.

Other Republicans had other ideas. They have been a little trickier. They wanted to influence the outcome of the bill without having to actually vote for it.

Republican Sens. Tom Coburn, Chuck Grassley, Johnny Isakson, Mel Martinez, and David "DC madame client" Vitter added their own amendments or co-sponsored other amendments that were ultimately adopted to the bill and finally passed.

So much for the argument that the bill lacked bi-partisan input. Ironically, none of these Senators voted for final passage. Each one, instead, claimed the bill lacked bipartisan support and cost too much.

Funny claim, because two of those amendments offered by Republicans with bipartisan support added something like $100 plus billion to the final Senate version of the bill. One of those provisions actually would have provided $30 billion or so for a housing tax credit. They claimed it addressed the country's housing problems. In fact, the bill would have given a $15,000 tax credit to real estate speculators trying to take advantage of falling house prices by buying foreclosed homes on the cheap and flipping them for quick profits, and the government, under the Republican amendment would guarantee them a $15,000 profit for each house -- paid for by taxpayers.

That scheme wouldn't have fixed "the housing problem"; it would have exacerbated it. In fact it would have robbed taxpayers to pay off speculators.

But even with that Republican amendment, those Republicans who insisted it was meant to fix housing failed to vote for final passage of the bill.

(Note: the compromise package hammered out in conference Wednesday evening cut that $30 billion tax credit to $2 billion and reasonably limited it to first-time home buyers and imposed an income cap on who could claim the credit.)

Even more ironically, after the group of five Republicans named here (and probably more I have overlooked) added their amendments and raised the price tag of the total bill by more than 12 percent, most Republicans refused to vote for the bill.

Guess what their argument was. You got it. It cost too much and raised the deficit too much. This only shows a deficit in the Republican thought process. Their tax cut policy and war in Iraq added more than $5 trillion to the national debt after Bush inherited a surplus. Their tax policies delayed economic recovery after the 2001 recession for more than four years. Their economic policies and ideology of free-market fundamentalism handed the big banks the keys to the kingdom. They looked the other way as bankers robbed home buyers and made business decisions that caused the credit meltdown and the current economic collapse.

I don't envy Barack Obama the political and economic difficulties under which he leads this country. But the Republicans have proven, if nothing else, the bankruptcy of their ideas and the hypocrisy of their politics.

More ultra-right media chatter

Un-American:
Have you listened to the right-wing media lately?
Columbia Journalism Review
By Michael Massing

In the weeks following the election, the debate over the issue of media bias, and of whether the press was overly kind to Barack Obama, has continued to swirl. Much less attention has been paid to another, more troubling aspect of the coverage, and that’s the relentless and malevolent campaign that the right-wing media waged against the Democratic candidate. Few people who did not regularly tune in to the vast, churning combine of bellowing radio hosts, yapping bloggers, obnoxious Web sites, malicious columnists, and the slashingly partisan Fox News have any idea of just how vile and venomous were the attacks leveled at Obama. Day after day, week after week, these outlets worked determinedly to discredit and degrade Obama, accusing him of being a Muslim, a Marxist, a radical, a revolutionary, a socialist, a communist, a thug, a mobster, a racist, an agent of voter fraud, a black-power advocate, a madrasah graduate, an anti-Semite, an enemy of Israel, an associate of terrorists—even the Antichrist. Supplemented by a flood of viral e-mails, slanderous robocalls, and Internet-based smear campaigns, these media outlets worked to stoke firestorms of manufactured rage against Obama and the Democrats in what was perhaps the most concerted campaign of vilification ever directed at an American politician.

In light of Obama’s victory, one might be tempted to let it all pass. That would be a mistake. For the effects of that campaign remain with us. What’s more, the campaign itself is still going on.

Read the whole article here...

A Black in the White House: Would the world start to change?

A few weeks ago, we could see on TV a little grandmother ovationned, brought to arm's length by the inhabitants of her village in the depths of Kenya; his small son had just been elected ... President of the United States of America.
On that day, everywhere in the world, people cried out with joy, concerts were organised, to welcome the election of Barak Hussein Obama : across the Southern states in the USA, but also in Africa (for example in Kenya), , in occupied Palestine, in Latin America, in China...
At home, progressists could not remain indifferent to such an important event in the history of USA, a superpower which dominates our entire planet, directly or indirectly.. Some have responded with great condescension or contempt to this popular jubilation: 'They will be disappointed ! What an illusion ! "... Others were simply delighted. We were among them.
Of course, Obama represents the two-party system which locks the "democracy" in the U.S.A .Of course, he comes from a bourgeois party, alter-ego of the Republican Party, and its program hardly differs from the one of his main opponent Mc Cain. Of course, his black skin was a tactical excuse for the Democratic Party, which played then an important card for these elections. Besides, this election has absolutely nothing to do with a political revolution, unlike what happened with the elections of Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales ... especially because he is the candidate of the big U.S. owners who spent a fortune for his campaign !
The Communists never support a "providential man" who magically induces confidence, but the political expression at a time of the change in power relations, more favorable to the people’s struggles, even if they’re fleeting. Relatively speaking of course, it is not because Leon Blum was one of the gravediggers of the Popular Front in France in 1938, that we should not support him in 1936 during the rise of this front.

96% of black Americans, (many of them were added to the electoral roll for the occasion), 67% of Latinos, many of the white "middle class" jeopardised by the crisis, but also some white racists from the traditional Republican electorate, exasperated by the endless mandate of Bush gave a very clear majority to Obama, in a country that lived few decades ago, under an horrible regime of apartheid...
Against a U.S. bourgeoisie whose history is made of class oppression and racial discrimination, the heroic Civil Rights Movement, started in the 60s here, marked a further and decisive step, which would probably have been welcome by our fellow Afro-American Bolsheviks such as Harry Haywood...

This vote is also a strong signal in the class struggles within the U.S., and the support of Obama by the Communist Party of the U.S.A against the bloody Mac "GI" Cain, has nothing to do with opportunism. Rejection of occupation wars, rejection of unsustainable health system, rejection of liberticidal laws, rejection of capitalism’s crisis consequences; so many reasons to express that the American people is fed up with Bush and his administration.

This election is also celebrated beyond the USA. Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, leaders of progressive countries that have been suffering for such a long time from the imperialist domination of the arrogant U.S.A has welcomed this great victory and the departure of Bush. Objectively, the mere fact that the U.S. bourgeoisie is forced to propose a black president is significant of a change in their political tactics, forcing a weakening in more "flexibility", at least in a first time. This tactical change is not only related to the acceleration of the crisis of capitalism, undermining today ‘s imperialist centers themselves, but also to a new context at the international level, where dominated people are beginning to stand up and restore hope that everyone used to believe lost. The history of struggles turns a dark page of a unipolar world, and announces a "multipolar" world, therefore more fragile towards the socialist revolution for which we fight! When people who believed in the electoral victory of Obama experience its objective limits, they will fight with more and more determination more and more io take their destiny in hand!

Rally of Communists Circles (RCC), France, November 2008

http://www.rassemblementcommuniste.org

rcc@rassemblementcommuniste.org

You can read the pamphlet published by the Henri Barbusse Circle "A Black elected President of the United States of America, a new stage in the struggle for equal rights!" by going to our website or by ordering the paper version by email.

Obama Reaffirms Promise to Renegotiate NAFTA

By Laura Carlsen

The courtesy call between President-elect Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon turned out to be a little more revealing than anticipated. The statement from incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a pretty clear, if vague, picture of where Obama plans to take the bilateral relationship. On renegotiating NAFTA, he stood his ground as Calderon lobbied heavily not to re-open the North American Free Trade Agreement.

From ZNet; read the whole story...

A Way Out of Gaza?

Editorial
A Way Out of Gaza?
New York Times
Published: January 15, 2009

We agree that Israel had to defend itself against Hamas’s rocket attacks. But we fear the assault on Gaza has passed the point of diminishing returns. It is time for a cease-fire with Hamas and a return to the peace negotiations that are the only real hope for guaranteeing Israel’s long-term security.

We are encouraged that a cease-fire finally seems to be gaining traction. Although not much detail is known, reports have focused on an Egyptian proposal for a phased-in truce, followed by a pullout of Israeli forces and the reopening of border crossings to ease the economic blockade of Gaza.

The sudden diplomatic activity came as Israel unleashed its heaviest shelling of Gaza neighborhoods, including a hit on a United Nations compound where hundreds of Palestinians had taken shelter.

Israeli officials acknowledge that the 20-day offensive has not permanently crippled Hamas’s military wing or ended its ability to launch rocket attacks. It is unlikely that Israel can achieve those aims militarily any time soon. The cost in human life and anti-Israeli fury would be enormous. Already more than 1,000 Palestinians have died in the densely populated Gaza Strip, where an always miserable life has become unbearable. Thirteen Israelis have died.

We also fear that the war is further weakening the palestinian [sic] president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction — Hamas’s sworn enemy. We know Mr. Abbas’s limitations, but he believes in a two-state solution. If there is going to be a negotiated peace, he is the best hope.

As part of a cease-fire deal, Israel is right to demand a permanent halt to Hamas’s rocket fire. Israel is also right not to rely on Hamas’s promises. Hamas used the last cease-fire to restock its arsenal with weapons ferried in through tunnels dug under the Egypt-Gaza border.

The best protection would be to place monitors on the Egypt-Gaza border to stop the smuggling that is Hamas’s lifeline. The Israelis also must be ready to ease their blockade of Gaza to allow more food and normal economic activity.

The Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, is expected in Washington on Friday where she will sign a hastily arranged deal to accept United States equipment and technical assistance to help monitor the Israeli-Gaza border.

American and Israeli officials say that Israel would never accept a cease-fire without that help and both are eager to heap praise on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for making it happen. But Washington could have provided that assistance years ago — just as it should have been pressing harder on every aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

President-elect Barack Obama says he will work for a peace deal from Day 1. We hope Israel picks a new leader in elections next month who is truly committed to a two-state solution. With the support of the new American president, he or she must make an early downpayment on peace by ending settlement construction, cooperating seriously with Mr. Abbas and improving the lives of all Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza.

Undoing Reagan/Bush/Cheney & Gingrich's 1990s Congress

WE DIDN'T GET SEAN PENN FOR SEC. OF STATE OR JOE STIGLIZ AS CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISOR

BUT, THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE; WE MUST UNDO THE
REAGAN/BUSH/CHeNEY WHITE HOUSE & GINGRICH'S 1990'S CONGRESS; THE 30-YEAR WAR AGAINST THE WORKING CLASS AND OUR COUNTRY

Phil E. Benjamin

Lo and behold, the new Administration did not pick international activist, Sean Penn, to be our next Secretary of State; or any other pro-peace members of Congress. Rep. John Murtha, the first notable member of Congress to demand an end to the Iraq war; as well as, Dennis Kucinich, didn't seem to earn a mention. And, Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz or Dean Baker were not named to head up or even to be part of the new economic team to lead us through the economic abyss. The Secretary of Labor, whoever it is, has not been named to the economic team. That would have made some sense.

Late word: The discomfort of not having any pro-worker, pro-union voice near the White House did reach the Vice President's office. Jared Bernstein, economist for the Economic Policy Institute, was named today by Joe Biden as his top economic advisor. That is good news.

Former US Senator Tom Daschle was named to head up the Health and Human Services Agenda and not a leader of the universal national health care movement touting, for example, HR 676. Again, Dennis Kucinich, a top fighter for universal health care, doesn't seem to warrant any attention. In fact, Daschle seems to be a supporter of the health care market system, albeit, maybe a need for a little regulation of the actors.

The labor movement, used to these kinds of bypasses, will probably be asked for their comments on the next Secretary of Labor, but you can be sure they will not be fully satisfied. They will probably be forced to accept a politician or academic who has a decent labor record for that role. This, after labor serving as the foot soldiers in the key battle ground states. Was John Sweeney, the head of the AFL-CIO, considered for any positions? Remember, in 1981, when Reagan appointed labor leader Ray Donovan, as his labor secretary?

Those expectations were probably not on the front burner of most experienced activists who are used to these pre Election Day promises and post election appointments. But, nonetheless, you can feel a sort of collective resignation and possibly some real cynical and bitter feelings creeping in. Some are offering rationalizations for these appointments. Nothing wrong with that. Past elections are full of these discussions and debates.

The more important question remains: WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

FRANCIS PERKINS AND FDR

As the story goes, not sure if it is true or not, when FDR appointed Francis Perkins, clearly the most left of any presidential appointment to a cabinet post, she asked the president to take action on key working class issues, FDR said something like, "Go out and get a movement to force me to do it."

The president elect said similar things in his formal speeches. He said his election was an opportunity to get things done, not an event, as such, itself.

And, BTW, even if those highly visible pro-peace, pro-economic fairness; and health care equity people were appointed to those lofty cabinet posts, our job would be the exact same.

ECONOMIC STRUGGLES INTENSIFIES

Socio-economic organizations like Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH, I am sure, are not sitting back and watching these leadership things develop in Chicago and then in D.C. An economic justice program is surely being developed to be placed at the feet of the new Administrations economic team. [RAINBOWPUSH.ORG]

Similarly, the peace and anti-nuclear war groups of organizations, lead by United for Peace and Justice and the World Peace Council, I am sure are developing its programs and action plan. Immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan probably being high top priority; along with the nonproliferation nuclear treaties. [UNITEDFOR PEACE.ORG]

Socio-economic programs, along with key labor union issues are already in high gear.

The Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor think tank, has been hard at work for months. [EPI.ORG] And, now, one of theirs is Biden's top economic advisor.

Health care activists across the country are sharpening their action programs. Medicare must be de-privatized and improved; Medicaid must be made more accessible at NO costs are in the works. Rolling back Bush's attack on Medicaid, taking place right now is the first step. All of this to prepare the ground for a strong national health program.

University faculty and students are working hard to dump the crushing debt caused by college and university tuition. Tuition debt must be forgiven in return for national service [not military]. And, faculty levels must be preserved and improved to teach students.

Labor and employment based organizations are demanding massive Living Wage public employment programs.

But, most importantly, the labor movement is already planning a massive demonstration in Washington, D.C. to demand economic and social justice for its members and all working class people. This will be coalition event of the year 2009.

In fact, the final months and days of the Bush Administration is seeing executive orders pushing the ideological right wing agenda all the way to January 20th. To be fair, Presidents Carter and Clinton did the same. But, most of their actions were very progressive. And, upon election Reagan and Bush turned practically all of those actions around. The new president will have to do the same starting on January 21st.

Bush, just this week, as stated above, has made it more difficult for Medicaid recipients, the most financially challenged people and families, to pay for medical care under Medicaid. His rightwing, pro-market, and pro-big health business tycoons know no shame.

THE LITMUS TESTS

The litmus test for the New Administration, and lets face it, we all have these; will not be just one issue. The almost 30-year War by the Reagan/Bush/Chaney White House and Gingrich Congress in the 1990s has set our country into a tailspin that must be reversed. The current recession and complete financial collapse can be laid to those ultra-right politicians; and, also to a lack luster, too often compliant Democratic Party.

For labor the issue will be the "Card Check" bill, the Employee Free Choice Act. This is crucial for labors' future; and, therefore, the future of all other litmus tests.

For health activists it will be Medicare and Medicaid improvements; drastically reducing the power of the health insurance and drug lobbies is essential. Saving billions by eliminating the insurance carriers and having the federal government negotiate the price of drugs in the Medicare program is crucial to begin the fill the national treasury with corporate profits. Other cost savings in the health care system, i.e., cutting out the profit-makers, can lead the way to a national health program.

For seniors it will also be to guarantee their regular Social Security check each month.

For economic justice activists it will be the quickness of arriving at and starting a "Living Wage Employment Program." Unemployment rates, for many segments of our country, i.e., African-Americans, Latins, are already double digit. We cannot wait until the national rates reach those levels.

For public education it will be freeing up schools from the backward, anti-working class Bush policies.

And, for young people it will be a tuition forgiveness program that wipes out past debt and awards no tuition with genuine, useful public service, career programs upon graduation.

Are these all achievable with the New Administration? Why Not?

GET ACTIVE NOW

So as we watch the development of the new presidential cabinet and other key advisors, and surely we all do, let's keep our eyes on the prize.

The way it looks, all of these pro-peace, pro-economic justice organizational efforts will be brought to Washington, D.C. under labor's banner, in the late Spring of 2009 to tell Congress and the White House of its expectations.

And, BTW, all of those possible unsuccessful candidates for Administration positions are not going to go away; on the contrary, they will be part of parcel of the broad peoples' movement.

Get ready for a great ride in 2009; and, get active now---your own future and your family's future are at stake.

Waiting For Obama

by Norman Markowitz

In the mid 1930s, playwright Clifford Odets, then a Communist Party USA member, wrote a powerful labor drama, Waiting for Lefty, which many believed caught the spirit of the time. Its main setting was union meeting where angry workers are debating whether or not to strike. An old guard union leader, named as I remember "Happy Fat," calls upon the workers to be moderate, wait, wait, wait for the new administration to provide aid, wait for a message from another official, Lefty, to give them more information. Finally, after the story of the workers struggle against the depression is told, a leftwing militant (to people at that time and place a Communist) passionately addresses the workers and tells them to abandon their illusions, that Lefty may never come, that they must strike and strike now. The play ends in a cathartic moment as the actors and the audience join together shouting Strike.

Today, we are all waiting for Obama as the economic crisis deepens around us. Today we are reading about auto executives asking for a federal bailout and the UAW being asked to make significant concessions (as if workers wages and benefits are somehow comparable to executive pay). No sane worker anywhere who has union based supplemental unemployment benefits for example would compare that to an "unemployed"executive's golden parachute.

If Agate Keller, the militant hero of Waiting for Lefty was around today (I hope I am spelling his name correctly because I have not really seen or read the play in a very long time and my internet access is erratic) he would tell workers to tell their union leaders that they did not create this disaster and they must not be punished for it. That a democratic government with a small d represents the people, not the corporations. That a Democratic congress and President with a big D was elected by labor and moderate and lower income people, not by big business and the wealthy, who have shown a very distinct preference in elections for the Republican party since the late 19th century.

"Bailouts" in advanced industrial countries of anything, banks, corporations, state and local governments, education, housing, can't be separated from serious regulation in the interests of workers and consumers. A socialist solution of course would be public ownership connected to job, benefit and wages guarantees to workers (an equivalent of the government "loan guarantees" to capitalists). The present "race" to save through bailouts the system from the top down without substantial protections and benefits for labor and moderate and low income people can only result in a greater political and social crisis. If congressional Democrats act like the fictional Happy Fat" in Waiting for Lefty, going along with corporate bailouts on corporate terms, they will be shooting themselves and the President in the foot even before the administration begins.