Saturday, January 31, 2009

Michigan Professors Against Occupation (MPAO)

from: MPAO blog: Gaza Statement

We are an ad hoc group of university and college professors in Michigan that condemns in the strongest possible terms the Israeli bombardment and invasion of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli assault on Gaza has caused hundreds of Palestinian deaths and the massive destruction of civilian infrastructure. Although the Israeli government and its US supporters claim that Israel is responding to Hamas rocket fire, the military operation, codenamed “Operation Casting Lead,” constitutes a disproportionate retaliatory action that indiscriminately targets the entire population of the Gaza Strip.


Since 1967, Israel has committed numerous war crimes and human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories with impunity. Once again, the international community has failed to respond substantially to Israel’s life-stifling blockade and its devastating invasion of Gaza. Furthermore, US politicians in both parties have given support to Israel’s military operation, justifying what many other international observers view as an excessive use of force on a largely defenseless civilian population.


As educators, we are particularly appalled at the destruction of educational institutions and student casualties. Human Rights Watch reported on December 27, 2008 that an Israeli air-to-ground missile struck a group of students leaving the Gaza Training College, killing eight and wounding 19 others. Israel then bombed on December 29, 2008, the Islamic University of Gaza. Most tragically, on January 6, 2009, Israel bombed a UN-operated school in Jabaliya refugee camp killing at least 40 people. These attacks against Palestinian students and educational institutions are part of a long history of Israel’s obstruction of the Palestinian right to education guaranteed in international conventions.


Despite its disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Israel remains the occupying power according to international law, and retains control of Gaza’s land borders, air space and sea ports. Israel has the responsibility to secure the safety of Palestinian civilians and to abide by the Geneva Convention and other instruments of international law. As noted by UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, “That such a human catastrophe can happen with minimal outside interference also shows the weakness of international law and the United Nations, as well as the geopolitical priorities of the important players.”


It is urgent that we join with others around the world seeking peace and justice in the Middle East and call for an immediate cease-fire, a lifting of the blockade of Gaza and ultimately an end to the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. We believe in the need to achieve justice for Palestinians, and call on Michigan’s local, state and federal political representatives as well as the broader public to protest Israel’s violations of international law.

____________________________________________________________________________


Check their blog out for more info and a list of professors (several great ones from MSU) who have signed the statement.

Friday, January 30, 2009

The End of Neo-Liberalism and Bush's Last Scam: How Racism Sparked the Financial Crisis

from: Political Affairs Online

By


click here for related stories: economy
1-28-09, 9:13 am


With the collapse of several banks and insurance companies, the near bankruptcy of Detroit automakers, a 50 percent drop in world stock exchanges and an almost complete arrest of credit markets, an economic era has ended. It seems almost an understatement to say that capitalism has entered a new stage of a protracted systemic crisis.

The crisis of the economy is at once a crisis in ideology. After 30 years of worship at the shrine of the free market, Reaganomics and other branches of conservative and neo-conservative thought seem bankrupt and thoroughly discredited if not dead – and not only right-wing schools. Deregulation, privatization, intense financial speculation on debt, the scaling back if not elimination of government social spending, in a word, “neo-liberalism” has reached its extreme limit almost bursting state-monopoly capitalism’s seams and triggering a worldwide financial meltdown.

Many causes have been attributed to the turmoil. Among the main contenders: “financialization” or the capitalism-on-crack of the bond markets and banks, a crisis of overproduction (too many goods chasing too few dollars), and a weak “real” economy due to insufficient allocation of surplus capital to productive investment. Some point to objective processes, others stress mistaken policy decisions. Clearly all were to one degree or another at play. Caution is in order, however. Objective economic processes, mistaken fiscal policies or even chance economic accidents, taken together or alone do not sufficiently explain the impetus behind the ongoing calamity. Also at work was the pernicious influence of institutionalized racism. In fact racist lending practices may have triggered the global financial collapse.

Slouching Toward Collapse

The origins of how the unraveling began is to be found in capitalism’s attempt to resolve ongoing crises. In fact, the neo-liberal model itself arose in response to attempts in advanced capitalist countries to maintain profits and find new markets. Faced in the 1970s with a declining rate of profit, a fractured world economy divided into “socialist” and capitalist camps, structural and fiscal crises along with spiraling inflation, capitalism’s generals undertook a re-forging of economic policy in the form of a wholesale assault on the edifice of the New Deal. Keynesianism had run into wall – at least from the point of view of big capital – and policy was now modulated to fit the maximum profit categorical imperatives of the new period. International trade pacts were formed, unions were rolled backed or held in check and fiscal policy was loosened as a new “post-industrial” service-oriented economy emerged.

At the center of this process was a huge transfer of wealth to the super rich, accomplished by means of tax cuts and a huge leap in labor productivity, as the corporate class acquired an even greater share of the surplus. For a period, neo-liberal economic policy seemed to work, lending the appearance of stability with low unemployment, relative labor peace and mild inflation, causing some to wonder if capitalism had become crisis free.

Finance capital began to play an increasingly dominant role. Stressing this aspect CPUSA Chair Sam Webb writes:
…what is different in this period of financialization is that the production of debt and accompanying speculative excesses and bubbles were not simply passing moments at the end of a cyclical upswing, but essential to ginning up and sustaining investment and especially consumer demand in every phase of the cycle.

When at times confronted with cyclical episodes of economic instability amid the bursting of speculative bubbles, monetarist solutions were seen as a panacea. Strengthening money supply from monopoly capital’s point of view may have helped but in contradictory ways as wages, particularly after the recession of 2001, remained stagnant or declined. At key moments in the cycle, crisis emerged. With worker compensation nearly frozen, where was the purchasing power necessary to keep the circulation process moving? Resolving this problem was a chief preoccupation of bankers, CEOs and bureaucratic policy-makers alike.


Indeed, a study of productivity and wages over the last quarter century reveals the acuteness of the problem. From the mid-1970s on, driven by speed-up and new technology, productivity increased dramatically, particularly after 2000. Pay however, remained stagnant. Tracing patterns of pay and productivity, labor-affiliated commentator Jonathan Tasini noted:
If the lines [productivity and wages] had continued to track closely together as they did prior to the 1970s, the minimum wage would be more than $19 an hour. The minimum wage!!! (emphasis in the original). So, in short: people had no money coming in in their paychecks so they were forced to pay for their lives through credit – either plastic or drawing down equity from their homes.

John Bellamy Foster and Harry Magdoff in an important article in Monthly Review, entitled Financial Implosion and Stagnation, also mention the equation of productivity and wages:
This reflected the fact that real wages of private nonagricultural workers in the United States (in 1982 dollars) peaked in 1972 at $8.99 per hour, and by 2006 had fallen to $8.24 (equivalent to the real hourly wage rate in 1967), despite the enormous growth in productivity and profits over the past few decades.

Debt accumulation was key. Speculative bubbles (in information technology and housing) became a driving force in overcoming each new crisis point. Low long-term interest rates had allowed large numbers of people to purchase homes. With rising home prices, experiencing growing debt – and lured by an intensive marketing campaign in the ‘90s by Citicorp and others – families took out second mortgages en masse.

“Until the early ‘90s,” commented Robert Brenner at the November 2008 Berlin symposium organized by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, “Bubblenomics allowed people to get wealthy they thought on paper. One hundred percent of wealth is driven by borrowing and consumption, borrowing and residential investments.”

Desperately Seeking Higher Profits

Capitalism hit another wall, however. During the boom, purchase costs rose quickly pricing new buyers out of the market. Standard mortgages plummeted. In addition, low long-term interest rates meant low profit returns for investors. New problems emerged. In these circumstances confronted with the need to maintain profit rates and find new markets in conditions of declining wages, bankers deliberately devised loan strategies with hidden fees and ballooning interest rates that would greatly elevate the rate of return, targeting unsuspecting and ill informed consumers. Under the ideological guise of George W. Bush’s “Ownership Society” credit would be extended to potential homeowners with low incomes and allegedly marginal or bad credit – the subprime crisis was born.

The proliferation of subprime loans can be traced to the aftermath of the dot-com bubble. After the bubble burst, speculators turned to the housing market. As Yale economist Robert Shiller asked in 2005, “Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed. Where else could plungers apply their newly acquired trading talents?”

As it turned out, the supply-sider’s solution to the precipitous decline in technology stocks achieved a momentary short-term fix, but carried within it seeds of a more profound and destructive practices. The editor’s of the German magazine, Der Spiegel, in a recent article spelling the displacement of US capital, argued that “once again, Greenspan flooded the economy with money and, yet again, Wall Street started looking for a new market for its growth machine. This time it discovered the American homeowner, convincing him to take out mortgages at favorable terms, even when there was practically no collateral.”

Capital then flooded the housing market as real estate became a national corporate mania. "These days, the only thing that comes close to real estate as a national obsession is poker,” commented Shiller.

Brenner suggested that this mania peaked in 2003: “Mortgage origination (house purchases) peaks in 2003 … but the economy expanded through 2007, after which there is a decline.” He continued, “Normal mortgages, called conforming mortgages in which people have to have a certain income and put up certain collateral or down payment … plummeted in 2003 and 2004.”

“What saved the day? Just when the conforming mortgages were falling non-conforming mortgages, subprime or ‘alt A’ or ‘liars loans’ take over in driving the bubble.”

The Federal Reserve, as suggested by Der Spigel, was directly responsible. Brenner confirmed this thesis; “Subprime mortgages,” he said, “became so possible, because Greenspan came in again and reduced short term interest rates to one percent in 2003, the lowest of the postwar period in the face of this problem, which meant that for two years real short term interest rates were below 0. And he did that because subprime mortgages are governed by variable interest rates.”

In article at Portfolio.com entitled "The End of Wall Street's Boom," writer Michael Lewis also emphasized the role of the new niche market: “More generally, the subprime market tapped a tranche of the American public that did not typically have anything to do with Wall Street. Lenders were making loans to people who, based on their credit ratings, were less creditworthy than 71 percent of the population.”

The growth of this niche market was spectacular. In 2000 there was between $60 and $130 billion invested in subprime mortgages. By 2005 the amount had grown to $605 billion. This increase was largely attributable to Wall Street banks, conniving with lower level mortgage companies to devise schemes to make huge sums of money by placing side bets on bad loans likely to default. They did so knowingly creating “exotic financial instruments” and then short selling the market.

Lewis described with precision the means by which the process was begun – short selling the market – and uncovers just how deep finance capital’s complicity ran. “The big Wall Street firms," Lewis argued, "had just made it possible to short even the tiniest and most obscure subprime-mortgage-backed bond by creating, in effect, a market of side bets.”

Lewis, himself the author of a best selling whistle-blowing 1980s expose of Wall Street, Liar’s Poker, interviewed some of the key players in the subprime swindle, including a hedge fund’s primary trader, one Steve Eisman, who realized what the big investment houses were doing and profited handsomely from it. Lewis described Eisman as "perplexed in particular about why Wall Street firms would be coming to him and asking him to sell short.”

The answer: profits. So profit hungry were the Wall Street traders that they pushed these new mechanisms to their farthest limit, creatively manipulating what Marx called fictitious capital. Lewis noted:
In fact, there was no mortgage at all. ‘They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,’ Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running. I was like, this is allowed?”

Not only did banks and investment firms create this phony capital, there was ruling class complicity all down the line, a complicity that included in addition to the Republican standard bearers, Democratic centrists like former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, then an executive of the recently bailed out Citigroup.

The beginning of the end came in 2006, according to the editors of Monthly Review: “The housing bubble began to deflate in early 2006 at the same time that the Fed was raising interest rates in an attempt to contain inflation. The result was a collapse of the housing sector and mortgage-backed securities.”

Frantic efforts to throw more money at the problem, so often criticized by the Republican right when applied to social programs, proved of no avail. Foster and Magdoff write that the new chief US financial officer, ever the student of Greenspan and Friedman opened Fort Knox:
Confronted with a major financial crisis beginning in 2007, Bernanke as Fed chairman put the printing press into full operation, flooding the nation and the world with dollars, and soon found to his dismay that he had been “pushing on a string.” No amount of liquidity infusions were able to overcome the insolvency in which financial institutions were mired.


Looking back even conservative New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman claimed disgust in a recent op-ed entitled “All Fall Down.” Doling out blame Friedman believes responsibility begins with
People who had no business buying a home, with nothing down and nothing to pay for two years; people who had no business pushing such mortgages, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business bundling those loans into securities and selling them to third parties, as if they were AAA bonds, but made fortunes doing so; people who had no business rating those loans as AAA, but made fortunes doing so; and people who had no business buying those bonds and putting them on their balance sheets so they could earn a little better yield, but made fortunes doing so.


Imagine the audacity of comparing working-class families to Wall Street titans! Everyone else was getting paid: the mortgage brokers whose fees increased the bigger the sale with no penalty to themselves; the banks who then bundled the loans up and sold them to other financial institutions around the world again seemingly with no losses; the rating agencies who allowed it to happen. Only working families were left holding the bag.

Friedman, quoting Lewis, revealed Wall Street’s unabashed cynicism: “Eisman knew that subprime lenders could be disreputable. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism... ‘We always asked the same question,’ says Eisman. ‘Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.’"

Eisman himself is unsparing in his criticism: “That Wall Street has gone down because of this is justice,” he says. “They fucked people. They built a castle to rip people off. Not once in all these years have I come across a person inside a big Wall Street firm who was having a crisis of conscience.”

Race and the Housing Bubble

As it turned out, a disproportionate number of the people they "fucked" were African American and Latino families. Perhaps this explains at least in part why no Wall Street insiders had qualms about their activities or why in recent weeks the issue seems to have almost disappeared from discourse on the economic recession. Attention to this highly important issue was given in 2008 when the Urban League, the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus made it the centerpiece of their annual conferences. As the fall election campaign swung into high gear, however, save for oblique references by the Republican candidate, John McCain, concerning the “mismanagement” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and more caustic comments by demagogues like Ann Coulter blaming Black and Latino families for the meltdown, the electoral discourse at the height of crisis largely stayed away from what may have been conceived as a racially charged issue.

Still, as the main civil rights organizations charged in the summer of 2008, the racist origins of the subprime mess are difficult to ignore. A cursory glance at some of the statistical highlights provides ample evidence. An excellent study authored by United For a Fair Economy entitled "Foreclosed” suggests several indicators, chief among them the disproportionate numbers of people of color holding subprime loans: over 50 percent of all mortgages held by African Americans fall into this category. The figure is 40 percent for Latinos.

These percentages have grave economic implications: “Given that people of color are a disproportionate number of the subprime borrowers, and that this group’s assets are mostly concentrated in homeownership, the current foreclosure crisis can be considered the greatest loss of wealth for communities and individuals of color in modern US history.” Black and Latinos will lose between $164 and $213 billion for loans taken during the past eight years.

The disproportionate numbers of Blacks and Latinos with subprime loans, while suggestive serves as only partial explanation. The central question is what caused it? Were the higher relative percentages merely the casual result of ongoing poverty or was a more causal underlying factor at play? Bush administration policy provides important clues.

Subprime loans were allegedly established and encouraged as part of government and corporate efforts to provide support for struggling working-class families troubled with bad credit histories. Truth be told, former President Bush himself pushed the program, believing it would create “stakeholders” in an “Ownership Society” and expand meager Blacks and Latino support for the Republican Party. In the view of the New York Times, the Bush “pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent – and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors.”

Indeed, “the business interests of some of his biggest donors” goes to heart of the matter. While the subprime program was supposedly targeted at those with bad credit, and given that a large percentage of minorities fill this category because of poverty, it would seem disproportionality might be a normal outcome of a well-intentioned program’s attempt to redress historic wrongs.

Good intentions, however, was not point. At stake were big business interests. A strong case can be made that banks deliberately connived to target minority buyers in order to push profit margins, knowing full well (from their own risk assessment calculations) that the loans could not be repaid. Not only were the banks betting on the defaults, but, in fact, were pressuring prospective Black and Latino borrowers to take out such loans, leading the unwitting customers like so many sheep to a financial slaughter house.

Brenner nailed it:
But who would ever lend to them? Who would lend to them is as follows: we talked about that fall in long term interest rates, this is greater for borrowers, but if you are a lender or investor you are in deep trouble because return on investment is really low. And investors are in deep crisis and here is where subprime loans bailed them out. Subprime mortgages because they are so risky pay high interest rates and became the basis for financial assets that allowed investor to appear to get high rates of return.

Homeownership, as it turns out, was not the major objective of the lenders. Despite rhetoric promoting an ownership society, only a fraction of loans were awarded to first-time homebuyers. And pubic officials were well aware of this even before the financial meltdown became full blown. In the summer of 2007, in a speech before the Brookings Institute as the credit markets began to seize up, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) charged that:
According to the chief national bank examiner for the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, only 11 percent of subprime loans went to first-time buyers last year. The vast majorities were refinancing that caused borrowers to owe more on their homes under the guise that they were saving money. Too many of these borrowers were talked into refinancing their homes to gain additional cash for things like medical bills.
Lewis, quoting Eisman in the Portfolio.com article, revealed what went on in a case very close to home:
Next, the baby nurse he’d hired back in 1997 to take care of his newborn twin daughters phoned him. “She was this lovely woman from Jamaica,” he says. “One day she calls me and says she and her sister own five townhouses in Queens. I said, ‘How did that happen?’” It happened because after they bought the first one and its value rose, the lenders came and suggested they refinance and take out $250,000, which they used to buy another one. Then the price of that one rose too, and they repeated the experiment. “By the time they were done,” Eisman says, “they owned five of them, the market was falling, and they couldn’t make any of the payments.”

Nor was bad credit the primary factor for distributing the loans, a myth conveniently circulated and repeated to this day. Schumer again rebutted the notion, quoting none other than the Wall Street Journal:
Based on the Journal’s analysis of borrowers’ credit scores, 55 percent of subprime borrowers had credit scores worthy of a prime, conventional mortgage in 2005. By the end of last year, that percentage rose to over 61 percent according to their study. While some will have damaged their credit in the interim, it’s clear that many subprime borrowers have the financial foundation for sustainable homeownership, but may have been tricked into unaffordable loans by unscrupulous brokers.


Thus, working-class Black and Latino families, over half if not 60 percent of whom were eligible for conventional loans, burdened by several years of stagnant and falling wages during a jobless recovery were led by mortgage companies in clear and blatant cases of predatory racially inspired lending.

The racial overtones are evident in this swindle are evident. But what made the loans predatory? The United For a Fair Economy study provides the following criteria: One factor is their marketing and sales to inappropriate customers. Another is pre-payment penalties. Seventy percent of subprime loans had such penalties. A third element was Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS), which often carried unexplained ballooning interest rates that increase payments by as much as one-third. A majority of subprimes were ARMS. Yet another condition was the exclusion of tax and insurance costs when estimating the monthly payment for a potential home-buyer. And finally the encouragement of ordinary borrowers to take interest-only loans, where in the initial year or two only the interest is paid on, after which the principal rates kick in raising the cost dramatically.

The Bush administration was not only complicit in these practices, but may have helped mastermind them. “The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations,” according to the New York Times. “And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.”

Might not expected? In actual fact, the Bush team aggressively tore up regulations, intimidated and fired reluctant administrators, litigated against states bucking their authority, taking cases even to the Supreme Court.

The Times continues:
As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks. The administration won that fight in the Supreme Court.

When they held a majority, congressional Republicans, too, were deeply involved in the act on behalf of finance capital, threatening and winning a fight to clarify loan terms. In this regard, the Times reported, “The president did push rules aimed at forcing lenders to more clearly explain loan terms. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.”

Why the bullying, arm bending and other no-holds barred tactics? The answer lies in the necessity of staying competitive and the imperative to achieve maximum corporate profits to do so – on a global scale. Der Spiegel quoted a German banker: “'We need a 25-percent return,' or else his bank would not be 'competitive internationally,' Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann said, thereby establishing a benchmark that would soon apply not just to banks but also to automobile makers, machine builders and steel companies.”

Knowns and Unknowns

As is now well known, this drive to stay competitive contributed mightily to the undoing of many of the economies in the developed capitalist countries. Reduced consumption in the US, Japan and Western Europe, is resulting in slowdowns throughout the globe. In addition, as is also widely known the racist toxic loans born in the US were also exported abroad, precipitating banks runs and others shock waves to the world financial system and crippling pension funds and even local governments in several countries.

Where it will end remains unknown. Most bourgeois economists are of the opinion that the economic crisis will grow worse before it gets better. Economist Nouriel Roubini an early predictor of the financial chaos argues a short term a meltdown has been averted but is pessimistic about prospects for an early recovery, predicting instead a long-term bottoming out of the economy. He writes:
But the worst is still ahead of us. In the next few months, the macroeconomic news and earnings/profits reports from around the world will be much worse than expected, putting further downward pressure on prices of risky assets, because equity analysts are still deluding themselves that the economic contraction will be mild and short.

Marxists thinkers Magdoff and Foster put things differently: “The prognosis then is that the economy, even after the immediate devaluation crisis is stabilized, will at best be characterized for some time by minimal growth, and by high unemployment, underemployment, and excess capacity.”

Roubini contends that the current system-wide situation was not caused by the subprime scandal but triggered by it, pointing to bubbles in other areas as well, including commercial mortgages, credit cards and students loans. In addition he contends: “these pathologies were not confined to the US. There were housing bubbles in many other countries, fueled by excessive cheap lending that did not reflect underlying risks. There was also a commodity bubble and a private equity and hedge funds bubble.”

Magdoff and Foster on the other hand, point to long-term tendencies in the economy toward stagnation and pose financialization, debt and consumer spending financed by it as a consequence of the underlying weakness of growth. They write: “Since financialization can be viewed as the response of capital to the stagnation tendency in the real economy, a crisis of financialization inevitably means a resurfacing of the underlying stagnation endemic to the advanced capitalist economy.”

Whether faulty subprime mortgages caused the great financial instability or simply triggered the deepening of an already existing problem, one thing is sure: its racist origins are undeniable. What Marxist theoreticians like Henry Winston and William L. Patterson called the “Achilles heel” of US capitalism – racism – has once again made itself felt and sending shock waves around the world, helping close one chapter in the class and democratic struggle and opening up another.

Magdoff and Foster also employ the Achilles heel metaphor, albeit with a slightly different emphasis.
This growth of consumption, based in the expansion of household debt, was to prove to be the Achilles heel of the economy. The housing bubble was based on a sharp increase in household mortgage-based debt, while real wages had been essentially frozen for decades. The resulting defaults among marginal new owners led to a fall in house prices. This led to an ever increasing number of owners owing more on their houses than they were worth, creating more defaults and a further fall in house prices. Banks seeking to bolster their balance sheets began to hold back on new extensions of credit card debt. Consumption fell, jobs were lost, capital spending was put off and a downward spiral of unknown duration began.

As the struggle around the recovery package begins, it must be pointed out what are termed “marginal new owners” were largely Black and Latino working-class families trying to make ends meet, targeted by Wall Street financiers. Recovery cannot be achieved without an economic package that bail out these homeowners beginning with a moratorium on foreclosures.

At the heart of the collapse of the financial system and the economic recession lies the unparalleled greed of the banks coupled with the declining wages of poor working people exacerbated by a racist social division of labor. The solution to problem may well continue to lie in the repayment in full of a centuries-old debt. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, capitalism’s promissory note is still marked, “Insufficient Funds.”

--Joe Sims is the publisher of Political Affairs.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Yes We Did. Now What?

a bi-annual report by YCL Chair Erica Smiley

Link: http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1890/1/6/

UN greets Obama’s actions on family planning

from: PWW

Author: Dan Margolis
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/27/09 18:40


New policy helps promote equality for women, girls


UNITED NATIONS—After eight years of antagonistic relations between the world community and the far-right, ideologically driven family planning policies of the Bush administration, the U.S. is moving back into the international mainstream.

President Barack Obama’s “actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world,” Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund said at a Jan. 27 press conference announcing Obama’s pledge to restore U.S. funding, which was cut seven years ago by the Bush administration, to her agency.

“And,” she added, “access to reproductive health is at the core of all these issues.”

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) works at the global level to reduce poverty, empower women in the areas of family planning and prevention of HIV/AIDS and, more generally, to improve the health of women and children.

The organization runs a campaign to end fistula, a condition caused when women, especially very young women, after going through long periods of labor without proper medical treatment. People with fistula—a large percentage of them extremely young girls in areas such as Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo who are victims of wartime rape—end up incontinent and ostracized from their families. While it only costs about U.S.$500 to cure fistula, two million women and girls live with it, and there are 50,000 – 100,000 new cases each year.

Statistics show the necessity of the fund’s work: A woman dies in childbirth every minute, and 99 percent of them are in developing nations, especially Asia and Africa. This adds up, says the agency, to “10 million women over a generation.”

While 180 of the world’s nations have been contributing to the fight against fistula and other problems combated by UNFPA, the Bush administration cut U.S. funding to the fund for ideological reasons: Bush simply refused to give U.S. money, though appropriated by Congress, to any organization that promoted family planning over his “abstinence only” agenda. This put the U.S. to the right of even the world’s most restrictive, anti-women governments; both Iran and Saudi Arabia, not known for their concern for women’s right to choice, donated to the UNFPA.

President Obama has promised $40 - $60 million to the UNFPA, the final amount to be decided by Congress. The low end would cover just under 10 percent of the agency’s $430 million budget; the high end would put the U.S. as the world’s top donor, surpassing the Netherlands’s annual $54 million contributions.

Reflecting on this, Obaid said she believed that “the U.S. will resume its leadership in promoting and protecting women’s reproductive health and rights worldwide.”

In announcing the funding, Obama stated, “the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.”

The funding comes on the heels of a previous announcement that Obama would lift the “global gag rule,” which refused U.S. money to any organization on earth that provides—or discusses—abortion with women.

Human Rights Watch: employee free choice is a human right

from: PWW

Author: Seth Michaels, AFL-CIO Blog
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/27/09 12:24



Original source: AFL-CIO NowUnder current labor law, the United States is strikingly deficient in protecting freedom of association and the freedom to form unions, says a new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), an independent human-rights advocacy group. The solution? Congress must pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

In a new report, The Employee Free Choice Act: A Human Rights Imperative, HRW lays out the case for its quick passage to restore workers’ freedom to form unions without fear of harassment, coercion or termination. The report is part of HRW’s critical work as watchdogs for human rights, the freedom of association and the treatment of workers from Colombia to India and around the world.

The report analyzes international labor standards the United States has agreed to by treaty, points out where it’s deficient in meeting those standards and explains how the Employee Free Choice will remedy the situation and restore workers’ fundamental freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life.

Congress should pass the Employee Free Choice Act to help remedy glaring deficiencies in current U.S. labor law that significantly impair the right of workers to freely choose whether to form a union. Workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively is well established under international human rights law…the United States is legally bound to protect this fundamental right. In practice, it falls far short, and failure by U.S. employers to respect workers’ right to freedom of association is rampant.

In particular, HRW’s report points to three serious flaws in U.S. labor law that are addressed by the Employee Free Choice Act:

* Unfair election procedures that are badly slanted toward employers, giving the employer, in practice, the ultimate say over how workers form a union:

U.S. law also allows employers to refuse to recognize a union based on freely signed authorizations by a clear majority of workers explicitly indicating their desire to organize—a “card check”—and demand instead that a union demonstrate majority support through an NLRB election. The period leading up to that election, lasting at least several weeks but often longer, creates an opening for anti-union employers to make aggressive use of the tilted playing field.

* The lack of serious penalties for corporate misconduct, including intimidation and firing of workers, and the ability of companies to indefinitely delay and deter attempts to form a union:

Penalties for breaching U.S. labor law are so minor that employers often treat them as a cost of doing business—a small price to pay for defeating worker organizing efforts. Under U.S. labor law, an employer faces no punitive penalties and few, if any, economic consequences for violating workers’ right to freedom of association.

* The ability of companies to ignore workers’ choice to bargain collectively by refusing to reach a fair contract:

Even if U.S. workers successfully organize, however, their fundamental right to freedom of association is still not fully secure because of shortcomings in current legal provisions governing collective bargaining….Because there are no significant negative repercussions for illegal conduct…there is little incentive for intransigent employers to comply with the law.

The message of HRW’s report is clear: under existing U.S. law, the freedom to form unions and bargain is a hope, not a reality, for millions of workers. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act will go a long way toward making sure the United States lives up to its obligations to protect workers’ fundamental and internationally recognized right to form a union and bargain for a better life.

Humanitarian aid to Gaza is critical, Kucinich urges

from: PWW

Author: Rick Nagin
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/26/09 15:41



With the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the challenge now is to provide humanitarian relief to Gaza as the first step towards resolution of the conflict, Congressman Dennis Kucinich told a large meeting Sunday at ACCESS, the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services.

Kucinich urged public support for House Resolution 66 calling for unrestricted humanitarian access to Gaza. The bill is co-sponsored by eight other members of Congress. Kucinich said he would seek to get a companion bill introduced in the Senate.

Kucinich also distributed a letter he sent Jan. 23 to President Obama calling for immediate humanitarian assistance to Gaza and even-handed diplomacy to end the conflict.

The letter calls on Obama to reverse the policies of the Bush administration that “allowed a humanitarian crisis to engulf the civilian residents of Gaza” and urge Israel to end its blockade of the area. The letter also urges the president to negotiate a permanent cease-fire, “hold both Israel and Hamas to account for violations of international law, including the laws of warfare and U.S. laws controlling military aid to foreign countries and ensure that Special Envoy George Mitchell has the support of diverse advisers.”

“The security and well-being of both Israel and Palestine require that the U.S. take decisive and immediate action to resume our role as an honest broker of peace,” the letter states.

Kucinich was one of five members of Congress to oppose the resolution endorsing Israel’s invasion of Gaza, but, he said, “Gaza opened people’s eyes – even those who voted for the resolution.

“I am confident Congress wants a new direction,” Kucinich declared. “The new administration must guarantee the Palestinians have a place they can call their own. We need to unite this community to support this new direction and guarantee peace for the Israelis and peace and finally justice for the Palestinians.”

The humanitarian issue is immediate, Kucinich said, but “it opens the door to more long-range issues.” The Obama administration, he said, “understands the centrality of bringing relief to the Palestinians. The U.S. can no longer have policies of participation in aggression against Gaza.”

Key to the new understanding that is emerging, Kucinich said, are new peace advocates in the Jewish community, including groups like J Street and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Jewish Committee for Justice and Peace, which have met with people in the Obama administration as well as Kucinich and other members of Congress. “Now there is more than one voice,” he said.

Asked about Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, who has long ties with Israel, Kucinich said Emanuel “is in a good position to guide a new direction.”

“I cannot stress strongly enough the need to break out of the cocoons of the past.”

Kucinich said he wants to meet with groups in the Jewish community, speak in synagogues and then call a large town hall meeting involving both the Jewish and Arab-American communities.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

A nuke free world?

from: PWW
Author: Alan Mackinnon

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/28/09 08:37



When a fully loaded aircraft crash-landed on the river Hudson without loss of life, the people emerging from the plane appeared to walk on water.

Welcome to the era of Barack Obama.

President Obama will need all his miraculous powers if he is to satisfy the aspirations of the people who elected him.

He inherits an economy facing perhaps its biggest ever economic crisis, with collapsing banks, insolvent car-makers, lengthening dole queues and a broken health-care system.

There is growing anger at the handouts to banks and other big corporations whose own greed and folly led to their downfall while ordinary US citizens struggle to save their jobs and their homes.

Obama will be judged not just by his management of the domestic economy but by how far he meets his commitments to tackle climate change and end the war on terror.

During his campaign, Obama often spoke of his vision of a nuclear-free world and his commitment not to develop new nuclear weapons.

This chimes with the growing support across the world for a global treaty to outlaw nuclear weapons.

Former statesmen such as George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn have renewed their calls for steps towards a nuclear-free world in the Wall Street Journal this month.

Across the world, opinion polls have shown widespread support for such an international treaty, including 70 per cent support in the US.

In November, UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon published his Five Steps To A Nuclear-free World.

Since then, Global Zero has been launched, bringing celebrities and major world statesmen and women into the campaign and broadening its appeal.

Further hope that Obama may actually carry out his pledges came from the appointment of John Holdren, a Harvard professor with a long record of support for nuclear disarmament, as science adviser.

And, since being sworn in, the new administration has set out the aim of a nuclear-free world as one of its key foreign policy objectives on the White House website. So far, so good.

But the key to opening up a new disarmament process is constructive negotiations with Russia to make deep bilateral cuts in nuclear weapons.

And, for Russia, there will be two related stumbling blocks - missile defence and the expansion of NATO.

Obama has been ambiguous on the issue of missile defence.

The appointment of Robert Gates as defence secretary does not inspire confidence. From his early career at the CIA to his position as defence secretary for Bush, Gates has been a major advocate of missile defence.

The prime contractors Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are likely to fight hard to stop the programme being cancelled.

The other problem is the expansion of NATO.

Obama has stated that he supports the recruitment of Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance, despite clear opposition from many European NATO members.

The depth of Russia's concern about NATO encirclement was exposed by the short war in Georgia last August.

The appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state could harden Obama's position on NATO expansion.

Bill Clinton's administration oversaw the first round of NATO expansion which resulted in the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in March 1999 and Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia five years later.

As US senator, Hillary Clinton voted in favour of NATO expansion and co-sponsored a resolution in favour of NATO entry for Ukraine and Georgia.

Obama has emphasised diplomacy and working with allies as an alternative to the confrontational unilateralism of the Bush era.

NATO would seem to be a key vehicle for that - a vehicle in which 26 states of Europe and north America can be bound into an agenda set by the US and add some "legitimacy" to the future threat or use of military power.

NATO is increasingly acquiring an offensive role and the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine would provide a gateway to the Black Sea and the Caspian.

But the world has changed. Today, even the "soft power" of President Obama cannot be sure of holding sway in the alliance.

For the past six years, NATO has been divided and paralysed because of deep differences over the war in Iraq, the role of an EU army, the commitment of individual nations to the fighting in Afghanistan and over current plans to expand NATO.

These cracks could widen if the new administration insists on expanding NATO at the expense of relations with Russia.

If Obama really wants to make progress towards a nuclear-free world, he will have to halt missile defence and the expansion of NATO.

That huge wave of activism which swept him to power is needed now more than ever.

Reprinted from the Morning Star
Alan Mackinnon is chairman of Scottish CND.
www.banthebomb.org
www.scotland4peace.org

Venezuela's Chavez Praises Obama

from: Political Affairs Online

Original source: VenezuelaAnalysis.com

Hugo Chávez Frías, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, considered the decision by newly-inaugurated U.S. President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo prison camp and to prohibit torture to be good signs.

“Venezuela is full of hope for the world to take the path towards reason and peace,” he said on Friday during a meeting relating to political party positions in the January 23rd neighborhood of western Caracas.

“I am very happy and the world is happy that a U.S. President has arrived with good intentions, as is reflected by the fact that he took this measure at the start of his term. In any case, I think we have to wait calmly, as Fidel mentioned in his most recent reflection,” said the President.

He also noted: “I think Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is related to this. In any event, they withdrew before Obama assumed the [presidency].”

President Chávez commemorated the 51st anniversary of January 23rd, 1958, when dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez was overthrown.

In the past, the “United States did not allow a government to progress if it deviated from the imperial position, but my have things changed in these past years. Now, it is worth it to wait calmly for the United States, more so with the new administration of President Barack Obama,” added President Chávez.

Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias (ABN), Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Press Office / January 23, 2009

Bolivia: Constitutional Reform Passes to Protect Natural Resources

from: Political Affairs Online

HAVANA, Cuba, Jan 26 (acn) – Bolivian President Evo Morales said the approval Sunday of a new constitution for the country is part of the process he calls the re-founding of the nation.

According to Prensa Latina news agency, Morales said the approval of the new constitution that substitutes the one in force since 1967, is the result of the people’s conscious choice.

Speaking from the balcony of the presidential palace to a large crowd in Plaza Murillo, Morales congratulated his supporters for backing the process of change that began in January 2006.

“Thank you for voting for a new Bolivia with equal rights for all,” he stressed.

Morales praised the contribution of social movements, particularly the historically excluded and exploited peasant and indigenous groups.

He said the new constitution brings an end to the colonial and neoliberal state that “auctioned off our natural resources,” in reference to the articles in the approved constitution that defend the national patrimony over raw materials.

Evo Morales added that “the implementation of the new constitution is one of the greatest challenges ahead.”

“The new Bolivia has begun, a state with a nation…a more united and dignified Bolivia,” he said.

The constitutional referendum took place peacefully, with preliminary results showing a support of around 60 percent of the four million voters.

From the Cuban News Agency

Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama’s stimulus plan must be passed now

from: PWW

Author: John Case
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/23/09 15:19



The $825 billion stimulus plan proposed by Congress and applauded by Barack Obama should be approved immediately. Despite some noted imperfections — probably too much is dedicated to tax cuts, and even though it is the biggest rescue program in U.S. history it is likely just the beginning of the recovery effort — time is of the essence. If some concessions to Republicans on tax cuts gain speed in delivering jobs and income to American workers, then let it be so!

Most of the stimulus plan proposed by the incoming Obama administration is exactly what is needed, including aid to states, an emphasis on education, including early childhood, and investment in the nation’s infrastructure — the backbone of a productive economy. The United States has allowed its infrastructure to deteriorate to the point that dikes and bridges fail catastrophically, our drinking water suffers, our mass transit systems badly lag the rest of the world, and our broadband connectivity is slower and reaches a smaller share of our citizens than equivalent systems in Korea, Japan and other allies and competitors. The condition of many school buildings — some built in the 19th century — is deplorable and hurts the performance of teachers and students. The money in this rescue package is a small down payment on what is needed to give the U.S. the world-class infrastructure we need.


Immediate job creation is vital

The economy is virtually in freefall. Workers at unemployment agencies report applications at unprecedented levels. Some 15 million Americans are now unemployed or underemployed. The numbers worsen every month, and if state and local governments meet their budget shortfalls by cutting services and laying off employees, the pace of job losses will accelerate. Without immediate and very sizeable intervention, official unemployment could top 10 percent or more this year.

Tax cuts provide the least “bang for the buck” in terms of jobs in the current environment. (Many people used the tax rebate last summer to pay down debt, or put it away as savings. And tax cuts for business work better when the freefall stops and growth resumes). But delaying the passage of immediate job-creating and job-protecting investments will be an even greater sacrifice.


Next urgent steps

Also on the urgent agenda, but not in the initial stimulus plan, is health care reform delivering universal, affordable, quality health care to all Americans. Spokespersons for the Obama team have placed this second, after the stimulus, but ahead of energy, in their list of priorities. Health care investments will contribute immediate jobs and perhaps the greatest long-term social benefit of all.

It should also be noted that saving the U.S. auto industry — even at the current inflated price tag of $40-60 billion — will deliver the biggest “bang for the buck” of all, averting the loss of 3 million more jobs.


Bailout boondoggle?

Of greater concern than the imperfections of the stimulus plan is the direction — or lack of it — reflected in the management and distribution of TARP bailout funds. The second half of the $750 billion fund to stabilize the financial system has now been given to the Treasury Department, despite widespread popular and congressional skepticism due to serious gaps in the Bush administration’s responses to queries by the congressional oversight panel. A satisfactory accounting of public funds “injected” into AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America and others has not been forthcoming. These same firms have continued their executive bonus and retention payments, and buying other financial corporations.

Let’s be clear: if the financial system is not improved soon, then the leading banks will have to be outright nationalized. Without credit, which the banks are supposed to provide, the stimulus will certainly fail, and the Federal Reserve can do no more lowering of interest rates — they are already at 0.005 percent!


Learn from the gray wolves

Lastly, compromise with the Republicans to get this recovery package passed may come at a price many are no doubt reluctant to pay — it could make holding members of the Bush administration accountable for high crimes of illegal war, torture, abuse of power and unprecedented corruption much more difficult. Many argue that the long-range protection of our democracy from these crimes is the key to the greater empowerment of working people. Unfortunately, our economic and survival requirements are so dire that we may simply not have the time for the trials of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan and others whom I would be most gratified to see doing the “perp walk.”

It’s time to unite and bind ourselves to the recovery of our economy. The gray wolves combine their efforts to survive. We can too.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Israel 'admits' to using phosphorous shells in Gaza

from: Russia Today

January 23, 2009

Israel 'admits' to using phosphorous shells in GazaAFP Photo / Mohammed Abed

The Israeli Ambassador to Russia admitted that Israel used white phosphorous but maintained that it was in accordance with international law. The UN and human rights groups have accused Israel of illegaly using the chemical, causing severe burns among civilians.

"Phosphorous is not a prohibited component of weaponry. It was used for making smoke screens. Israel did not use white phosphorous in densely populated areas," said Israeli Ambassador Anna Azari.

Although the use of phosphorous weapons to mask forces is permitted by international law, Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing a war crime by using it in heavily populated areas. The UN has also called for an investigation into the matter.

Israel announced on Wednesday that it is opening an investigation into whether white phosphorous was improperly used by its forces.

Meanwhile, there have been reports from all over Gaza claiming that areas were hit by phosphorous shells launched by Israel.

Palestinian doctors have reported treating dozens of victims of phosphorous attacks and Palestinian witnesses say the shells were fired at houses.

In the Palestinian city of Khoza'a, at least four people were killed as a result of phosphorous shells being fired at a large house. Citizens reported that the phosphorous burned bodies so badly that only bone was left.

The UN compound in Gaza city was hit by three shells on 15 January. Other areas claim to have been hit by up to 20 such shells.

Prominent human rights group Amnesty International, among others groups, accused Israel of a war crime and the UN said that it used the phosphorous in a way that burned civilians.

"They obviously could not have gone on denying the use of phosphorous," Donatella Rovera, Amnesty researcher for Israel and the Occupied Territories, told the Guardian newspaper in London. "There are still phosphorus wedges burning all over Gaza including at the UN compound."

According to senior officials for Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the Army made use of two types of shells.

The first type consists of only a small amount of phosphorous and is used mainly to provide smoke screens for their forces. This use is legal according to the Geneva Convention.

The second, however, is larger and contains far more phosphorous. IDF said that 200 were used and that 180 were fired at Hamas fighters and rocket launch crews in Gaza.

Fact Box: White Phosphorous

White phosphorous is an incendiary device which produces smoke and flare. Phosphorous detonates immediately upon contact with air.

Phosphorous serves as an efficient smoke screen for masking forces, but due to it's chemical properties can cause severe injury, burns and death in humans.

White phosphorous produces a dense, hot white smoke. Upon skin contact, phosphorous can cause extensive burns. The burns carry a much larger risk of death due to the fact that the phosphorous is easily absorbed by the skin resulting in damage to the liver, heart and kidneys and in some cases, muliple organ failure.

Phosphorous is prohibited for use as a weapon by the Geneva Convention and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.


Obama’s stimulus plan must be passed now

from: PWW

Author: John Case
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/23/09 15:19



The $825 billion stimulus plan proposed by Congress and applauded by Barack Obama should be approved immediately. Despite some noted imperfections — probably too much is dedicated to tax cuts, and even though it is the biggest rescue program in U.S. history it is likely just the beginning of the recovery effort — time is of the essence. If some concessions to Republicans on tax cuts gain speed in delivering jobs and income to American workers, then let it be so!

Most of the stimulus plan proposed by the incoming Obama administration is exactly what is needed, including aid to states, an emphasis on education, including early childhood, and investment in the nation’s infrastructure — the backbone of a productive economy. The United States has allowed its infrastructure to deteriorate to the point that dikes and bridges fail catastrophically, our drinking water suffers, our mass transit systems badly lag the rest of the world, and our broadband connectivity is slower and reaches a smaller share of our citizens than equivalent systems in Korea, Japan and other allies and competitors. The condition of many school buildings — some built in the 19th century — is deplorable and hurts the performance of teachers and students. The money in this rescue package is a small down payment on what is needed to give the U.S. the world-class infrastructure we need.


Immediate job creation is vital

The economy is virtually in freefall. Workers at unemployment agencies report applications at unprecedented levels. Some 15 million Americans are now unemployed or underemployed. The numbers worsen every month, and if state and local governments meet their budget shortfalls by cutting services and laying off employees, the pace of job losses will accelerate. Without immediate and very sizeable intervention, official unemployment could top 10 percent or more this year.

Tax cuts provide the least “bang for the buck” in terms of jobs in the current environment. (Many people used the tax rebate last summer to pay down debt, or put it away as savings. And tax cuts for business work better when the freefall stops and growth resumes). But delaying the passage of immediate job-creating and job-protecting investments will be an even greater sacrifice.


Next urgent steps

Also on the urgent agenda, but not in the initial stimulus plan, is health care reform delivering universal, affordable, quality health care to all Americans. Spokespersons for the Obama team have placed this second, after the stimulus, but ahead of energy, in their list of priorities. Health care investments will contribute immediate jobs and perhaps the greatest long-term social benefit of all.

It should also be noted that saving the U.S. auto industry — even at the current inflated price tag of $40-60 billion — will deliver the biggest “bang for the buck” of all, averting the loss of 3 million more jobs.


Bailout boondoggle?

Of greater concern than the imperfections of the stimulus plan is the direction — or lack of it — reflected in the management and distribution of TARP bailout funds. The second half of the $750 billion fund to stabilize the financial system has now been given to the Treasury Department, despite widespread popular and congressional skepticism due to serious gaps in the Bush administration’s responses to queries by the congressional oversight panel. A satisfactory accounting of public funds “injected” into AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America and others has not been forthcoming. These same firms have continued their executive bonus and retention payments, and buying other financial corporations.

Let’s be clear: if the financial system is not improved soon, then the leading banks will have to be outright nationalized. Without credit, which the banks are supposed to provide, the stimulus will certainly fail, and the Federal Reserve can do no more lowering of interest rates — they are already at 0.005 percent!


Learn from the gray wolves

Lastly, compromise with the Republicans to get this recovery package passed may come at a price many are no doubt reluctant to pay — it could make holding members of the Bush administration accountable for high crimes of illegal war, torture, abuse of power and unprecedented corruption much more difficult. Many argue that the long-range protection of our democracy from these crimes is the key to the greater empowerment of working people. Unfortunately, our economic and survival requirements are so dire that we may simply not have the time for the trials of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan and others whom I would be most gratified to see doing the “perp walk.”

It’s time to unite and bind ourselves to the recovery of our economy. The gray wolves combine their efforts to survive. We can too.

jcase4218 @gmail.com

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Racism: Instrument of Capitalist Class Rule, Weapon of Big Business

Originally posted on the Gus Hall Action Club blog


The United States of America has it’s first African-American president, Barack Obama, but we ain’t "overcome" the terror of racism yet. Racism is a weapon of capitalists to split the working class and produce superprofits. Working class African-Americans are the prime victims of the scourge of racism. American monopoly capitalism, rotten to the core, kicks working class Black people in the teeth.

V.I. Lenin’s words ring true today: "Shame on America for the plight of the (African-Americans)!!" Economic crisis, the loss of manufacturing jobs and racism in employment, wages, education and healthcare deals the heaviest blows to working class African-Americans. Capitalist robbery in the form of wage differentials cost Black workers over $275 billion in income every year. The Black median family income is about half of whites. 50% of young Black men are part of the growing army of the unemployed. Poverty, spreading like a plague, stalks the Black community. 1/3 of African Americans live in poverty and 53% live in starvation conditions. Black women, especially mothers, triply exploited and oppressed--as women, as workers and as Black folks--bear the brunt of the rotting capitalist society. There is one law for the capitalist class and another for the working class. The imprisonment rate for Black men is higher in the US than in South Africa. And, to add to the outrages caused by the obsolete capitalist system, "monopoly (capital), " as Black militant and Communist Henry Winston said, "ceaselessly generates racist ideology to, as (Karl) Marx put it, ’deform’ the class struggle." (Facts cited in Victor Perlo’s Economics of Racism II; Winston, Class, Race and Black Liberation, 1977, International Publishers)

"Historically, " Gus Hall, the Marxist-Leninist former leader of the Communist Party of the United States said, "racism in this country originated with slavery. Only with a racist ideology, bigotry and prejudice, could the slaveholders attempt to justify and rationalize such a monstrous, inhuman institution. Today the basic cause of racism is monopoly capital--the giant corporations that dominate the economy, the government, the media and educational institutions of our country. It is the corporations who mainly benefit from racism--who maintain it, stir it up, and use it for making huge super-profits and to divide and rule." (Gus Hall, Basics, 1980, International Publishers)

Gus Hall exposed that "the corporations make billions each year by paying artificially low wages to racially oppressed workers." This holds down the wages of all workers, including the white working class. Hall, a founder of the Steelworkers union, gave an example: "In a plant, racism is used to pit one group of workers against another. It is an instrument of dividing the trade union and labor movements and to hold back the whole working class movement. It (racism) is an instrument of (capitalist) class rule. Racism is a weapon of big business." (Gus Hall, Basics, 1980, International Publishers)


(V.I. Lenin’s words ring true today: "Shame on America for the plight of the (African-Americans)!!")

White working class people are also major losers from racism against Black and Latino workers. Racism, an instrument of rule for the parasitic capitalist class, lowers the wages and living conditions of the white working class. Capitalism, a system of legalized robbery of the working class, uses racism as an offensive against the entire proletariat. Victor Perlo, a Communist economist, said that "racism facilitates anti-labor legislation." The South, the "traditional stronghold of racism" has anti-union ’right-to-work’ laws. Adding that racism is linked to blood-stained Wall Street imperialism abroad, Perlo says, "Racism favors militarism and aggression." And the scourge of racism, a weapon of the capitalist class against working class unity, is connected to the exploiter class’ wringing of extra profits from workers at home. "Racism (and anti-Communism), " explains Perlo, "have been the main political weapons used by reaction to divert, weaken, or wholly eliminate the positive social directions chartered by New Deal reform policies." Racism, a tool of big business, attacks the entire working class’ right to work at living wages, with unions, good education and medical services, decent housing. (Victor Perlo, Economics of Racism USA, Third Printing, 1980)

"Marxism-Leninism shows that racism is an obstacle to class unity, " said Henry Winston, a former Black Marxist-Leninist with the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA). And he was exactly right that both "white and Black workers have a material stake in removing this obstacle to progress." Karl Marx hit the nail on the head way back in 1867: "Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded." White workers have a heavy, special responsibility in the fight against racism, in the struggle to wipe out every form of material and social inequality. In the United States, as Winston pointed out, this is a "Marxist-Leninist principle." (Henry Winston, Class, Race and Black Liberation, 1977, International Publishers; Karl Marx, Capital)

We need to fight back! The government should take over and nationalize businesses who discriminate! Hire Blacks in proportion to their numbers in an area’s population! No free speech for racists! Make all racist propaganda and actions a felony! Slash the military budget! End imperialist war and occupation! Pass a law against layoffs! Jobs or Income Now! Nationalize basic industries, tax the rich and create a public works program! Wage War on Poverty, Not the Poor! For an independent working class political party that will fight racism! Gus Hall expresses the Communist attitude: "taking on monopoly capital is a big job. But there’s no way around it. Without an all out united fightback against the monopolies there’s no way the problems can be solved." (Gus Hall, Basics, 1980, International Publishers)

The working class must fight racism tooth and nail today. But only socialism will completely eliminate racism, national oppression and discrimination. Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat destroys the roots of racism and holds down the chauvinist beasts. And, as the great Communist William Z. Foster said, "The (African-American) people will be the greatest gainers under socialism" because of the super-exploitation, monstrous oppression and brazen outrages that they suffer under capitalism. (William Z. Foster, The Negro People in American History, 1954, International Publishers)

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Cease Fire, Cease Siege

from: Political Affairs Online

By


click here for related stories: peace/antiwar
1-14-09, 9:34 am

Original source: AfterDowningStreet.org

Arish, Egypt— Yesterday, en route to the Rafah border crossing that leads into Gaza, our driver pointed to a long line of trucks laden with goods that are desperately needed in every area of Gaza. "You see," he said, "all of this is to help people." Generous people, around the world, want Gazans to have food, shelter, fuel, medicine and water while the Israeli military ruthlessly attacks their homes and neighborhoods.

The aid shipments will surely save lives and ease affliction. Nevertheless, this relief will meet only a fraction of the need. What's more, the Egyptian government's recent decision to allow humanitarian goods into Gaza through the Rafah border crossing, a border over which they have sovereign control, is a departure from the normal state of siege that Gazans have endured for most of the past sixteen months.

A friend, Caoihme Butterly, who had lived in Gaza during the period when the borders were sealed, told me that the limited access to food drove up the prices for basic foods. "A kilo of lentils cost $4.00, but the average person lived on less that $2.00 per day. "Gazans don't want to live on charity," said Caoihme, "but the humanitarian provisions become political. We were campaigning just to have the border open once a week, but we didn't succeed."

It seems that mutual understanding about the need to open Gaza's borders had been achieved in the negotiations that established a June 19th, 2008 cease-fire agreement between Israel and Gaza. A blogspot for the Working Group on the Middle East Peace Process listed the conditions for the six month cease fire which expired on December 19 2008. Israel agreed that 72 hours after the mutual agreement took effect, crossing points into Gaza would open up to allow 30% more goods to enter Gaza. Thirteen days later, all crossing points would be open between Gaza and Israel, and Israel would allow "the transfer of all goods that were banned or restricted to go into Gaza." (http://ncfmepp.blogspot.com/ -posted on Jan. 12, 2009)

Jimmy Carter, in a January 8, 2009 Washington Post article entitled "An Unnecessary War," noted that if importation of humanitarian supplies had returned to the normal level that had existed before Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, 700 trucks would have passed through the opened borders every day, carrying food, water, medicine and fuel. Carter writes that, following the June 19th agreement, "rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza."

It's true that Hamas's consequent decision to fire primitive rockets into Israeli villages caused terror, panic and demoralization amongst Israelis living in those villages. I believe it's wrong to use weapons under any circumstance. Attacks against civilians prompt spiraling, hideous waves of retaliation and revenge. But Israel responded with a disproportionate capacity to inflict harm and suffering by imposing a state of siege, targeting innocent civilians by denying them essential medicines, health care delivery, fuel, water and food.

I learned about the horrors of economic warfare during repeated visits to Iraq, when civilians suffered under economic sanctions, when pediatric wards in hospitals were like death rows for infants and hundreds of thousands of children were punished to death. But I was a shamefully slow learner. In 1991, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and before the United States began bombing Iraq, I was part of the Gulf Peace Team, an assembly of international peace activists camped on the Iraq side of the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. "What alternative does the U.S. have?" reporters asked us. "Do you think the U.S. should just sit back and allow Iraq to illegally invade another country?"

"The economic sanctions are a viable alternative," I said. "Continued use of economic sanctions would be a less violent way to persuade Iraq's government to leave Kuwait."

What a foolish and uninformed statement I'd made. Iraq was subjected to 13 years of the most comprehensive state of siege ever imposed in modern history, and the sanctions directly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Now, many people committed to peacemaking understand that economic warfare can be just as brutal and devastating as bombing, although news coverage generally recedes and then disappears once the bombing wars stop.

This morning, an Egyptian friend corrected me when I questioned him about the June 9th, 2008 cease-fire negotiation between Israel and Gaza's Hamas government. "In fact there was no cease-fire," he said. "The war became an economic war, and it targeted civilians who had committed no crime, particularly children."

People who live on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing understand the impact of the bombing. At a tea shop and a barber shop, windows are cracked. An owner of a small shop near the border told me that his children can't sleep at night because they hear constant explosions. The Egyptian community of Rafah has also witnessed, previously, month after month of quiet inactivity at the Rafah border crossing, during the period when the Egyptian and Israeli governments agreed to seal the border shut. Trapped, isolated, hungry and desperate, Gazans endured economic warfare while the world ignored their pleas for relief from slow motion death. We must call for an immediate cease-fire and a "cease-siege." As the June 19th, 2008 agreement made clear, a ceasefire for Gaza cannot only mean an end to bullets and bombs, but must also end the less visible-but equally destructive-economic violence. I hope that trucks like the ones our driver pointed to will be lined up for months and years, carrying tons of cement and reconstruction materials, along with humanitarian relief, as Gazans rebuild, above ground, constructing a peaceful future.

--Kathy Kelly (Kathy@vcnv.org) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence. (www.vcnv.org) She and Audrey Stewart are at the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing.

Obama considers union leaders for administration posts

from: PWW


Author: John Wojcik
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 01/14/09 14:32




The times they are a changing!

As the most anti-labor president since Calvin Coolidge vacates the White House, the incoming administration is mulling over the names of labor leaders it is considering for many government slots. Although the unionists are not slated to get top-level Cabinet jobs, the posts they may end up filling are often ones where important policies are decided.

After some phone calls and checking with sources, Press Associates and the Peoples Weekly World can confirm that at least seven leading trade unionists, including two former union presidents and one current union president, are being considered for jobs in the Obama administration. A major portion of the names are of unionists in the area of transport, but the list is far from complete.

Among those confirmed as under consideration for key posts are Linda Foley, former Newspaper Guild president, Duane Woerth, former Airline Pilots Association president, and Robert Scardelletti, current president of the Transportation Communications Union.

Scardelletti, who has been president of his union since 1991, is being considered for a seat on the Amtrak Board. His Transportation Communications Union represents thousands of Amtrak workers and is part of a coalition of rail unions that recently reached a new contract with the nation’s freight railroads. Scardelletti started his career as a yard clerk in Cleveland.

Woerth is being considered for a position as the Federal Aviation Agency administrator. During his union career he became familiar with the FAA’s problems, especially with safety issues and with the loss of experienced air traffic controllers resulting from a contract imposed upon the National Air Traffic Controllers Association by the Bush administration.

Foley is being considered to head the Labor Department’s Women’s Bureau. She has a long record of campaigning for workers’ rights, against media concentration and for diversity in U.S. newsrooms.

Benetta Mansfield is being considered for the position of director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. She is currently chief of staff for Warren George, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

Mansfield ran into trouble when, prior to her current position, she served as chief of staff for the National Mediation Board and acted as a whistleblower against a Bush-appointed board member who abused his office. She was wrongly fired for this activity last June. When staff attorneys at the federal office established to protect whistleblowers recommended her reinstatement, they too were let go by the Bush administration.

Joseph Szabo, Illinois state director of the United Transportation Union, now part of the Sheet Metal Workers union, is being considered to head the Federal Railroad Administration. The Federal Railroad Administration sets safety standards for all the nation’s rail lines.

Szabo has strongly criticized the Bush administration for allowing freight trains to operate with only one worker, the engineer, and for allowing unmanned “robot” trains to operate in freight yards. Many municipalities have joined the unions in opposing these practices as safety hazards.

Dan Elliot, assistant general counsel of the Cleveland-based United Transportation Union, is being considered for a seat on the Surface Transportation Board. This board is the re-named Interstate Commerce Commission, which oversees rail mergers.

Mitch Kraus, general counsel for the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks, is being considered for a seat on the same board. The BRAC is part of the Transportation Communications Union.

The Senate will have to confirm all these nominations.

While most of the media attention has been on the incoming president’s appointments to Cabinet positions, Obama will be naming more than 3,000 people to top posts in Cabinet departments, government agencies, the National Labor Relations Board, and numerous commissions. All Cabinet seats are filled except for Commerce Secretary. Obama’s original nominee for that position, New Mexico’s Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew.
Although none of Obama’s Cabinet appointees are trade unionists, several, including Labor Secretary-designate Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), have close ties to unions.

-----
Press Associates contributed to this story.

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html

Blog problems

The Spartan Worker had some html coding errors, but I think all is well now.

6

5

4

3

2

1

test

sorry, massive blog issues

test

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

from: Haaretz.com

By Shahar Ilan and Roni Singer-Heruti, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press
Tags: Arab, elections, Israel news


The Central Elections Committee (CEC) yesterday banned the Arab parties United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad from running in next month's parliamentary elections amid accusations of racism from Arab MKs. Both parties intend to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Members of the CEC conceded yesterday that the chance of the Supreme Court's upholding the ban on both parties was slim.

Arab faction delegates in the CEC walked out of the hall before the vote, shouting, "this is a fascist, racist state." As they walked out, CEC deputy chairman MK David Tal (Kadima) and the Arab delegates pushed each other and a Knesset guard had to intervene and separate them.
Advertisement

The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motions, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist.

The requests to ban the Arab parties were filed by two ultra right parties Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union-National Religious Party.

Senior Labor Party figures lashed out at the party's CEC representative, Eitan Cabel, who voted in favor of banning the two Arab parties.

"[MK] Shelly Yachimovich and I thought we must object to the move to ban the Arab lists for reasons of freedom of expression," said Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. "The minority's right to be heard must be preserved," he said.

MK Ophir Pines (Labor) said from overseas that he strongly objected to Labor's stance in the vote and that it was not the position that had been agreed on.

Labor chairman Ehud Barak, however, did not comment on the vote and his aides said he would not deal with political issues these days.

Cabel tried to explain his support of the ban, despite Labor's decision to vote against it.

"It's true we said we wouldn't ban, but [Balad leader MK Jamal] Zahalka's statement that he was in touch with Bishara led me to think that we must draw the line somewhere," he said. "I'm making no apologies because I fight more than most in the Knesset for equal rights for Arabs. I know it won't stand up in the Supreme Court, and rightly so, because there is no evidentiary basis for the [committee's] decision."

Members of the the new Meretz alignment reacted angrily to the decision.

"Labor and Kadima's position is a declaration of war on Israel's Arab citizens," a party member said. "Do Barak and Livni really prefer blocking Israel's Arabs' right to parliamentary activity and driving them to street demonstrations?"

"Every time a clear statement to ensure basic civil rights of the Arab minority is required, Labor and Kadima choose to side with the radical right wing for populist motives, to deprive the Arabs of their fundamental democratic rights," party chairman Haim Oron said.

Arab lawmakers Ahmed Tibi and Zahalka, political rivals who head the two Arab blocs in the Knesset, joined together in condemning yesterday's decision.

"It was a political trial led by a group of fascists and racists who are willing to see the Knesset without Arabs and want to see the country without Arabs," said Tibi.