Unrealistic Expectations - a series
"The callous and cynical decision of Republican governors to turn down billions of stimulus dollars that could have helped their states’ economies creates a great opportunity. Democrats could not only mobilize the workers who were screwed over by the decision. They could also build a new narrative about how government is being held hostage by its corporate masters. Denying support to working-class people who can’t find good jobs should be exhibit A."
The rest of the story:
The rest of the story:
Sanders Pushing to Expand Medicare by Lowering Eligibility Age
"It's the right thing to do. It's massively impactful. It's popular."
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is reportedly pressuring Democratic lawmakers to use the forthcoming multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package to significantly expand Medicare by lowering the eligibility age from 65 to either 55 or 60—an idea President Joe Biden floated on the campaign trail last April.
Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also wants to extend Medicare's coverage to often-expensive services such as dental work, glasses and eye surgeries, and hearing aids, according to Politico.
"We have to look at the structural long-term problems facing our people," Sanders told the outlet in an interview Friday. "We're talking about physical infrastructure, affordable housing. We're talking about transforming our energy system to deal with climate change. We're talking about human infrastructure."
"In the rescue plan, we were able to take a major step forward in lowering child poverty—very important," Sanders added. "Now I want to deal with issues facing seniors as well."
The Vermont senator is aiming to include his Medicare proposal, which has not yet been finalized, in an infrastructure-focused spending package that the White House and congressional Democrats are currently discussing. The legislation will likely have to go through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process given Republican opposition to the nascent plan.
A leading congressional supporter of the far more sweeping proposal to expand Medicare to everyone in the U.S., the Vermont senator said his plan to make the program more generous in the near-term could be funded partially by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, an idea Sanders believes would bring in around $450 billion in revenue over the next decade.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, Sanders and dozens of his congressional allies introduced The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act (pdf), which would lift a clause prohibiting the Health and Human Services Department from negotiating lower prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries.
Surveys have shown that the idea of lowering the Medicare eligibility age—which has been at 65 or older since the program's inception in 1965—is popular with the American public. A GoHealth survey from last October found that 70% of respondents not on Medicare at the time and 58% of Medicare beneficiaries supported the idea.
Additionally, according to an analysis by the healthcare consulting firm Avalere, lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 could extend the program's coverage to as many as 23 million people.
"It's the right thing to do," Sanders adviser Faiz Shakir tweeted Friday. "It's massively impactful. It's popular."
Published on Friday, March 26, 2021 by Common Dreams. Jake Johnson, staff writer.
 |
| Sen. Bernie Sanders during an interview in D.C, on Dec. 16, 2020. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) |
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is reportedly pressuring Democratic lawmakers to use the forthcoming multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package to significantly expand Medicare by lowering the eligibility age from 65 to either 55 or 60—an idea President Joe Biden floated on the campaign trail last April.
Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also wants to extend Medicare's coverage to often-expensive services such as dental work, glasses and eye surgeries, and hearing aids, according to Politico.
"We have to look at the structural long-term problems facing our people," Sanders told the outlet in an interview Friday. "We're talking about physical infrastructure, affordable housing. We're talking about transforming our energy system to deal with climate change. We're talking about human infrastructure."
"In the rescue plan, we were able to take a major step forward in lowering child poverty—very important," Sanders added. "Now I want to deal with issues facing seniors as well."
The Vermont senator is aiming to include his Medicare proposal, which has not yet been finalized, in an infrastructure-focused spending package that the White House and congressional Democrats are currently discussing. The legislation will likely have to go through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process given Republican opposition to the nascent plan.
A leading congressional supporter of the far more sweeping proposal to expand Medicare to everyone in the U.S., the Vermont senator said his plan to make the program more generous in the near-term could be funded partially by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, an idea Sanders believes would bring in around $450 billion in revenue over the next decade.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, Sanders and dozens of his congressional allies introduced The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act (pdf), which would lift a clause prohibiting the Health and Human Services Department from negotiating lower prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries.
Surveys have shown that the idea of lowering the Medicare eligibility age—which has been at 65 or older since the program's inception in 1965—is popular with the American public. A GoHealth survey from last October found that 70% of respondents not on Medicare at the time and 58% of Medicare beneficiaries supported the idea.
Additionally, according to an analysis by the healthcare consulting firm Avalere, lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 could extend the program's coverage to as many as 23 million people.
"It's the right thing to do," Sanders adviser Faiz Shakir tweeted Friday. "It's massively impactful. It's popular."
Published on Friday, March 26, 2021 by Common Dreams. Jake Johnson, staff writer.
No impuestos sin representación.
It is time to put stop to United States colonialism. Like the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, the 2,800,00 people of Puerto Rico have languished too long without the full rights of citizenship (for comparison. Wyoming has fewer than 600,000 residents; by population; Puerto Rico would rank about 34th among the 52 states). Guam (pop.165,000), the Virgin Islands (pop. 120,000), and American Samoa (pop. 60,000) are too small for statehood (giving them each two senators would throw the already profoundly undemocratic U.S. Senate wildly out of whack), but there is nothing in the way of changing their status to bring them as close to actual citizenship as possible by granting their elected Representatives full voting rights in the House and, in a bonus from getting rid of the Electoral College, enabling them to vote for president.
Progressives Urge Biden to Abandon GOP Outreach, Move Swiftly on Bold Package
"A Republican minority shouldn't be allowed to hold the nation's economic recovery and public health hostage."
by Jake Johnson
\With Covid-19 killing thousands of people each day in the U.S. and the economy still mired in deep recession, progressives are calling on President Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress to abandon futile outreach to the GOP and push ahead with a robust relief package after a pair of so-called "moderate" Republican senators voiced skepticism Wednesday about passing another major spending bill.
Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), members of a bipartisan group of lawmakers calling itself the Common Sense Coalition, indicated shortly after Biden's inauguration Wednesday that they would have difficulty supporting relief legislation on the scale of the $1.9 trillion plan the president unveiled last week—a proposal progressives criticized as inadequate.
"Who cares what Romney thinks. Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation." —James Medlock, policy analyst
Romney characterized Biden's opening offer as "not well-timed" given that Congress "passed a $900 billion-plus package" last month. Some economists argue that between $3 trillion and $4.5 trillion in spending will be necessary in the short-term to bring the U.S. out of recession and pave the way for a speedy recovery.
"Let's give that some time to be able to influence the economy," Romney said of the December relief measure
Murkowski echoed Romney's concern, complaining that "the ink is just barely dry on the $900 billion." Biden's relief proposal—which includes $1,400 direct payments, a boost to unemployment benefits, and other key measures—would require "a fair amount of debate and consideration," said the Alaska Republican.
Given that Biden would likely need the backing of both Romney and Murkowski -- as well as other Republicans -- to achieve his hope of passing a relief bill with bipartisan support, progressives said the two senators' comments further bolster the case for ignoring the austerity-obsessed GOP and using unified Democratic control of government to swiftly pass an ambitious package.
"Who cares what Romney thinks," tweeted policy analyst James Medlock. "Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin[istration] will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation."
Medlock was referring to the expedited, filibuster-proof process that allows passage of certain kinds of legislation with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes -- a threshold that would require the support of at least 10 Republican senators.
Biden has not explicitly endorsed passing coronavirus relief through reconciliation if Republicans obstruct his agenda. But White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during the new administration's first press briefing Wednesday that while the president's "clear preference is to move forward with a bipartisan bill," Biden is "not going to take tools off the table for how the House and Senate can get this done."
With the reconciliation process a possibility, another -- and, according to some progressives, much better-option is to quickly eliminate the legislative filibuster, a move that would allow passage of legislation without any Republican support.
Democrats control the Senate by the narrowest possible margin, meaning they would need the backing of the entire caucus plus a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris to pass legislation in the absence of the filibuster, which Democrats can kill with a simple majority vote.
"A Republican minority shouldn't be allowed to hold the nation's economic recovery and public health hostage," progressive organizer Ilya Sheyman said, urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to use one of the two tools at his disposal to pass a major relief bill.
Amid growing GOP hostility to additional coronavirus relief spending, Biden's economic advisers are expected to meet with the Common Sense Coalition in the coming days, continuing outreach to Republicans and conservative Democrats -- such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) -- that began before the inauguration.
"We can do 1,000 straight days of this song and dance or we can just zoom ahead and enjoy a glorious, filibuster-free existence," tweeted Ryan Kearney of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. "Your choice!"
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Wednesday that while he has "no problem with reaching out to Republicans" and "would prefer to do it that way," he has no intention of wasting precious time trying to bring intransigent GOP lawmakers onboard.
"If we hear very early on that Republicans do not want to act in a way that meets the needs of working people in this country or the middle class, sorry, we're gonna do it alone," the Vermont senator said in an appearance on ABC.
As progressive Democrats and advocacy groups demand quick action, the timeline for movement of a coronavirus relief package remains unclear. Punchbowl News reported Wednesday morning that "Democrats do not expect to be able to send Biden a Covid relief bill until early March," when emergency unemployment benefits are set to expire for millions of Americans.
Progressives made clear that waiting until March to pass a relief bill would be unacceptable, given the enormity of the public health and economic emergencies that are ravaging the country.
"We urge the President to continue to act swiftly and boldly to address the multiple crises our nation faces," Rahna Epting, executive director of advocacy group MoveOn, said in a statement late Wednesday. "People's lives depend on it. We cannot allow Washington gridlock or Republican obstruction to stand in the way of the urgent needs of the nation."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued a similar call to action, demanding that the Biden administration and Democratic Congress work toward "the swift passage of a comprehensive and bold relief package that meets the scale of this crisis."
"We have no time to waste," said Jayapal.
[Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Follow him on Twitter: @johnsonjakep]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
by Jake Johnson
 |
| Photo: Tom Lohdan / Flickr // People for the American Way |
\With Covid-19 killing thousands of people each day in the U.S. and the economy still mired in deep recession, progressives are calling on President Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress to abandon futile outreach to the GOP and push ahead with a robust relief package after a pair of so-called "moderate" Republican senators voiced skepticism Wednesday about passing another major spending bill.
Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), members of a bipartisan group of lawmakers calling itself the Common Sense Coalition, indicated shortly after Biden's inauguration Wednesday that they would have difficulty supporting relief legislation on the scale of the $1.9 trillion plan the president unveiled last week—a proposal progressives criticized as inadequate.
"Who cares what Romney thinks. Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation." —James Medlock, policy analyst
Romney characterized Biden's opening offer as "not well-timed" given that Congress "passed a $900 billion-plus package" last month. Some economists argue that between $3 trillion and $4.5 trillion in spending will be necessary in the short-term to bring the U.S. out of recession and pave the way for a speedy recovery.
"Let's give that some time to be able to influence the economy," Romney said of the December relief measure
Murkowski echoed Romney's concern, complaining that "the ink is just barely dry on the $900 billion." Biden's relief proposal—which includes $1,400 direct payments, a boost to unemployment benefits, and other key measures—would require "a fair amount of debate and consideration," said the Alaska Republican.
Given that Biden would likely need the backing of both Romney and Murkowski -- as well as other Republicans -- to achieve his hope of passing a relief bill with bipartisan support, progressives said the two senators' comments further bolster the case for ignoring the austerity-obsessed GOP and using unified Democratic control of government to swiftly pass an ambitious package.
"Who cares what Romney thinks," tweeted policy analyst James Medlock. "Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin[istration] will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation."
Medlock was referring to the expedited, filibuster-proof process that allows passage of certain kinds of legislation with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes -- a threshold that would require the support of at least 10 Republican senators.
Biden has not explicitly endorsed passing coronavirus relief through reconciliation if Republicans obstruct his agenda. But White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during the new administration's first press briefing Wednesday that while the president's "clear preference is to move forward with a bipartisan bill," Biden is "not going to take tools off the table for how the House and Senate can get this done."
With the reconciliation process a possibility, another -- and, according to some progressives, much better-option is to quickly eliminate the legislative filibuster, a move that would allow passage of legislation without any Republican support.
Democrats control the Senate by the narrowest possible margin, meaning they would need the backing of the entire caucus plus a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris to pass legislation in the absence of the filibuster, which Democrats can kill with a simple majority vote.
"A Republican minority shouldn't be allowed to hold the nation's economic recovery and public health hostage," progressive organizer Ilya Sheyman said, urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to use one of the two tools at his disposal to pass a major relief bill.
"We can do 1,000 straight days of this song and dance or we can just zoom ahead and enjoy a glorious, filibuster-free existence," tweeted Ryan Kearney of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. "Your choice!"
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Wednesday that while he has "no problem with reaching out to Republicans" and "would prefer to do it that way," he has no intention of wasting precious time trying to bring intransigent GOP lawmakers onboard.
"If we hear very early on that Republicans do not want to act in a way that meets the needs of working people in this country or the middle class, sorry, we're gonna do it alone," the Vermont senator said in an appearance on ABC.
Progressives made clear that waiting until March to pass a relief bill would be unacceptable, given the enormity of the public health and economic emergencies that are ravaging the country.
"We urge the President to continue to act swiftly and boldly to address the multiple crises our nation faces," Rahna Epting, executive director of advocacy group MoveOn, said in a statement late Wednesday. "People's lives depend on it. We cannot allow Washington gridlock or Republican obstruction to stand in the way of the urgent needs of the nation."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued a similar call to action, demanding that the Biden administration and Democratic Congress work toward "the swift passage of a comprehensive and bold relief package that meets the scale of this crisis."
"We have no time to waste," said Jayapal.
[Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Follow him on Twitter: @johnsonjakep]
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Fifty-one or Fight
"Less than six months before a mob of the sitting president’s supporters would descend upon the United States Capitol, a more solemn crowd gathered at its steps. Among those who arrived to pay their final respects to the
late Representative John Lewis were Washington, D.C., residents who appreciated his unwavering support of statehood for the district. As they waited in line for the public viewing, a small group of Black women raised their fists in honor of the Georgia lawmaker known as the conscience of Congress, who saw their city’s struggle as the very kind of 'good trouble' that defines his legacy. Lewis had backed the symbolically named House Resolution 51 since Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting delegate, first introduced it nearly three decades ago. In 1993, Lewis declared, 'It is not right that there is still an America where there is still some taxation without representation.'”
The rest of the story:
“The real fraud is that we call ourselves a democracy yet deny the people of our capital political representation:” D.C. Statehood Is More Urgent Than Ever by Hannah Giorgis (The Atlantic)
 |
| Flag of the 51 United States of America |
The rest of the story:
“The real fraud is that we call ourselves a democracy yet deny the people of our capital political representation:” D.C. Statehood Is More Urgent Than Ever by Hannah Giorgis (The Atlantic)
Nancy Pelosi's Inequality Commission Is A Joke (and the joke's on you)
If they want to get things done for their constituents, Progressives need to act more like the Freedom Caucus. In a closely divided House, their power resides in voting as a block.
Neera Tanden and Antony Blinken Personify the 'Moderate' Rot at the Top of the Democratic Party
What's so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice?
by Norman Solomon
Sometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president’s basic mindset and worldview. That’s how it seems with Joe Biden’s choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department.
For OMB director, Biden selected corporate centrist Neera Tanden, whose Center for American Progress thrives on the largesse of wealthy donors representing powerful corporate interests. Tanden has been a notably scornful foe of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing; former Sanders speechwriter David Sirota calls her “the single biggest, most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic in the United States.” Who better to oversee the budget of the U.S. government?
For Secretary of State, Biden chose his longtime top foreign-policy adviser, whose frequent support for U.S. warfare included pushing for the disastrous 2011 military intervention in Libya. Antony Blinken is a revolving-door pro who has combined his record of war boosterism with entrepreneurial zeal to personally profit from influence-peddling for weapons sales to the Pentagon. Who better to oversee diplomacy for the U.S. government?
"With few exceptions, Biden's current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic." Standard news coverage tells us that Tanden and Blinken are “moderates.” But what’s so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice? What’s so moderate about serving the military-industrial complex while advocating for massive “defense” spending and what amounts to endless war?
Unless they fail to get Senate confirmation, Tanden and Blinken will shape future history in major ways.
As OMB director, Tanden would head what the Washington Post describes as “the nerve center of the federal government, executing the annual spending plan, setting fiscal and personnel policy for agencies, and overseeing the regulatory process across the executive branch.”
Blinken is ready to be the administration’s most influential figure on foreign policy, bolstered by his longstanding close ties with Biden. As staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired the panel’s mid-2002 crucial sham hearings on scenarios for invading Iraq, Blinken helped grease the skids for the catastrophic invasion.
Overall, purported “moderates” Tanden and Blinken have benefited from favorable mass-media coverage since their nominations were announced several weeks ago. Most of the well-documented critical accounts have appeared in progressive outlets such as Common Dreams, Democracy Now, The Daily Poster, In These Times and The American Prospect. But some unappealing aspects of their records have been reported by the mainstream press.
“In her nine years helming Washington’s leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America,” the Washington Post reported in early December. “At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers, Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $45 million to $50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress.”
The Post added: “As OMB director, Tanden would have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors. These regulatory decisions will have profound implications for a range of U.S. companies, dictating how much they pay in taxes, the barriers they face and whether they benefit from new stimulus programs.”
Blinken’s eagerness to cash in on the warfare state -- when not a formal part of the government’s war-making apparatus -- is well-documented and chilling. In a healthier political culture, Blinken’s shameless insistence on profiteering from military weapons sales, as spelled out in a Nov. 28 New York Times news story, would have sunk his nomination for Secretary of State.
As for Tanden, in recent years her Center for American Progress received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the United Arab Emirates, which is allied with Saudi Arabia in waging a long and murderous war on Yemen. CAP refused to back a Senate resolution calling for the U.S. government to end its military support for that war. On a range of foreign-policy issues, Tanden has shown dedication to militarism again and again and again.
By many accounts, progressive organizing was a key factor in preventing the widely expected nomination of hawkish Michèle Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense. (RootsAction.org, where I’m national director, was part of that organizing effort.) Last week, the withdrawal of torture defender Mike Morell from consideration for CIA director was a victory for activism led by CodePink, Progressive Democrats of America, Witness Against Torture and other groups.
During the first weeks of 2021, such organizing could be effective in helping to derail other nominations. High on the deserving list are Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom “Mr. Monsanto” Vilsack, a loyal ally of corporate Big Ag, and Director of National Intelligence nominee Avril Haines -- whose record as former deputy director of the CIA included working to prevent accountability for agency personnel who engaged in torture, as well as crafting legal rationales for drone strikes that often killed civilians.
Such deplorable nominees don’t tell the whole story of Biden’s incoming team, which includes some decent economic and environmental appointees. “There’s no question that progressive focus on personnel has led to far better outcomes than when Obama put a corporate- and bank-friendly Cabinet together with little resistance,” The American Prospect’s executive editor, David Dayen, correctly pointed out last week. At the same time, none of Biden’s high-level nominees were supporters of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign or are fully in sync with the progressive wing of the party.
The brighter spots among Joe Biden’s nominations reflect the political wattage that progressives have generated in recent years on a wide array of intertwined matters, from climate to healthcare to economic justice to structural racism. Yet, with few exceptions, Biden’s current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic. It’s hardly incidental that the list of key White House staff is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate-aligned operatives and PR specialists.
Wishful thinking aside, on vital issue after vital issue, it’s foreseeable that Biden -- and the people in line for the most powerful roles in his administration -- will not do the right thing unless movements can organize effectively enough to make them do it.
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" (2006) and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State" (2007). The article was first published
by Norman Solomon
Sometimes a couple of nominations convey an incoming president’s basic mindset and worldview. That’s how it seems with Joe Biden’s choices to run the Office of Management and Budget and the State Department.
For OMB director, Biden selected corporate centrist Neera Tanden, whose Center for American Progress thrives on the largesse of wealthy donors representing powerful corporate interests. Tanden has been a notably scornful foe of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing; former Sanders speechwriter David Sirota calls her “the single biggest, most aggressive Bernie Sanders critic in the United States.” Who better to oversee the budget of the U.S. government?
For Secretary of State, Biden chose his longtime top foreign-policy adviser, whose frequent support for U.S. warfare included pushing for the disastrous 2011 military intervention in Libya. Antony Blinken is a revolving-door pro who has combined his record of war boosterism with entrepreneurial zeal to personally profit from influence-peddling for weapons sales to the Pentagon. Who better to oversee diplomacy for the U.S. government?
"With few exceptions, Biden's current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic." Standard news coverage tells us that Tanden and Blinken are “moderates.” But what’s so moderate about being on the take from rich beneficiaries of corporate America while opposing proposals that would curb their profits in order to reduce income inequality and advance social justice? What’s so moderate about serving the military-industrial complex while advocating for massive “defense” spending and what amounts to endless war?
Unless they fail to get Senate confirmation, Tanden and Blinken will shape future history in major ways.
As OMB director, Tanden would head what the Washington Post describes as “the nerve center of the federal government, executing the annual spending plan, setting fiscal and personnel policy for agencies, and overseeing the regulatory process across the executive branch.”
Blinken is ready to be the administration’s most influential figure on foreign policy, bolstered by his longstanding close ties with Biden. As staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Biden chaired the panel’s mid-2002 crucial sham hearings on scenarios for invading Iraq, Blinken helped grease the skids for the catastrophic invasion.
Overall, purported “moderates” Tanden and Blinken have benefited from favorable mass-media coverage since their nominations were announced several weeks ago. Most of the well-documented critical accounts have appeared in progressive outlets such as Common Dreams, Democracy Now, The Daily Poster, In These Times and The American Prospect. But some unappealing aspects of their records have been reported by the mainstream press.
“In her nine years helming Washington’s leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America,” the Washington Post reported in early December. “At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers, Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $45 million to $50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress.”
The Post added: “As OMB director, Tanden would have a hand in policies that touch every part of the economy after years spent courting corporate and foreign donors. These regulatory decisions will have profound implications for a range of U.S. companies, dictating how much they pay in taxes, the barriers they face and whether they benefit from new stimulus programs.”
Blinken’s eagerness to cash in on the warfare state -- when not a formal part of the government’s war-making apparatus -- is well-documented and chilling. In a healthier political culture, Blinken’s shameless insistence on profiteering from military weapons sales, as spelled out in a Nov. 28 New York Times news story, would have sunk his nomination for Secretary of State.
As for Tanden, in recent years her Center for American Progress received between $1.5 million and $3 million from the United Arab Emirates, which is allied with Saudi Arabia in waging a long and murderous war on Yemen. CAP refused to back a Senate resolution calling for the U.S. government to end its military support for that war. On a range of foreign-policy issues, Tanden has shown dedication to militarism again and again and again.
By many accounts, progressive organizing was a key factor in preventing the widely expected nomination of hawkish Michèle Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense. (RootsAction.org, where I’m national director, was part of that organizing effort.) Last week, the withdrawal of torture defender Mike Morell from consideration for CIA director was a victory for activism led by CodePink, Progressive Democrats of America, Witness Against Torture and other groups.
During the first weeks of 2021, such organizing could be effective in helping to derail other nominations. High on the deserving list are Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom “Mr. Monsanto” Vilsack, a loyal ally of corporate Big Ag, and Director of National Intelligence nominee Avril Haines -- whose record as former deputy director of the CIA included working to prevent accountability for agency personnel who engaged in torture, as well as crafting legal rationales for drone strikes that often killed civilians.
Such deplorable nominees don’t tell the whole story of Biden’s incoming team, which includes some decent economic and environmental appointees. “There’s no question that progressive focus on personnel has led to far better outcomes than when Obama put a corporate- and bank-friendly Cabinet together with little resistance,” The American Prospect’s executive editor, David Dayen, correctly pointed out last week. At the same time, none of Biden’s high-level nominees were supporters of the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign or are fully in sync with the progressive wing of the party.
The brighter spots among Joe Biden’s nominations reflect the political wattage that progressives have generated in recent years on a wide array of intertwined matters, from climate to healthcare to economic justice to structural racism. Yet, with few exceptions, Biden’s current policy positions are destructively corporate, deferential to obscene concentrations of wealth, woefully inadequate for meeting human needs, and zealously militaristic. It’s hardly incidental that the list of key White House staff is overwhelmingly dominated by corporate-aligned operatives and PR specialists.
Wishful thinking aside, on vital issue after vital issue, it’s foreseeable that Biden -- and the people in line for the most powerful roles in his administration -- will not do the right thing unless movements can organize effectively enough to make them do it.
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" (2006) and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State" (2007). The article was first published
Joan Baez to Nancy Pelosi
Thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for not mincing words about the 126 Republicans who joined the lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General. As you said: "Instead of upholding their oath to support and defend the Constitution, they chose to subvert the Constitution and undermine public trust in our sacred democratic institutions."
But in these virulent times are words enough?
Direct action is what John Lewis called “making good trouble.” Good trouble calls for a determined and unflinching willingness to stand up for the truth, no matter the consequences or inconvenience.
As Speaker of the House, you might be the only official in a position to do something, subtle or rash, to lift us above the moral morass in which we find ourselves.
Part of making good trouble is finding imaginative ways to confront one’s adversary.
How difficult would it be to establish something like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where these Representatives, in order to be seated, would have to testify publicly to what they were doing and why, while being questioned by a Democratic or independent panel?
The point would not be retribution or punishment, but re-establishing, through public exposure, some extent of moral equilibrium and public trust that has been lost. Perhaps the most essential by-product would be re-establishing and demonstrating the authority and power of the Democratic Party by putting it on offense rather than defense.
Another interesting approach would be to not allow these Representatives to be seated until they attend a class on Constitutional Law (yes, like driving school), taught by an independent and respected professor who would explain to them the meaning of what they did in detail, and make sure they were able to retake their oath of office with full understanding.
Exceptional times need to be dealt with by exceptional measures, or else the most brazen authoritarian forces will continue to feel free to push ahead unchecked, as they have been doing.
My nonviolent community of troublemakers and I are here as a resource for you. Call any time.
Yours,
Joan Baez
But in these virulent times are words enough?
Direct action is what John Lewis called “making good trouble.” Good trouble calls for a determined and unflinching willingness to stand up for the truth, no matter the consequences or inconvenience.
As Speaker of the House, you might be the only official in a position to do something, subtle or rash, to lift us above the moral morass in which we find ourselves.
Part of making good trouble is finding imaginative ways to confront one’s adversary.
How difficult would it be to establish something like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where these Representatives, in order to be seated, would have to testify publicly to what they were doing and why, while being questioned by a Democratic or independent panel?
The point would not be retribution or punishment, but re-establishing, through public exposure, some extent of moral equilibrium and public trust that has been lost. Perhaps the most essential by-product would be re-establishing and demonstrating the authority and power of the Democratic Party by putting it on offense rather than defense.
Another interesting approach would be to not allow these Representatives to be seated until they attend a class on Constitutional Law (yes, like driving school), taught by an independent and respected professor who would explain to them the meaning of what they did in detail, and make sure they were able to retake their oath of office with full understanding.
Exceptional times need to be dealt with by exceptional measures, or else the most brazen authoritarian forces will continue to feel free to push ahead unchecked, as they have been doing.
My nonviolent community of troublemakers and I are here as a resource for you. Call any time.
Yours,
Joan Baez
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
