People Before Profit blog

Trickle-down Bush math

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:58:00 +0000

Opinion

When John Kerry referred to Bush’s propaganda team as the “worst bunch of liars and crooks,” he was referring to their campaign to hornswoggle the American people. He was issuing the same warning as Abe Lincoln did back in his day. Lincoln warned that there are hornswogglers who will try to convince you that a “horse chestnut is the same as a chestnut horse.”

Bush’s bull throwers (not the ones from the ranch) are trying to introduce a new dimension to Ronald Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics.

They say that shipping jobs abroad (the largest American export item) is good for the economy. It will bring low prices and future economic growth when it finally trickles down. That’s first class hornswoggling – it really is trying to sell you a horse chestnut for a chestnut horse.

And the chief purveyor of new trickle-down economics is W himself. He recently spoke in Ohio, where he defended job exporting. But 260,000 Ohio workers are among the 2.2 million workers who have lost their jobs since Bush took office. And there has been a drop in industrial employment for just under four years straight, with no end in sight.

Also out of sight is the next unemployment check for the 760,000 who have run out of benefits.

But don’t worry, says W – this job loss recovery is on its way out. He points to a company which just hired two new workers, and that is going to be repeated all over the country, he says. Should the 760,000 who have exhausted their benefits wait for all that trickle-down bonanza to come? And along with trickle-down job growth, we now get …. guess what?… new Bush math.

Hickory dickory, Slippery trickery!

How do you make the number 400,000 equal zero? When the 400,000 workers who “dropped out” of the labor market last month aren’t counted as unemployed workers any more. Since they aren’t counted as unemployed, then capitalism’s crooners can sing and yodel – “La de da, how happy we are – the unemployed rate is still 5.4.”

Last night I saw upon the stair A little man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today, Oh, how I wish he’d go away. And please, take the other 399,998 with you.

When does the number 3 million equal zero? When it represents the pipedream claims that there will be 3 million new jobs this year. That’s 250,000 jobs a month. They haven’t produced one week’s quota needed to reach 3 million jobs and it’s late March already.

So, now we have a 5.4-percent jobless rate – but not counting the disappearance of 400,000 workers and their families. We have 3 million new jobs that aren’t there and aren’t coming.

This kind of White House/Capitol Hill Bush math wizardry even has some Wall Streeters shaking their heads and muttering in disbelief. Wall Street likes the job loss recovery but is also scared about what the 400,000 and other unemployed will do. After all, they have Nov. 2 to contend with.

For the 760,000 now out of unemployment insurance benefits, for the 18 million caught in some phase of the unemployment quagmire, and for those still working but living in fear of layoffs, trickle-down job growth or mumbo-jumbo Bush math won’t make jobs, won’t put bread and meat on the table. Action is needed and changes can be won – right now.

First, we must mobilize a struggle in Congress to extend unemployment insurance benefits to all unemployed.

Second, we need to open a campaign for job-to-job benefits.

Third, we should call on Congress to pass a federal health plan to cover all unemployed and their dependents.

Fourth, the union halls should be opened to the unemployed to organize the struggle. The unemployed are critical to any alliance-building. They will become politicized in their struggle to survive. History shows how strong an ally of the people’s movement they can be. They are critical to the struggle to build a new America – an America in which labor will get “much the higher consideration,” as Abe Lincoln said.

Pat Barile is a member of the National Board of the Communist Party USA. He can be reached at pbarile@cpusa.org.

Prisoners and the right to vote

Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:07:00 +0000

Opinion

It might surprise you to learn that nearly 5 million of our citizens cannot vote. That is because they are prisoners or former prisoners. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote. In 14 states this prohibition is for life. Offenders on parole in 32 states are denied the right to vote, as are those on probation in 28. A Dec. 2002 “Civil Rights Journal” article noted, “Given the vast racial disparities in the criminal justice system it is hardly surprising, but shocking nonetheless, to find that an estimated 13 percent of African American males are now disenfranchised.” This is but a continuation of the now illegal poll tax and literacy requirements used so successfully to deny Blacks the right to vote prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ’60s.

The “founding fathers” granted the right to vote only to wealthy white male property owners. These constituted approximately 120,000 individuals in a population of 2 million free Americans and 1 million slaves and indentured servants. African Americans, women, the illiterate and those who did not own property could not vote. Nor could prisoners or former prisoners. That was because the tradition of “civil death” for violators of the law and their descendants, which dated to medieval Europe, was brought here with the English colonizers.

Today, more than 200 years later, this tradition alone remains: while all others have gained the right to vote, it is still denied to prisoners and ex-prisoners. Public opinion, however, largely supports returning voting rights to ex-offenders. According to the nonprofit Sentencing Project, fully 80 percent of the public supports the right of ex-offenders to vote; smaller percentages, 64 percent and 62 percent respectively, support the right of probationers and those on parole to vote.

In theory, the sentence handed down after a verdict is proportional to the crime committed. The denial of the right to vote, however, is across the board, whatever the sentence. All felony offenders are denied this right (except as noted above) regardless of the crime for which they have been convicted. Offenders and ex-offenders are not consistently denied other rights: they may marry, divorce, own property and file lawsuits. Theoretically, their rights are restricted only in matters pertaining to prison security – except when it is a question of the right to vote.

It is true that while some states allow ex-offenders to regain their voting rights, very often the offender must endure waiting periods of five to ten years before he or she may apply to regain them. In addition, the process of regaining is often cumbersome and costly. In Alabama, a pardon must be sought from the Board of Pardons, and a DNA sample must be supplied. In Mississippi, the governor must sign an executive order or a legislator must introduce a bill on behalf of a former prisoner. The bill must then pass with a two-thirds majority and be signed by the governor. Information on the number of ex-offenders who reclaim their rights following these regulations is difficult to ascertain, but one two-year study in Virginia indicated that, of 200,000 ex-felons in the state, only 404 had regained their voting rights during the period studied.

According to “The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States,” a paper by Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza presented to the American Sociological Association in August 2000, even though ex-offenders would be likely to vote in smaller numbers than the general public, they would be more likely to vote Democratic since they are primarily non-white and/or poor. Their disenfranchisement, Uggen and Manza conclude, prevented Democratic control of the Senate between 1986 and 2000.

The United States is the only industrialized nation to have such draconian legislation on its books. When other nations restrict voting rights, the restrictions usually apply only to those convicted of electoral offenses or of corruption. Some nations, among them South Africa and Japan, allow prisoners to vote.

Here in the U.S., some states have begun to relax restrictions on ex-offenders: Texas, for example, has ended a two-year waiting period, Maryland has ended a lifetime ban for nonviolent repeat offenders, and New Mexico has repealed a lifetime ban. Given that public opinion favors granting ex-offenders their civil rights, we may well be moving toward the enfranchisement of all our citizens. Only this way can we work toward a government representative of all its people rather than of moneyed corporate interests.

Julia Lutsky is a reader in New York City. She can be reached at blaine.jack@prodigy.net.

White House science, or science fiction?

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:20:00 +0000

News Analysis

In February, more than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement asserting that the Bush administration had willfully distorted scientific fact to fit its policy goals in areas such as biomedical research, the environment, health, and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

The administration has constantly ignored scientific reports it disagrees with, such as on the issue of global warming. A dozen major government studies on global warming have been suppressed in the administration’s efforts to stall action to control industrial emissions.

Who controls the research can make a world of difference as well. Take the case of Atrazine, the most commonly used weedkiller in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey tests regularly find dangerously high concentrations of Atrazine in drinking water, especially in the Midwest. The European Union has banned this pesticide, but the Bush administration found it easier to fudge data to get the results it wanted. For example, last November the Environmental Protection Agency made a deal with the pesticide manufacturer Syngenta to oversee federal studies of Atrazine, which it manufactures.

Another way the current administration has avoided the truth is to fire whistle-blowing scientists. This has occurred when EPA staff tried to get the Army Corps of Engineers to follow the Endangered Species Act in managing the flow of the Missouri River. The entire team was dismissed and replaced with a group in the pocket of big business.

It also happened to EPA engineers selected to investigate the collapse of barriers that held back a coal slurry pond in Kentucky containing toxic wastes from mountaintop strip-mining. Two of the scientists, Tony Oppegard and Jack Spadaro, were fired when they refused to sign off on a whitewashed investigation report.

One of the scientists who signed the statement is Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and chairman of the board of directors of the Union of Concerned Scientists. In an article in The New York Times, Gottfriend said the administration had “engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method” and displayed a “cavalier attitude towards science” that could place at risk the nation’s long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

In the same Times article, Dr. Sidney Drell, an emeritus professor of physics at Stanford who has advised the government on issues of national security for some 40 years and has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, said the overall findings of the statement rang true to him. “I am concerned that the scientific advice coming into this administration seems to me very narrow. … The input from individuals whose views are not in the main line of their policy don’t seem to be sought or welcomed,” he said.

Todd Tollefson is an activist in Seattle. He can be reached at commiett@yahoo.com.

Summary of scientists’ findings

“1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies, These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence.

“2. There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government’s scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration’s political agenda. These actions include appointing under-qualified individuals to important advisory roles including childhood lead poisoning prevention and reproductive health; applying political litmus tests that have no bearing on a nominee’s expertise or advisory role; appointing a non-scientist to a senior position in the president’s scientific advisory staff; and dismissing highly qualified scientific advisors.

“3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about “sensitive” topics. In this context, “sensitive” applies to issues that might provoke opposition from the administration’s political and ideological supporters.

“4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.”

(Scientific Inquiry in Policy Making: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science, www.ucsusa.org.)

Whats behind the French headscarf ban

Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:57:00 +0000

Opinion

Since Sept. 11 the spotlight has been on religion as a potential cause of divisions and conflict. Governments are divided on how best to deal with religious freedoms and the religious minorities within their borders; I hope that none take France’s example.

The French government has decided that any form of religious symbolism in schools contravenes the separation of church and state – the secularism that is one of the founding principles of the French republic. The religious symbols that are banned from schools by a law passed last month include Muslim headscarves, Jewish yarmulkes and Sikh turbans.

This in itself may sound like a good idea to many of us, especially here in the U.S. where the line between church and state has become increasingly blurred under the Bush administration. However this decision was not taken simply to buttress French secularism.

It is estimated that 11 percent of the French population is Muslim. To put this in perspective, according to the U.S. Census, 13 percent of the U.S. population is African American. Clearly, Muslims are a sizable minority within France.

2004 marks the 20th anniversary of marches and demonstrations in 1984 by predominantly Muslim immigrants seeking equal rights and citizenship within France. This year, demonstrations took place in France and around the world protesting the passing of this new law, echoing in many ways the message of two decades ago.

The language used by some French politicians to describe this law is not the language of equality and secularism; it is the language of appeasement of the far right. The former education minister who chaired the commission that made the recommendations on the new law said there are “without any doubt forces in France that are trying to destabilize the republic, and it’s time for the republic to react.” Surely schoolgirls in veils or Jewish youths wearing skullcaps are not enough to destabilize the entire French nation. It is obvious that there is much more going on here.

Thinly veiled prejudices can be heard from non-political supporters of the law as well, like French philosopher Elisabeth Badinter, who said, “You cannot denounce what has been going on Afghanistan while tolerating the veil in Europe – even if women claim they are wearing it voluntarily.” Instantly this law ceases to be about secularism, and becomes a way to equate traditionalist Muslims in the West with the Taliban and Islamic extremism.

The unspoken message from many is that the West must save these misguided children. This legislation may in fact have the opposite effect of the one intended, and push Muslim youths away from the French public school system altogether and into private religious schools, thus damaging the very integration it purports to assist.

It is no coincidence that this law was passed close to regional elections in France, and a year before national elections. Immigration is a big issue in France, and since Sept. 11 Muslims in particular have become a soft target. France’s Muslim population is generally poor, the children and grandchildren of people who emigrated from France’s former colonies to work as laborers. The families of these laborers are still struggling to deal with the poverty and discrimination that they themselves suffered. It is all too easy to scapegoat such a disadvantaged group.

In 2002 Jean Marie le Pen caused a huge stir in French politics by winning almost 17 percent of the vote in France’s presidential elections and qualifying for the second round of voting. Le Pen, the leader of the French National Front, is an outright bigot and racist who has described the Nazi gas chambers as “a detail of history” and has stated, “Yes, I do believe in the inequality of races.” In 2000 le Pen was barred from the European Parliament for assaulting a French Socialist candidate running in French elections in 1997.

2002 also saw an assassination attempt against President Jacques Chirac by a gunman associated with neo-Nazi groups.

That a group as far to the right as the National Front can gain such support within France, and become the second largest political party, points to deep divisions within French society, and deeply held prejudices and mistrust between its different communities. It is also no coincidence that the language used by more mainstream politicians to describe the law enforcing secularism is echoed by statements by le Pen, who is always glad to speak out against “the promotion of Islam in our country, with its long Christian tradition.”

President Chirac would do well to pay close attention to the words of Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK’s Commission for Racial Equality. Writing recently in the Guardian, Phillips wrote of the hope by some that “by appeasing racism, they’ll make it go away,” but as he goes on to say, “This is a beast with an insatiable appetite.”

Cian Dolan is a Young Communist League member and community activist. He can be reached at pww@pww.org.

Bushs marriage amendment an attack on democracy

Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:48:00 +0000

Opinions

Last week President Bush interrupted regularly programmed television to announce his plan to save us all from the new evil of the world: same-sex couples seeking the right to get married. Apparently, a proposed amendment to the federal constitution limiting marriage to heterosexuals will protect us all.

Protect us from what, exactly? Until now we haven’t heard one concrete example of how the institution of heterosexual marriage and the integrity of our society is threatened when two people of the same sex marry and build a family together based in love, mutual respect, and a lifetime commitment to one another.

The argument that rupturing traditional concepts of marriage would somehow destroy American society is not true now and it wasn’t true in past decades when state laws and cultural norms forbade interracial and inter-religious couples from marrying.

The truth is, when we hear Bush talking about the “sanctity” of traditional marriage what he really is talking about is sending women back to the home and returning same-sex couples to the shadows of our society.

Bush claims that nontraditional family structures, including single-parent households, are the root of all societal problems and thus somehow less honorable. Tell that to the millions of single parents in this country who are struggling to provide stability and love for their families.

If Bush is really concerned about the stability of family life, we would be better served if he restored welfare rights, funding for day care and other social services that have been slashed through his economic policies including drastic tax giveaways for the rich. Perhaps he might do something to restore the 3 million jobs that have disappeared on his watch.

The truth is that our nation is facing many urgent problems, yet they have absolutely nothing to do with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people demanding the right to marry. Since the 1980s and ’90s, pro-corporate policies of successive administrations have thrust millions of American families into poverty and economic desperation. Is that not more devastating to the stability and health of the American family?

The timing of Bush’s announcement about pushing through a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage is not coincidental. This is nothing more than a mean-spirited, calculated attempt to break up the growing anti-Bush sentiment heading into the coming elections.

Not since it was written into the original Constitution that African Americans were to be counted as three-fifths of a human being has language been added to abridge the rights of an entire group of people.

In fact, people have fought and died to extend our constitutional rights and expand human freedom. If Bush really wants to defend the morality and stability of our families, why isn’t he proposing an amendment that would guarantee education, health care and a job to every person living in the United States? Instead he has begun a campaign to demonize same-sex couples whose only demand is to be treated equally under the law.

According to Bush a tiny number of “activist” judges are somehow using their powers to change the entire face of American society. He didn’t oppose certain “activist” judges who changed the outcome of the 2000 elections. In fact, Bush has worked during the last three years to appoint activist judges who would take away rights won after decades of struggle, including women’s reproductive rights, affirmative action and the rights of workers to organize.

We applaud those “activist” judges who have opened the doors for thousands of same-sex couples in recent weeks to file for marriage licenses in the face of local and state laws that would prohibit them from doing so.

We applaud those couples, who take inspiration from the heroic demonstrations of young people in the South in the 1950s and 60s against Jim Crow segregation laws.

President Bush ended his speech last week with these words: “Let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.” What hypocrisy, when his actions create an environment that makes anti-gay violence and hatred acceptable.

Bush’s opposition to legislation that would classify violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people as hate crimes shows his disregard of even the most fundamental rights of people to live free of discrimination and violence regardless of their sexual orientation.

The truth is that this is not just about whether or not same-sex couples are afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples to marry. This is about guaranteeing the right of all of our people to dignity, respect and equality under the law, and protection of what is enshrined in our nation’s Constitution – the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Jessica Marshall is co-chair of the Young Communist League. Sam Webb is chairperson of the Communist Party USA. They can be reached at pww@pww.org.