alternet--2020-12-21--The Democratic Party sold out working people long before Donald Trump

I have written many columns at the Reader and other alternative publications warning that corporate control of the federal government will bring catastrophe for our children and for the planet .
I receive a lot of pushback , especially from liberals who argue that Trump is/was such a unique menace that the Democrats had no choice but to join with corporate America to assure victory .
The Democratic Party sold out working people long before Donald Trump .
It was President Bill Clinton who pivoted to Wall Street .
Clinton then ended the main federal antipoverty program ( Aid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NAFTA , escalated the drug war , and ended the New Deal restraints on big banks , leading directly to the housing meltdown and the Great Recession of 2008 .
Later , Barack Obama took in record amounts of Wall Street cash for his 2008 presidential campaign .
Then , as emails obtained by WikiLeaks later revealed , he allowed Citigroup to select nearly his entire Cabinet , which helped funnel trillions of bailout dollars to the banks , declined to prosecute a single Wall Street executive for mortgage fraud , and blocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Democratic Party now uses this same fear-based argument every four years : support our corporate-backed candidates or else you will get someone more horrible .
By allowing the party to control us by fear , we invite further betrayals .
Nor should we accept the premise that Democrats have to sell out to win .
Bernie Sanders relied on small donors rather than corporate bundlers and PACs , and he raised plenty of money to compete .
Indeed , Sanders likely would have won the nomination had not the corporate-backed candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to support Joe Biden before Super Tuesday .
Moreover , candidates who take policy positions favoring the 95 percent rather than the five percent are much cheaper to sell and thus do n't need to raise huge sums of money .
For one thing , they can call out their opponents for being tools of corporate interests , a devastatingly powerful argument that is unavailable to most Democrats and Republicans .
Yes , it 's true , voters prefer representatives who are not in the pocket of big business .
To illustrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , voters approved dozens of ballot initiatives brought by public interest groups that relied on grassroots organizing rather than expensive media campaigns .
Arizona voters said yes to a tax surcharge on incomes above $ 250,000 a year specifically to raise teacher pay and recruit more teachers .
Oregon voters approved a populist proposition to put strict controls on the corrupting power of big-money corporate donations in elections .
Floridians voted to raise the state 's minimum wage to $ 15 an hour , a working-class advancement vehemently opposed by corporate giants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ let employees earn paid time off for medical and family needs .
Voters in six states—including in such supposedly conservative bastions as Arizona , Montana , Mississippi , and South Dakota—approved initiatives legalizing marijuana and other drug use .
The groups sponsoring these voter initiatives did not have corporate backing .
They won because ordinary people liked what they were offering .
Contrary to what you hear in corporate media , the policies pushed by progressives are not radical or scary to ordinary people .
Recent polls show that three in five Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three support a wealth tax , and even higher numbers support free college tuition .
The Green New Deal is likewise broadly popular , even when respondents are informed that it will cost trillions of dollars .
In other words , the story propagated by corporate media that Americans are afraid of change is a lie .
A recent New York Times article illustrates how the deceptive game is played .
The piece tries to make the point that Americans do n't want real change by quoting South Carolina Representative James Clyburn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Medicare for All , `` we 're not going to win . ''
What the article did n't mention was that Clyburn has taken more money from the pharmaceutical industry in the past decade than any other member of the House or Senate .
Some readers accuse me of unfairly painting all corporate leaders as evil .
This is untrue .
I come from a family of corporate leaders who have high integrity .
The reality is that publicly traded companies have no morality .
They are profit-seeking engines .
The personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immaterial .
They are under fiduciary obligation to seek maximum profits for the shareholders .
Thus , if greater profits can be made by offshoring production to a country with lower wages and fewer environmental restrictions , this will be done even if it means screwing American workers and destroying the environment .
Allowing these profit-seeking engines to direct public policy—the current practice of D.C. Democrats and Republicans—will bring destruction to our country and planet .
This is not hyperbole .
Consider the example of foreign policy .
The American people do n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget that currently consumes well over half of our discretionary funds , and is greater than the military spending of the next nine countries combined .
Meanwhile , one in eight Americans do n't have enough food to eat and 30 million Americans will soon be at risk of losing their homes .
But the American people have no say in the matter .
Tragically , America 's foreign policy is controlled by the military-industrial complex and by the resource extraction industries .
Bomb makers like Raytheon demand zones of active conflict to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , our bombs fell at the rate of one every 12 minutes , killing thousands of defenseless Black and Brown people in Iraq , Syria , Afghanistan , and Yemen—surpassing Obama 's record of one bomb every half hour .
Many of the people we slaughter are civilians ; none were threatening to invade the United States .
Manufacturers of big-ticket items demand hostile relations with larger nations like Russia and China to justify new sales of aircraft carriers , nuclear submarines , F-35 fighter jets , and new generations of nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we maintain our empire of nearly 800 foreign military bases to crush the will of local people who oppose foreign exploitation of their lands .
None of this will significantly change under President Biden .
In early December , while Congress bickered over whether to provide relief to desperate Americans , both parties joined together to approve $ 741 billion for the Pentagon , assuring that the war machine will be well funded for another year .
The status quo also ensures the continued deterioration of the planet .
The U.S. war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in history , consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries .
In 2017 , the U.S. military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotons of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels .
If the American people could choose our next secretary of state—the nation 's chief diplomat—they would select someone skilled at negotiating with our adversaries and easing tensions around the world .
But the war industry demands a toady with the opposite skill set .
So Biden has selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a pendulum between government and the defense industry , where he made himself rich by writing memos advocating for new smarter , more sustainable wars , and by selling his Rolodex of government contacts to help clients obtain defense contracts .
Within the Obama administration , Blinken backed the interventions in Libya and Syria as well as the 2014 Ukraine coup , and he was a major proponent of backing the Saudi-led mass atrocities in Yemen .
The fact that all these policies were disastrous for the people on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they were also highly profitable for the war industry .
Blinken 's greatest career achievement appears to be his ability to keep Pentagon budgets rising while transitioning from Bush-era ground wars to smaller-scale `` sustainable operations . ''
Thus , under Biden , we must expect more dead children , more destabilization and suffering , and more global warming .
Some believe that the Democratic Party can still be rescued from the clutches of its corporate masters by electing progressives .
This strategy is currently being tested .
Progressives get themselves elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the establishment Democrats and to fight for things like universal health care .
Right now , they have a chance to demand a debate and floor vote on Medicare for All ( MFA ) , a bill introduced in February 2019 by Representative Pramila Jayapal with dozens of cosponsors , but never brought to the floor despite its overwhelming popularity with Democratic voters .
Because the Democrats now have such a slim majority in the House , a handful of progressives in Congress could force a vote on Medicare for All in exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection as speaker .
This idea that progressives might use their leverage to force a vote on Medicare for All was not proposed by any member of Congress but by Jimmy Dore , a comedian and activist , on his YouTube show .
Yet his plan has gained wide support on social media .
Dore has called out Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives for shrinking away from the fight over MFA after running on the issue and promising to stand up to Pelosi and the corporate Democrats .
Forced to respond , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Dems might lose the speakership .
But Speaker Pelosi can guarantee her reelection simply by scheduling a floor vote on a bill introduced almost two years ago with dozens of cosponsors , supported by 85 percent of Democratic voters , and about half of Republican voters .
That is not an unreasonable demand of the speaker .
AOC also says we might lose the vote on MFA .
But if not now , when ?
We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic , and we all need our neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctor if they feel sick without fear of bankrupting their families .
Fifteen million Americans have already lost their health insurance and their jobs .
Dore asks—are the House progressives fighters or are they posers ?
The progressives had similar leverage back in the spring when the big donors demanded that Congress pass the CARES Act , giving Wall Street trillions of dollars and an assurance that it would face no hardship from the shutdown .
But progressives let that leverage slip away and then accepted only scraps for working people , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home for months with no income .
Now is the time to demand that the richest country on Earth provide health care to its people .
Of course , a government-run health care system will hurt the profits for big pharma , big insurance , and big hospital groups .
But we all must sacrifice in times of great struggle .
Leonard C. Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense attorney and co-owner of the newly independent Reader .
This article was produced by Economy for All , a project of the Independent Media @ @

I have written many columns at the Reader and other alternative publications warning that corporate control of the federal government will bring catastrophe for our children and for the planet. I receive a lot of pushback, especially from liberals who argue that Trump is/was such a unique menace that the Democrats had no choice but to join with corporate America to assure victory.
The Democratic Party sold out working people long before Donald Trump. It was President Bill Clinton who pivoted to Wall Street. Clinton then ended the main federal antipoverty program (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), passed NAFTA, escalated the drug war, and ended the New Deal restraints on big banks, leading directly to the housing meltdown and the Great Recession of 2008.
Later, Barack Obama took in record amounts of Wall Street cash for his 2008 presidential campaign. Then, as emails obtained by WikiLeaks later revealed, he allowed Citigroup to select nearly his entire Cabinet, which helped funnel trillions of bailout dollars to the banks, declined to prosecute a single Wall Street executive for mortgage fraud, and blocked legislation capping executive pay at bailed-out firms.
The Democratic Party now uses this same fear-based argument every four years: support our corporate-backed candidates or else you will get someone more horrible. By allowing the party to control us by fear, we invite further betrayals.
Nor should we accept the premise that Democrats have to sell out to win. Bernie Sanders relied on small donors rather than corporate bundlers and PACs, and he raised plenty of money to compete. Indeed, Sanders likely would have won the nomination had not the corporate-backed candidates joined together, at Obama's urging, to support Joe Biden before Super Tuesday.
Moreover, candidates who take policy positions favoring the 95 percent rather than the five percent are much cheaper to sell and thus don't need to raise huge sums of money. For one thing, they can call out their opponents for being tools of corporate interests, a devastatingly powerful argument that is unavailable to most Democrats and Republicans. Yes, it's true, voters prefer representatives who are not in the pocket of big business.
To illustrate this point, in the November elections, voters approved dozens of ballot initiatives brought by public interest groups that relied on grassroots organizing rather than expensive media campaigns. Arizona voters said yes to a tax surcharge on incomes above $250,000 a year specifically to raise teacher pay and recruit more teachers. Oregon voters approved a populist proposition to put strict controls on the corrupting power of big-money corporate donations in elections. Floridians voted to raise the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour, a working-class advancement vehemently opposed by corporate giants. Colorado voted yes to require corporations to let employees earn paid time off for medical and family needs. Voters in six states—including in such supposedly conservative bastions as Arizona, Montana, Mississippi, and South Dakota—approved initiatives legalizing marijuana and other drug use.
The groups sponsoring these voter initiatives did not have corporate backing. They won because ordinary people liked what they were offering.
Contrary to what you hear in corporate media, the policies pushed by progressives are not radical or scary to ordinary people. Recent polls show that three in five Americans favor Medicare for All, two in three support a wealth tax, and even higher numbers support free college tuition. The Green New Deal is likewise broadly popular, even when respondents are informed that it will cost trillions of dollars.
In other words, the story propagated by corporate media that Americans are afraid of change is a lie. A recent New York Times article illustrates how the deceptive game is played. The piece tries to make the point that Americans don't want real change by quoting South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, who cautioned that if Democrats pursued policies like Medicare for All, "we're not going to win." What the article didn't mention was that Clyburn has taken more money from the pharmaceutical industry in the past decade than any other member of the House or Senate.
Some readers accuse me of unfairly painting all corporate leaders as evil. This is untrue. I come from a family of corporate leaders who have high integrity. The reality is that publicly traded companies have no morality. They are profit-seeking engines. The personal views or morality of corporate directors is immaterial. They are under fiduciary obligation to seek maximum profits for the shareholders. Thus, if greater profits can be made by offshoring production to a country with lower wages and fewer environmental restrictions, this will be done even if it means screwing American workers and destroying the environment.
Allowing these profit-seeking engines to direct public policy—the current practice of D.C. Democrats and Republicans—will bring destruction to our country and planet. This is not hyperbole.
Consider the example of foreign policy. The American people don't want forever wars or the bloated Pentagon budget that currently consumes well over half of our discretionary funds, and is greater than the military spending of the next nine countries combined. Meanwhile, one in eight Americans don't have enough food to eat and 30 million Americans will soon be at risk of losing their homes.
But the American people have no say in the matter. Tragically, America's foreign policy is controlled by the military-industrial complex and by the resource extraction industries. Bomb makers like Raytheon demand zones of active conflict to keep their assembly lines moving. Under Trump, our bombs fell at the rate of one every 12 minutes, killing thousands of defenseless Black and Brown people in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen—surpassing Obama's record of one bomb every half hour. Many of the people we slaughter are civilians; none were threatening to invade the United States.
Manufacturers of big-ticket items demand hostile relations with larger nations like Russia and China to justify new sales of aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, F-35 fighter jets, and new generations of nuclear bombs. The mineral extracting industries demand that we maintain our empire of nearly 800 foreign military bases to crush the will of local people who oppose foreign exploitation of their lands.
None of this will significantly change under President Biden. In early December, while Congress bickered over whether to provide relief to desperate Americans, both parties joined together to approve $741 billion for the Pentagon, assuring that the war machine will be well funded for another year.
The status quo also ensures the continued deterioration of the planet. The U.S. war machine is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. In 2017, the U.S. military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotons of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels.
If the American people could choose our next secretary of state—the nation's chief diplomat—they would select someone skilled at negotiating with our adversaries and easing tensions around the world. But the war industry demands a toady with the opposite skill set. So Biden has selected Antony Blinken, a man whose career has been a pendulum between government and the defense industry, where he made himself rich by writing memos advocating for new smarter, more sustainable wars, and by selling his Rolodex of government contacts to help clients obtain defense contracts. Within the Obama administration, Blinken backed the interventions in Libya and Syria as well as the 2014 Ukraine coup, and he was a major proponent of backing the Saudi-led mass atrocities in Yemen. The fact that all these policies were disastrous for the people on the ground is not a negative for Blinken, because they were also highly profitable for the war industry. Blinken's greatest career achievement appears to be his ability to keep Pentagon budgets rising while transitioning from Bush-era ground wars to smaller-scale "sustainable operations."
Thus, under Biden, we must expect more dead children, more destabilization and suffering, and more global warming.
Some believe that the Democratic Party can still be rescued from the clutches of its corporate masters by electing progressives. This strategy is currently being tested. Progressives get themselves elected to Congress promising to stand up to the establishment Democrats and to fight for things like universal health care. Right now, they have a chance to demand a debate and floor vote on Medicare for All (MFA), a bill introduced in February 2019 by Representative Pramila Jayapal with dozens of cosponsors, but never brought to the floor despite its overwhelming popularity with Democratic voters. Because the Democrats now have such a slim majority in the House, a handful of progressives in Congress could force a vote on Medicare for All in exchange for their support for Nancy Pelosi's reelection as speaker.
This idea that progressives might use their leverage to force a vote on Medicare for All was not proposed by any member of Congress but by Jimmy Dore, a comedian and activist, on his YouTube show. Yet his plan has gained wide support on social media. Dore has called out Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives for shrinking away from the fight over MFA after running on the issue and promising to stand up to Pelosi and the corporate Democrats. Forced to respond, AOC called Dore's strategy too risky because the Dems might lose the speakership. But Speaker Pelosi can guarantee her reelection simply by scheduling a floor vote on a bill introduced almost two years ago with dozens of cosponsors, supported by 85 percent of Democratic voters, and about half of Republican voters. That is not an unreasonable demand of the speaker.
AOC also says we might lose the vote on MFA. But if not now, when? We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic, and we all need our neighbors to be able to go see a doctor if they feel sick without fear of bankrupting their families. Fifteen million Americans have already lost their health insurance and their jobs. Dore asks—are the House progressives fighters or are they posers?
The progressives had similar leverage back in the spring when the big donors demanded that Congress pass the CARES Act, giving Wall Street trillions of dollars and an assurance that it would face no hardship from the shutdown. But progressives let that leverage slip away and then accepted only scraps for working people, many of whom have been forced to stay home for months with no income. Now is the time to demand that the richest country on Earth provide health care to its people.
Of course, a government-run health care system will hurt the profits for big pharma, big insurance, and big hospital groups. But we all must sacrifice in times of great struggle.
Leonard C. Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense attorney and co-owner of the newly independent Reader.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-12-21--The seedy Georgia campaign reveals the right wing's animosity for the Black church: historian

Despite their professed commitments to religious freedom , Republicans often find themselves attacking people whose faith does n't conform to the dominant views in the white evangelical community .
This tendency has been on display in the campaign against Rev .
Raphael Warnock , who is trying to unseat incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler in one of two U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia .
Loeffler has attacked Warnock for his views expressed from the pulpit , and an article by historian Audrey Farley for The New Republic cites Warnock as an example of African-American Christians coming under fire from far-right Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based her reelection campaign on maligning the Black liberation theology that informs the ministry of her opponent , the Rev.
, Raphael Warnock , '' Farley explains .
`` Loeffler would have voters believe Warnock is a 'dangerous radical , ' because he preaches , like the Rev .
Dr. James Cone and the Rev .
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. before him , that God desires the collective liberation of the oppressed and , further , that Christians have a moral responsibility to root out racism and other societal sins . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans attacking the Black church — has been going on for many years .
During the 1950s and 1960s , the late Rev .
Jerry Falwell , Sr. ( who went on to found Liberty University and co-found the Moral Majority ) was highly critical of King and even defended Jim Crow laws during his sermons .
And Farley cites the late evangelical Billy Graham as a critic of King 's famous `` I Have a Dream '' speech .
Farley notes : `` Graham and other high-profile conservatives likewise perceived workers ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at best , misguided attempts on the part of liberal Christians , which were actually going to give rise to the Antichrist… .
It was much better for Americans ' spiritual welfare if they worked long hours under unsafe conditions and let big corporations operate as they pleased . ''
According to Farley , Loeffler 's attacks on Warnock have reopened an old wound : the major division between the Black church and far-right white evangelicals .
And Farley points out that `` Black religious leaders '' have defended Warnock and `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the intensity of their attacks on people like the Rev .
Warnock are any indication , conservatives take Christian progressives — and particularly Black Christian progressives — very seriously , '' Farley writes .
`` They may soon take them even more seriously , now that many are taking formal action against institutions that refuse to meaningfully address racial inequality . ''

Despite their professed commitments to religious freedom, Republicans often find themselves attacking people whose faith doesn't conform to the dominant views in the white evangelical community. This tendency has been on display in the campaign against Rev. Raphael Warnock, who is trying to unseat incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler in one of two U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia. Loeffler has attacked Warnock for his views expressed from the pulpit, and an article by historian Audrey Farley for The New Republic cites Warnock as an example of African-American Christians coming under fire from far-right Republicans.
"Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler has based her reelection campaign on maligning the Black liberation theology that informs the ministry of her opponent, the Rev., Raphael Warnock," Farley explains. "Loeffler would have voters believe Warnock is a 'dangerous radical,' because he preaches, like the Rev. Dr. James Cone and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. before him, that God desires the collective liberation of the oppressed and, further, that Christians have a moral responsibility to root out racism and other societal sins."
The phenomenon that Farley describes — far-right Republicans attacking the Black church — has been going on for many years. During the 1950s and 1960s, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sr. (who went on to found Liberty University and co-found the Moral Majority) was highly critical of King and even defended Jim Crow laws during his sermons. And Farley cites the late evangelical Billy Graham as a critic of King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech.
Farley notes: "Graham and other high-profile conservatives likewise perceived workers' movements and the New Deal to be, at best, misguided attempts on the part of liberal Christians, which were actually going to give rise to the Antichrist…. It was much better for Americans' spiritual welfare if they worked long hours under unsafe conditions and let big corporations operate as they pleased."
According to Farley, Loeffler's attacks on Warnock have reopened an old wound: the major division between the Black church and far-right white evangelicals. And Farley points out that "Black religious leaders" have defended Warnock and "condemned Loeffler's tactics."
"If the intensity of their attacks on people like the Rev. Warnock are any indication, conservatives take Christian progressives — and particularly Black Christian progressives — very seriously," Farley writes. "They may soon take them even more seriously, now that many are taking formal action against institutions that refuse to meaningfully address racial inequality."


alternet--2020-12-21--'Newsmax is so WEAK': Right-wing viewers are furious after pro-Trump outlet debunks election fraud c

'Newsmax is so WEAK': Right-wing viewers are furious after pro-Trump outlet debunks election fraud claims

Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic have received a great deal of attention as right-wing media figures promote the claims of attorney Sidney Powell and other Trump allies who have made up claims that ballot-counting software stole the 2020 election for Joe Biden .
But now Newsmax , which has grown in popularity since the election by elevating President Donald Trump 's bogus election fraud claims , has been forced to debunk unfounded claims about Smartmatic and Dominion stealing the election , much of to the chagrin of its own readers and viewers .
Recent Newsmax segments showed anchors reading conspicuously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems companies that sharply contrasted with the outlet 's previous claims .
Host John Tabacco explained : `` Since Election Day , various guests , attorneys and elected officials have appeared on Newsmax and offered opinions and claims about Smartmatic and Dominion Systems — both companies that offer voting software in the U.S. And Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note that it has not reported , as true , certain claims made about these companies .
There are several facts our viewers and readers should be aware of .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ found no evidence that either Dominion or Smartmatic owns the other or has any business association with each other .
We have no evidence that Dominion uses Smartmatic 's software or vice-versa . ''
An article published on Newsmax 's website offers some more clarifications — for example , `` Dominion has stated its company has no ownership relationship with the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's family , Sen. Dianne Feinstein 's family , the Clinton family , Hugo Chavez , or the government of Venezuela .
Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has claimed that Dominion 's equipment was used in Venezuela to the advantage of the late Huge Chavez .
But Dominion , in response , stressed that its equipment has never even been used in that country .
And Newsmax 's article noted , `` Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government , Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity .
Smartmatic states it has no operations in Venezuela . ''
Newsmax TV , like One American News , has been promoting itself as more favorable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The viewers have clearly gotten used to this positioning , though , and comments on the outlet 's site suggest many are angry that the outlet has been forced to defend Dominion and Smartmatic — almost certainly because Smartmatic has threatened legal action .
`` Newsmax is so WEAK , '' said one commenter in response to the article fact-checking claims about the voting systems .
`` Now I learned , that NewsMax is just a part of the DeepState , supporting the cheaters and trying to wipe the traces of the vote-stealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pity , I almost thought that this channel will be the the new Robin Hood of news agencies ...
So they will be not . ''
One commenter with the name Flacon2325 said : `` WAY over 300 SWORN affidavits ARE evidence of illegal activity but the liberals everywhere just ignore the truth .
They are not after Justice .
They are after POWER ! ''

Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic have received a great deal of attention as right-wing media figures promote the claims of attorney Sidney Powell and other Trump allies who have made up claims that ballot-counting software stole the 2020 election for Joe Biden. But now Newsmax, which has grown in popularity since the election by elevating President Donald Trump's bogus election fraud claims, has been forced to debunk unfounded claims about Smartmatic and Dominion stealing the election, much of to the chagrin of its own readers and viewers.
Recent Newsmax segments showed anchors reading conspicuously and carefully scripted claims about the election systems companies that sharply contrasted with the outlet's previous claims.
Host John Tabacco explained: "Since Election Day, various guests, attorneys and elected officials have appeared on Newsmax and offered opinions and claims about Smartmatic and Dominion Systems — both companies that offer voting software in the U.S. And Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note that it has not reported, as true, certain claims made about these companies. There are several facts our viewers and readers should be aware of."
Tabacco continued: "Newsmax has found no evidence that either Dominion or Smartmatic owns the other or has any business association with each other. We have no evidence that Dominion uses Smartmatic's software or vice-versa."
An article published on Newsmax's website offers some more clarifications — for example, "Dominion has stated its company has no ownership relationship with the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's family, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's family, the Clinton family, Hugo Chavez, or the government of Venezuela. Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any relationship with George Soros."
Powell has claimed that Dominion's equipment was used in Venezuela to the advantage of the late Huge Chavez. But Dominion, in response, stressed that its equipment has never even been used in that country. And Newsmax's article noted, "Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government, Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity. Smartmatic states it has no operations in Venezuela."
Newsmax TV, like One American News, has been promoting itself as more favorable to President Donald Trump than Fox News. The viewers have clearly gotten used to this positioning, though, and comments on the outlet's site suggest many are angry that the outlet has been forced to defend Dominion and Smartmatic — almost certainly because Smartmatic has threatened legal action.
"Newsmax is so WEAK," said one commenter in response to the article fact-checking claims about the voting systems.
"Now I learned, that NewsMax is just a part of the DeepState, supporting the cheaters and trying to wipe the traces of the vote-stealing..." said another. "What a pity, I almost thought that this channel will be the the new Robin Hood of news agencies... So they will be not."
One commenter with the name Flacon2325 said: "WAY over 300 SWORN affidavits ARE evidence of illegal activity but the liberals everywhere just ignore the truth. They are not after Justice . They are after POWER!"


alternet--2020-12-21--Why Democrats must make a firm break from the CIA's horrifying record on torture

It was painful enough to live through the U.S invasion of Iraq that caused untold devastation and human misery for no justifiable reason .
Now we are again reminded of the grim Bush legacy with President-elect Biden 's nomination of Avril Haines for Director of National Intelligence .
Haines , who has an inside-the-beltway reputation for being nice and soft spoken , was a little too nice to CIA agents who hacked the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee investigators looking into the CIA use of torture -- waterboarding , sleep deprivation , hypothermia , rectal feeding , whippings , sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan during the Bush War on Terror .
As Deputy Director of the CIA in the Obama administration , Haines chose not to discipline those CIA hackers who violated the separation of powers , crossing the boundary line and beaching the firewall between the executive and legislative branches .
To add insult to injury , Haines led the team that redacted an exhaustive 5-year , 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture until it was reduced to a censored , 500-page summary smeared with black ink to cover up the screaming horrors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ torture survivors and their advocates have just released a damning Open Letter urging Senators to vote NO on Haines when her nomination lands in their laps in mid-January or February after the cyber pomp and circumstance of a virtual Presidential inauguration .
The letter , signed by several decade-long detainee/survivors of torture at Guantanamo , also objects to the possible nomination of Mike Morell , a CIA analyst under Bush , for CIA Director .
`` Elevating torture apologists to a leadership position within the Biden administration will damage the USA 's standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and comfort , '' said Djamel Ameziane , a Guantanamo detainee from Algeria who was tortured and held without charge from 2002-2013 , until he was finally released from prison .
Morell 's traction may be on the wane with the Biden administration , however , after progressives launched a campaign against Morell , the former Deputy and Acting CIA Director under Obama , and Senator Ron Wyden—a powerful Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee—called him a `` torture apologist '' and said his appointment to head the CIA was a `` non @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his defense of the Agency 's `` enhanced interrogation '' practices : mock drownings , `` walling '' -- repeatedly slamming prisoners against a wall , whipping detainees with electrical cords , dumping freezing cold water on detainees naked except for diapers .
Morell refused to call these practices torture .
`` I do n't like calling it torture for one simple reason : to call it torture says my guys were torturers , '' Morell admitted to Vice reporters in 2015 .
`` I 'm gon na defend my guys till my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who put his CIA buddies above truth , the law and basic decency .
Morell does n't call it torture , but Guantanamo survivor Moazzam Begg knows exactly what torture is .
Begg , who signed a false confession while tortured , is Outreach Director for CAGE , a UK-based organization serving communities hard hit by the War on Terror .
Begg recollects his days in US custody .
`` They tied me up with my hands behind my back to my legs , kicked me in the head , kicked me in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Egypt to be tortured , to be raped , to be electrocuted .
They had a woman screaming in the next room whom I believed at that time was my wife .
They bought pictures of my children and told me I would never see them again . ''
Contrary to the Senate report and the CIA 's own internal review , Morell justified the torture by insisting that it was effective in thwarting future plots against Americans .
Senate staffers said Morell got names , dates and facts all mixed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectiveness of torture .
Torture Survivor and award-winning writer Mansoor Adayfi , sold to US forces in Afghanistan for bounty money and imprisoned without charge at Guantanamo for 14 years , knows firsthand that torture does n't work .
`` In Guantanamo , when they put you under very bad circumstances—like 72 hours under very cold air conditioning , and you are tied to the ground and someone comes and pours cold water on you—you are going to tell them whatever they want you to say .
I will sign anything , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to soft-pedaling the use of torture , Morell helped shield the abusers from accountability by defending the CIA 's 2005 destruction of nearly 90 videotapes of the brutal interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and other detainees in CIA black sites .
Progressives should know soon whether Morell 's cozy relationship with Bush-era CIA agents buries his nomination for good .
Biden is expected to nominate his candidate for CIA director any day now .
For Jeffrey Kaye , author of Cover-Up at Guantanamo and a signatory to the Open Letter , the President-Elect must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reject Haines .
`` Morell and Haines have put loyalty to CIA torturers above adherence to US treaties and domestic law , as well as basic morality .
To allow them to serve in government would send a message to all that accountability for torture is passé , and that war crimes will always be dismissed with a wink from those in high office . ''
Other signatories to the letter objecting to Morell and Haines include : • Mohamedou Ould Salahi , Guantanamo prisoner held without charge for 14 years ; beaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; released in 2016 , author , Guantánamo Diary ; • Major Todd Pierce ( U.S. Army , Retired ) , Judge Advocate General attorney on the defense teams for Guantánamo military commissions defendants ; • Sister Dianna Ortiz , a US missionary , teacher of Mayan children , who was tortured by members of the CIA-funded Guatemalan army ; • Carlos Mauricio , College professor kidnapped and tortured by US-backed right-wing death squads in El Salvador ; Executive Director : Stop Impunity Project ; • Roy Bourgeois , Roman Catholic priest who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest US training Latin American military officers in torture techniques ; • Colonel Larry Wilkerson , Whistleblower and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell ; • John Kiriakou , former CIA officer imprisoned after exposing classified information about CIA waterboarding ; • Roger Waters , musician formerly with Pink Floyd , whose song `` Each Small Candle '' is a tribute to a torture victim .
Progressives have been lobbying against the inclusion of torture apologists in the Biden administration since the August Democratic National Convention , when 450 delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hire new foreign policy advisors and reject Haines .
CODEPINK later launched a petition signed by over 4,000 , and organized Capitol Hill calling parties with Muslim Delegates and Allies to leave `` No on Haines , No on Morell , '' messages at the offices of Senate Intelligence Committee members slated to question Haines during confirmation hearings .
For months , Morell was considered the frontrunner for CIA director , but opposition to his disgraceful defense of torture has cast a pall on his nomination .
Now anti-war activists say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the table , and that Biden and the Senate also understand Avril Haines must be rejected for her complicity in suppressing evidence of CIA torture .
There 's more , too .
Both Morell and Haines supported Trump 's nomination of Gina Haspel to CIA Director — a nomination that then-Senator Kamala Harris , other prominent Democrats , and Senator John McCain vigorously opposed .
Haspel supervised a black site prison in Thailand and drafted the memo authorizing the destruction of CIA videotapes documenting torture .
In the words of Colonel Wilkerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State Colin Powell , `` Kidnapping , torture and assassination have no place in a democracy and turn the CIA into a secret police … Abuses of the kind documented in the Senate 's report could happen again . ''
And they could -- if Biden and the Senate elevate torture apologists and whitewashers to the White House .
We need intelligence leaders who acknowledge that torture is illegal under international law ; that is inhumane ; that it is ineffective ; that it puts at risk U.S. military personnel captured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send a clear message to President-elect Biden that we will not accept torture enablers in his administration .
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace , and author of several books , including Drone Warfare : Killing by Remote Control .
She has participated in anti-torture protests outside the Guantanamo Prison in Cuba , at the White House and in Congressional hearings .
Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC Delegate for Bernie Sanders and co-founded the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party .
Coordinator of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for peace and foreign policy legislation .

It was painful enough to live through the U.S invasion of Iraq that caused untold devastation and human misery for no justifiable reason.
Now we are again reminded of the grim Bush legacy with President-elect Biden's nomination of Avril Haines for Director of National Intelligence. Haines, who has an inside-the-beltway reputation for being nice and soft spoken, was a little too nice to CIA agents who hacked the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee investigators looking into the CIA use of torture--waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia, rectal feeding, whippings, sexual humiliation--at prisons in Guatanamo and Afghanistan during the Bush War on Terror.
As Deputy Director of the CIA in the Obama administration, Haines chose not to discipline those CIA hackers who violated the separation of powers, crossing the boundary line and beaching the firewall between the executive and legislative branches. To add insult to injury, Haines led the team that redacted an exhaustive 5-year, 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture until it was reduced to a censored, 500-page summary smeared with black ink to cover up the screaming horrors and shield those responsible.
That's why torture survivors and their advocates have just released a damning Open Letter urging Senators to vote NO on Haines when her nomination lands in their laps in mid-January or February after the cyber pomp and circumstance of a virtual Presidential inauguration. The letter, signed by several decade-long detainee/survivors of torture at Guantanamo, also objects to the possible nomination of Mike Morell, a CIA analyst under Bush, for CIA Director.
"Elevating torture apologists to a leadership position within the Biden administration will damage the USA's standing and give the world's dictators succor and comfort," said
Djamel Ameziane, a Guantanamo detainee from Algeria who was tortured and held without charge from 2002-2013, until he was finally released from prison.
Morell's traction may be on the wane with the Biden administration, however, after progressives launched a campaign against Morell, the former Deputy and Acting CIA Director under Obama, and Senator Ron Wyden—a powerful Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee—called him a "torture apologist" and said his appointment to head the CIA was a "non starter."
Objections to Morell include his defense of the Agency's "enhanced interrogation" practices: mock drownings, "walling" -- repeatedly slamming prisoners against a wall, whipping detainees with electrical cords, dumping freezing cold water on detainees naked except for diapers.
Morell refused to call these practices torture. "I don't like calling it torture for one simple reason: to call it torture says my guys were torturers," Morell admitted to Vice reporters in 2015. "I'm gonna defend my guys till my last breath," said Morell, who put his CIA buddies above truth, the law and basic decency.
Morell doesn't call it torture, but Guantanamo survivor Moazzam Begg knows exactly what torture is. Begg, who signed a false confession while tortured, is Outreach Director for CAGE, a UK-based organization serving communities hard hit by the War on Terror. Begg recollects his days in US custody. "They tied me up with my hands behind my back to my legs, kicked me in the head, kicked me in the back, threatened to take me to Egypt to be tortured, to be raped, to be electrocuted. They had a woman screaming in the next room whom I believed at that time was my wife. They bought pictures of my children and told me I would never see them again."
Contrary to the Senate report and the CIA's own internal review, Morell justified the torture by insisting that it was effective in thwarting future plots against Americans. Senate staffers said Morell got names, dates and facts all mixed up, and was dead wrong on the effectiveness of torture.
Torture Survivor and award-winning writer Mansoor Adayfi, sold to US forces in Afghanistan for bounty money and imprisoned without charge at Guantanamo for 14 years, knows firsthand that torture doesn't work. "In Guantanamo, when they put you under very bad circumstances—like 72 hours under very cold air conditioning, and you are tied to the ground and someone comes and pours cold water on you—you are going to tell them whatever they want you to say. I will sign anything, I will admit anything!"
In addition to soft-pedaling the use of torture, Morell helped shield the abusers from accountability by defending the CIA's 2005 destruction of nearly 90 videotapes of the brutal interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and other detainees in CIA black sites.
Progressives should know soon whether Morell's cozy relationship with Bush-era CIA agents buries his nomination for good.
Biden is expected to nominate his candidate for CIA director any day now. For Jeffrey Kaye, author of Cover-Up at Guantanamo and a signatory to the Open Letter, the President-Elect must pass on Morell and the Senate must reject Haines. "Morell and Haines have put loyalty to CIA torturers above adherence to US treaties and domestic law, as well as basic morality. To allow them to serve in government would send a message to all that accountability for torture is passé, and that war crimes will always be dismissed with a wink from those in high office."
Other signatories to the letter objecting to Morell and Haines include:
Mohamedou Ould Salahi, Guantanamo prisoner held without charge for 14 years; beaten, force fed, deprived of sleep; released in 2016, author, Guantánamo Diary;
Major Todd Pierce (U.S. Army, Retired), Judge Advocate General attorney on the defense teams for Guantánamo military commissions defendants;
Sister Dianna Ortiz, a US missionary, teacher of Mayan children, who was tortured by members of the CIA-funded Guatemalan army;
Carlos Mauricio, College professor kidnapped and tortured by US-backed right-wing death squads in El Salvador; Executive Director: Stop Impunity Project;
Roy Bourgeois, Roman Catholic priest who founded School of the Americas Watch to protest US training Latin American military officers in torture techniques;
Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Whistleblower and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell;
John Kiriakou, former CIA officer imprisoned after exposing classified information about CIA waterboarding;
Roger Waters, musician formerly with Pink Floyd, whose song "Each Small Candle" is a tribute to a torture victim.
Progressives have been lobbying against the inclusion of torture apologists in the Biden administration since the August Democratic National Convention, when 450 delegates delivered a letter to Biden urging him to hire new foreign policy advisors and reject Haines. CODEPINK later launched a petition signed by over 4,000, and organized Capitol Hill calling parties with Muslim Delegates and Allies to leave "No on Haines, No on Morell," messages at the offices of Senate Intelligence Committee members slated to question Haines during confirmation hearings.
For months, Morell was considered the frontrunner for CIA director, but opposition to his disgraceful defense of torture has cast a pall on his nomination. Now anti-war activists say they want to make sure his nomination is off the table, and that Biden and the Senate also understand Avril Haines must be rejected for her complicity in suppressing evidence of CIA torture.
There's more, too.
Both Morell and Haines supported Trump's nomination of Gina Haspel to CIA Director — a nomination that then-Senator Kamala Harris, other prominent Democrats, and Senator John McCain vigorously opposed. Haspel supervised a black site prison in Thailand and drafted the memo authorizing the destruction of CIA videotapes documenting torture.
In the words of Colonel Wilkerson, Chief of Staff for Bush's Secretary of State Colin Powell , "Kidnapping, torture and assassination have no place in a democracy and turn the CIA into a secret police … Abuses of the kind documented in the Senate's report could happen again."
And they could--if Biden and the Senate elevate torture apologists and whitewashers to the White House.
We need intelligence leaders who acknowledge that torture is illegal under international law; that is inhumane; that it is ineffective; that it puts at risk U.S. military personnel captured by adversaries. The American people must send a clear message to President-elect Biden that we will not accept torture enablers in his administration.
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. She has participated in anti-torture protests outside the Guantanamo Prison in Cuba, at the White House and in Congressional hearings.
Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC Delegate for Bernie Sanders and co-founded the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party. Coordinator of CODEPINKCONGRESS, Marcy spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for peace and foreign policy legislation.


alternet--2020-12-21--Trump's coup is failing — but a similar effort backed by the U.S. already succeeded

In recent weeks , Donald Trump has been ridiculed , slathered with contempt , and repeatedly branded a `` liar , '' as well as an existential threat to democracy in the United States , by the biggest media outlets in the country .
This is in response to his attempts to reverse the results of the U.S. presidential election , and claiming—without evidence—that it was stolen .
He still clings to these allegations , but he will be leaving the White House on January 20 .
But just over a year ago , a similar effort was launched in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The country 's democratically elected president , Evo Morales , was toppled three weeks after the October 20 vote , before his term was finished .
He left the country after the military `` asked '' him to resign .
The similarities are remarkable .
Leaders of the Bolivian opposition indicated before the votes were counted , as Trump did , that they would not accept the result if they lost .
Like Trump , they had no evidence for their allegations of fraud when the votes were counted .
And as with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was obvious from day one .
Some readers may question the relevance of the comparison with a developing country whose democratic institutions have a shorter history , and are in important ways weaker than those in the U.S. government .
But the Bolivian right would not have succeeded , where Trump has failed , if not for another important difference : the Bolivian right had powerful help from outside the country in pulling off their coup .
Not surprisingly some of this help came from the Trump administration , which stated the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departure preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard . ''
Even more important help came from the Organization of American States ( OAS ) , which , not coincidentally , gets 60 percent of its funding from the United States .
The OAS also currently has a leader , Luis Almagro , who at the time of Bolivia 's election needed the support of Trump and his allied right-wing governments in the Americas in order to be reelected as the head of the organization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the election , expressing `` deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results . ''
This allegation turned out to be `` false , '' as the New York Times would later report ; but as the Times noted , this false allegation `` changed the South American nation 's history . ''
It changed history because it served as the political foundation for the military coup on November 10 , 2019 .
Another similarity : remember when Trump and his Republican allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stealing '' the election here because the later , mostly mail-in votes were coming in overwhelmingly from Democrats ?
Of course this was false ; the truth was simply that more Democrats than Republicans were voting by mail .
The OAS allegation in Bolivia was the same : for various reasons—including geography—votes in the pro-Morales areas came in later than those for the opposing candidates .
This was obvious from the day after the election by simply looking at the areas where the earlier and later votes were coming from ; the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's why 133 economists and statisticians from various countries—the majority from the United States—signed a letter demanding that the OAS retract its false statements .
That 's why four members of the U.S. Congress asked the OAS if they ever considered the possibility—which amazingly was not mentioned in three more OAS reports—that the later-reporting precincts were politically different from the earlier ones .
It 's been a year , and the OAS still has n't answered .
In October , the de facto government , which took power after last year 's coup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice .
Luis Arce , Evo Morales 's economy minister for 13 years , won by a margin of more than 26 percentage points .
But the people killed by the post-coup government , including at least 22 people killed in two massacres committed by security forces , can not be brought back to life .
The victims were all Indigenous .
Like the effort of Trump in the United States—as seen in the recent Republican attempt to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes from Detroit , Michigan , where nearly 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy in Bolivia is also tied to systemic racism .
Evo Morales is the first Indigenous president in a country with the largest percent of Indigenous population in the Americas , who have overwhelmingly supported him and his party ; the leaders of the coup are infused with white supremacists and seek to restore the dominance of the mostly white elite who ruled the country before Morales was first elected in 2005 .
U.S .
Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Jesus `` Chuy '' Garcia , both of Chicago , have called for Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Bolivia following the 2019 election .
This is vitally important , because the coup , and the violence and political repression that followed , might never have happened without the OAS 's pivotal role .
Perhaps most importantly , the OAS had an enormous impact on the international and domestic media , with many journalists mistakenly believing that the OAS Electoral Observation Mission was impartial , and that therefore their allegations were true .
But the Bolivian coup is not the first time that the OAS has abused its authority as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a U.S.-backed effort to topple a democratically elected government .
This happened in Haiti between 2000 and 2004 .
And also in Haiti , the OAS did something in 2011 that perhaps no election observers had ever done : they reversed the results of a first-round presidential election , without even a recount or a statistical analysis .
The OAS and its leadership must be held accountable , or these crimes will keep happening .
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington , D.C .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` Experts '' Got Wrong About the Global Economy ( Oxford University Press , 2015 ) .
This article was produced in partnership by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Economy for All , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

In recent weeks, Donald Trump has been ridiculed, slathered with contempt, and repeatedly branded a "liar," as well as an existential threat to democracy in the United States, by the biggest media outlets in the country. This is in response to his attempts to reverse the results of the U.S. presidential election, and claiming—without evidence—that it was stolen. He still clings to these allegations, but he will be leaving the White House on January 20.
But just over a year ago, a similar effort was launched in Bolivia, and it actually prevailed. The country's democratically elected president, Evo Morales, was toppled three weeks after the October 20 vote, before his term was finished. He left the country after the military "asked" him to resign.
The similarities are remarkable. Leaders of the Bolivian opposition indicated before the votes were counted, as Trump did, that they would not accept the result if they lost. Like Trump, they had no evidence for their allegations of fraud when the votes were counted. And as with Trump, the falseness of their charges was obvious from day one.
Some readers may question the relevance of the comparison with a developing country whose democratic institutions have a shorter history, and are in important ways weaker than those in the U.S. government. But the Bolivian right would not have succeeded, where Trump has failed, if not for another important difference: the Bolivian right had powerful help from outside the country in pulling off their coup.
Not surprisingly some of this help came from the Trump administration, which stated the day after the coup that "Morales's departure preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard."
Even more important help came from the Organization of American States (OAS), which, not coincidentally, gets 60 percent of its funding from the United States. The OAS also currently has a leader, Luis Almagro, who at the time of Bolivia's election needed the support of Trump and his allied right-wing governments in the Americas in order to be reelected as the head of the organization. The OAS issued a statement the day after the election, expressing "deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results."
This allegation turned out to be "false," as the New York Times would later report; but as the Times noted, this false allegation "changed the South American nation's history." It changed history because it served as the political foundation for the military coup on November 10, 2019.
Another similarity: remember when Trump and his Republican allies were saying that the Democrats were "stealing" the election here because the later, mostly mail-in votes were coming in overwhelmingly from Democrats? Of course this was false; the truth was simply that more Democrats than Republicans were voting by mail.
The OAS allegation in Bolivia was the same: for various reasons—including geography—votes in the pro-Morales areas came in later than those for the opposing candidates. This was obvious from the day after the election by simply looking at the areas where the earlier and later votes were coming from; the data was all on the web. That's why 133 economists and statisticians from various countries—the majority from the United States—signed a letter demanding that the OAS retract its false statements.
That's why four members of the U.S. Congress asked the OAS if they ever considered the possibility—which amazingly was not mentioned in three more OAS reports—that the later-reporting precincts were politically different from the earlier ones.
It's been a year, and the OAS still hasn't answered.
In October, the de facto government, which took power after last year's coup, held elections, after postponing them twice. Luis Arce, Evo Morales's economy minister for 13 years, won by a margin of more than 26 percentage points.
But the people killed by the post-coup government, including at least 22 people killed in two massacres committed by security forces, cannot be brought back to life. The victims were all Indigenous.
Like the effort of Trump in the United States—as seen in the recent Republican attempt to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes from Detroit, Michigan, where nearly 80 percent of residents are Black—the assault on democracy in Bolivia is also tied to systemic racism.
Evo Morales is the first Indigenous president in a country with the largest percent of Indigenous population in the Americas, who have overwhelmingly supported him and his party; the leaders of the coup are infused with white supremacists and seek to restore the dominance of the mostly white elite who ruled the country before Morales was first elected in 2005.
U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, both of Chicago, have called for Congress to investigate the role of the OAS in Bolivia following the 2019 election.
This is vitally important, because the coup, and the violence and political repression that followed, might never have happened without the OAS's pivotal role. Perhaps most importantly, the OAS had an enormous impact on the international and domestic media, with many journalists mistakenly believing that the OAS Electoral Observation Mission was impartial, and that therefore their allegations were true.
But the Bolivian coup is not the first time that the OAS has abused its authority as an electoral observer, in order to support a U.S.-backed effort to topple a democratically elected government. This happened in Haiti between 2000 and 2004. And also in Haiti, the OAS did something in 2011 that perhaps no election observers had ever done: they reversed the results of a first-round presidential election, without even a recount or a statistical analysis.
The OAS and its leadership must be held accountable, or these crimes will keep happening.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).
This article was produced in partnership by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-12-21--Americans live in '3 distinct realities' — causing 'enormously dangerous' fractures: op-ed

Countless political pundits have described the United States as a deeply divided country with two separate realities : a rural Red America that voted to reelect President Donald Trump and consumes Fox News and AM talk radio voraciously , and an urban and suburban Blue America that rejected Trump , made Joe Biden president-elect and is more likely to be consuming the New York Times , MSNBC and CNN .
But liberal/progressive pundit Cenk Uygur , in an op-ed published by The Hill on December 21 , argues that there are `` three tribes '' in the United States : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) `` Trumpworld , MAGA Land , '' and ( 3 ) progressives .
Uygur , who hosts `` The Young Turks '' with fellow liberal/progressive Ana Kasparian , describes `` the establishment '' as Americans whose `` worldview is cemented by the best propaganda the world has ever seen . ''
`` They 've convinced the world that the country that does the most invasions seeks peace , the country that ethnically cleansed a continent seeks equality and the country that enslaved a people stands for freedom , '' Uygur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These days , driven by greed , they are busy convincing people that we can afford war but not health care — and that , somehow , the carnage of war keeps us safer than high-quality medicine .
That if the rich have all of the money , the poor will be better off because some small amount will one day trickle onto them . ''
In other words , Uygur describes `` the establishment '' as traditional non-Trumpian conservatives .
And he draws a distinction between the right-wing `` establishment '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where no facts need apply . ''
`` Their worldview is cemented by a neurotic insecurity buttressed by the most brazen propaganda , '' Uygur observes .
`` Their alternative facts are wielded as blunt instruments — and that , too , works .
So , now we have the largest cult the world has ever seen : 74 million people in an alternate universe where facts are the enemies of the people .
This is enormously dangerous . ''
Comparing the `` three alternate realities '' in the U.S. , Uygur asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicate , when we 're not even speaking the same language anymore ?
We progressives think we 're speaking the language of logic , and we think the right-wing tribe does n't understand one word of that language — in fact , it does n't even think our language should exist .
To them , logic is for suckers and losers ; winners go for raw power , no matter what the facts are . ''
Uygur concludes his op-ed on a pessimistic note , lamenting that he does n't see how Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When if you hate the messenger , and even if the messenger is wrong about the particulars , the one thing we can all agree on is that we ca n't agree on a damned thing , '' Uygur warns .
`` Welcome to the parallel-universe portion of our program !
There are now three Americas with three distinct realities .
We do n't just disagree on the issues , we disagree about what planet we live on .
So , how does this end ?
Not well . ''

Countless political pundits have described the United States as a deeply divided country with two separate realities: a rural Red America that voted to reelect President Donald Trump and consumes Fox News and AM talk radio voraciously, and an urban and suburban Blue America that rejected Trump, made Joe Biden president-elect and is more likely to be consuming the New York Times, MSNBC and CNN. But liberal/progressive pundit Cenk Uygur, in an op-ed published by The Hill on December 21, argues that there are "three tribes" in the United States: (1) "the establishment, (2) "Trumpworld, MAGA Land," and (3) progressives.
Uygur, who hosts "The Young Turks" with fellow liberal/progressive Ana Kasparian, describes "the establishment" as Americans whose "worldview is cemented by the best propaganda the world has ever seen."
"They've convinced the world that the country that does the most invasions seeks peace, the country that ethnically cleansed a continent seeks equality and the country that enslaved a people stands for freedom," Uygur explains. "And everyone believed it. These days, driven by greed, they are busy convincing people that we can afford war but not health care — and that, somehow, the carnage of war keeps us safer than high-quality medicine. That if the rich have all of the money, the poor will be better off because some small amount will one day trickle onto them."
In other words, Uygur describes "the establishment" as traditional non-Trumpian conservatives. And he draws a distinction between the right-wing "establishment" and "Trumpworld, MAGA Land, where no facts need apply."
"Their worldview is cemented by a neurotic insecurity buttressed by the most brazen propaganda," Uygur observes. "Their alternative facts are wielded as blunt instruments — and that, too, works. So, now we have the largest cult the world has ever seen: 74 million people in an alternate universe where facts are the enemies of the people. This is enormously dangerous."
Comparing the "three alternate realities" in the U.S., Uygur asks, "So, how do we communicate, when we're not even speaking the same language anymore? We progressives think we're speaking the language of logic, and we think the right-wing tribe doesn't understand one word of that language — in fact, it doesn't even think our language should exist. To them, logic is for suckers and losers; winners go for raw power, no matter what the facts are."
Uygur concludes his op-ed on a pessimistic note, lamenting that he doesn't see how Americans can overcome their deep divisions.
"When if you hate the messenger, and even if the messenger is wrong about the particulars, the one thing we can all agree on is that we can't agree on a damned thing," Uygur warns. "Welcome to the parallel-universe portion of our program! There are now three Americas with three distinct realities. We don't just disagree on the issues, we disagree about what planet we live on. So, how does this end? Not well."


alternet--2020-12-21--Trump's recent ploys come straight from the authoritarian playbook

by Lena Surzhko Harned , Penn State and Luis Jimenez , University of Massachusetts Boston Six weeks after the U.S. election , President Donald Trump had still not accepted defeat .
This behavior is not typical in mature democracies .
And it 's reminiscent of countries with what political scientists call “ hybrid regimes '' – nations that have elements of democracy but in practice are not democracies .
For us – politics scholars studying Latin America and the former Soviet Union – Trump 's resistance to election results underscores the fragility of democratic institutions when confronted with authoritarian practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfering with judicial independence and attacking independent media and opposition .
Trump is part of a global trend in authoritarianism .
The United States can learn a great deal from other countries where democracies fell victim to the authoritarian playbook .
Trump and members of the Republican Party claimed fraud in the presidential elections .
They attempted to overturn legally cast ballots in Pennsylvania , Georgia , Wisconsin and Michigan .
Trump , furthermore , has urged state leaders to ignore the will of voters and give their electoral votes to him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tactics well documented in hybrid regimes .
Although Trump has charged that the U.S. election was rigged , it was not .
Truly rigged elections involve practices like ballot box stuffing – adding false ballots to legitimate ones , or buying the electorate by offering citizens money or jobs in exchange for votes .
Barring opposition candidates from running for office , as Russia has done , is another tactic .
Other regimes , like Alexander Lukashenko 's in Belarus , pressure electoral officials to falsify electoral results to ensure victories with wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August .
In Venezuela , since roughly 2005 , former President Hugo Chávez seized control of vote processing and counting through the National Electoral Council , a branch of government that oversees elections .
This way , any election irregularities always hurt the opposition .
And Chávez encouraged the electorate to vote for him if they were state employees or received government benefits .
At times , they received outright threats that they would lose their jobs if they did not vote for him .
Other forms of “ encouragement '' in Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling stations .
These were government stations where people could sign up for government benefits and receive small gifts .
President Trump did something similar by putting his name on stimulus checks in April , which may have been illegal but was never adjudicated .
He also tried to rig the U.S. election by insisting that mail-in votes should not be counted after Election Day , and then attempted to overturn election results based on that claim .
Coined by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin , the phrase “ enemies of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with him – has entered Trump 's vocabulary .
Earlier in his presidency , Trump called the press the “ enemies of the people . ''
More recently , Brad Raffensperger , Georgia 's Republican secretary of state , earned this title from Trump after defending his state 's election process .
Russian President Vladimir Putin , who has been in power since 2000 and consolidated his autocratic rule by amending the Russian constitution , has a long list of opposition leaders , civil groups and journalists who have become “ enemies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump insisted mail voting was riddled with fraud and tried to overturn Nevada 's vote-by-mail law .
He insisted that there would be election disputes and that filling the Supreme Court seat was crucial for that reason .
Yes , the high court has rejected Trump 's efforts to overturn election results .
But Trump 's audacious attempt mirrors tactics used by authoritarian leaders .
Similar scenarios to the one Trump hoped for played out with Evo Morales in Bolivia and Juan Orlando Hernández in Honduras .
Morales and Hernández were able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the constitutions prohibiting reelection were unconstitutional .
That , in turn , allowed both leaders to run successfully for reelection .
Authoritarian leaders also favor “ law and order '' arguments to justify their legitimacy .
They paint themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what presents a threat .
Russia 's Putin has emphasized his commitment to stability and security , elevating the status of security forces loyal to him , known as siloviki .
These security forces now hold high positions in Russian politics , business and society .
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling for the mobilization of the National Guard to quell racial justice protests .
Similar to autocratic leaders in Venezuela , Nicaragua and Ukraine , Trump has refused to denounce far-right militias like the Proud Boys , telling them instead to “ stand back and stand by , '' which was interpreted as a command .
And he suggested that people “ liberate '' Michigan from the state 's social distancing measures amid the pandemic , a move critics denounced for inciting insurrection .
Trump has used ploys from the autocratic playbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lasting consequences .
Trump 's rejection of election results damages the legitimacy of the democratic process .
In general , it encourages other autocrats and would-be autocrats to challenge the electoral process if they do n't like the results .
For the U.S. , it promotes the belief that President-elect Joe Biden 's presidency will be illegitimate .
A country 's stability largely depends on people accepting the results if their side loses .
If a significant portion of the public refuses to , history shows that violence will not be far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lesson is stark .
Surviving the recent electoral turmoil does not guarantee it will outlast a similar scenario the next time .
Republican leaders ' failure to repudiate baseless allegations of electoral fraud – and some Republicans ' willingness to pursue legal action based on these claims – further undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process .
Trump was defeated , but Trumpism will have a lasting effect .
[ You 're too busy to read everything .
We get it .
That 's why we 've got a weekly newsletter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Lena Surzhko Harned , Assistant Teaching Professor of Political Science , Penn State and Luis Jimenez , Associate Professor of Political Science , University of Massachusetts Boston This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Lena Surzhko Harned, Penn State and Luis Jimenez, University of Massachusetts Boston
Six weeks after the U.S. election, President Donald Trump had still not accepted defeat. This behavior is not typical in mature democracies. And it's reminiscent of countries with what political scientists call “hybrid regimes" – nations that have elements of democracy but in practice are not democracies.
For us – politics scholars studying Latin America and the former Soviet Union – Trump's resistance to election results underscores the fragility of democratic institutions when confronted with authoritarian practices. These include deligitimizing election results, interfering with judicial independence and attacking independent media and opposition.
Trump is part of a global trend in authoritarianism. The United States can learn a great deal from other countries where democracies fell victim to the authoritarian playbook.
Rigging elections
Trump and members of the Republican Party claimed fraud in the presidential elections. They attempted to overturn legally cast ballots in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump, furthermore, has urged state leaders to ignore the will of voters and give their electoral votes to him.
Disregard for voters and electoral rules are tactics well documented in hybrid regimes. Although Trump has charged that the U.S. election was rigged, it was not.
Truly rigged elections involve practices like ballot box stuffing – adding false ballots to legitimate ones, or buying the electorate by offering citizens money or jobs in exchange for votes.
Barring opposition candidates from running for office, as Russia has done, is another tactic.
Other regimes, like Alexander Lukashenko's in Belarus, pressure electoral officials to falsify electoral results to ensure victories with wide margins. This triggered massive protests in August.
In Venezuela, since roughly 2005, former President Hugo Chávez seized control of vote processing and counting through the National Electoral Council, a branch of government that oversees elections. This way, any election irregularities always hurt the opposition.
And Chávez encouraged the electorate to vote for him if they were state employees or received government benefits. At times, they received outright threats that they would lose their jobs if they did not vote for him.
Other forms of “encouragement" in Venezuela included “red tents" next to polling stations. These were government stations where people could sign up for government benefits and receive small gifts.
President Trump did something similar by putting his name on stimulus checks in April, which may have been illegal but was never adjudicated.
He also tried to rig the U.S. election by insisting that mail-in votes should not be counted after Election Day, and then attempted to overturn election results based on that claim.
'Enemies of the people'
Coined by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, the phrase “enemies of the people" – used against all who disagreed with him – has entered Trump's vocabulary.
Earlier in his presidency, Trump called the press the “enemies of the people." More recently, Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Republican secretary of state, earned this title from Trump after defending his state's election process.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been in power since 2000 and consolidated his autocratic rule by amending the Russian constitution, has a long list of opposition leaders, civil groups and journalists who have become “enemies of the people."
Pet judiciaries
Before the election, Trump insisted mail voting was riddled with fraud and tried to overturn Nevada's vote-by-mail law. He insisted that there would be election disputes and that filling the Supreme Court seat was crucial for that reason.
Yes, the high court has rejected Trump's efforts to overturn election results. But Trump's audacious attempt mirrors tactics used by authoritarian leaders.
Similar scenarios to the one Trump hoped for played out with Evo Morales in Bolivia and Juan Orlando Hernández in Honduras.
Morales and Hernández were able to install judges who ruled that clauses in the constitutions prohibiting reelection were unconstitutional. That, in turn, allowed both leaders to run successfully for reelection.
'Law and order'
Authoritarian leaders also favor “law and order" arguments to justify their legitimacy. They paint themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what presents a threat.
Russia's Putin has emphasized his commitment to stability and security, elevating the status of security forces loyal to him, known as siloviki. These security forces now hold high positions in Russian politics, business and society.
Trump has also cultivated the image of a strongman, calling for the mobilization of the National Guard to quell racial justice protests.
Similar to autocratic leaders in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Ukraine, Trump has refused to denounce far-right militias like the Proud Boys, telling them instead to “stand back and stand by," which was interpreted as a command.
And he suggested that people “liberate" Michigan from the state's social distancing measures amid the pandemic, a move critics denounced for inciting insurrection.
Lasting effects
Trump has used ploys from the autocratic playbook throughout his presidency, and that will have lasting consequences.
Trump's rejection of election results damages the legitimacy of the democratic process.
In general, it encourages other autocrats and would-be autocrats to challenge the electoral process if they don't like the results. For the U.S., it promotes the belief that President-elect Joe Biden's presidency will be illegitimate.
A country's stability largely depends on people accepting the results if their side loses. If a significant portion of the public refuses to, history shows that violence will not be far behind.
For the United States, the lesson is stark. Surviving the recent electoral turmoil does not guarantee it will outlast a similar scenario the next time.
Republican leaders' failure to repudiate baseless allegations of electoral fraud – and some Republicans' willingness to pursue legal action based on these claims – further undermines the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Trump was defeated, but Trumpism will have a lasting effect.
[You're too busy to read everything. We get it. That's why we've got a weekly newsletter.Sign up for good Sunday reading. ]
Lena Surzhko Harned, Assistant Teaching Professor of Political Science, Penn State and Luis Jimenez, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-12-21--Trickle-down economics is a cruel hoax. Here's the practical alternative Biden must adopt

How should the huge financial costs of the pandemic be paid for , as well as the other deferred needs of society after this annus horribilis ?
Politicians rarely want to raise taxes on the rich .
Joe Biden promised to do so but a closely divided Congress is already balking .
That 's because they 've bought into one of the most dangerous of all economic ideas : that economic growth requires the rich to become even richer .
Rubbish .
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once dubbed it the `` horse and sparrow '' theory : `` If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pass through to the road for the sparrows . ''
We know it as trickle-down economics .
In a new study , David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King 's College London lay waste to the theory .
They reviewed data over the last half-century in advanced economies and found that tax cuts for the rich widened inequality without having any significant effect on jobs or growth .
Nothing trickled down .
Meanwhile , the rich have become far richer .
Since the start of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gained $ 1 trillion of wealth .
With this windfall they could send a $ 3,000 check to every person in America and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic .
Do n't hold your breath .
Stock markets have been hitting record highs .
More initial public stock offerings have been launched this year than in over two decades .
A wave of hi-tech IPOs has delivered gushers of money to Silicon Valley investors , founders and employees .
Oh , and tax rates are historically low .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 million Americans are jobless , 8 million have fallen into poverty , 19 million are at risk of eviction and 26 million are going hungry .
Mainstream economists are already talking about a `` K-shaped '' recovery – the better-off reaping most gains while the bottom half continue to slide .
You do n't need a doctorate in ethical philosophy to think that now might be a good time to tax and redistribute some of the top 's riches to the hard-hit below .
The UK is already considering an emergency tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth tax , but maybe he should be even more ambitious and seek to change economic thinking altogether .
The practical alternative to trickle-down economics might be called build-up economics .
Not only should the rich pay for today 's devastating crisis but they should also invest in the public 's long-term well-being .
The rich themselves would benefit from doing so , as would everyone else .
At one time , America 's major political parties were on the way to embodying these two theories .
Speaking to the Democratic National Convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted : `` There are two ideas of government .
There are those who believe that , if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous , their prosperity will leak through on those below .
The Democratic idea , however , has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous , their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them . ''
Build-up economics reached its zenith in the decades after the second world war , when the richest Americans paid a marginal income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 % .
That revenue helped fund massive investment in infrastructure , education , health and basic research – creating the largest and most productive middle class the world had ever seen .
But starting in the 1980s , America retreated from public investment .
The result is crumbling infrastructure , inadequate schools , wildly dysfunctional healthcare and public health systems and a shrinking core of basic research .
Productivity has plummeted .
Yet we know public investment pays off .
Studies show an average return on infrastructure investment of $ 1.92 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return on early childhood education of between 10 % and 16 % – with 80 % of the benefits going to the general public .
The COVID vaccine reveals the importance of investments in public health , and the pandemic shows how everyone 's health affects everyone else 's .
Yet 37 million Americans still have no health insurance .
A study in the Lancet estimates Medicare for All would prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths each year , while saving money .
If we do n't launch something as bold as a Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ever more damaging hurricanes , wildfires , floods and rising sea levels .
The returns from these and other public investments are huge .
The costs of not making them are astronomical .
Trickle-down economics is a cruel hoax .
The benefits of build-up economics are real .
At this juncture , between a global pandemic and the promise of a post-pandemic world , and between the administrations of Trump and Biden , we would be well-served by changing the economic paradigm from trickle down to build up .

How should the huge financial costs of the pandemic be paid for, as well as the other deferred needs of society after this annus horribilis?
Politicians rarely want to raise taxes on the rich. Joe Biden promised to do so but a closely divided Congress is already balking.
That's because they've bought into one of the most dangerous of all economic ideas: that economic growth requires the rich to become even richer. Rubbish.
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once dubbed it the "horse and sparrow" theory: "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."
We know it as trickle-down economics.
In a new study, David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London lay waste to the theory. They reviewed data over the last half-century in advanced economies and found that tax cuts for the rich widened inequality without having any significant effect on jobs or growth. Nothing trickled down.
Meanwhile, the rich have become far richer. Since the start of the pandemic, just 651 American billionaires have gained $1 trillion of wealth. With this windfall they could send a $3,000 check to every person in America and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic. Don't hold your breath.
Stock markets have been hitting record highs. More initial public stock offerings have been launched this year than in over two decades. A wave of hi-tech IPOs has delivered gushers of money to Silicon Valley investors, founders and employees.
Oh, and tax rates are historically low.
Yet at the same time, more than 20 million Americans are jobless, 8 million have fallen into poverty, 19 million are at risk of eviction and 26 million are going hungry. Mainstream economists are already talking about a "K-shaped" recovery – the better-off reaping most gains while the bottom half continue to slide.
You don't need a doctorate in ethical philosophy to think that now might be a good time to tax and redistribute some of the top's riches to the hard-hit below. The UK is already considering an emergency tax on wealth.
Biden has rejected a wealth tax, but maybe he should be even more ambitious and seek to change economic thinking altogether.
The practical alternative to trickle-down economics might be called build-up economics. Not only should the rich pay for today's devastating crisis but they should also invest in the public's long-term well-being. The rich themselves would benefit from doing so, as would everyone else.
At one time, America's major political parties were on the way to embodying these two theories. Speaking to the Democratic National Convention in 1896, populist William Jennings Bryan noted: "There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them."
Build-up economics reached its zenith in the decades after the second world war, when the richest Americans paid a marginal income tax rate of between 70% and 90%. That revenue helped fund massive investment in infrastructure, education, health and basic research – creating the largest and most productive middle class the world had ever seen.
But starting in the 1980s, America retreated from public investment. The result is crumbling infrastructure, inadequate schools, wildly dysfunctional healthcare and public health systems and a shrinking core of basic research. Productivity has plummeted.
Yet we know public investment pays off. Studies show an average return on infrastructure investment of $1.92 for every public dollar invested, and a return on early childhood education of between 10% and 16% – with 80% of the benefits going to the general public.
The COVID vaccine reveals the importance of investments in public health, and the pandemic shows how everyone's health affects everyone else's. Yet 37 million Americans still have no health insurance. A study in the Lancet estimates Medicare for All would prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths each year, while saving money.
If we don't launch something as bold as a Green New Deal, we'll spend trillions coping with ever more damaging hurricanes, wildfires, floods and rising sea levels.
The returns from these and other public investments are huge. The costs of not making them are astronomical.
Trickle-down economics is a cruel hoax. The benefits of build-up economics are real. At this juncture, between a global pandemic and the promise of a post-pandemic world, and between the administrations of Trump and Biden, we would be well-served by changing the economic paradigm from trickle down to build up.