The Washington County Worker

The Democratic Socialist Voice of Washington County

[saywhat-politics]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's new reform bill would ban members of Congress from owning individual stocks

The bill, which comes amid speculation that Warren could run for president in 2020, would also create "conflict-free investment opportunities for federal officials with new investment accounts."

[berniesrevolution]

A “socialist movement” in the Democratic Party?

More discussion of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory — and of what socialists can and can’t get done inside the Democrats.

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning upset in a congressional primary electionagainst one of the most powerful Democrats in the U.S. House has inspired discussion and debate about how this campaign fits into the project of advancing the socialist left. SocialistWorker.org is hosting a dialogue in our Readers’ Views column. This third installment has contributions from Aaron Amaral, Samuel Farber and Charlie Post, and from Shane James.

The Democrats Can’t Be Changed Into Their Opposite

Aaron Amaral, Samuel Farber and Charlie Post | Any socialist with a political pulse should be ecstatic about the victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) in the Democratic primary for New York’s 14th congressional district.

Ocasio-Cortez demonstrated that an open socialist who has condemned Israeli repression in Gaza and the West Bank, champions Medicare for All and higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and challenges U.S. military spending can have a wide appeal — and even defeat one of the most senior neoliberal Democrats in the House of Representatives.

It is even more evidence that a significant portions of working people in the U.S. are looking for a radical alternative to the status quo — and that one that targets capitalists can challenge those alternatives that target immigrants, workers of color, queer folks and women.

Socialists should also be realistic. Ocasio-Cortez won the primary with only 15,000 votes in a primary with record low turnout. Nor is her victory evidence of a “socialist movement” in the Democratic Party, as some comrades have claimed.

Many DSA comrades work in the Democratic Party — some still holding on to the hope of remaking the Democrats into a social-democratic, pro-worker party; others attempting to “use the ballot line” to educate for socialism; and still others seeking to prepare for a mass split that could create an independent labor or socialist party in the U.S.

However, there is no “socialist caucus” in the Democratic Party — nor can there be. Even if we were to grant the argument that campaigns in the Democratic Party, like those of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, have won more people to socialism than extra-electoral struggles and movements — which we do not — this would not justify participation in the Democratic Party.

The Democrats are a capitalist party. This is not a moral judgment, but a social characterization.

It is not simply the pro-capitalist ideology of the party mainstream — which has become militantly neoliberal in the past 30 years. It is a matter of the party’s financial base — its dependence on corporations and wealthy individuals for 80-90 percent of its funding, while continuing to utilize union members and activists from various social movements “to get out the vote.”

Most importantly, it is the structure of the Democratic Party that makes it a capitalist party. As Kim Moody has demonstrated in painstaking detail in his On New Terrain, the Democrats have become a fundraising cartel, run by unelected and unaccountable national and state committees who answer only to their corporate funders.

(Continue Reading)

[berniesrevolution]

IN THESE TIMES

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance knows how to throw a punch.

On August 14, the scrappy but militant 21,000 member union representing taxi and for-hire vehicle drivers in New York City won a landmark legislative victory establishing the country’s first cap on ride-sharing company vehicles and essentially forcing them to pay their drivers a minimum wage.

This fight pitted the Taxi Workers Alliance against corporate giants Uber and Lyft, which together employ more lobbyists than Amazon, Walmart and Microsoft combined.

Uber alone spent $1 million between January and June of this year trying to put the brakes on the Taxi Workers Alliance’s efforts.

There is little wonder why. New York City is Uber’s largest U.S. market and the number of Uber and Lyft vehicles on the streets have exploded in recent years, from 25,000 in 2015 to 80,000 in 2018.

Since neither Uber nor Lyft considers their drivers to be employees—instead classifying them as “independent contractors”—both companies have avoided paying social security and payroll taxes while stripping their drivers of minimum wage and overtime protections as well as the right to organize a union and collectively bargain a contract. A city-commissioned study found that 85 percent of New York app-based drivers are earning below the minimum wage.

The companies have also made life miserable for many taxi drivers. As the number of Uber and Lyft vehicles has risen, the value of taxi medallions has plummetted. Once a prized asset for aspiring working-class families, medallions that once sold for $1 million are today selling for $200,000.

Driven to despair by unregulated corporate growth, six New York City drivers have taken their lives in recent months: Abdul Saleh, Yu Mein Kenny Chow, Nicano Ochisor, Danilo Corporan Castillo, Afredo Perez and Douglas Schifter.

I spoke with New York Taxi Workers Alliance Executive Director Bhairavi Desai directly following the City Council vote to discuss their victory and what this new legislation means for drivers.

New York City is the first to put a cap on for-hire vehicles, can you talk about what this legislation does and why it is so important?

This legislation places a cap on for-hire vehicles for up to a year. That means no new vehicle licenses will be issued for Uber and Lyft, putting an end to the unchecked growth of these companies in New York City. There will be a pretty intense study undertaken by the city over the course of the next year. At the end of the year, the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) will be authorized to pass regulation.

What kind of permanent regulation would you hope come from this?

It’s hard to say right now, but the TLC could place a permanent limit on the number of for-hire vehicles on the road. It’s going to be important that we settle on a permanent cap on for-hire vehicles that makes sense for everyone—one that lets everybody making a living, that stops the current race to the bottom, and that not only lifts standards for app drivers but all drivers across the industry.

It seems like part of what gave the city council a sense of urgency was the fact that six drivers committed suicide. Do you think that’s fair and do you think this cap could save lives?

You can’t look at Uber and Lyft in a vacuum. Part of what’s happened over the past three years is that taxi drivers have been made to feel invisible. The six drivers who commited suicide were yellow cab, livery and black car drivers. Part of what drove them to despair was this feeling that the deteriation of their livelihoods was not visible to policy makers or the community.

One of the drivers who committed suicide, Douglas Schifter, has written one of the most important critiques of the gig economy. It was his suicide note. Doug killed himself in front of City Hall after writing a powerful note describing how the flood of for-hire cars left desperate drivers scrambling to make enough money to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. His story humanized this struggle.

Over the past three years, Uber and Lyft have presented themselves as socially conscious corporations while they have been rendering drivers invisible. That’s obviously intentional, since they want automation in the long run. One of the most important progresses we made is putting the drivers back in front— as the visible face of their industry and in the organizing campaigns to regulate these companies.

We’ve also been putting together a mental health program. When drivers see our flyers, they see that the Taxi Workers Alliance is fighting for change in the industry and that they’re not alone. But we also provide information on bankruptcy and a suicide hotline on every flyer. No union should have to organize under those conditions. This has been such a spiritually enlightening campaign.

(Continue Reading)

[wcworker-blog]

Politics | New party not the way to go

by WC Worker Staff

In response to: Baker, T. (2018, August 20). Former candidate requests sanction of socialist party. The Herald-Mail, pp. A1, A2.

You win some, you lose some as the saying goes. This past Democratic primary election was one of the losses for Jerome Segal of Montgomery County who ran for a Maryland U.S. Senate seat against incumbent Ben Cardin. Unfortunately, the retired UMD professor of philosophy is not letting his loss go.

Instead, Segal turned in a petition to Maryland Board of Elections with more than enough signatures to form a new party in the state—the Bread and Roses Party. One might think that a Democratic Socialist website would laud the emergence of a socialist party in its home state. However, the Washington County Worker believes that this is a step in the wrong direction for democratic socialism and for the poor and working class.

Despite Prof. Segal's loss, Democratic Socialists and progressives supporting Democratic Socialist policies have won major victories in primaries across America this year. Bernie Sanders continues to remain Vermont's go-to Democratic nominee despite running as an open Democratic Socialist. In New York, DSA member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated longtime incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley and former Sex in the City star Cynthia Nixon won the party's nomination for governor. Here in Maryland, Ben Jealous—who is not a Democratic Socialist but supports many policies supported by Democratic Socialists—won to party's nomination for governor.

These are important victories for Democratic Socialism but, more importantly, these candidates are not going to be splitting the left's vote and paving the way for Republican wins. Given the structure of electoral politics in America being governed by the nation's two capitalist-controlled parties, independent political parties rarely gain offices and never receive platforms in the capitalist-controlled mass media. The result—symbolic votes that have the potential to sway an election in favor of a Republican Party that is drifting toward a more divisive and fascistic vision of America.

The Washington County Worker supports the idea of forming a Democratic Socialist Party. However, if that party is to go beyond the meager presence of other independent parties in the public eye, it must use strategies other than those failed methods used by those parties. Starting a party that will be taking votes away from Democratic Socialists and progressives working within the Democratic Party is not the way to go.

[berniesrevolution]

Some Illuminating Reactions To Elizabeth Warren’s Worker Rights Plan | Current Affairs

It’s socialism! It’s the death of the economy! It’s… a plan to give employees a few seats on corporate boards.

Elizabeth Warren has just introduced a modest bill that would require corporations to provide their employees with a minority of seats on their board of directors and consider the welfare of all those affected by corporate decisions, rather than shareholders alone. Warren’s plan is similar, though less radical, than the employee co-determination scheme that operates in Germany. It would leave the basic structure of American enterprise entirely untouched. But, in a sign of just how extreme U.S. “free market” thinking truly is, commentators on the right instantly denounced Warren’s as representing the total destruction of economic life as we know it.

Kevin Williamson, in the National Review, called it a “batty” plan to “nationalize every major business in the United States,” which would be “the largest seizure of private property in human history.” It is “nothing less” than “wholesale expropriation.” It is “bonkers,” “daft,” “unethical, immoral, irresponsible,” and even “unconstitutional.” (Current Affairs challenge: find the part of the Constitution that discusses employee codetermination. Note: no creative “interpretation” allowed. It has to be in the text. We’re textualists, after all.) Warren is “a crass opportunist, intellectually bankrupt, personally vapid, a peddler of witless self-help books,” who “want[s] to seize [corporate] earnings for her own use,” and should rightly be compared to “Tayyip Erdogan, Hugo Chávez, Huey Long,” and politicians who “desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends.” Jeez, Kevin, tell us what you really think!

Only slightly less unhinged was Scott Shackford of Reason, who called it “Elizabeth Warren’s plan to destroy capitalism.” What about the proposal “destroys” capitalism? Well, it requires corporations to respect “a set of values above just profits,” makes them “legally answerable to people other than their shareholders,” and “overrule[s] corporate leaders’ control over their own businesses.” This, he says, makes it “socialism.” Warren “wants to use the courts to enforce her ideas of how corporations should be managed.”

Williamson, by accidental omission I’m sure, does not say what Elizabeth Warren’s proposal actually requires of corporations. What is this dictatorial “political discipline” she is putting them under? We probably ought to know before we start throwing words like “bonkers” and “Venezuala” around. Let’s review the provisionsof this gigantic socialistic expropriation program:

Corporations with over $1 billion in annual revenue must be federally chartered in addition to their state charters.

Company directors must “consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders—including employees, customers, shareholders, and the communities in which the company operates.”

These companies’ boards of directors must have a minority of members elected by employees.

Restrictions are placed on the sale of shares by company directors, so that they are not incentivized to seek short-term benefits for themselves at the expense of the company.

A supermajority of shareholders must approve political activities.

A corporation that commits “repeated and egregious illegal conduct” can have its charter revoked.

Williamson does not make much of an actual argument about why the Warren proposal would be bad, or how having German-style codetermination will spell the ruin of the American economy. He mostly just throws invective at it, calling Warren names and invoking Hugo Chavez before recommending that corporations relocate overseas to avoid U.S. regulations. But as far as I can tell, Williamson’s theory is that by setting conditions for how corporate boards should be set up, what values they must pursue, and when their stock can be sold, the federal government would effectively “own” the companies.

To which I can only say: if this is the standard for what constitutes “nationalization,” then all American corporations have been “nationalized” since their creation.

(Continue Reading)

[berniesrevolution]

Medicare-for-all is cheaper

Canadians pay less in health-care taxes than Americans. And Canadians get single-payer.

If Bernie Sanders had his way, you’d probably spend a lot less money on health care.

The Koch-funded Mercatus Center provided accidental support for Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan recently when it published a paper demonstrating that America as a whole would save over $2 trillion in spending over 10 years by passing such a program. Yes, there would be a gigantic increase in federal spending, but it would be more than compensated by lower prices and administrative costs. For individuals, as a RAND study of a proposed New York state single-payer plan shows, taxes would go up dramatically, but premiums, deductibles, and co-pays would be zeroed out, leaving most people with more money on net.

This is because the American health-care system is staggeringly wasteful. One shocking way of visualizing this is by noting we already spend more tax money on it per person than most peer nations — and then on top of that, a whole bunch more private money. If we transplanted Canada’s single-payer system into America, for example, the required tax revenue would actually go down.

When I made this observation on Twitter, conservatives (including several prominent commentators) spent the next several days scoffing at the idea, trying to disprove it with wildly inaccurate statistics or just straight-up refusing to understand the point being made. It’s a good demonstration of the utter uselessness of conservative ideology when it comes to health care.

First, let’s actually look at the numbers. In 2016, Canada’s single-payer system cost about $4,500 per person. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services say that same year, just directly tax-supported health-care programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs health programs, and the Children’s Health Care Program — cost together $1.929 trillion, or $5,972 per person. Add in the cost of the employer-based insurance tax exclusion ($268 billion) and ObamaCare tax subsidies ($48 billion), both figures courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, and total government spending on health care rises to $2.245 trillion, or $6,950 per person.

So not only does our government health spending easily exceed that of Canada, it’s not even close. And that’s still leaving some stuff out!

When making these sorts of comparisons, it’s important to understand what manner of point is being made. Obviously it would be nearly impossible to literally copy-paste one country’s institutions into another — there are all manner of huge changes to payment systems, provider networks, and prices that would have to happen, and it would be immensely disruptive to just cram it through overnight. (That is why Sanders’ Medicare-for-all bill would be considerably more generous than the Canadian system, and take effect over a number of years.)

Instead, the point is about the overall efficiency and expense of a national system. If Canada — or Sweden, or Austria, or Denmark, or France, or Australia, or Finland — can cover everyone in a government program for less tax money than America is already paying, then that’s a reasonable rough indicator of what we ought to be able to get if we really put our minds to it.

(Continue Reading)

[berniesrevolution]

Teachers of DSA

Foreword

A few DSA members that were teachers in West Virginia public schools began having conversations about new austerity measures facing public employees. Our wages had been stagnant for years—unlike our healthcare costs, which were climbing. We formed a reading group, held brainstorming sessions, and quickly agreed that winning our demands would require militant action. We had no idea that we were laying the groundwork for what would culminate in a historic, successful nine-day strike that spread like wildfire to Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona, Colorado, and beyond.

Our immediate win in West Virginia was a 5% raise for all public sector workers, plus halting charter school legislation and attacks on seniority—no small feat. But crucially, our movement’s demand was that the money come from highly profitable corporations that have long exploited West Virginia’s natural wealth.

The prevailing message from many union leaders had been, “It’s our job to ask for a raise and a healthcare fix; it’s a lawmaker’s job to figure out where the money comes from.” Socialist teachers challenged this notion and made a more explicit demand: raise taxes on the corporations and extractive fossil fuel industries that exploit our people. Workers began showing up to the Capitol holding signs like “Tax our gas!” and “MAKE A CHOICE: Tax cuts for big business or healthcare for WV workers.”

The revenue battle is ongoing, but our popular campaign against corporate interests will make it harder for the ruling class to drive a wedge between public employees and other working class West Virginians by cutting services.

In fact, as school employees, our direct relationship to the economy of West Virginia played a critical role in the decision to strike and the solidarity we were able to build with our communities. The Public Employees Insurance Agency (PEIA) that we were fighting for covers 1 in 9 West Virginians. Teachers in our state see hunger, homelessness, and the trauma caused by poverty every day; as our students’ economic conditions worsen our jobs become harder and more essential.

Knowing that two-thirds of our students rely on free and reduced-cost lunch, teachers spent the weeks leading up to the strike making calls to local churches, food banks, and community organizations to set up food distribution sites. Parents reacted by joining us on the picket lines, making calls to legislators, and shutting down conservative attacks against “selfish” teachers. Local businesses responded by bringing food and coffee to the Capitol and picket lines, and faith leaders sent out messages of support. Although our immediate demands were for public employees, it felt as though the entire state of West Virginia had taken on the 1%.

We have our work cut out for us going forward. PEIA still needs to be funded and a 5% raise isn’t enough to keep teachers in the schools for the long term. But after achieving a significant win, workers are bringing a new sense of their own power into this ongoing struggle. The strike has renewed interest in our state’s rich, militant labor history and has reinvigorated local DSA chapters. Many teachers and service personnel have begun to view politics through the lens of class consciousness. With socialists active in our organizing, we’ll be in a strategic position to make bold, visionary demands to take on the capitalist class.

Introduction

The West Virginia strike didn’t happen by chance. It was the result of creative shop floor organizing by teachers with socialist politics. These teachers introduced a fundamentally different vision of their state than what was on offer from either elected officials or union leaders. And they were able to do this because they had organic connections to their co-workers. Rather than shouting socialist messaging at workers from afar, these teachers were able to alter the direction of the movement from within.

This pamphlet argues that socialists should take jobs as teachers (and other school-based workers) for the political, economic, and social potential the industry holds.

If DSA members become active in workplace organizing for the long term, we can wage fights similar to West Virginia—and crucially, improve the working and living conditions of our co-workers and communities. This pamphlet argues that socialists should take jobs as teachers (and other school-based workers) for the political, economic, and social potential the industry holds. It begins with a political grounding of education as a strategic industry to organize. It then gives a description of what teaching is like day to day and how it differs from other jobs that people with left politics might take. And finally, it provides a basic roadmap for how to get a job in education.

1. Why Is Teaching Strategic?

Socialists have a long history of involvement in the workplace. Socialists believe that workers create society’s wealth and that the working class is the only class capable of governing society democratically. It is at the point of production that workers create value beyond what they are compensated for. This is what Marx called “surplus value,” which is realized as profit.

While the vast majority of teachers are public employees, this doesn’t remove us from the domain of capital. While teachers don’t make a product that is sold on the market, we are necessary in the reproduction of a capitalist economy and the perpetuation of classes. It is teachers who train, both socially and technically, the workers of the future.

When capitalist power is strong, so is the drive to squeeze the public sphere, to cut funding from universal programs (like public schools) and redirect it towards the market (like private schools). The often abysmal funding of schools that helped spark the massive red-state strikes of early 2018 made clear that even though teachers are public employees, we are not immune to the political and economic pressures of the billionaire class.

If socialists have long viewed the workplace as central to the socialist project, they have also seen the labor movement as central to organizing the workplace. The history of this strategy is long and varied, but is summarized well by Kim Moody in his essay, “The Rank and File Strategy: Building A Socialist Movement in the U.S.,” Moody writes, “bring people together at the heart of the social relations of production. This is where both class formation and class conflict begin. Except on those rare occasions when the class struggle breaks into open political warfare, it is at the workplace that the tug of war between labor and capital is sharpest and most recurring…” There are of course other sites of class conflict—against landlords, healthcare providers, and educational institutions themselves, for example. But the most effective socialist movements have all recognized that left politics are a non-starter without deep involvement in the labor movement.

Moody writes, “The unions provide a political [and] organizational setting in which ongoing education, organization, and struggle can be conducted. While most union work is done at the local level, the union also provides a national or international context that cuts across workplace lines and these days, with most unions recruiting in many industries, even across industry lines. Unions also provide the most concentrated working class organization for intervention in community affairs.”

Of course, unions are “far from perfect,” as Moody recognizes. “They are bureaucratic. They often embody or protect racist and/or sexist practices. Their official ideology…business unionism, is a mass of contradictions, including the idea of labor-management partnerships.” Rather than embrace conflict between the working class and the political elite in an attempt to change the stakes, “their leaders generally do their best to straddle class conflict.”

But none of this changes the fundamental fact that in a capitalist economy, workers produce more value than they receive back in wages. The need to challenge the terms of this exploitation, and ultimately to abolish it, remains central to the socialist project.

“Except on those rare occasions when the class struggle breaks into open political warfare, it is at the workplace that the tug of war between labor and capital is sharpest and most recurring” — Kim Moody

Given the labor movement’s structural tendencies within a capitalist economy towards co-optation, bureaucratization, and conservatism, socialists have also long been devoted to transforming the labor movement into one that is both democratic and militant. Communist Party members in the early 1920s formed the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) to fight for racial equality, union democracy, and industrial unions rather than craft divisions. They also attempted to provide a theoretical grounding that connected the task of building the labor movement to a larger vision of socialism. In the 1970s, members of the International Socialists (IS) and many other groups took jobs in strategic industries in an attempt to politicize the rank and file upsurge of the day. IS members went on to help found Labor Notes and Teamsters for a Democratic Union in order to connect these disparate union reform efforts.

Since the resurgence of class politics in the 2010s, and especially in the wake of DSA’s massive growth since 2016, we are now in a position to develop a concerted, coordinated presence in unions, to help shape the militancy and political ideology of those unions, and ultimately to play a role in building working class power.

(Continue Reading)

[berniesrevolution]

IN THESE TIMES

On August 7, Rashida Tlaib won the Democratic primary for Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, replacing longtime African-American Rep. John Conyers.

Tlaib’s victory has been showered with mainstream press around the fact that she’s the daughter of Palestinian immigrants and would become the first Muslim woman elected to Congress. (Tlaib is running unopposed, and will most likely win in November.)

To progressive Detroiters though, her religion isn’t the reason for celebration. Rather, it’s her reputation for having an unwavering commitment to justice for the poor, the disenfranchised and the marginalized of her district, which now encompasses parts of Detroit as well as its working-class white, African-American, and Arab-American suburbs.

The former state representative—and open democratic socialist—is also known for her grassroots organizing and campaigns against corporate power and polluters in her home community of Southwest Detroit. Tlaib recently spoke with In These Times over the phone and discussed her plans to bring the voice of her constituents to Washington, what democratic socialism means to her and her views on Israel-Palestine.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How do you intend to help the residents of your district once in Congress?

The 13th Congressional district—I believe we are the most uniquely challenged.

Shame on Gov. Rick Snyder. Shame on Democrats who keep voting for tax breaks for Ilitch, [the Ilitch family, owners of Little Caesar’s pizza and the Little Caesar’s arena] and [Quicken Loans owner Dan] Gilbert. These people are fueling the biggest problems we have. The 13th doesn’t have fair access. There’s no jobs because you’re not putting money into the community.

I grew up in Southwest Detroit, surrounded by inhumane conditions caused by polluters. I thought that smell was normal. Corporate greed can hurt. I’ll take that lens to Congress, and I will not waver.

I’m giving a voice and an opinion based on my residents who feel like they’re not being heard.

They [elected officials] haven’t been listening. I hope people can see I’m sincere. This isn’t political strategy. I want to change people’s lives for the better, and change the climate in Washington.

I’m going to create neighborhood service centers. There are resources now that people don’t know about. We’ll run them like a nonprofit. This isn’t a district office for meetings. All the issues of the community, it doesn’t matter how diverse. My team will be ready and trained to help them.

Elevating the voices of residents has to include grassroots advocacy on the ground. Combined with my experience as an attorney, we’ll be able to change people’s lives for the better.

I’m a young mom that believes I can’t stay outside the ring anymore. I’m not going to sell out. I’m confident about changing the whole approach to public service.

There is a good deal of corporate welfare in Detroit, yet the rest of us seem to be getting left behind. How can the community work with you in Congress to curb corporate welfare and shift that imbalance?

What I can tell you is that we need to go beyond trying to get something done through city council. I’m not sitting back because this is local. I want you to know that as a member of Congress, with [community groups] that have seen more and more divestment than even 30 years ago, I know I’ll be able to raise the voices louder to use the power to convene and the power of the letterhead.

If I’m going to help fund different issues around education, I can get people across the aisle to understand how irresponsible it is to divert public dollars into for-profit private development.

I feel like that conversation hasn’t been truly debated properly. That conversation now, as an advocate, that voice will come with me to Congress.

You are a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and were endorsed by Detroit DSA. Can you explain what democratic socialism means to you?

It means a strong partner. When I talk about equitable, just fairness, I lean on a whole group of people who understand just how much the structures in place are set up against the people, people of color, and the working class. It helps me have an organization and people to lean on. It’s important to have that kind of partnership.

Do you see your victory as well as that of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and other open democratic socialists as part of a larger movement toward the left in the Democratic Party?

Absolutely. People who talk about universal health care, accessibility, that’s what is moving people towards us. When we stop trying to label it, more people will come.

Southwest Detroit is militarized because of ICE. It’s not keeping our families safe—it’s making families live in fear. It’s an international border neighborhood. [ICE has] shifted toward targeting Americans and our neighbors, folks trying to do the right thing. It’s made immigration a militarized operation. I want it abolished.

You have a strong anti-war stance in your platform. How do issues of war and militarism fit into your agenda?

I don’t support military operations. If you go to the Department of Defense website, every day, Monday through Friday, there is an area called “contracts.” Go there. You want to pay for college? Medicare for All? Pay to take care of Americans dying from famine to basic human rights abuses? Look at those contracts. I’m floored at how much money [they’re spending].

Do you want to divert the DOD budget into social services?

Yes. We can build safer and more vibrant communities. I am tired of the earmarks for corporations. They aren’t going to Americans. They’re going to private companies. Not only have we made prisons into private corporations, wars are a for-profit industry.

The [DoD is] a cesspool for corporations to make money.

On the issue of Israel-Palestine, some writers have criticized you for accepting donations from J Street. Why did you take money from the group, and which of their stances do you agree and not agree with?

Once of the things [J Street liked] was my personal story I shared with them. I knew we weren’t going to agree on a number of stances. They didn’t ask me to waver once.

Americans should not be aiding any country that doesn’t support human rights. I’ve been very clear. I will not support racist countries that pick and choose who gets access to justice. My grandmother shouldn’t be denied access or considered less human because she is Palestinian.

I grew up in Detroit, where every corner is a reminder of the civil rights movement.

Seeing the unequal treatment in Israel, in the different colored license plates for Palestinians; and even in the ocean. When I was 19 and with my family and some of them had head scarves on, we all jumped in the water and the Israelis jumped out as if my cousins were diseased. That reminded me what I learned about the African-American struggle. That’s the lens I bring to Congress.

My social justice and passion for human rights was birthed in Palestine. My grandfather was shot 11 times—and he survived.

Those are the personal experiences I bring forward.

Palestinians are attacking me now, but I am not going to dehumanize Israelis. I won’t do that. Just like people do not accept Trump, I hope they don’t reflect that on me.

Many [Israelis] are marching, saying no to Netanyahu’s apartheid policies. There’s a movement in Israel I support that wants an Israel that embraces Palestinians.

For me to see the beauty of marching together again… I come from a place of love and the possibility of that.

I think we should integrate the schools, because those walls, the separation, the segregation, us versus them, isn’t going to get us there.

I do not support aid to a Netanyahu Israel and I’m pro-humanity. I think that’s why J street [supported me].

Where do you stand on Palestinian right of return—support or oppose?

Very supportive. I see what happened to African Americans in our country. I support right of return absolutely. I have family that left [Palestine] in 1967. They left, took their keys with them. They thought they could come back, and they’ve never been back. My uncle would tear up because he couldn’t believe he couldn’t go back. He had to raise his kids in Jordan.

You don’t have equal access. Separate but equal does not work.

Where do you stand on BDS—support or oppose?

I‘m an ACLU card member. I stand by the rights of people who support BDS. Allow the students to be a part of the movement. I am so proud of the Center for Constitutional Rights in support of student movements for BDS. If you don’t support freedom of speech, you’re in the wrong country.

What about a two-state solution vs. one-state?

One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work. I’m only 42 years old but my teachers were of that generation that marched with Martin Luther King. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work. Even though we continue the struggle in the United States, we have a better chance to integrate. My grandfather said, ‘I don’t understand, we were doing so good. My neighborhood, Arab-Jew. We picked olives together. Why now do they want to be over me?’ ‘You did nothing wrong,’ I told him.

I feel the same way. Equality isn’t based on faith.

The United States is a safe haven for anyone who needs to be protected. I can see Israel moving in that direction. The only way to feel safe is when you look across the table and say they deserve to feel safe in their own country.

[berniesrevolution]

Opinion | The Wind at Labor’s Back

Missouri voters sent a strong pro-worker message Tuesday by overturning an anti-union law.

In recent decades, conservative activists and lawmakers have turned labor unions into convenient punching bags. In Missouri on Tuesday, however, unions seemed to figure out at least one way to punch back: Voters there resoundingly defeated an anti-union law via ballot proposal.

There’s always a danger in over-interpreting the results of a single election, but the two-to-one margin by which Missouri voters overturned the so-called right-to-work law appears to be the latest sign of resurgent and effective labor activism. The vote comes months after teacher strikes around the country forced Republican-controlled legislatures in states like West Virginia and Oklahoma to hand out big raises to overworked and underpaid workers for the first time in many years.

The Missouri law, which passed in early 2017 but never went into effect, was designed to weaken private-sector unions. It would have allowed workers to claim the benefits of union-negotiated contracts and representation in disputes with management without having to pay dues and fees to cover the cost of those benefits.

Missouri is hardly a bastion of liberalism — President Trump won it by nearly 20 points in 2016. But voters there, as in much of the country, seem to be waking up to the concerted, yearslong conservative campaigns to exacerbate income inequality and impoverish working-class families. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. noted that Tuesday was the first time a right-to-work law had been overturned through a ballot measure. With that success, expect unions to use this tactic again in the near future.

Right-to-work laws, which are now in place in 27 states, have been branded as such because Republicans have successfully framed this issue as one of giving workers the right to not belong to a union. Backers of these laws also argue that they help states attract businesses and create jobs. In practice, the measures undercut labor power and have done little to create good-paying jobs. They have contributed to the steady, decades-long decline in union membership — less than 11 percent of workers were union members in 2017, down from about a third of workers in 1945. That decline has played a big part in depressing wages, even in industries and companies that had never had a significant union presence. That’s because union contracts often serve as a benchmark for pay and working conditions. A 2015 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute found that annual wages in right-to-work states were about 3 percent, or nearly $1,600, lower than in states that didn’t have such laws.

The attack on unions has been broad-based, with even activist conservative judges getting into the act. This summer, by a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court overturned a unanimous 40-year-old ruling when it decided that states could not require government employees to pay fees that covered the cost of collective bargaining.

(Continue Reading)

[berniesrevolution]

Opinion | Why America Needs Medicare for All

It’s the only way to achieve universal, affordable and high-quality health insurance.

A growing majority of Americans agree: Health care shouldn’t be a business. They’re finally coming around to the idea that it can and should be a public good instead — something we can all turn to when the need arises.

The favorite right-wing argument against Medicare for All — the most popular approach to universal, publicly financed heath care — is that it’s too expensive. More on those costs in a moment. But first, we should note that our current health care system is actually the most expensive in the world by a long shot, even though we have millions of uninsured and underinsured people and lackluster health outcomes.

This is partly because a lot of that money doesn’t go directly toward keeping people healthy. Instead it goes to the overhead costs required to keep businesses running. These include exorbitant executive salaries, marketing to beat out the competition, the labor-intensive work of assessing and denying claims and so on. None of these would be a factor in a single-payer, Medicare for All system. Taiwan and Canada both have single-payer systems, and both spend less than 2 percent of total expenditures on administrative costs — and so does the United States’s current Medicare program. By contrast, private insurers in the United States spend as much as 25 percent on overheads.

But the most important way Medicare for All would save money isn’t by slashing administrative costs. It’s by using the power and size of the government, like other countries around the world currently do, to negotiate favorable terms with drug companies and service providers. There’s a reason a CT scan costs $896 in the United States, but only $97 in Canada.

And what about the sticker shock factor — the dramatic rise in government spending to accommodate such a program? Medicare for All would transfer all payment responsibility to one public agency (as opposed to a bunch of private companies), and that act of combination produces the big price tag that conservatives use as a cudgel. But while this would be more expensive for the government, it wouldn’t be for ordinary Americans. The money would be raised through progressive income and corporate taxes and end up costing most people less than their current health care. And coverage would be comprehensive and universal, meaning nobody would ever be unable to afford the care they need.

(Continue Reading)

[inthesetimesmag]

Want to learn how to fight for, and win, an eco-friendly manufacturing cooperative with no managers or bosses?

A whole lot can be learned by a dedicated group of workers in Chicago that just opened The New Era Windows Cooperative—the worker owned, democratically run co-op and symbol of resistance in the face of corporate corruption and economic crisis:

How Chicago Workers Went From Occupation to Cooperative

[berniesrevolution]

The Media’s Failure to Connect the Dots on Climate Change

Why are some major news outlets still covering extreme weather like it's an act of God?

A record-breaking heat wave killed 65 people in Japan this week, just weeks after record flooding there killed more than 200. Record-breaking heat is also wreaking havoc in California, where the wildfire season is already worse than usual. In Greece, fast-moving fires have killed at least 80 people, and Sweden is struggling to contain more than 50 fires amid its worst drought in 74 years. Both countries have experienced all-time record-breaking temperatures this summer, as has most of the rest of the world.

Is this climate change, or merely Mother Nature? The science is clear: Heat-trapping greenhouse gases have artificially increased the average temperature across the globe, making extreme heat events more likely. This has also increased the riskof frequent and more devastating wildfires, as prolonged heat dries soil and turns vegetation into tinder.

And yet, despite these facts, there’s no climate connection to be found in much news coverage of extreme weather events across the globe—even in historically climate-conscious outlets like NPR and The New York Times. These omissions, critics say, can affect how Americans view global warming and its impact on their lives.

Major broadcast TV networks are the most glaring offenders. Media Matters reviewed 127 segments on the global heat wave that aired on ABC, CBS, and NBC this summer, and found that only one, on CBS This Morning, mentioned the connection between climate change and extreme heat. This fits a long-running pattern. As Media Matters noted, its latest annual study of broadcast coverage found that “during the height of hurricane season in 2017, neither ABC nor NBC aired a single segment on their morning, evening, or Sunday news shows that mentioned the link between climate change and hurricanes.”

Legacy print and radio news outlets are generally much better at connecting these dots. In the last five years, the Times, NPR, and The Washington Post have built large teams of reporters dedicated to explaining climate science, dissecting climate policy, and showing how global warming affects communities. But when covering extreme weather across the globe, the outlets don’t often include references to climate change.

An NPR story on Tuesday, for instance, noted that wildfires are “not unusual during Greece’s hot, dry summers,” but added that the blazes “spread so quickly that they seemed to catch everyone off guard.” The story did not mention climate change’s role in droughts and wildfires, or that Greece is currently experiencing its hottest year on record.

(Continue Reading)

[wcworker-blog]

Class | Teen Funds College With Economic Inequality

by RAYMOND J. REPASS

In response to: Zajac, F. (2018, August 17). Teen to fund college with real estate investment made at 14. The Herald-Mail, pp. B2

So often media outlets think it's a great idea to cover “feel good” stories. Many times these stories are harmless little things that lift our spirits. But sometimes these stories do an amazing job at ironically highlighting society's ugliness.

Such is the case with an article published in this morning's Herald-Mail by Frances Borsodi Zajac titled “Teen to fund college with real estate investment made at 14”. The piece profiles a Uniontown (PA) teen, Harry Strauser IV, who purchased a house while still in middle school. It's written as an inspirational story demonstrating the importance of financial responsibility and hard work.

However, what this story does best is illustrate our nation's growing economic inequality. Strauser purchased the house using money saved from a paper route he started working at the age of nine and “monetary gifts for birthdays and Christmas”. I don't know about you but, I don't know of any paper route that pays anywhere near enough to purchase a house even after five years of saving—those must have been some pretty hefty birthday and Christmas gifts. The article is an indictment of our nation's failed economic system.

With a poverty rate of 30.5%, less than half of Uniontown's residents own their home and more than half of all households generate an annual income of only $30k or less. The simple fact is that, for many people in Uniontown—and around the nation for that matter—financial responsibility and hard work will simply never be enough.

[democracynow]

Military Cover-Up? Hundreds of Migrants Feared Dead in Mass Grave at Arizona Air Force Bombing Range

The Barry Goldwater Air Force bombing range in Arizona is a vast swath of land across the border from Nogales, Mexico used for military exercises and bombing runs. It’s part of an incredibly dangerous path for migrants crossing the border, and humanitarian aid workers are not allowed access. Journalist John Carlos Frey says the site is likely a mass grave:

“It is believed that there are hundreds, if not more, individual human remains still there on the bombing range, but the federal government is not allowing anybody on to search for these individuals. Migrants cross there on a regular basis. That has been proven. And these individuals believe, at least the search-and-rescue groups believe, that there are many, many more bodies there, and the federal government is barring that process.”

See the full interview here.

[wcworker-blog]

A Democratic Socialist Voice for WashCo

by RAYMOND J. REPASS

To say that Washington County is deeply Republican might be a bit of an understatement. Republican presidential candidates won the county eighty percent of the time since 1900. So what makes me think starting a Democratic Socialist leaning media outlet to serve the area might be a good idea?

Among the Democrats that won the county, the one that stands out is the party's poster child for Democratic Socialism. No, not “Feel the Bern” Sanders—FDR won Washington County in his first presidential bid (1932) by more that 10 points. Franklin Roosevelt's policies that greatly benefited the poor and working class—from Federal job programs and creating the FDIC to Medicare and Social Security to establishing a minimum wage and slashing unemployment—allowed him to win the county by more than 10 points in 1936 and 1940 as well.

When FDR finally lost the county during his final run it was not without strong support in the area. Less than 4 percentage points separated him and rival Thomas Dewey compared to the 30 point loss Hilary Clinton suffered here to Donald Trump. Considering this bit of local history, I offer The Washington County Worker—a website offering commentary on issues, news, and politics around Washington County, the nation, and the world from a Democratic Socialist perspective.