People Before Profit blog

OPINION: A fitting end to a failed presidency

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:28:00 +0000

In less than two months, George W. Bush will leave the White House and officially turn the reins of government over to Barack Obama. At that time, President-elect Obama will become President Obama, and Bush will return to his Texas ranch as a private citizen.

However, if you have been paying any attention at all in the weeks since Obama became the first African American elected president, you may have noticed something: Obama appears to be more of a president than the president.

Obama’s Cabinet appointments are taking shape much more quickly than in previous administrations. He has aggressively taken on the economic crisis in this country by describing — in detail — his plans to stimulate the economy and create a whopping 2.5 million jobs. He has addressed the media at least four times in the past two weeks.

He has, for all intents and purposes, been acting like the president of the United States. This while continuing to remind Americans that “there is only one president at a time.” So why is he apparently hip-checking Bush out of the way a few months early?

Because he has to.

If there is one word to describe the George W. Bush presidency, it is this: failed. It has been said many times, but it bears repeating. No other administration, with the possible exception of that of James Buchanan (who literally did nothing while the country split in two and marched toward civil war), has been as mind-numbingly inept as the one we have had for the past eight years.

And now, in the face of the current crisis, with millions of Americans losing their jobs and their homes, the ineptitude of the “W” era continues. The president has sauntered along while his Treasury secretary desperately throws money at financial institutions which have given amazingly exorbitant amounts of money to their executives. At the same time, Bush (behind Paulson’s lead, of course) has refused to give help to the failing auto industry, which provides millions more jobs to Americans than the banks and insurance companies that have benefited from the government’s bailout so far.

Meanwhile, President-elect Obama, who initially pledged to stand aside until he was officially sworn in, has realized (and rightfully so) that it is his duty to step in now — before the Bush administration can boggle things up even worse. Obama has basically thrown caution and tradition to the wind in an effort to save the economy, even before he is president. And it is a good thing, too, because the man currently in the White House obviously can’t handle the responsibility.

To his credit, Bush seems to be all too happy to step back and let Obama take over. That could be because he does not want to be held responsible any more than he already is. But perhaps it is because he realizes just how egregiously atrocious his leadership has become.

He has to know that he has failed. His approval ratings are lower than Richard Nixon’s were when he was forced to resign. Our military is stretched between two wars, one of which was totally unnecessary, while the other should have been finished years ago. The economy has crumbled due to a complete lack of regulation, which was exactly the course that Bush charted. He has accomplished nothing that he promised during his 2000 campaign, other than his massive and ill-conceived tax cuts which have contributed to the problem we now face.

Maybe Bush is saying, in his Southern drawl, “You know what, I know I’m not the man for this job. I tried, but I just can’t handle it.” Maybe that’s why he is only half-heartedly trying to ease the problems our country faces, while his successor is already attacking them head-on. Maybe that’s why he has committed so much time and so many resources to ensuring that the transition goes smoothly and quickly.

Maybe, just maybe, Bush has decided (along with the rest of us) that the Obama administration is far better for this country than his own. If that is the case, it would be the best decision of his presidency.

Craig Withers is a freelance writer in Michigan.

A preliminary look at Venezuelas elections

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:04:00 +0000

While many of both the foreign and domestic opposition to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez were working overtime to give him and the Bolivarian Revolution that he leads a death blow, the president's political party, the United Socialist Party (PSUV), got the overwhelming majority of votes in the country’s regional elections. The PSUV won the governor's office in 17 out of 22 states. However, the opposition won four more governorships as well as the Federal District in the Nov. 23 elections for a total of six.

The PSUV and its allies also won at least 80 percent of mayoralties in the municipal elections.

According to Venezuela’s National Electoral Council, the governmental agency that oversees elections, just over 11 million voted with 5.6 million for PSUV candidates and 5 million for the opposition. However, the number of pro government votes may be higher. While they supported the overwhelming majority of the of the PSUV candidates, not all were supported by other pro Chávez forces, including its two largest allies, the social-democratic Patria para Todos (Motherland for All) and the Communist parties. These and others ran their own candidates in coalition with other pro Bolivarian Revolution supporters. Adding all the votes in favor of candidates supporting Chávez brings the total to more than 6 million or 55 per cent of the vote.

Some in the opposition expected a higher win in these regional elections which came almost one year after the Chávez government and its allies lost a bid to reform the country's Constitution. In the last regional elections the opposition won seven governorships.

The winning of more states than they had before led the opposition to declare that they were victorious in the elections. Chávez took exception to this claim of victory. At a Monday press conference with the international press Chávez said, in a commentary directed to the opposition, “Come down off your clouds. This was a great revolutionary victory.”

A Venezuelan government press release, sent out by the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, DC, noted that the Chávez government “is stronger from this great popular support after 10 years in office and 11 elections.”

Oscar Figueras, secretary general of the Communist Party of Venezuela, held his regular Monday press conference and offered what he called a “preliminary analysis” of the elections. The full analysis of the election campaigns and results will be made the following weekend after the party's meeting of its leadership.

Figueras said the elections advanced and fortified democracy and the leading role of Chávez in the “Bolivarian process.” He also lauded the historic turnout saying the country had broken with “a tendency of abstention.”

The Communist leader called for a probing analysis of the election results, noting that the opposition had won in places where there was a concentration of industrial workers. He said his party would look at its own work and role among the working class.

Figueras also announced that the number of Communists in the state legislatures went from three to 12. Communists won the mayor's office in three municipalities where they were incumbents on the PSUV ticket.

While a number of pro Chávez parties ran against some PSUV candidates, none of them did it in alliance with the anti-Chávez opposition. The Communist Party said the ones they opposed were careerists and opportunists that had “infiltrated” the ranks of the PSUV for their own personal interests. They noted that one gubernatorial candidate had left a leading post and made anti-Chávez statements the during the second attempt to spark a coup by the right-wing inspired “strike” at PDVSA, the state-owned oil company, which in reality was a lock-out.

Another factor in the Venezuelan elections has been the Bush administration. During the first years of the Chávez government U.S. monies have been funneled to opposition figures and organizations under various guises. The National Endowment for Democracy has doled out over $1 million to opposition groupings including those who were involved in the 2002 two-day coup against the Chávez government.

The United States Agency for International Development has been a source of monies and training for the opposition giving $3.7 million in this year alone to groupings associated with the opposition.

One of the ways monies are channeled is through the International Republican Institute. The IRI, which claims no affiliation with the U.S. Republican Party, was “inspired” by Ronald Reagan and its board of directors is headed by Sen. John McCain.

The IRI has also interfered in other nation's political process like in Haiti, where it used taxpayer's dollars to right-wing groupings opposed to the Jean Bertrand Aristide government after it won the elections with 90 per cent of the votes.

OPINION: Obamas mandate for change

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:54:00 +0000

In the aftermath of a truly historic election, the right wing and its long-time allies have been trying to regroup and get a handle on just exactly what happened. Right-wing radio talk show hosts, after calling Obama every conceivable name and claiming that his victory would mean an end to civilization, are now contending that he “has no mandate to govern.”

Right-wing pundits now emphasize that President-elect Obama's congressional majority equals Bill Clinton’s in 1992, that his margin of victory fell below George H.W. Bush’s in 1988, and anything else they can think of to minimize what has transpired. Some are even trying to talk themselves into believing that Obama will be a one-term president, like Jimmy Carter, and will set the stage for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge.

It is not just the usual suspects of the right-wing media who are minimizing Obama’s triumph, however. The editors of Newsweek, for example, who traditionally claim to be “above” partisan politics, have proclaimed the U.S. to be “still” a center-right country. Their logic is that Obama must “move to the center” (by which they can only mean to the right) to govern. They insist that “radical” proposals like major social investments in jobs and infrastructure, revival of progressive taxation, and enactment of anything beyond the most limited labor and social legislation, will fail because it has little real support among the people. The unspoken fear is that Obama will move to the left, and in the process move the center of politics to the left.

All of these arguments fly in the face of the evidence. Barack Obama received more votes in absolute numbers than any presidential candidate in history. While the rate of voter turnout fell far below the numbers one finds in the rest of the developed world, it was the largest vote in decades. Barack Obama’s 8-million-plus popular vote margin was the biggest for any Democratic presidential candidate since Johnson’s 1964 landslide. Only Johnson in 1964 and Franklin Roosevelt in his four victories did better than Obama in percentage terms among Democratic presidential candidates since the Civil War.

Put in historical perspective, Obama distinguished himself significantly from other recent Democratic presidential winners. Unlike Carter who enjoyed large polling margins throughout much of the campaign in 1976, Obama did not nearly lose this election. Nor did he win in a three-way race as Bill Clinton did in 1992 and 1996, during both of which Clinton failed to win a clear majority. Obama fared far better than John F. Kennedy's razor-thin majority in 1960 and Harry Truman's narrow upset victory over the Republican candidate in 1948.

Obama won a solid victory in both the popular vote and the Electoral College and will have a solid majority in Congress.

Obama certainly has a mandate, and it is a mandate for change. Obama's slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” was reminiscent of slogans like the “New Deal” of Roosevelt’s 1932 campaign and the “Great Society” banner under which Johnson won in 1964. In the latter cases, those slogans translated into the major policy domestic agendas of those administrations.

For the people who elected Obama and the increased Democratic majority, “Change We Can Believe In” isn’t about bailouts for corporations and banks. It isn't about wearing American flag pins on your lapel while the military budget continues to escalate and bankers and corporate CEOs wine and dine. “Change We Can Believe In” isn’t about a spruced-up version of trickle-down theory or the same policies behind a fresh face in the White House.

It is about reversing and repealing the policies that have led to both the immediate financial crisis and looming global depression. It is about ending the post-World-War-II policies that led to the long-term stagnation and decline of the labor movement. It is about creating a national public health care program more than 50 years after it was established in other major industrial nations, and handling a national debt which has increased 10 times since Ronald Reagan became president in 1981.

A “single payer” national health system — known as “socialized medicine” in the rest of the developed world — should be an essential part of the change that the core constituencies which elected Obama desperately need. Britain serves as an important political lesson for strategists. After the Labor Party established Britain’s National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party when health care, social welfare, education and pro-working-class policies were enacted by labor-supported governments.

In addition, passing the Employee Free Choice Act to make joining a union easier and to expand the base of union voters who supported Obama by nearly 50 points on Nov. 4 seems only logical. It would also provide a massive boost for working families struggling with stagnant incomes, high health care costs, retirement costs and job insecurity.

The best way to win over the portion of the working class in the South or the West that supported McCain and the Republicans is to create important new public programs and improve the social safety net. National health care, significantly higher minimum wages, support for trade union organizing and aid to education should all be on the agenda. These programs will improve the quality of our lives directly, giving us greater security and establishing the social-economic changes that will bring reluctant voters into the Obama coalition. That is how progress works.

The right-wing propaganda machine will scream “socialism,” and that is also a good thing. Because the more socialism comes to be identified with real policies that raise the standard of living and improve the quality of life for the working class and the whole people, the more socialism will be looked at seriously. A stronger left that follows the tradition of the Communist Party in its unbreakable commitment to a socialist future and to educating people about the value and necessity of socialist policies in the present could follow.

----- Norman Markowitz is a history professor at Rutgers University.

Iraq-U.S. pact sets end to occupation

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:24:00 +0000

Iraq’s Parliament is expected to vote Nov. 24 on an Iraq-U.S. agreement that sets a fixed 2011 end-date for withdrawal of all U.S. troops, with no exceptions or extensions.

The agreement requires U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi towns and cities by next July, and gives Iraqi authorities extensive power over the operations of U.S. forces until they leave Iraq. One key provision prohibits the U.S. from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi soil.

It represents a major reversal for the Bush administration, which had strenuously opposed any timetable for pulling out of Iraq. The agreement, which allows the pullout to be speeded up by request of either side, is consistent with the approach of President-elect Barack Obama, who says he plans to withdraw U.S. troops within 16 months of taking office. Obama is reported to have seen the agreement and expressed approval.

Two significant last-minute U.S. concessions were removal of language that could have allowed U.S. troops to remain in Iraqi cities after the June 30, 2009, deadline, and adding a prohibition on U.S. troops searching Iraqi homes without an Iraqi court order.

Iraq’s Cabinet last week overwhelmingly voted to send the agreement to Parliament for approval.

In a closed-door meeting of leaders of all political blocs with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the night before the Cabinet meeting, all with the sole exception of supporters of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr either fully supported the agreement or supported it with reservations, a participant said. The prevailing view is that the pact in its latest form, despite some concerns, represents the best option now for ending the U.S. occupation and restoring Iraqi sovereignty. It is seen as preferable to extending the United Nations mandate, expiring Dec. 31, which authorizes open-ended and unfettered U.S. occupation.

This point was emphasized by Iraqi Communist Party leader Hamid Majeed Mousa, who told a public meeting of 1,000 people in Baghdad Oct. 31, “It is not a question of whether or not there should be an agreement. There has to be an agreement that ensures the evacuation of the foreign troops … their evacuation cannot take place by total rejection.”

An extension of the UN mandate, Mousa told the crowd, “would mean complete control by foreign forces and the subordination of Iraqi forces to them.”

Among the Cabinet members voting to send the agreement to Parliament was the Iraqi Communist Party’s Raid Fahmi, the country’s science and technology minister. The ICP had rejected earlier versions and has reservations about the final text, which it planned to spell out during the parliamentary debate. But overall it sees the agreement as “far better than the status quo of open-ended occupation,” party spokesperson Salam Ali said in a phone interview.

The agreement now includes two of the ICP’s key demands, ensuring that all U.S. troops leave by the end of 2011, including special forces, and removing the possibility for either the Iraqi government or the U.S. to circumvent the deadlines, Ali emphasized.

Originally Iraq had requested a 2010 deadline, but compromised on 2011 and allowing for earlier withdrawal. Whether earlier pullout is possible, Ali said, “will depend a lot on whether there is a unified national will.” Military issues, he said, cannot be separated from politics and the need to advance national political reconciliation.

Although Iraqis are eager to rid themselves of foreign troops, there is wide concern that Iraqi armed forces are not yet adequately prepared to deal with security challenges, including protecting the borders. In addition some units, especially those consisting of former sectarian militias that were absorbed into the national forces, continue to side with sectarian factions instead of the national interest.

Significantly, though, Iraq is moving to decrease its reliance on the U.S. for military training and hardware. It is negotiating with countries like Serbia, France and Russia to provide such aid.

One key concern shared by Iraqi Communists and others is that the agreement does not fully protect Iraqi funds in the U.S. and elsewhere that could be subject to claims dating back to the first Gulf War. This includes the so-called Iraq Development Fund, set up by the UN to administer Iraq’s oil revenues, and effectively controlled by the U.S. Iraqis want these funds returned to Iraqi control.

Maliki says that as soon as the agreement is adopted, he will ask the UN Security Council to revoke the authority it has assumed over Iraq since 1991 under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and at the same time to protect Iraq’s assets abroad.

All of Iraq’s major Shia Islamic forces are supporting the agreement except the Sadrists, who have not proposed any alternative, and whose standing has declined because of their promotion of sectarian conflict. Leading Iranian officials, with close ties to Iraqi Shia groups, have now expressed support for the agreement. This is widely seen as a goodwill message to the Obama administration.

All major Sunni groups have voiced overall support for the pact, although some express concern about U.S. withdrawal — reflecting fears their clout may be weakened.

The main Kurdish parties are backing the agreement as well.

Iraq’s Parliament is expected to approve the agreement. Obama and congressional Democrats have said Congress must review the pact. However, with the agreement having Obama’s support, and the approaching Dec. 31 end of the UN mandate, it seems probable they will find a way to allow the pact to go forward.

suewebb @pww.org

EDITORIAL: A different Thanksgiving

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:54:00 +0000

As the U.S. celebrates Thanksgiving this year, the day is passing like many others for billions of people around the world. In India, women with children and husbands (some of whom have already worked themselves to death) toil barefoot and, with their bare hands, haul heavy loads of dirt at construction sites. They earn less than $2.50 per day.

Many of these women, if interviewed, would say they like their jobs because with the money they earn they can feed their children.

For millions of people here in the U.S., Thanksgiving Day is a day like many others because, like on other days, they are able to enjoy the comfort of a warm home and a bountiful meal with people they love.

Yet, for millions of Americans this Thanksgiving is different. This Thanksgiving, 250,000 a month are losing jobs, almost as many a month are losing homes, and soup kitchens that feed some of the hungry report they are running out of food.

Many miles separate those women of India from the Americans worrying about how they will pay for Thanksgiving dinner. Their problems, however, share a common cause.

The woman in India hauling dirt in her bare feet toils a block or two away from a five-star hotel that charges $5 for a glass of Coca-Cola. The woman in America who is losing her home pays taxes that are bailing out a bank that is taking her house.

In both cases the gap between rich and poor spurred by the workings of global capitalism is causing immense suffering. It’s a moral outrage.

The flame of hope, however, burns bright in America this Thanksgiving.

The people have elected a new leader who understands the injustice inherent in the obscene wealth gap. The people of the world are celebrating this choice. They watch with hope. That indeed gives us much to be thankful for this year.

On Thanksgiving Day, let’s resolve to do everything in our power to keep alive and spread the flame of hope that has been ignited. We owe this to our loved ones, to the people of our country, to the people of the world and to ourselves.

EDITORIAL: First YouTube president

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:48:00 +0000

Over 4 million people are expected to descend on Washington’s Mall in January to celebrate President Obama’s inauguration, in what will surely be the largest gathering in U.S. history. As Obama said on election night: “Change has come to America.”

It’s simply huge. Like an earthquake, it has shaken the foundations of U.S. politics. Like a tidal wave, it is sweeping away the deadwood and Bushes standing in its way.

A political realignment has occurred. Given the scope of the victory and the economic challenges of the times, the Internet-driven and people-centered mass movement that brought it about must be built on and even broadened further to see it through. A 4-million-strong inauguration party is great way to begin.

With this new president at its head, the movement for unity, hope and change is sure to continue to grow and build upon its independent base.

What worked in the primaries and the general election — grassroots organizing complemented and organized by the power of the Internet and social networks — will have even greater force now as organizing efforts begin to achieve a people’s legislative agenda. Setting a timetable for Iraq troop withdrawal, achieving national health care, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, providing homeowners in danger of foreclosure with assistance along with addressing the economic crisis — these will require a political campaign unmatched in recent memory.

Fully aware of what’s at stake, Obama has already, in one of his first acts, taken his message directly to the people in a YouTube video. The U.S. has arrived at its first “interactive presidency,” with the new president using the vehicle of on-line organizing to achieve legislative goals and to involve the broad masses of the people in the act of governing. With the coming together of politics, ideology, culture, communications, video and audio within a single interactive platform, the decision-making process itself is changing. Politics has entered a new stage. Sociability and connectivity are empowering working-class citizen-activists in ways unheard of a few years ago.

By taking it to the people on YouTube and in other ways, a united movement to consolidate the victory and bring real change has begun. See you on the Washington Mall in January!

LETTERS: November 22

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:23:00 +0000

Tues., Nov. 4, 2008 On the night of a beautiful crescent moon Barack Hussein Obama thrust by the unstoppable force of the power of the people to choke the cold nightmare of the last eight years so simply, to let justice be done.

Obama-nable means everything is possible Abomi-nable was W

Curley Cohen Chicago IL

Nationalize the banks

Private owners of banks and insurance giants are in a panic everywhere in the G-8, especially the United States. Dramatic tax cuts for the super-rich, massive borrowing, their actions and inactions in lending have brought the economy to the verge of freezing. The World Bank and the 185-nation International Monetary Fund are in the rigors of a malaise. The blame is shifted to borrowers, middle- and working-class families, to cause confusion.

The only solution that will work is outright nationalization of the select, towering giants of the banking industry. It may be done without or with a reasonable compensation to the “owners,” who are responsible for the failures and predatory loans. The post-Nov. 4 Congress could negotiate the formula for a golden handshake. Fiddling with part ownership of equity, with “no voting rights,” is a gimmick. Thirteen bank failures in 14 months should open eyes. Treasury plans to begin injecting money in measured doses. Will it really revive anything satisfactorily? It’s doubted even by the prescribers.

The economy would jumpstart from a single power stroke of bank nationalization. This happened in the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China). Today they stand relatively safe from the crises. Survival of the system depends upon its financial institutions. UK’s Gordon Brown is investing $80 billion to buy into eight of that country’s major banks. Iceland seized control of its three largest banks. Japan is reviving a law to buy into financial companies. The Italian government said it is looking for a rescue plan for its banks. Spain is spending $50 billion Euros to buy its bank assets. Nationalization of the financial institutions will stabilize capitalism for some time. Let us not miss the opportunity to help the nation turn the tide in moving forward out of the fear of the economic freeze.

R. Sharma Via e-mail

What Ohio labor leaders say

Ohio unions are conducting a “Why We Won” series, interviewing leaders from the state’s Area Labor Federations (ALFs). These ALFs were instrumental in the election results this year because of their ability to bring union members together. Here are some excerpts:

Pat Gallagher, president of the North Coast ALF: Bringing the issues and information directly to the membership and the grass roots made the difference. Once our membership is informed they will always make the right decision and that was the reason for the overwhelming support that President-elect Obama received from union voters. This is substantiation of the strength of a united labor movement.

Bill Sams, president of the Southeast ALF: If it were not for the labor movement I don’t think that Obama would have carried Ohio or Pennsylvania. Our people were right at the front lines, educating members and the public as to what John McCain really stood for. People were fearful for their future, concerned about the foreclosure crisis and the exportation of American jobs, and they were looking for some one who could help.

Wes Wells, president of the Southwest ALF: This election was a matter of survival. In Ohio alone we lost over 180,000 jobs in the last eight years, and with DHL and closure of the GM plant, the southwest region of Ohio alone will have lost 60,000. I think we have hope now, which is something we didn’t have before. People saw through John McCain and Sarah Palin, and they saw beyond the color of Barack Obama’s skin.

Debbie Bindas, president of the Northeast ALF: The Northeast ALF was committed from day one to working to elect Barack Obama and allies in the Congress and the Ohio State House. Union members worked their hearts out on this election, doing worksite leaflets, phone banks, walks and mailings, and we are proud to have been a part of it. We need to keep up the pressure on our newly-elected leaders, there’s a lot of work still to be done, but I am confident that we can make real changes by working together. We can improve education, reform the health care system, pass the Employee Free Choice Act and create jobs in America. Now is the time to take action to build the world we’ve been waiting for.

George Tucker, president of the Northwest ALF: I think it’s a new day for the labor movement; we’re maybe going to get a level playing field now. We’ve got somebody in the presidency now who’s on working families’ side when it comes to health care, organizing and everything else. We’ve got a lot of work to do in the next four years — it’s not going to happen overnight. For example, we have to get over this hump with the auto industry or there’s going to be a bigger crisis than there is now.

Congo’s historic urgency

The conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo are dire for millions of its people despite the fact that Congo has more mineral wealth than any other part of the African continent. Over a quarter of a million people are displaced because of the civil war currently raging in the eastern part of the country. Women and children have been primary targets of both sides in the conflict with rape used as a weapon by both sides.

In the midst of this scenario there are mining encampments extracting cobalt, copper, diamonds, gold, silver and zinc as well as uranium and timber. None of the massive wealth has been allowed to reach the majority of the Congolese population that live in abject poverty.

The outside acquisition of Congolese resources, many would say theft of, began in the Belgium colonial period of the Congo from 1885-1960. In 1961, Congo, upon holding its first free election, chose Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba wanted to use the country’s resources to improve the lives of the Congolese people and develop relations with other poor people around the world. Shortly after his election as prime minister Lumumba said, “We are not alone. Africa, Asia, and free and liberated people from every corner of the world will always be found at the side of the Congolese.” Within a year, Patrice Lumumba was assassinated and replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko, who acquiesced to U.S. mining and hegemonic interests.

While Mobutu is no longer there, the mining interests are and the humanitarian needs that cry out are not being addressed sufficiently.

Brian McAfee Muskegon Heights MI

IMF at it again

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:11:00 +0000

From Frontline, India's national magazine from the publishers of The Hindu.

It has been some time now since the International Monetary Fund (IMF) lost its intellectual credibility, especially in the developing world. Its policy prescriptions were widely perceived to be rigid and unimaginative, applying a uniform approach to very different economies and contexts. They were also completely outdated even in theoretical terms, based on economic models and principles that have been refuted not only by more sophisticated heterodox analyses but also by further developments within neoclassical theory.

What may have been more damning was how out of sync the policies proposed by the IMF have also been with the reality of economic processes in developing countries. The 1990s and early 2000s were particularly bad for the organisation in that respect: its economists and policy advisers got practically everything wrong in all the emerging-market crises they were called upon to deal with, from Thailand and South Korea to Turkey to Argentina. In situations in which the crisis has been caused by private profligacy, they called for larger fiscal surpluses; faced with crisis-induced asset deflation, they emphasised high interest rates and tight money policies; to address downward spirals they demanded fiscal contraction through reductions in public spending. The countries that recovered clearly did so despite their advice, or in several cases because they actively pursued different policies. And the recognition became widespread among governments in the developing world that IMF loans were too expensive because of the terrible policy conditions that came with them. So returning IMF loans early became something of a fashion, led by some Latin American countries. And, of course, for the past few years an even more terrible fate had befallen the IMF: that of increasing irrelevance. From 2002 onwards, the IMF, along with the World Bank, became a net recipient of funds from developing countries, as repayments far exceeded fresh loans. The developing world turned its attention to dealing with private debt and bond markets, which is where the action was. Less developed countries found new sources of aid finance and private investment from other sources, as China, South-east Asia and even India to a limited extent, began investing in other developing countries.

So the IMF has not really been a significant player in the international economic scene in the recent past, and the reasons for its very existence were often called into question. Embarrassingly, in this period the IMF in turn was called to book by its own auditors, for apparently poor management of its financial resources.

But what is interesting about IMF economists is how thick-skinned and impervious they appear to be. Not only do they simply ignore the devastating criticisms from outside that completely undermine their own arguments, they even ignore their own internal research when it comes up with conclusions that do not fit with their world view. And they appear to be unconcerned with the growing evidence that they are both unconnected to reality and unable to influence it in any productive way.

Such intellectual autism is certainly deplorable, but for a while we did not really need to be too bothered by it any more, since it seemed to matter so little to the rest of the world what the IMF said or did. But every crisis is also an opportunity, and the IMF has been quick to seize on the current global financial crisis as an opportunity to increase its own influence.

Given its record of incompetence and its current irrelevance, one might imagine that there would be some justified hesitation on its part to make grandiose and generalised policy proposals. But that is too far from what the IMF is used to doing, and so its recent pronouncements continue in the same hortatory fashion, albeit in a slightly more subdued and even confused manner.

The most recent World Economic Outlook was released in mid-October this year, to be presented at a meeting of the IMF that discussed the financial crisis. What is chiefly remarkable about this report is not just the continued confidence in its own capacities but also the very blatant double standards the IMF is now openly using for industrial and developing countries.

In the industrial countries, threatened by economic depression, the talk has now turned to going beyond monetary measures that do not address the liquidity trap, to fiscal expansion to revive the flagging economies. This talk is likely to get louder in the run-up to the Barack Obama administration taking charge in the United States, since the President-elect has made his own preferences clear in that respect.

But the record of the IMF in this matter is equally clear: countries in the midst of a financial crisis are supposed to do fiscal contraction, whether they like it or not. When the government account is in deficit, it must be reduced or converted into a surplus: when it is already in surplus, that surplus must be increased. If this is pro-cyclical and causes the crisis to spread to the real economy and create a sharp downswing that is just too bad; this is, after all, the “right” medicine and the necessary pain must be gone through to recover eventually.

In this context, what does the IMF now say about fiscal policy? “Macroeconomic policies in the advanced economies should aim at supporting activity, thus helping to break the negative feedback loop between real and financial conditions, while not losing sight of inflation risks... Discretionary fiscal stimulus can provide support to growth in the event that downside risks materialise, provided the stimulus is delivered in a timely manner, is well targeted, and does not undermine fiscal sustainability.” (IMF, World Economic Outlook October 2008, page 34, emphasis added.)

So, the IMF completely breaks from all its past practice to recommend that in this situation the developed countries should engage in countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies to get out of the crisis. All right, then what about the developing countries, who have this time been caught in a crisis that is not of their own making? For them the same advice is not tenable at all.

Consider the following:

“While emerging economies have greater scope than in the past to use countercyclical fiscal policy should their economic outlook deteriorate... this is unlikely to be effective unless confidence in sustainability has been firmly established and measures are timely and well targeted. More broadly, general food and fuel subsidies have become increasingly costly and are inherently inefficient.”

In fact, there is room for tightening on all fronts, both fiscal and monetary! “Greater restraint on spending growth, including public sector wage increases, would complement tighter monetary policy, in the face of rising inflation, which is particularly important in economies with inflexible exchange regimes'.

So, the cards are now all out on the table, and it is clear that they have been dealt unevenly. And even the rules of the game seem to differ for the IMF. There is one rule for industrial countries in crisis, no matter how irresponsible they have been in the run-up to the crisis; and another rule for developing countries, even the most prudent and fiscally “disciplined” of them.

In fact, this partiality of the IMF even extends to its analysis of the current crisis, where, bizarrely, developing countries are held responsible for some of this mess. “While there is indeed some evidence that monetary policy may have been too easy at the global level and that the global economy may have exceeded its collective speed limit, excessive demand pressures seem to be concentrated in emerging economies and do not appear egregious at the global level by the standards of other recent cycles. It is hard to explain the intensity of the recent stress in financial, housing, and commodity markets purely through these macroeconomic factors, although they have played some role”

Once again, all this would not matter too much if the IMF were to remain as irrelevant as it has been recently. But now, as the crisis spreads and engulfs developing countries, and as global credit markets seize up and create credit crunches, more and more developing and transition countries are going to need access to liquidity. Already several countries have lined up for this: Pakistan, Ukraine, Hungary and Iceland. And once again the IMF is pushing the same disastrous conditions that caused economic and financial collapse in other emerging markets.

In this context, it is terrifying to hear that European Union governments are calling for a strengthening of the IMF and even imploring surplus countries like China to put more money into the IMF’s coffers. With its current personnel and ideological framework, such strengthening of the IMF will only mean that conditions get much worse for the developing world. The need to examine alternative and less destructive sources of emergency finance for crisis-affected developing countries is therefore urgent.

Jayati Ghosh is professor of Economics and currently also chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi, India.

OPINION: Back when a socialist was a socialist

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:14:00 +0000

During the vice-presidential debate of 1988, Republican nominee Dan Quayle attempted to draw a parallel between himself and John F. Kennedy. Quayle's Democratic opponent, Lloyd Bentsen, who had served with Kennedy in the Senate, looked Quayle in the eye and said, evenly, 'Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!'

When Republicans singled out Barack Obama's income-tax proposal and labeled him a socialist during the recent presidential campaign, one astute commentator saw the fallacy in that charge. Referring to Eugene Debs, a founder of the Socialist Party of America more than a century ago, he said: 'I know Gene Debs and Barack Obama. [Obama] is no Gene Debs.'

Without the leadership of Debs and, later, Norman Thomas, the socialist movement fell on hard times after World War II. That allowed Republicans to distort the image of socialism in their effort to scare the wits out of the public. Americans have been brainwashed for half a century with the notion that American 'socialism' can be equated with the Soviet Union, Stalin, the Cold War, atomic spies, and almost any other evil. In the 2008 presidential contest, the progressive income tax became that evil.

Republicans need to tell us what they mean by this mysterious, fearsome 'socialism.' It's certainly not the socialism of Debs they have in mind. Furthermore, Obama and his supporters accepted the charge of 'socialism' as legitimate, implying that socialism itself is suspect, but it is inaccurate to use that charge against Obama. After all, he's not a socialist but a firm believer in capitalism and the free market.

To substantiate their accusations, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and other Republicans have picked a legitimate issue which has nothing to do with socialism and pounced on it as evidence of Obama's radicalism. That issue is the progressive income tax.

Whenever McCain or Palin talked about Obama's tax plan, they denounced it as 'share the wealth' or 'redistributing income.' Obama's plan, however, is to impose progressively higher income tax rates on those affluent Americans with substantially greater incomes than the vast majority of taxpayers. This is an idea that for over 100 years has been supported by the brightest minds of Democrats and Republicans.

While Debs and Thomas aggressively supported a progressive income tax, it was not socialists who pushed the tax through. That occurred during a Republican administration, 1909-13, as the Sixteenth Amendment. In a bipartisan effort, both major parties supported levying an income tax. In its initial form, the tax fell solely on those with higher incomes, not on most working Americans. It wasn't until years later that ordinary Americans paid the tax.

Warren Buffett, the nation's most respected capitalist, has on many occasions condemned the current unjust tax law, which favors the wealthy. He has offered a large sum of money to those on the Forbes list of leading executives who can prove that their receptionists pay a lower tax rate than they do. No one has collected. In calling for a just progressive tax, Buffett claims that he pays about 17 percent of his total income, while his secretary pays nearly twice that much. Does protesting this make Buffett a socialist?

The reason for Buffett's advantage is the capital gains tax breaks which have been written into the code since its original enactment. Capital gains taxes are applied only to investment income, not to wages.

These tax breaks are drawn up in a tax code that runs volume after volume. It needs to be that long in order to get all those tax benefits into the law. The tax breaks aren't for ordinary Americans. They are, in fact, a good example in reverse of the 'redistribution of wealth' tax system that McCain attempted to pin on Obama during the campaign.

Tax breaks for the wealthy truly do redistribute income. They promote sharing wealth with those who don't need it because they already have so much. And 47 percent of American voters swallowed McCain's claim that even a modest increase in taxes on the wealthy was a radical socialist idea!

Socialists still support the concept of a progressive income tax, but that view is also held by progressive-minded Republicans and Democrats such as Warren Buffett and Barack Obama, who would never associate themselves with socialism.

Most Americans have never heard of Eugene Debs, but they know a hoax when they hear one.

Ralph E. Shaffer is professor emeritus of history at California State Polytechnic University. This article was distributed by the History News Service.

The impact of the financial crisis on Third World economies and proposed solutions

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:05:00 +0000

Emerging nations need their own stabilization funds, independent of the International Monetary Fund, and its parent, the U.S. Treasury, which provides most of its financing. That was the conclusion of two experts at a seminar sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) yesterday in Washington. Mark Weisbrot is a distinguished economist from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (a pro-labor think tank) and Martin Khor is a Cambridge-trained economist, author and director of the Third World Network, a network of several nongovernmental organizations in different parts of the developing world. Both spoke at length on the structural obstacles to serious reform of the IMF.

Despite recent leniency with Russia and Brazil in the credit crisis, the IMF has returned to its preferred role as debt collector in the proposed contractionary loans to Iceland, Hungary and Pakistan. The IMF loans will enable these countries only to service their debts, even if their economies sink further into crisis as a result. There will be no ability to build local savings, local investment, public health, housing, security and education services — all critical to long-term economic health. The IMF austerity policies were sharply criticized following the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis as doing more harm than good. Further, the IMF has been tainted by repeated U.S. 'redlining' of political adversaries. What Treasury Secretary Paulson did in the U.S. is prohibited in developing countries by the IMF. Thus even though the toxic financial system is (hopefully) being dismantled in the U.S., it is being exported to the developing countries. Nonetheless — the IMF persists. Why? Dr. Khor explained that the IMF acts as agent for creditor nations that dominate its leadership. Its record of debt collection is good. So even non-IMF nations that lend will often require IMF approval of borrowers. While both economists argue for aggressive reform of IMF governance and lending policies, Weisbrot and Kohl are convinced that what is needed is a competing stabilization fund, made practical by the emergence of many 'Southern' nations with a current surplus of hard currency reserves: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Russia, oil-rich states like Venezuela, United Arab Emirates and others. With such a fund, Latin America and Asia need not go into deep recession, nor submit to the harsh medicine of the IMF for underdeveloped nations. Without independent stabilization funds, the economists say, the impact of more or less protectionist (government subsidized) stabilization measures in the U.S., UK and European Union will cause a swift capital flight from emerging countries to relative safety in countries with protected banks. In fact this flight is already under way. Action with the legitimacy of the United Nations, not just the G-20, or G-7, is needed to implement a new Bretton-Woods type system where limits to speculation in international exchange rates, and in capital flows unrelated to real production or trade, are enforceable, and where an international lender of last resort with an emphasis on sustainable growth, not just the shortest path to debt repayment, can emerge and prosper. This should result in an overall reduction of financialization privileges currently included in many North-South trade agreements, and an advance in trade balanced more towards trade in goods and non-financial services. Alll over the world NGOs are being networked and mobilized to prepare for the next G-20 summit, to be held in April, where more substantive steps will be discussed and the U.S. will be represented by an administration quite different than the current one. jcase4218 @ gmail.com

The view from here: India and Obama's election

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:21:00 +0000

From Frontline, India's national magazine from the publishers of The Hindu.

Obama’s historic victory breaks the conservative spell at this watershed moment in global affairs, but it would be wrong to pin too many hopes on him.

If India’s policymakers could secede and create a separate country, it would be a safe bet that the new state would join the ranks of a minuscule minority of the world’s nations, such as Israel, Georgia and the Philippines, which rooted for John McCain in the United States presidential election and are in mourning over the landmark victory of Barack Hussein Obama.

The mood of disappointment and foreboding that prevails in the corridors of power in New Delhi over Obama’s impending presidency is totally at odds with the overwhelmingly positive, even euphoric, sentiment the election result has generated in both the Indian and the global public.

The nostalgia that large sections of our ruling class and business elite feel for George W. Bush’s presidency cannot be explained solely by the oft-heard trite statement that Bush “may have been bad for the world, but he was good for India”; so good that, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh famously told Bush: “The people of India love you deeply.”

This, of course, is a patent absurdity. A deeply destabilised, unhappy and insecure world, which Bush did so much to bring about by waging war and spreading hatred, cannot be in India’s interest. The consequences of Bush’s adventurist policies and actions – including the global economic crisis, dangerous climate change, the massive destruction and Islamophobia (and extremist reaction to it) caused by the occupation of Iraq and war in Afghanistan, intensified rivalries with Russia and Iran, besides a more skewed global order and considerable weakening of multilateral institutions – are undoubtedly harmful for India.

They cannot be offset by the parochial “gains” from the U.S.-India nuclear deal and the deepening India-U.S. strategic alliance, even assuming these gains are real – a proposition this column has seriously and repeatedly criticised.

What our policymakers feel really threatened by is the eclipse of the era of neoconservative domination of the U.S. and the world to which they had attuned their own policies to the point of bandwagoning with Washington.

There lies the rub. The true significance of Obama’s historic victory is that it breaks the long conservative spell over U.S. society and politics – decisively and through a remarkable grassroots mobilisation process based on the promise of healing social divides, which was pivotal to Obama’s campaign. That is what makes his victory different from, say, a hypothetical win by Democrats John Kerry or Joseph Biden.

The triumph of a black in a society where he could have been sold as a slave just 140 years ago and where African-Americans could not vote barely four decades ago is itself cause for celebration.

The import of Obama’s election is all the greater because it comes at a fateful moment in world history, when multiple crises have converged – including a global financial meltdown and a ballooning economic crisis, discrediting of the neoliberal economic model, decline of U.S. hegemony, a continuing climate crisis, and major changes in the geopolitical situation. These have put a big question mark over the very notion of development as market-led accumulation of capital and material goods to which human needs must be subordinated.

In this sense, this is a generalised crisis of the bourgeois order or capitalist civilisation, whose resolution demands radical remedies: a new egalitarian economics, a new democratic politics based on mass participation and real accountability, and a new geopolitical order based on justice and equity, which demands major changes in relations between states and peoples.

New Deal? Obama has a historic opportunity to address these epochal issues. Domestically, he has the mandate to inaugurate a New Deal, by re-regulating the economy, getting the state to intervene to meet people’s needs through massive health care and social security programmes, and launching large-scale public works. In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt energised American society and economy through his New Deal by launching public works, including 40,000 buildings, 8,000 parks, 72,000 schools and 80,000 bridges.

These dramatically reduced poverty, put purchasing power into the hands of people, promoted equity, built up the infrastructure, and generated a big economic stimulus. The entire cost of these programmes (in today’s dollars) was about $500 billion. This is only a fraction of the $2 trillion-plus that the U.S. is spending on merely stabilising the banking system temporarily.

Obama will be under pressure from the establishment, including his own advisers from the Chicago free-market economics school, to tinker with the regulatory margins and bail out corporations and banks, without breaking with the neoliberal paradigm. This would only perpetuate Casino capitalism and the cycle of destruction, restructuring, concentration and yet more destruction.

Yet, the logic of Obama’s promises on health care, education, taxation and social security, and his $200 billion package of economic measures under discussion, is such that he will be impelled to discard that paradigm – if he remains true to his word. These measures include expenditure on roads, ports, bridges and other public works.

Progressive climate policy Obama will probably adopt a far more progressive policy than the Republicans on energy and climate change, with a promised investment of $150 billion over 10 years to develop renewable sources.

Under Obama, the U.S. is likely to take a less hostile approach to the Kyoto Protocol. But his earlier proposal to put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and get industry to buy carbon credits from the government, might be diluted given the domestic economic crisis. Obama can be expected to opt for a better civil liberties policy, probably outlawing torture and severe interrogation methods, and closing down Guantanamo Bay detention camp. He will probably also relax immigration and citizenship policies, making life easier for America’s 12 million illegal migrants. This too is welcome. However, whether he moves to dismantle intrusive surveillance and other harsh provisions of the PATRIOT Act is an open question.

Obama is likely to face stiff resistance to all his progressive measures. Much of his economic agenda will depend upon the Cabinet appointments he makes and the advice he listens to. Going by present indications, the two top candidates in the running for the Treasury Secretary’s post are former World Bank chief economist Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve. Neither inspires much confidence of a break with deregulation and other neoliberal policies. So the jury is still out on this issue, although a change of direction seems likely.

Positively disturbing is Obama’s very first appointment: Rahm Emanuel as the White House chief of staff. Emanuel is a conservative Democrat, a Washington “insider” and a former investment banker, who has been close to the family of Chicago mayor Richard Daley, a controversial political operator. Emanuel will control access to the President.

On foreign policy and security issues, Obama is likely to adopt a far better posture than the Republicans. He promises a less arrogant U.S. and a return to a multilateralist and cooperative approach. This will be a welcome departure from the Bush-McCain agenda. Although he promises to set a 16-month timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, the U.S. is likely to maintain a substantial military presence in Iraq, including bases and “advisers”.

Obama is likely to induct more troops and intensify the war in Afghanistan. Unless this is done in cooperation with Pakistan, and under its initiative, this could turn out to be highly problematic. Obama’s original remarks favouring unilateral strikes in Pakistan against Al Qaeda-Taliban militants are unlikely to be helpful although he has tried to revise them.

It is on Iran, Russia, nuclear weapons and Son-of-Star-Wars-style ballistic missile defence that Obama’s role would be extremely positive. If he begins a dialogue with Iran, stops expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) close to Russian borders, delays the deployment of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) in Poland and the Czech Republic, and renews the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) due to expire next year, while de-alerting and disarming a substantial number of nuclear weapons, he will have made a major contribution to defusing rivalries started or aggravated by the Republicans.

It may be unrealistic to expect Obama to take a major initiative on resolving the Palestinian crisis. His bizarre statement on an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does not speak of a high level of engagement with that fraught issue. But a detente or settlement with Iran could change the face of West Asia. The central issue in all this is whether Obama is prepared to acknowledge that the neocon project has failed and that U.S. power is in decline and will shrink further in the future. This remains an open question. Obama’s agenda may turn out to be mixed, not radical enough.

One thing is clear, though. Indian policymakers must stop viewing Obama through a Republican-tainted prism or by narrowly focussing on his statements on Kashmir, outsourcing and nuclear proliferation, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

If they want to engage Obama, they must address broad-horizon global and regional issues such as West and Central Asia, multilateral institutions, a Bretton Woods-II, and structural changes in the global financial system, including strict public regulation, controls on capital mobility, and a global economic reconstruction programme. It is unclear if they can rise to the challenge.

Praful Bidwai is a veteran journalist and peace activist from India.

People Before Profits: Only nationalization can save U.S. auto industry

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:09:00 +0000

A raging debate is underway across the country, in Congress, and between the incoming Obama and outgoing Bush administrations on the fate of the U.S. auto industry. CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler have faced tough questioning in Congress. GM comes to Washington to beg for a $25 billion bailout to keep it and its ailing Detroit counterparts going next year. But nobody seems too thrilled about the prospect.

Some say the companies are to blame for their own mess because they’ve focused on turning out gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles. The right wing obsesses over all the well-paid union members with alleged gold-plated benefits. (You would think it a crime to fight for full medical coverage for workers and their families!). The New York Times and Washington Post join this bandwagon by reporting wages and benefit figures for auto workers that are double what they actually get. The inflated figures they report include all the obligations that the companies have to retirees – money that workers, especially newer workers, never see. 'The downfall of the American auto industry is indeed a tragedy,' the Washington Post editorial board sermonized recently, 'but the automakers and the United Auto Workers have only themselves to blame for much of it.'

And, if they have only themselves to blame, the argument goes, why do they deserve taxpayer help? Let them fail and file for bankruptcy. In the long run, the economy will be stronger and the workers better off. It'd be worth the short-term pain, which might not even be so severe. So what if they cannot recover, maybe its time for Japan and Germany and Korea to produce all the cars of the world. (Of course that means all the engineering jobs will also head off shore.) The essential argument for letting GM fail is the assumption that bankruptcy would be no big deal: But, while bankruptcy has worked OK for reorganizing airlines, among others, it's very unlikely a GM failure would have the same result.

In order to seek so-called Chapter 11 status, a distressed company must find some way to operate while the bankruptcy court keeps creditors at bay. But GM can't build cars without parts, and it can't get parts without credit. Chapter 11 companies typically get that sort of credit from something called Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) loans. But the same Wall Street meltdown that has dragged down the economy and GM sales has also dried up the DIP money GM would need to operate.

Thus GM would not qualify for Chapter 11, and instead end up in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would entail total liquidation. The company would close its doors, immediately throwing more than 100,000 people out of work. And, according to experts, the damage would spread quickly. Automobile parts suppliers in the United States rely disproportionately on GM's business to stay afloat. If GM shut down, many if not all of the suppliers would soon follow. Without parts, Chrysler, Ford, and eventually foreign-owned factories in the United States would have to cease operations.

Restaurants, gas stations, hospitals, and then cities, counties, and states--all of them would feel pressure on their bottom lines. A study just published by the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research (CAR) predicted that three million people would lose their jobs in the first year after such a Big Three meltdown, swelling the ranks of the unemployed by nearly one-third nationally and leading to hundreds of billions of dollars in lost income.

On the other hand, the auto executives should not be rewarded for their decades long inefficiency, short-sightedness, and outright corruption. If you are wondering why mass transit, energy, and transportation policy are 40 years behind where they should be, just consider the example of Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy Committee. His wife, a member of the founding GM Fisher family, is a well paid public relations and lobbying rep for GM!

It is difficult to imagine the combination of legislative strings attached to a 'bailout' package that would change the behavior of auto execs enough to return them to profitability, or return to the public the modernized, fuel-efficient cars that the U.S. and the world need in exchange for our investment.

Nationalization is the only appropriate form in which the necessary re-organization and re-tooling of the U.S. auto industry to meet the requirements of the high-tech and fuel-efficient future can succeed.

Only nationalization provides an opportunity to show how a concentrated effort can renew a great industrial city like Detroit.

Only nationalization provides the framework in which collective bargaining over the pay and working conditions of workers in the automobile industry can result in a fair agreement that ends the destructive two-tier arrangements of the recent past, and grants auto workers a sustainable, long-term stake in the industry.

The U.S. auto industry, like the major financial institutions, is 'too big to fail' in the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. But its executives cannot be trusted with public funds.

Once retooled and re-focused, it's possible the government could resell the industry in whole or in part back to private producers if that proved to be more efficient. This writer would hope that a government - UAW partnership in rebuilding the auto industry could create a sustainable, profitable, public enterprise. But regardless, for now, nationalization is the only practical course with any reasonable chance of success for the foreseeable future.

OPINION: A rescue package for working women

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:07:00 +0000

Wall Street tycoons behave irresponsibly, bring the country to financial brink, hold out their hands for an 11-figure bailout — and lobbyists applaud that as a rescue.

Women achieve daily miracles fulfilling responsibilities to their employers and their families, ask for modest protections so they won't be fired for having a sick kid — and lobbyists denounce that as mandates. What's wrong with this picture?

Not so long ago, we were surrounded by ashtrays and smokers wherever we worked, ate or traveled. Babies sat on our laps in the car. Most paints were lead-based.

In each case, public health experts alerted us to the dangers. Values shifted; what once seemed normal no longer met the test of public acceptability. Groups of concerned citizens petitioned government representatives to do their job and set new standards.

From child labor to Jim Crow to excluding those with a disability, our government has stepped in to end long-time practices. Each time they did so because popular sentiment said, 'Enough.'

Once again, there is a need for the government to protect its citizens. This time it's to make sure that workers are not penalized for being good parents.

We have a giant disconnect between what family members need and what the workplace provides.

It flies in the face of our values, and hurts our families and businesses, when workers can't afford to take time to care for a new baby or a seriously ill family member. And it jeopardizes us all when people are compelled to go to work and cook our food or care for our children when they themselves are sick.

Each time we try to advance, opponents rise up to tell us the sky will fall, business will flee. Consider this statement:

'[This bill] would create chaos in business never yet known to us ... Let me make clear that I am not opposed to the [goals of reform] ... What I do take exception to is any approach & which is utterly impractical and in operation would be much more destructive than constructive to the very purposes it is designed to serve.'

That's Ohio Congressman Arthur Lamneck, arguing in 1937 against proposed rules outlawing child labor and establishing a minimum wage. More than 70 years later, these standards clearly aren't what threaten the American economy. But lack of minimum standards really is harming American families.

I've been thinking a lot about parents I know of three lovely children. Let's call them Scott and Kate. After Scott's job was outsourced to Taiwan, the couple lost their home. Since then, Scott got another job. Recently, they learned their daughter has cancer. Both parents have family leave and understanding employers. The problem is the leave is unpaid. They don't know how they can make ends meet with the double whammy of losing income while on leave and having to cough up the 20 percent health insurance co-pay.

What hit me the hardest was when Kate said, 'I feel like I failed my family.'

Kate and Scott have done nothing but work hard and take good care of their children. That should be enough. The failure here is a government refusing to bring the workplace into sync with 21st century realities.

Providing incentives to employers who move jobs overseas rather than those who grow them here — that's the failure. Allowing health care providers and insurers to jack up prices without regard for the impact on workers and their families, or on employers struggling to keep their heads above water — that's the failure. Opposing legislation that would bar employers from firing a worker who needs to take a day off to care for a sick child or parent — that's the failure. So is blocking progress on bills that would provide income for workers during family leave. And even worse, telling workers these are personal problems they have to work out on their own — that's an outrage.

The current bailout of irresponsible financial actors makes one thing crystal clear: those who demand smaller government are quite happy to have government intervention in their own behalf.

It's high time we demand government do its job: set and enforce rules that benefit not just the rich and powerful, but the vast majority of American workers and their families.

Ellen Bravo teaches women's studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This article was distributed by American Forum, mediaforum.org.

OPINION: Unity needed after Prop. 8

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:03:00 +0000

The anti-gay-marriage amendment that passed in California, known as Proposition 8, not only took away the right of gays to marry but has also sown distrust and disunity. With the initiative’s stunning 52 percent to 48 percent passage, many were left confused and angered. How could this much-touted gay-friendly state, with its gay meccas, San Francisco and Los Angeles, approve such a measure?

Before the ballot-counting was even finished, the finger-pointing began. The media reported that 70 percent of African American voters voted for the amendment, sparking cries of betrayal within the gay community. Rather than noting the need for unity and looking at the actual numbers, some white gay activists turned to racist attacks painting the African American community as homophobic.

One prominent gay writer, Dan Savage, wrote, “I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there — and they’re out there and I think they’re scum — are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.”

At a demonstration against Prop. 8 in LA after the vote, gay African Americans wearing anti-Prop.-8 shirts were verbally attacked by other demonstrators using racist epithets.

But let’s look at the numbers behind the frenzy. The poll so often cited is a CNN exit poll of 2,240 voters. Of those, 10 percent were African American, 64 percent were white and 18 percent were Latino. I was not able to find raw data on voting patterns by race for Prop. 8. I used the stats from CNN’s poll and applied them to the total number of votes for and against this amendment. I came out with a very different situation from what’s been bandied about.

About 10.7 million people voted on Prop. 8, with 5.7 million voting for the amendment. Applying the CNN poll figures would indicate that 761,362 African Americans voted for the amendment along with 959,315 Latinos and 3.3 million white voters. Clearly, then, we cannot place the blame solely on African Americans and Latinos for the passage of this measure.

Also, not talked about is the low voter turnout in California on Nov. 4. Nearly 1.5 million fewer Californians voted in 2008 than in 2004, and almost 80,000 people who voted for a presidential candidate did not vote on Prop. 8. Moreover, the anti-gay-marriage coalition targeted African American Democrats with robo-calls selectively quoting Obama saying he does not support gay marriage. The calls urged voters to vote “yes” on Prop 8. But Obama, while he does not support gay marriage, strongly opposed such amendments.

What is needed now is unity, not hatred and distrust.

In a post-election letter, Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, pointed out the far right’s strategy of splitting the African American and LGBT communities. For years the religious right has been cultivating relationships with ultra-conservative African American clergy, and has spent millions on a propaganda campaign promoting the notion that white gay activists “are ‘hijacking’ and ‘raping’ the civil rights movement”. All the while these same people, including personalities like Trent Lott and Ed Meese, continue their racist fear-mongering aiming to turn back the clock to the Jim Crow era.

So, while voters in California, Arkansas, Florida and Arizona passed anti-gay amendments on Nov. 4, voters in Nebraska passed Initiative 424 barring affirmative action based on race, gender and ethnicity in public education and employment.

The struggles for gay equality and for African American equality are bound together and face a common enemy: the ultra-right. It is the ultra-right that is pushing and funding ballot initiatives like Prop. 8 and Nebraska’s Initiative 424. African American leaders such as Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, came out strong against Prop. 8 and worked alongside white gay activists to try to defeat it. It is this type of unity that is needed going forward.

By giving into racism or homophobia we play into the hands of the ultra-right and ensure that we will not be able to move forward in the struggle for democracy and equality for everyone.

Lawsuits are being filed asking California’s Supreme Court to strike down Prop. 8, and nationwide protests are planned for Nov. 15. I hope these outcries work towards strengthening alliances among all progressive forces, and not continue down the road of disunity. If we are to win any gains, whether for gay marriage or against racism, we have to be united.

Adam Tenney (atenney@yclusa.org) is national education coordinator for the Young Communist League, USA.

Michelle Obama brings new Everywoman to White House

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:03:00 +0000

(WOMENSENEWS)--Is she more Jackie Kennedy or more Hilary Clinton? Is she a feminist or isn't she? Will she have an agenda of her own or champion causes identified by her husband on the campaign trail? Will women of all races and classes be able to identify with her?

As Michelle Obama stepped into her role as first lady this week with that ceremonial visit with the Bushes at the White House, she's already offered a few clues.

So far I see her as having a little bit of Jackie--graceful, elegant and stylish--with a hint of Hillary--independent, brilliant and ambitious.

She doesn't describe herself as a feminist but says that if you laid out a feminist agenda, she would agree with a large portion of it.

She is an all-American woman, yes. But her all-American-ness is shaped by her experience as an African American.

In other words, no matter what comparisons may be drawn, she will be like no other before. Because there is no map or historic reference point for how to be the first African American first lady, Michelle will have the opportunity to define the position on her own terms and provide a rare national glimpse into the everyday lives of an African American middle-class family.

As a professional, a mother and a wife, she will also have the opportunity to expand the limited representation of black women in the dominant culture beyond stereotypes and cliches. As a woman, she will be able to articulate the day-to-day concerns of all women.

What makes her so intriguing is the extent to which women across race and class can identify with her. She is the new everywoman. Her Struggles Seem Like Ours

Her struggles and concerns seem like ours: How to create work-life balance. How to raise two healthy children. How to make choices that are both good for you and for your family. And until about four years ago--before the explosion of the sales of Barack Obama's biography--how to make ends meet. From the supermarket cashier to the professor to the single woman without children, every woman can see a piece of herself reflected by Michelle.

She is also real. When asked about her favorite recipe, Michelle replied, 'You know, cooking isn't one of my things.' Unconcerned by the probable gasp from baking mothers across the country, she went on to say, 'My view on this stuff is I'm just trying to be myself, trying to be as authentic as I can be. I can't pretend to be somebody else.'

As first lady, Michelle will have the opportunity to define for a nation what it means to be a Millennium Mother: where cooking is an option, co-parenting is the order of the day and career ambition is a good thing.

For African American women and women of color, Michelle's move to the White House is particularly sweet. One of Us

She is one of us.

While many have argued that Barack Obama transcends race by virtue of his biracial background and time spent living outside the United States, Michelle's identity is more pinned down.

She grew up in a working-class African American family and community on the South Side of Chicago in post-civil rights America as a black woman. All that will no doubt inform her perspective and choices.

It will also allow the country a chance to see the many sides of who we are as women.

On the campaign trail Michelle was often a surrogate for her husband and was able to clearly articulate the issues and concerns of Americans from health care to the current economic crisis.

As first ladies go, Michelle is among the youngest, most educated and most accomplished. An Ivy League-educated lawyer with a background in public service, she will carry not only experience but a deep understanding of a diverse range of issues to her new post.

Some have wondered if Michelle will bring her own agenda to the table or assume the role of a more traditional first lady, such as Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush. Champion of Working Mothers

I believe she will have the opportunity to do and be both. While she has made it clear that her priorities are her children and her family, she is equally clear about her commitment to champion causes facing working women and mothers. Publicly she has stated she will fight for working women and figure out how to make sure our policies are structured in a way that supports that work-life balance, whether it's more family leave from paid work or better health care.

The key for her will be to strike a balance, which as mother and professional she can do with her eyes closed.

As wife of the nation's first African American president, Michelle Obama will have to contend with her own first: being an African American first lady.

In speaking about her undergraduate experience at Princeton she wrote, 'I often felt out of place on college campus and as if I really didn't belong.' As first lady, she faces a similar kind of challenge, because while there may have been only a few blacks at Princeton, she is now preparing to occupy a space never visited before by an African American woman. The difference this time around is that she will be able to draw on those previous experiences for perspective.

As first lady, Michelle will blaze a new path and redefine the position. To be successful all she has to do is be herself and the nation will follow her lead.

C. Nicole Mason, Ph.D., is a political scientist and the executive director of the Women of Color Policy Network at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University. She is also a senior research fellow at the National Council for Research on Women. This commentary appeared on Women'sEnews

Inject people's demands into economy, not just liquidity

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:46:00 +0000

Original source: People's Democracy

Discussions of the current world economic crisis tend to focus exclusively on the bursting of the housing bubble in the United States. This no doubt is the immediate cause of the crisis, but underlying its operation is the fact that the stimulus for booms in contemporary capitalism has increasingly come from such bubbles. The US whose size and strength make it, in the current regime of trade liberalization, the main determinant of the pace of expansion of the world economy as a whole, has increasingly come to rely on such bubbles to initiate and sustain booms. The dot-com bubble whose bursting had caused the previous crisis was followed by the housing bubble which started a new boom. This has now come to an end, precipitating a major financial crisis and initiating what looks like a major depression reminiscent of the 1930s.

THE REIGN OF SPECULATORS John Maynard Keynes, writing in the midst of that Depression, had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between “enterprise” and “speculation” and hence in its tendency to get dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and hence the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of a bunch of speculators under the free market system.

Keynes wanted this link to be severed through what he called a comprehensive “socialization” of investment, whereby the State acting on behalf of society always ensured a level of investment in the economy, and hence a level of aggregate demand, that was adequate for full employment. This prescription entailed not only a jettisoning of the free market system in favor of State intervention, but restraints on the free global mobility of finance, since meaningful State intervention could not be possible if the nation-State faced internationally-mobile capital. “Finance above all must be national”, he had said, if the State had to have the autonomy to intervene meaningfully in the economy.

The process of globalization, involving above all the globalization of finance, which began during the period of Keynesian demand management itself, has undermined Keynesian demand management in the capitalist countries, and removed a whole host of regulatory measures that characterized the Keynesian regime. Boosts to aggregate demand have of late come increasingly from the stimulation of private expenditure, associated with the creation of bubbles in asset prices, rather than from an adjustment of public expenditure within the context of reasonably stable asset prices. The reliance on bubbles in short has acted as a substitute for the earlier regime of Keynesian demand management; it is management through the creation and sustenance of bubbles rather than through the pace of public spending. Not surprisingly, the frequency of financial crises, associated with the bursting of these bubbles, has increased greatly after 1973, and we are now even headed for a major crash.

INJECT DEMAND, NOT JUST LIQUIDITY Governments in advanced countries have still not recognised this onset of a crash. They have proceeded on the assumption that the injection of liquidity into the system is all that is needed. It was thought initially that this injection could be achieved through the government purchase of “toxic” securities, but widespread opposition to that scheme has now made most governments accept the idea of injection of liquidity in lieu of equity, i.e. through the part-nationalization of financial institutions.

But injection of liquidity, even in this manner, is not enough. Credit will not start flowing simply because banks can access more liquidity. There has to be adequate demand for credit for viable projects by solvent and worthwhile borrowers. And this is not happening. First, the injection of liquidity does not improve the solvency of firms saddled with “toxic” securities, so that the risk associated with lending to them remains prohibitively high. And secondly, quite apart from this, the anticipation of a Depression makes borrowers chary of borrowing and lenders chary of lending.

This anticipation in turn derives from several factors: first, the bursting of one bubble is not necessarily succeeded by the immediate formation of another, so that some recession of a more or less prolonged duration is in any case inevitable. Secondly, the very scale of the current financial crisis is such as to entail an anticipation of a prolonged recession. And thirdly, since the recession has already started, the prospects of crisis-prevention now through the usual monetary instruments (including liquidity injection) appear distinctly dim. The scenario, in which tendencies towards increased liquidity preference on the part of private individuals and institutions and a downward slide in the real economy mutually reinforce one another, has already started unfolding itself and will continue for a prolonged period, unless governments now act to inject demand into the economy directly, apart from injecting liquidity. Until this happens on a large enough scale the Depression will persist.

IMPACT ON THIRD WORLD The third world countries will not escape the effects of this Depression. True, many of them whose financial systems are still not sufficiently “opened up” and hence have not been “contaminated” by any links to “toxic” securities, will escape the direct impact of the world financial crisis (though even they cannot escape some “sympathetic” movements in their financial markets as well). But they certainly will have to face the impact of the Depression of the real economy. Their export earnings, both merchandise and invisibles, will be hit, causing unemployment and output contraction on the one hand, and foreign exchange crisis, exchange rate depreciation and accentuated inflation on the other. (The latter will be aggravated by the outflow of speculative capital that had come in earlier to the “newly emerging markets” under the auspices of Foreign Institutional Investors).

Two areas are of special concern here. One is the inevitable decline in the terms of trade for primary commodities that will occur in a Depression, which will push cash-crop growing peasants into even greater distress and destitution and into even larger mass suicides. (These have been already occurring for some time on a disturbing scale in countries like India). The second is the loss of food security over much of the third world that will inevitably occur. There are at least three mutually-reinforcing reasons for this: first, the loss of foreign exchange earnings owing to the decline in exports and in the terms of trade will cause a decline in foodgrain availability in food-importing countries owing to a decline in their import capacity. Secondly, even if food availability is somehow maintained, the decline in the incomes of exporting peasants and small producers and of those affected by the rise in unemployment will mean that large masses of people will simply lack the purchasing power to buy necessary food. And thirdly, if the terms of trade of non-food primary commodities decline relative to food, as has been happening for some time now, then both the above problems will be greatly aggravated.

TRAGIC IRONY There is a tragic irony here. The booms fed by asset price bubbles not only did not benefit the large mass of peasants, petty producers, agricultural laborers, craftsmen, and industrial workers in the third world, but were actually accompanied by an absolute deterioration in their living standards. This happened not despite the boom but because of it, in a number of ways. First, with the interlinking of global financial markets, asset price booms in the US tended to produce stock market booms, and more generally financial sector booms, even in third world countries, where banks and other financial institutions withdrew from productive sector lending to speculative lending, from rural to urban lending and from agriculture and small-scale sector lending to consumer credit to the affluent and loans against securities. This damaged the productive base of the peasant and small-scale sector. Secondly, the changed role of the State in the new dispensation where it was more concerned with supporting the financial sector boom and in maintaining “the confidence of the investors” than with sustaining peasant and petty production, entailed a withdrawal of State support from the latter sector: input subsidies, the price support system, essential public investment, and State spending on rural infrastructure and on social sectors, were all drastically curtailed; and without them the entire small producer economy became submerged in crisis.

A simple statistic illustrates the point. In 1980, the per capita cereal output in the world was 355 kilograms. By 2000 it had fallen to 341 kilograms. This absolute decline in per capita cereal output meant also an absolute decline in per capita cereal consumption for the world as a whole. But since per capita cereal consumption, taking both direct and indirect consumption into account, increased for the advanced countries, the overall decline for the world as a whole was caused by a massive decline in the third world countries, where even countries like China and India which experienced remarkably high GDP growth rates, did not escape this trend.

The fact that this decline in per capita cereal output in the world economy was not accompanied by any rise in relative cereal prices (in fact between these two years the terms of trade of cereals vis-a-vis manufacturing in the world economy declined by 40 percent), even when the per capita income in the world economy was increasing quite noticeably, suggests that the squeeze on the purchasing power of the masses in the third world was even greater. The other side of the speculative boom occurring in a deregulated and financially-interlinked capitalist world therefore was a drastic squeeze on the living standards of the masses, especially in the third world (which incidentally is one reason why the “locomotive” analogy often given for the US economy’s role in the world economy is so inapposite: this locomotive while pulling some coaches, pushes back some others).

But even though the masses suffered from the effects of the speculative boom, they would also suffer additionally from the effects of its collapse. We do not have a symmetry here between the effects of booms and of depressions, and herein lies the tragic irony of the situation.

NEED FOR A NEW PARADIGM It is clear from the above that the need of the hour is not just the injection of liquidity into the world economy but also in addition the injection of demand. This can occur only through direct fiscal action by governments across the world. For activating governments for this, control over cross-border capital flows is essential, for otherwise governments will continue to remain prisoners to the caprices of globally-mobile speculative finance capital. The sectors where government spending will go up will of course vary from country to country, but the general objective of such spending must be the reversal of the squeeze on the living standards of the ordinary people everywhere in the world that has been a feature of the world economy in the last several years. In the United States government spending may have to take the form of increasing the social wage and enlarging welfare state activities generally, increasing infrastructure expenditure and to making more funds available to states through federal transfers. But in India, China and other third world countries, in addition to welfare state measures, larger government expenditure has to be oriented towards a substantial increase in agricultural, especially foodgrains, output.

Taking the world economy as a whole, the new growth stimulus will have to come not from some new speculative bubble but from enlarged government expenditure that directly improves the livelihoods of the people, both in the advanced and in the developing economies, and that is geared towards improving the foodgrain output of the world through a revamping of peasant agriculture (and not through corporate farming, since that would reduce purchasing power in the hands of the peasantry and perpetuate its distress). In short, the new paradigm must entail a foodgrain-led growth strategy (on the basis of peasant agriculture), sustained through larger government spending towards this end, which simultaneously rids the world of both depression and financial and food crises. The trade and financial arrangements of the world economy have to be oriented towards achieving this rather than being made to conform to some a priori free market principles that have the effect of pushing the world economy into financial crises and slumps, and the peasantry and small producers of the world into destitution both during the booms and also, additionally, during the slumps.

--Prabhat Patnaik is a member of the UN Task Force on the present global financial crisis.

The media's Minnesota debacle

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:13:00 +0000

With only about 200 votes out of nearly 3 million cast separating Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and his Democratic challenger, Al Franken, the race is headed to a recount.

From Media Matters

Naturally, conservative radio hosts are working themselves into a lather, baselessly accusing Democrats of trying to 'steal' the election. That shouldn't surprise anyone. But NBC and The New York Times have also pushed the dubious notion that the Minnesota recount has been plagued by chaos and impropriety.

Here's how Meredith Vieira, co-host of NBC's Today, began a report on the Minnesota recount: 'If you thought the election debacle in Florida could never happen again, wait until you see the situation in Minnesota.'

This is nonsense. The 'debacle' in Florida wasn't that there was a recount; the 'debacle' was an absurdly designed ballot that led to thousands of people who meant to vote for Al Gore voting for Pat Buchanan instead. The 'debacle' was that thousands of voters were improperly purged from voter rolls. The 'debacle' was that the state's electoral votes were awarded to the candidate for whom fewer voters attempted to cast ballots. None of those factors are present in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Senate race is simply in the midst of a recount. Recounts happen. They aren't the illegitimate, anything-goes street fights the media pretend they are; they are a part of how elections work, their process written into law and executed every year. They are necessary, for a perfectly obvious reason: They make it more likely that the candidate who receives the most votes takes office. That is an unequivocally good thing.

During that Today segment, reporter Lee Cowan announced that the situation 'has some remembering shades of Florida, of butterfly ballots and hanging chads. There are neither of those here.'

What possible reason could there be for bringing up 'butterfly ballots and hanging chads,' given that 'there are neither of those' present in Minnesota? Whatever the intent, the effect is clear -- it creates the impression that the situation in Minnesota is utter chaos, a 'debacle' in the making.

Cowan continued: 'Still, ballots have suddenly appeared out of nowhere, including some found unsecured in an election worker's car.'

That appears to be completely false. Election officials have said the ballots did not 'suddenly appear[] out of nowhere,' and they were not 'unsecured.' The claim about unsecured ballots in a car appears to have originated with Norm Coleman's lawyer. Cowan did not attribute the car story to anyone or anything, he simply asserted it as fact. Adopting and repeating Coleman's lawyer's claims as though they are facts is bad enough. What makes it worse is that the lawyer had already backed off the claim. Two full days before Cowan's report, the Coleman lawyer had been quoted saying that 'we've heard enough from the city attorney to let go of this. It does not appear that there was any ballot-tampering, and that was our concern.'

So Cowan offered a sensational and -- by his own acknowledgement -- wholly irrelevant comparison to the 'butterfly ballots and hanging chads' of the 2000 recount. Then he made a false assertion of ballots materializing out of thin air, and of unsecured ballots -- an assertion that seems to have been based entirely on the already-retracted claims of a Coleman campaign lawyer.

Vieira concluded the segment by referring to the 'mess in Minnesota.' But there is no mess. There is simply a recount -- a recount that does not involve butterfly ballots or hanging chads, a recount that, despite the best efforts of Vieira and Cowan to convince us otherwise, has not a thing in common with the 'debacle' in Florida. Just a simple recount.

Today's New York Times similarly promoted the idea of chaos and impropriety in the Minnesota recount -- without actually providing any evidence or examples. The Times reported:

If Fritz Knaak has his way, Mr. Franken will never have a shot at solving those problems. A lawyer hired by Mr. Coleman expressly for the recount, Mr. Knaak described himself as 'the new gun with the shiny pistol.' Citing suspicion over what he called a series of 'shenanigans' that have narrowed Mr. Coleman's lead, he has requested the official paper tape with the number of ballots and the time stamp printed out by each ballot machine, in every voting precinct.

The Times gave no examples of 'shenanigans' or any indication of who is 'suspicious' that such 'shenanigans' have occurred. Nor did it give any indication that it asked Knaak for examples of either shenanigans or suspicion.

Later in the article, the Times reported:

Mr. Coleman's campaign manager, Cullen Sheehan, accused the Franken campaign of 'a brazen, last minute act of desperation,' by asking Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, to reconsider 461 rejected absentee ballots.

Mr. Franken's lead lawyer, Marc Elias, called such assertions of ballot stuffing 'fanciful and bogus.'

But there were no 'assertions of ballot stuffing' -- none the Times reported, anyway. The Times simply quoted Coleman's campaign manager saying the Franken campaign's request to reconsider previously rejected ballots is an indication of 'desperation.' That's quite different from making an allegation of 'ballot stuffing.'

Then the Times reported that Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten expressed concerns about the ability of Minnesota's Democratic secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, to act impartially during the recount, without indicating Kersten's own political leanings. As Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert explained, 'Kersten is a right-winger who smeared Franken right before Election Day as a 'slanderer of Christianity.' '

Next, the Times quoted a 'Republican researcher' who is 'very, very concerned' about Ritchie. Then it quoted Sean Hannity saying '[f]ishy business' is occurring in Minnesota, where Democrats and elections officials are 'up to no good.' To what '[f]ishy business' was Hannity referring? Were his allegations legitimate? The Times did not say.

Finally, the Times quoted the Facebook status of 'Noah Rouen, 34,' a Minnesota man on a pheasant hunt who, along with his friends, 'could not help but hatch a conspiracy theory.'

If it seems the Times is desperate to find people concerned about the legitimacy of the Minnesota recount -- resorting to quoting vague allegations from hard-right partisans like Sean Hannity and Facebook conspiracy theories -- maybe that's because Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's Republican governor, says there is 'no actual evidence that there's been any fraud or problems.' (That quote didn't appear in the Times article; maybe it got cut to make room for the pheasant hunter's Facebook status.) And as Media Matters noted, the Times did not note that Pawlenty said that the bipartisan state canvassing board Ritchie appointed to oversee the recount was 'fair' and that a lawyer for Coleman's campaign reportedly said that the 'state should feel good about who's on the panel.'

The news media's tendency to compare any recount to the 'butterfly ballots and hanging chads' made famous during Florida's 2000 recount, and to breathlessly report the merest rumor of impropriety, is not merely lazy and absurd and sensationalist. It is also dangerous. It causes people to be frightened and concerned about all recounts -- to be wary of the very concept of recounts. But recounts needn't be like the 'debacle' of 2000; in fact, they rarely are. They are far more frequently the best way to ensure that errors in counting do not result in the candidate who received fewer votes taking office. (Indeed, in 2004, a manual recount in the Washington governor's race reversed the results of the initial Election Day tabulations and machine recount.) Sensational and baseless reporting like that produced this week by NBC and The New York Times runs the risk of undermining public confidence in an essential part of the democratic process.

Jamison Foser is executive vice president at Media Matters for America.

Letters: November 15, 2008

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:55:00 +0000

Spartacus

Just coincidentally, I had rented the DVD “Spartacus” from Netflix two weeks before the interview with Kirk Douglas reprinted in the People’s Weekly World (10/25-31).

Aside from the wonderful articulation on the subject of the blacklist, and the courage on the part of Mr. Douglas to break it, the film in many ways is timeless. The fight for freedom, the all-powerful spirit of human beings to better their lives, and working together to accomplish this.

It is worth noting, the acting is first class.

I highly recommend watching the film with family. Parents should view the film first due to some adult content. On the subject of the blacklist, I strongly recommend the book “Hollywood Red” by Lester Cole.

Gabe Falsetta

Glendale NY

Meaningful experience

After campaigning for Obama on Election Day, I stopped at a convenience store to buy some junk food, and as I came out I was stopped by a man asking for money. I told him that he was in luck — I was in a good mood because of the elections. This man, who happened to be African American, said, “Oh, is Obama losing?”

I thought that a little odd, and replied that he was winning: “Let’s keep our fingers crossed.” As I walked to my car, this man earnestly asked, “Would you really want a Black man as president?” Of course I nodded an emphatic “Yes,” and as I drove away, I realized how very little I know about the African American experience in this country. This man couldn’t quite believe a white woman would want a Black man as president, and I couldn’t quite believe that he found that difficult to believe.

When I heard the news that Obama had won, I drove past that same convenience store, but the man had moved on. Perhaps our brief exchange was meaningful for him, too. For me, it made the most historically significant day of my lifetime that much more memorable.

Deb Wilmer

Tucson AZ

O Barack Obama

O Barack Obama,

I need to go to commemorate

Your historic triumph:

Where?

At the Lincoln Memorial

There,

Forty years ago

Martin Luther King Jr. voiced

His dream of racial equality

And now your triumph will cure the racial divide.

Come, Poet of the new age,

Stand in the rays of bright sunrise.

You have cherished dreams

By intensifying your splendour,

Learnt the poetic languages of earth and sky.

Nature’s unknown power works well

In your beautiful mind.

From Kenya to Chicago

Dream for equality is being voiced

Through your triumph

Across sky and earth.

Chiraranjan Roy

Kolkata, India

More coverage

I am writing you to ask you about something very, very important to me. That subject is why does the PWW not include more in-depth coverage of Communist and Worker’s Parties throughout the world? I am very interested in finding out about is going on in Russia under Putin and most importantly, I am especially interested in getting more information about the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Gary De Santis

Hamilton Township NJ

Comments from our web site www.pww.org

Re: “Gulf Coast update”: The Plumbers and Pipe Fitters union is seeking welders, plumbers and others to join the union’s expanded apprenticeship and journeyman training programs.

Plumbing

Re: “Union leader walks road to recovery”: Congratulations, Mr. Obama on becoming America’s 44th president. Your endurance through the 22-month campaign is highly admirable. However, your journey has just begun. You have been chosen to become the decision-maker for all Americans to resolve the major issues in our economy.

First and foremost, the financial system and the faltering economy must be stabilized and we understand that you have proposed a number of different stimulus packages in recent weeks regarding this matter. Your plans to temporarily exempt seniors from having to make annual withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s after the age of 70 ? and to temporarily exempt the unemployed from having to pay taxes on their unemployment benefits will most likely have you score on both sides.

Nevertheless, the biggest focus should be on keeping the bank bailout/credit repair that started on track, reduce real estate foreclosures and change the position of financial regulation. To sum up, you have all your objectives laid out for you, Mr. President-elect.

Lisa P.

Re: “World reacts to Obama presidency”: In the case of Chavez, he seems to not only be open to a new relationship, but he appears to be taking action to create a better relationship. It’s a small first step, but it’s something — he fired the Houston consul after the U.S. State Department asked them to leave. Normally this would have led to a belligerent back and forth between Bush and Hugo.

Stonecipher

Re: “Populist president faces long odds”: Paraguay’s President Lugo will need more the wisdom of Solomon to succeed. On one hand are his supporters who are desperate to see social justice accomplished such as redistribution of wealth, a living wage, decent health care and education. On the other hand are the oligarchs that have always ruled — the last 50 years through the Colorodo Party of Stroessner. This party dominates the nation’s wealth, the media, the public service, the national assembly and the military. At least Paraguay is surrounded by sympathetic governments and the incoming U.S. Obama administration is less likely to interfere than a Bush administration would be.

I am hopeful that over the next few years Paraguay’s new leader President Lugo will show himself to be an extremely capable leader well able to teach Solomon a thing or two, too.

Luke Weyland

Re: “Tears of joy greet Obama election”: I live in Britain and want to say thank you to the U.S. labor movement, Obama election workers and every American who voted for a change away from the far right, neo-cons, privatization and war. But don’t just hope for that change, now begins the real struggle to make it happen.

Andrew Wigglesworth

We want to hear from you!

By mail:

People’s Weekly World

3339 S. Halsted St.

Chicago IL 60608

n

e-mail:

Letters should be limited to 200 words. We reserve the right to edit stories and letters. Only signed letters with the return address of the sender will be considered for publication, but the name of the sender will be withheld on request.

Better late than never?

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:51:00 +0000

The New York Times, BBC and numerous other news outlets reported last week that the Bush White House knew — and kept from the American people — that it was indeed Georgia’s U.S.-trained forces that started the war in the Caucus region last summer. They did so by slaughtering civilians in the capital of South Ossetia before a single Russian soldier crossed the border into that region.

We published reliable accounts from numerous sources that were already saying this three months ago. (While our main purpose here is not to brag about this point, it crosses our mind that this is just one more reason we hope our readers will consider supporting our current fund drive to the best of their ability.)

Message to the mass media: With war and peace in the balance, “better late than never” in reporting the facts just won’t cut it. We say: “Better never late” in reporting the real story. In a world where powerful nations remain armed to the teeth with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to let unrepentant cold warriors, harboring no regard for the truth, trigger a dangerous hot war that could destroy the world.

Fortunately, the election of Barack Obama gives us new hope. He has said he is committed to reducing the world’s nuclear armament stockpiles. John McCain, whose top foreign policy adviser was a paid lobbyist for Georgia, was, true to his history as a hawk, all too eager to confront the Russians.

The Bush-McCain reaction to the events in Georgia was just one more disaster in their long list of foreign policy disasters. Their approach led to increased estrangement from the one nation whose cooperation we cannot do without if we are ever to control the spread of nuclear weapons. Russia possesses nearly half of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

A common front by the United States and Russia is crucial to turning the world toward nuclear disarmament. Yet even before the Georgia provocation, the ultra-right instead insisted on placing missiles in countries that line Russia’s border.

The sea change in American politics Nov. 4 will, hopefully, enable the building of relations of cooperation and respect between Russia and the United States and open the way for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

EDITORIAL: Chinas bold move

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:39:00 +0000

China, hit by the current global economic crisis, with some foreign-operated plants closing down, took immediate, emergency action. Its State Council approved a $586 billion public works program to build new low-cost homes, mass transit and airports. The program will employ tens of thousands of unemployed workers and at the same time build or repair urgently needed infrastructure like bridges, roads and tunnels.

At the top of the agenda is rebuilding Sichuan Province, devastated by an earthquake that left millions homeless. (What a striking contrast to the abandonment of Hurricane Katrina victims by the Bush administration).

The Asian stock market soared 5.6 percent in response to China’s initiative and stocks in Hong Kong and Shanghai rallied strongly.

The New York Times pointed out that unlike China’s rescue package, our recently approved $700 billion bailout “helped strengthen bank balance sheets” but did not “mandate new lending or support specific investment projects in the United States.”

Because of their fanatical right-wing “free market” ideology, Bush and fellow Republicans are fighting tooth and nail against any steps to restrict corporate greed or government action to get our “real” economy going and growing.

The administration is using the bailout to help financiers who created the crisis but it has not slowed the plunge toward a deep recession. Last month 240,000 jobs were lost and the jobless rate zoomed to 6.5 percent. Meanwhile the bankers are using our tax dollars to buy up rival banks rather than free up credit to help jumpstart the economy.

The Times points out that “Beijing maintains far more control over investment trends than Washington does so it has greater flexibility to increase investments and counter a sharp downturn.”

In other words, China’s government has the power to command that these socialized institutions allocate resources to head off a depression.

China’s President Hu Jintao is scheduled to meet Nov. 15 with President-elect Barack Obama. Obama would do well to study China’s bold initiative. We do not have socialism and our banks are certainly not nationalized. But the people are losing patience as they watch their jobs, retirement accounts, and employer-provided health care go up in smoke. They are going to demand strong action to help the folks on Main Street.