therealnews--2020-01-15--People Want a Wealth Tax, but Many Politicians Oppose It

GREG WILPERT : Welcome to The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore .
Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the introduction of a wealth tax , according to a recently published Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll .
That is , 64 % of respondents agree with the statement , “ The very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs.
” The issue of a wealth tax is one that presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have raised by presenting concrete proposals for such a tax .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for raising revenues for programs , as well as for reducing inequality in the United States , which is at its highest level since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century .
Here ’ s how they each have presented their proposals .
ELIZABETH WARREN : I have proposed a two-cent wealth tax .
That is a tax for everybody who has more than $ 50 million in assets , your first $ 50 million is free and clear , but your $ 50 millionth and first dollar , you ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when you hit a billion dollars , you ’ ve got to pitch in a few pennies more .
Here ’ s the thing .
Doing a wealth tax is not about punishing anyone , it ’ s about saying , “ You ’ ve built something great in this country , good for you .
But you did it using workers all of us help pay to educate .
You did it getting your goods on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for.
” MARTHA MACCALLUM : You don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What would your number be ?
BERNIE SANDERS : In the campaign in 2016 , we talked about 52 % .
But we ’ re going to fight for a wealth tax , and we ’ re going to demand that we end the absurdity .
Families like the Koch brothers get billions and billions– MARTHA MACCALLUM : But that didn ’ t answer my question .
BERNIE SANDERS : …of dollars in savings .
That is absurd .
GREG WILPERT : During the Democratic presidential debates , some candidates however called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impractical .
Joining me now to discuss the wealth tax and its apparent popularity is Chuck Collins .
He ’ s a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the IPS program on inequality and the common good ; and co-edits the website Inequality.org .
Also , he ’ s the author of the book : Is Inequality in America Irreversible ?
Thanks again for joining us today , Chuck .
CHUCK COLLINS : Thanks Greg , great to be with you .
GREG WILPERT : So , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even having this debate on a wealth tax , that is the massive inequality that currently exists in the United States .
We have a brief clip here from the media outlet Vox , which provides a brief visual representation of what ’ s going on .
VOX : Let ’ s take a quick tour of American household wealth .
We can start over here , where we see people who own way more than they have .
As we move further right , we can see , “ Oh , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s my doctor , who owns an expensive home .
And there ’ s former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson.
” But when we get to the very richest people in the world , “ Oh hey , that ’ s Beyonce , ” we can zoom out so far that this chart looks like a stick , and we still can ’ t see the top of their wealth because these people are so much wealthier than the rest of us .
In other words , this chart doesn ’ t just show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequality we have in America .
GREG WILPERT : Now this clip of course only shows a slice of time , not how inequality has increased in recent decades .
Give us a brief idea , Chuck , of how inequality has increased and why it has increased .
CHUCK COLLINS : Well Greg , you mentioned the Gilded Age 100 years ago , when we saw a couple hundred families had fantastic concentrations of wealth and power .
But in the interim , between the Depression and after World War II , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe an aberration in US history , but a period of shared prosperity , the bottom fifth saw their real incomes go up at the same rate as the top fifth .
We had a progressive tax system , more progressive than we have today .
So millionaires and billionaires paid much higher taxes , corporations paid higher taxes , so we had a lot less inequality .
And then it ’ s really been the last 40 years since the late 70s that we ’ ve started to pull apart again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox illustration showed , a kind of dizzying concentration of wealth and power .
And it ’ s not just wealth flowing and income flowing to the top 1 % , but the top one-tenth of 1 % , and the billionaire group .
And that ’ s really , in the last 20 years , that concentration of wealth among the billionaires is what ’ s brought us to this moment .
GREG WILPERT : Now , I mentioned earlier that both Senator Warren and Senator Sanders have proposals for a wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax would start , as she said in that clip , at $ 50 million , and everything over that would be taxed at a 1 % rate annually .
And Senator Sanders was a little bit more progressive and would start lower , I think it was $ 32 million and then go up to 8 % for higher incomes , I think , for the billionaires .
Now , as somebody who studies this issue of inequality , what do you think of these proposals ?
CHUCK COLLINS : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fantastic and powerful proposals that start to address the , I call it the plutocracy problem , that concentration of wealth and power .
I think Senator Warren ’ s proposal came out first , almost a year ago , and she put it out there .
And Sanders ’ s proposal came along , and his has a set of more graduated rates , so fortunes over $ 10 billion are taxed at an annual 8 % rate .
I think they both begin to reverse this concentration of wealth , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s currently designed would slow and reverse the concentration of wealth and power faster , just because it ’ s going to raise more money , it ’ s going to chip away at the biggest fortunes even faster .
But it ’ s important to point out that Senator Warren , in her Medicare-for-All proposal , how to pay for that , she talked about adding to her wealth tax , so that the two proposals really are very… both of them support very comparable proposals that tax the very top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : And would they raise enough money to pay for these programs that Sanders and Warren have proposed ?
CHUCK COLLINS : Well , Senator Warren ’ s proposal estimated to raise about $ 2.75 trillion .
Sanders , I think his proposal over 10 years would raise $ 4.3 trillion , so that ’ s a substantial amount of money .
It ’ s not the full way toward a universal health insurance Medicare-for-All type program , but it would be a significant factor .
I think it ’ s important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inheritance tax , which would be a once in a lifetime tax on a concentrated wealth as it transfers to the next generation , and even making the income tax more progressive .
So putting an income tax surcharge on the top 10 % of incomes over a couple million dollars .
If you did those three things , you would start to really reverse these plutocratic conditions .
GREG WILPERT : Now , Sanders and Warren have both received some criticism of the wealth tax during the last debate , ranging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Yang even mentioned that in Europe it was tried and not very effective , or something like that .
And we also have a clip here of how Bill Gates responds to a question about the idea of a wealth tax .
BILL GATES : You know , I ’ ve paid over $ 10 billion in taxes .
I ’ ve paid more than anyone in taxes , but I ’ m glad to have… if I ’ d had to pay $ 20 billion , it ’ s fine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 100 billion , okay , then I ’ m starting to do a little math about what I have left over .
GREG WILPERT : Chuck , what ’ s your reaction to what Gates is saying here , and also what others have said about the practicality of such a tax ?
CHUCK COLLINS : Well , I think in that clip he ’ s just a little confused about what either of these wealth tax proposals would do .
So an annual wealth tax , the tax is 2 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Sanders tax 8 % , we ’ re talking about a tenth of his wealth , not hundreds of billions .
It ’ s important to point out that Bill Gates has supported , he ’ s been a champion supporting a progressive inheritance tax , he ’ s not saying he ’ s against a wealth tax .
I think if he understood the proposal on the table , he would probably support it as well .
The reality is he ’ s put most of his money into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be subject to any form of wealth tax unless the foundation ’ s private wealth is also treated as taxable wealth in a wealth tax .
GREG WILPERT : And what about the issue of practicality ?
That supposedly it ’ s been tried in some countries in Europe and didn ’ t work ?
CHUCK COLLINS : Well , it is true .
There ’ s been somewhat of a drift , some countries have given up their inheritance taxes and their wealth taxes .
Others have made them robust .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US context .
We have , for 100 years , had an inheritance tax , it ’ s called the estate tax .
In its first phases , it was a meaningful tax that did break up concentrations of wealth and power .
We have not had a wealth tax .
There are potential constitutional issues that people have raised , but I think we should test that .
We should push it as far as it ’ s possible .
As you pointed out , there ’ s overwhelming support for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s really about just continuing the public social movement .
I mean , I think people are waking up to just how severe these inequalities are , and how meaningless most tax policies are in terms of addressing it .
And I think people understand the dangers of concentrated wealth more and more every day , how it affects our lives .
And so I think there ’ s going to just be continuing pressure building from below to levy a wealth tax , and I should say also from above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are saying they will support and would look forward to paying a wealth tax if Congress moved that direction .
GREG WILPERT : I wanted to get into that issue specifically , as to with two-thirds of the US population supporting the wealth tax , and as you mentioned , even some millionaires supporting it , I mean , shouldn ’ t such overwhelming support mean that politicians would be jumping on the bandwagon to put it into effect ?
I mean , how do you see the chances of it actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
CHUCK COLLINS : Well , I think that this is the first year that we ’ ve had an annual wealth tax really in the public conversation .
And I think that the initial support will continue to grow as people understand how few people will pay it , and how much money it will raise .
So I expect that you will start to see more people running for office campaigning on a wealth tax .
We have a candidate for governor in West Virginia who ’ s talking about running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re going to see state and federal proposals to tax wealth .
People who are currently in Congress have never had to debate this , have never been held accountable by voters for it , but I think once people start to run on a campaign that basically , as both Warren and Sanders have said , “ We want to tackle the problem of billionaires.
” That ’ s a new , but powerful signal to people that , “ I ’ m going to work for an economy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 99 % , and I ’ m not going to just kowtow to the very top.
” And I think more and more people will win and lose elections based on this debate .
GREG WILPERT : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to continue to follow this debate of course , but we ’ ll leave it there for now .
I ’ m speaking to Chuck Collins , senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies .
Thanks again Chuck , for having joined us today .
GREG WILPERT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Real News Network .

Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are practically the only major politicians supporting a wealth tax to reduce inequality and fund government programs, even though polling shows nearly two-thirds of Americans support it.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the introduction of a wealth tax, according to a recently published Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll. That is, 64% of respondents agree with the statement, “The very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs.” The issue of a wealth tax is one that presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have raised by presenting concrete proposals for such a tax. They’ve presented the tax as a means for raising revenues for programs, as well as for reducing inequality in the United States, which is at its highest level since the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.
Here’s how they each have presented their proposals.
ELIZABETH WARREN: I have proposed a two-cent wealth tax. That is a tax for everybody who has more than $50 million in assets, your first $50 million is free and clear, but your $50 millionth and first dollar, you’ve got to pitch in two cents. And when you hit a billion dollars, you’ve got to pitch in a few pennies more. Here’s the thing. Doing a wealth tax is not about punishing anyone, it’s about saying, “You’ve built something great in this country, good for you. But you did it using workers all of us help pay to educate. You did it getting your goods on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for.”
MARTHA MACCALLUM: You don’t agree with 70%. What would your number be?
BERNIE SANDERS: In the campaign in 2016, we talked about 52%. But we’re going to fight for a wealth tax, and we’re going to demand that we end the absurdity. Families like the Koch brothers get billions and billions–
MARTHA MACCALLUM: But that didn’t answer my question.
BERNIE SANDERS: …of dollars in savings. That is absurd.
GREG WILPERT: During the Democratic presidential debates, some candidates however called the wealth tax punitive, unrealistic, and impractical.
Joining me now to discuss the wealth tax and its apparent popularity is Chuck Collins. He’s a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the IPS program on inequality and the common good; and co-edits the website Inequality.org. Also, he’s the author of the book: Is Inequality in America Irreversible? Thanks again for joining us today, Chuck.
CHUCK COLLINS: Thanks Greg, great to be with you.
GREG WILPERT: So, let’s start with why we are even having this debate on a wealth tax, that is the massive inequality that currently exists in the United States. We have a brief clip here from the media outlet Vox, which provides a brief visual representation of what’s going on.
VOX: Let’s take a quick tour of American household wealth. We can start over here, where we see people who own way more than they have. As we move further right, we can see, “Oh, that’s me. And there’s my doctor, who owns an expensive home. And there’s former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson.” But when we get to the very richest people in the world, “Oh hey, that’s Beyonce,” we can zoom out so far that this chart looks like a stick, and we still can’t see the top of their wealth because these people are so much wealthier than the rest of us. In other words, this chart doesn’t just show wealth, it shows the staggering wealth inequality we have in America.
GREG WILPERT: Now this clip of course only shows a slice of time, not how inequality has increased in recent decades. Give us a brief idea, Chuck, of how inequality has increased and why it has increased.
CHUCK COLLINS: Well Greg, you mentioned the Gilded Age 100 years ago, when we saw a couple hundred families had fantastic concentrations of wealth and power. But in the interim, between the Depression and after World War II, we actually did have a period, maybe an aberration in US history, but a period of shared prosperity, the bottom fifth saw their real incomes go up at the same rate as the top fifth.
We had a progressive tax system, more progressive than we have today. So millionaires and billionaires paid much higher taxes, corporations paid higher taxes, so we had a lot less inequality. And then it’s really been the last 40 years since the late 70s that we’ve started to pull apart again, and where we see, as that Vox illustration showed, a kind of dizzying concentration of wealth and power. And it’s not just wealth flowing and income flowing to the top 1%, but the top one-tenth of 1%, and the billionaire group. And that’s really, in the last 20 years, that concentration of wealth among the billionaires is what’s brought us to this moment.
GREG WILPERT: Now, I mentioned earlier that both Senator Warren and Senator Sanders have proposals for a wealth tax. Senator Warren’s wealth tax would start, as she said in that clip, at $50 million, and everything over that would be taxed at a 1% rate annually. And Senator Sanders was a little bit more progressive and would start lower, I think it was $32 million and then go up to 8% for higher incomes, I think, for the billionaires. Now, as somebody who studies this issue of inequality, what do you think of these proposals?
CHUCK COLLINS: Well, I think they’re both really fantastic and powerful proposals that start to address the, I call it the plutocracy problem, that concentration of wealth and power. I think Senator Warren’s proposal came out first, almost a year ago, and she put it out there. And Sanders’s proposal came along, and his has a set of more graduated rates, so fortunes over $10 billion are taxed at an annual 8% rate.
I think they both begin to reverse this concentration of wealth, and I think the Sanders proposal as it’s currently designed would slow and reverse the concentration of wealth and power faster, just because it’s going to raise more money, it’s going to chip away at the biggest fortunes even faster. But it’s important to point out that Senator Warren, in her Medicare-for-All proposal, how to pay for that, she talked about adding to her wealth tax, so that the two proposals really are very… both of them support very comparable proposals that tax the very top at the highest rates.
GREG WILPERT: And would they raise enough money to pay for these programs that Sanders and Warren have proposed?
CHUCK COLLINS: Well, Senator Warren’s proposal estimated to raise about $2.75 trillion. Sanders, I think his proposal over 10 years would raise $4.3 trillion, so that’s a substantial amount of money. It’s not the full way toward a universal health insurance Medicare-for-All type program, but it would be a significant factor. I think it’s important to think about a wealth tax alongside an inheritance tax, which would be a once in a lifetime tax on a concentrated wealth as it transfers to the next generation, and even making the income tax more progressive. So putting an income tax surcharge on the top 10% of incomes over a couple million dollars. If you did those three things, you would start to really reverse these plutocratic conditions.
GREG WILPERT: Now, Sanders and Warren have both received some criticism of the wealth tax during the last debate, ranging from it being impractical, and I think Andrew Yang even mentioned that in Europe it was tried and not very effective, or something like that. And we also have a clip here of how Bill Gates responds to a question about the idea of a wealth tax.
BILL GATES: You know, I’ve paid over $10 billion in taxes. I’ve paid more than anyone in taxes, but I’m glad to have… if I’d had to pay $20 billion, it’s fine. But when you say I should pay $100 billion, okay, then I’m starting to do a little math about what I have left over.
GREG WILPERT: Chuck, what’s your reaction to what Gates is saying here, and also what others have said about the practicality of such a tax?
CHUCK COLLINS: Well, I think in that clip he’s just a little confused about what either of these wealth tax proposals would do. So an annual wealth tax, the tax is 2%, or in his case, maybe in the Sanders tax 8%, we’re talking about a tenth of his wealth, not hundreds of billions. It’s important to point out that Bill Gates has supported, he’s been a champion supporting a progressive inheritance tax, he’s not saying he’s against a wealth tax. I think if he understood the proposal on the table, he would probably support it as well. The reality is he’s put most of his money into a charitable foundation, so that will not be subject to any form of wealth tax unless the foundation’s private wealth is also treated as taxable wealth in a wealth tax.
GREG WILPERT: And what about the issue of practicality? That supposedly it’s been tried in some countries in Europe and didn’t work?
CHUCK COLLINS: Well, it is true. There’s been somewhat of a drift, some countries have given up their inheritance taxes and their wealth taxes. Others have made them robust. I think we should be looking in a US context. We have, for 100 years, had an inheritance tax, it’s called the estate tax. In its first phases, it was a meaningful tax that did break up concentrations of wealth and power. We have not had a wealth tax. There are potential constitutional issues that people have raised, but I think we should test that. We should push it as far as it’s possible. As you pointed out, there’s overwhelming support for this wealth tax proposal, and I think it’s really about just continuing the public social movement.
I mean, I think people are waking up to just how severe these inequalities are, and how meaningless most tax policies are in terms of addressing it. And I think people understand the dangers of concentrated wealth more and more every day, how it affects our lives. And so I think there’s going to just be continuing pressure building from below to levy a wealth tax, and I should say also from above. There are plenty of patriotic millionaires who are saying they will support and would look forward to paying a wealth tax if Congress moved that direction.
GREG WILPERT: I wanted to get into that issue specifically, as to with two-thirds of the US population supporting the wealth tax, and as you mentioned, even some millionaires supporting it, I mean, shouldn’t such overwhelming support mean that politicians would be jumping on the bandwagon to put it into effect? I mean, how do you see the chances of it actually being implemented in the years to come?
CHUCK COLLINS: Well, I think that this is the first year that we’ve had an annual wealth tax really in the public conversation. And I think that the initial support will continue to grow as people understand how few people will pay it, and how much money it will raise. So I expect that you will start to see more people running for office campaigning on a wealth tax. We have a candidate for governor in West Virginia who’s talking about running on a state wealth tax, so you’re going to see state and federal proposals to tax wealth.
People who are currently in Congress have never had to debate this, have never been held accountable by voters for it, but I think once people start to run on a campaign that basically, as both Warren and Sanders have said, “We want to tackle the problem of billionaires.” That’s a new, but powerful signal to people that, “I’m going to work for an economy that’s going to help the bottom 99%, and I’m not going to just kowtow to the very top.” And I think more and more people will win and lose elections based on this debate.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, we’re going to continue to follow this debate of course, but we’ll leave it there for now. I’m speaking to Chuck Collins, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. Thanks again Chuck, for having joined us today.
CHUCK COLLINS: Thanks Greg.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-16--France’s Strike: Another Symptom of Neoliberalism’s Legitimation Crisis

This is a rough transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : Welcome to The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
The public sector strike in France is entering its seventh week now .
The longest such strike in French history .
The strike has been affecting public transportation , especially France ’ s rail system , but has also involved workers in the education , healthcare , law , sanitation , culture , and energy sectors .
While public support for the strike is said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicate that a majority of the French still approve of the action .
The strike is about a pension reform plan that the government of President Emmanuel Macron is pushing , which would consolidate 42 public sector pension plans into a single point-based system .
According to one analysis , the plan could cost workers as much as 30 % in benefits once they retire .
Over the last weekend , Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced that the government will withdraw the proposal to increase the retirement age by two years .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come up with a counter proposal on how to save money in the pension system .
The more moderate CFDT Union Federation has accepted the proposal , but the more radical CGT Federation has not and is calling for renewed demonstrations on Thursday .
Joining me now to discuss France ’ s public sector strike and how it fits into the larger global context is Gabriel Rockhill .
He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and is the founding director of the Critical Theory Workshop that takes place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining us today , Gabriel .
Gabriel R. : Thanks for having me on .
Greg Wilpert : So you recently published an article on the strike for the website CounterPunch , in which you say that the strikes need to be seen in the context of the yellow vest movement which took place last year .
Give us a brief idea as to what that movement was about and how it is connected to the public sector strike that ’ s going on in France right now .
Gabriel R. : So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in earnest in the Fall of 2018 , and was an uprising that took place outside of the traditional forms of political representation , meaning unions and political parties .
And was largely mobilized against the continued immiseration of the general population within France .
And introduced a series of new and interesting tactics , including the tactic of having planned days of actions once a week .
Each act would be a Saturday .
So once a week there ’ d be a planned day of action and that it would escalate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into… Originally it was around proposed fuel tax , so into abolishing the fuel tax .
But then has since developed into broader [ French 00:00:02:49 ] .
So broader demands on the part of the movement in order to address what is a really crucial problem in the recent history of France , and for matter not only the recent history , that is the ways in which the Macron regime is labeled as the government of the rich .
Meaning that a lot of his policies are ones that benefit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the daily lives of those who are in the poor and middle classes .
In many ways then , the most recent strike that began on December 5th… Although it didn ’ t grow directly out of the yellow vest movement , it can be seen as a kind of renewed moment of class struggle in which the unions , beginning with the train unions and the [ French 00:03:53 ] , which is our subway system union , they have taken up certain elements from the yellow vest struggles , certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to force the hand of Macron government to make it not so much aligned on the rich and the wealthy .
And instead take into account the life of those who are at the bottom , or even in the middle tiers of the socioeconomic standing within France .
Greg Wilpert : Now I was in Paris , actually , over the holidays and got to experience the strike firsthand , which meant a lot of walking and taking of overcrowded buses .
Now two things stood out for me .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class Parisians took the strike in stride , often blaming President Macron for the inconvenience .
And second , those who questioned the strike argued that France has a better welfare state and less inequality than most countries in the world , and that France needs to adapt to a global context in which everyone else has basically weaker welfare states and more inequality .
What do you make of such arguments which seem to have caught on among those who are opposing the strike in France ?
Gabriel R. : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most recent polls done by Harris Interactive for RTL and AEF Info in France , finds that 60 % of the population supports the strikes at the current moment .
And so I think it ’ s still a majority of French people who are supportive .
Regarding the argument that the French system is somehow better when compared to the general neoliberal assault on social services globally is trying to set the bar too low .
And it ’ s an argument that is in many ways plays to the favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposing the agenda of neoliberal globalization .
Have been , of course , for decades now .
Which consists , of course , of distributing wealth upwards and putting the burden of social services on the backs of workers .
So instead of identifying France as somehow an exception that should be ratcheted down in order to accord with the global neoliberal assault on social services , I think that we should do the contrary .
And that is that we should question the ways in which neoliberal globalization has really orchestrated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had enormous consequences .
I know that one of the most recent studies has shown that eight men , eight individual men , own 50 % of global wealth .
In a system like this , I think that it ’ s important to think about and to implement economic , socioeconomic redistribution .
Greg Wilpert : Now actually this relates to another point that you made in your CounterPunch article , which is that one should also see the strike as a symptom of neoliberalism ’ s global credibility crisis .
Talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Gabriel R. : Well , the credibility crisis needs to be understood in terms of the way in which neoliberal globalization , of course , going back to the 70 ’ s , but really taking on full force in the 80 ’ s and 90 ’ s has been a project of globalizing production , financializing the economy , and using what are referred to as austerity measures .
But what would be better qualified , because austerity is a euphemism , as a form of top-down class warfare .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the consequences that we currently know globally .
Meaning that the capitalist system now… And this is according to an Oxfam study .
One percent of the global population controls over half of the wealth .
And so it ’ s within this context that I think that we have to understand both the yellow vest movement and the most recent mobilization within France .
Because what ’ s going on in France is part of a larger transnational problem .
And that is the disconnect between the attempt to justify the legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time destroying the material conditions of possibility for that legitimacy among the general population .
Greg Wilpert : Now I mean , there ’ s clearly this credibility issue .
I mean , just by the fact that people are going out to the streets and striking .
But I think it also raises the question though , whether such a credibility crisis is sufficient to challenge neoliberalism when neoliberalism is so deeply institutionalized .
I mean , I ’ ve mentioned this also in some other interviews that I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism in which he basically makes the argument that it ’ s institutionalized and that it doesn ’ t depend on legitimacy .
That it ’ s been institutionalized in the World Bank , the IMF , the WTO , and even to a certain extent in popular culture , and then the way people think on an everyday level about how they interact with each other .
So if it doesn ’ t need that kind of legitimacy , what do you think ?
I mean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the longterm ?
Gabriel R. : I think that ’ s a good question , because I agree that neoliberalism has been institutionalized globally and what some people refer to as a transnational state .
Right ?
And these organizations that really govern the economies of local nation states .
At the same time , within a country like France , there is the liberal facade of maintaining something like a representative democracy , and the desire on the part of the technocrats who are governing for global capital to at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re doing is in the best interest of the majority .
Now , while that legitimacy I would agree , is not an absolute requirement for them to push through their policies and plans , as we ’ ve seen repeatedly in the past , and we see currently as well in France .
There is nonetheless a minimal level of credibility and a material base for the support of the general population that is required so that we don ’ t have a global shutdown of the economy .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what ’ s going on in France right now , is that there ’ s been a real escalation in the nature of the struggles .
And what ’ s being demonstrated is that workers still do control the economy within France , the transportation networks , etc .
And that if there ’ s not a minimum material basis for their wellbeing , then they can take to the streets and they can shut the country down .
And so they do have real power .
Greg Wilpert : What you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question… If legitimacy is certainly needed , it also raises the question as to how is the government actually dealing with this particular problem .
And I ’ m thinking particularly of how it ’ s reacting , not only in terms of these minute concessions , but also in terms of the police reaction to the protests and the strikes .
What can you tell us about how that ’ s going in France at the moment ?
Gabriel R. : Well , I think that France is really at the cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under global capitalism , neoliberal capitalism .
And that is to combine , at one in the same time , a liberal political feeder that tries to dupe the general population into believing that the government has their best interest in mind and a kind of authoritarian fascistic use of extreme violence against protestors in order to scare them , debilitate them , and destroy the possibility of collective organizing .
And so Debbie Gouffran , who ’ s one journalist amongst others who have studied the levels of police violence , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during 2019 .
And 2,500 of them were protesters .
Which gives you some sense of the scale .
But then this includes 318 head injuries .
Twenty-five people have lost eyes .
At least five people have lost hands .
And one person died .
And so you see this combination of creating a political feeder , while at the same time releasing the full force of the repressive state apparatus on the protesters in order to try to destroy popular power and social movements from below .
Greg Wilpert : Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to leave it there for now .
I was speaking to Gabriel Rockhill , Associate Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and founder of the Critical Theory Workshop in Paris .
Thanks , Gabriel , for having joined us today .
Gabriel R. : Thank you for having me on .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .

France’s public sector strike against pension reform is in its seventh week, the most serious such strike in French history. It fits very well in the context of the global revolt against neoliberalism, says Prof. Gabriel Rockhill.
Story Transcript
This is a rough transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. The public sector strike in France is entering its seventh week now. The longest such strike in French history. The strike has been affecting public transportation, especially France’s rail system, but has also involved workers in the education, healthcare, law, sanitation, culture, and energy sectors. While public support for the strike is said to have declined recently, opinion polls indicate that a majority of the French still approve of the action.
The strike is about a pension reform plan that the government of President Emmanuel Macron is pushing, which would consolidate 42 public sector pension plans into a single point-based system. According to one analysis, the plan could cost workers as much as 30% in benefits once they retire. Over the last weekend, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced that the government will withdraw the proposal to increase the retirement age by two years. However, now the government wants the unions to come up with a counter proposal on how to save money in the pension system. The more moderate CFDT Union Federation has accepted the proposal, but the more radical CGT Federation has not and is calling for renewed demonstrations on Thursday.
Joining me now to discuss France’s public sector strike and how it fits into the larger global context is Gabriel Rockhill. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and is the founding director of the Critical Theory Workshop that takes place in Paris, France annually. Thanks for joining us today, Gabriel.
Gabriel R.: Thanks for having me on.
Greg Wilpert: So you recently published an article on the strike for the website CounterPunch, in which you say that the strikes need to be seen in the context of the yellow vest movement which took place last year. Give us a brief idea as to what that movement was about and how it is connected to the public sector strike that’s going on in France right now.
Gabriel R.: So the movement of the yellow vests began in earnest in the Fall of 2018, and was an uprising that took place outside of the traditional forms of political representation, meaning unions and political parties. And was largely mobilized against the continued immiseration of the general population within France. And introduced a series of new and interesting tactics, including the tactic of having planned days of actions once a week.
Each act would be a Saturday. So once a week there’d be a planned day of action and that it would escalate in order to push the Macron regime into… Originally it was around proposed fuel tax, so into abolishing the fuel tax. But then has since developed into broader [French 00:00:02:49]. So broader demands on the part of the movement in order to address what is a really crucial problem in the recent history of France, and for matter not only the recent history, that is the ways in which the Macron regime is labeled as the government of the rich. Meaning that a lot of his policies are ones that benefit the most wealthy and have an enormous impact on the daily lives of those who are in the poor and middle classes.
In many ways then, the most recent strike that began on December 5th… Although it didn’t grow directly out of the yellow vest movement, it can be seen as a kind of renewed moment of class struggle in which the unions, beginning with the train unions and the [French 00:03:53], which is our subway system union, they have taken up certain elements from the yellow vest struggles, certain tactics, etc. in order to try to force the hand of Macron government to make it not so much aligned on the rich and the wealthy. And instead take into account the life of those who are at the bottom, or even in the middle tiers of the socioeconomic standing within France.
Greg Wilpert: Now I was in Paris, actually, over the holidays and got to experience the strike firsthand, which meant a lot of walking and taking of overcrowded buses. Now two things stood out for me. First, the extent to which the working class Parisians took the strike in stride, often blaming President Macron for the inconvenience. And second, those who questioned the strike argued that France has a better welfare state and less inequality than most countries in the world, and that France needs to adapt to a global context in which everyone else has basically weaker welfare states and more inequality. What do you make of such arguments which seem to have caught on among those who are opposing the strike in France?
Gabriel R.: Well, regarding your first point, one of the most recent polls done by Harris Interactive for RTL and AEF Info in France, finds that 60% of the population supports the strikes at the current moment. And so I think it’s still a majority of French people who are supportive. Regarding the argument that the French system is somehow better when compared to the general neoliberal assault on social services globally is trying to set the bar too low. And it’s an argument that is in many ways plays to the favor of those neoliberal technocrats who are now imposing the agenda of neoliberal globalization. Have been, of course, for decades now. Which consists, of course, of distributing wealth upwards and putting the burden of social services on the backs of workers.
So instead of identifying France as somehow an exception that should be ratcheted down in order to accord with the global neoliberal assault on social services, I think that we should do the contrary. And that is that we should question the ways in which neoliberal globalization has really orchestrated a top-down form of class warfare that has had enormous consequences. I know that one of the most recent studies has shown that eight men, eight individual men, own 50% of global wealth. In a system like this, I think that it’s important to think about and to implement economic, socioeconomic redistribution.
Greg Wilpert: Now actually this relates to another point that you made in your CounterPunch article, which is that one should also see the strike as a symptom of neoliberalism’s global credibility crisis. Talk to us about what you mean by that.
Gabriel R.: Well, the credibility crisis needs to be understood in terms of the way in which neoliberal globalization, of course, going back to the 70’s, but really taking on full force in the 80’s and 90’s has been a project of globalizing production, financializing the economy, and using what are referred to as austerity measures. But what would be better qualified, because austerity is a euphemism, as a form of top-down class warfare. And that this assault has led to the consequences that we currently know globally. Meaning that the capitalist system now… And this is according to an Oxfam study. One percent of the global population controls over half of the wealth. And so it’s within this context that I think that we have to understand both the yellow vest movement and the most recent mobilization within France. Because what’s going on in France is part of a larger transnational problem. And that is the disconnect between the attempt to justify the legitimacy of these neoliberal governments while at the same time destroying the material conditions of possibility for that legitimacy among the general population.
Greg Wilpert: Now I mean, there’s clearly this credibility issue. I mean, just by the fact that people are going out to the streets and striking. But I think it also raises the question though, whether such a credibility crisis is sufficient to challenge neoliberalism when neoliberalism is so deeply institutionalized. I mean, I’ve mentioned this also in some other interviews that I’ve made. A book by Colin Crouch called The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism in which he basically makes the argument that it’s institutionalized and that it doesn’t depend on legitimacy. That it’s been institutionalized in the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and even to a certain extent in popular culture, and then the way people think on an everyday level about how they interact with each other. So if it doesn’t need that kind of legitimacy, what do you think? I mean, will these strikes actually have an effect in the longterm?
Gabriel R.: I think that’s a good question, because I agree that neoliberalism has been institutionalized globally and what some people refer to as a transnational state. Right? And these organizations that really govern the economies of local nation states. At the same time, within a country like France, there is the liberal facade of maintaining something like a representative democracy, and the desire on the part of the technocrats who are governing for global capital to at least create the appearance that what they’re doing is in the best interest of the majority. Now, while that legitimacy I would agree, is not an absolute requirement for them to push through their policies and plans, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the past, and we see currently as well in France. There is nonetheless a minimal level of credibility and a material base for the support of the general population that is required so that we don’t have a global shutdown of the economy.
And that’s one of the most interesting things about what’s going on in France right now, is that there’s been a real escalation in the nature of the struggles. And what’s being demonstrated is that workers still do control the economy within France, the transportation networks, etc. And that if there’s not a minimum material basis for their wellbeing, then they can take to the streets and they can shut the country down. And so they do have real power.
Greg Wilpert: What you’re saying actually also raises the question… If legitimacy is certainly needed, it also raises the question as to how is the government actually dealing with this particular problem. And I’m thinking particularly of how it’s reacting, not only in terms of these minute concessions, but also in terms of the police reaction to the protests and the strikes. What can you tell us about how that’s going in France at the moment?
Gabriel R.: Well, I think that France is really at the cutting edge of a particular form of governance under global capitalism, neoliberal capitalism. And that is to combine, at one in the same time, a liberal political theater that tries to dupe the general population into believing that the government has their best interest in mind and a kind of authoritarian fascistic use of extreme violence against protestors in order to scare them, debilitate them, and destroy the possibility of collective organizing. And so Debbie Gouffran, who’s one journalist amongst others who have studied the levels of police violence, has found that there were 4,000 injured people during 2019. And 2,500 of them were protesters. Which gives you some sense of the scale. But then this includes 318 head injuries. Twenty-five people have lost eyes. At least five people have lost hands. And one person died. And so you see this combination of creating a political feeder, while at the same time releasing the full force of the repressive state apparatus on the protesters in order to try to destroy popular power and social movements from below.
Greg Wilpert: Well on that note, we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Gabriel Rockhill, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University and founder of the Critical Theory Workshop in Paris. Thanks, Gabriel, for having joined us today.
Gabriel R.: Thank you for having me on.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Will Arenas, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-17--The Cruelty of US Justice System Exposed in a Single Video

A 19-year-old girl was punished with 9 months in a men 's jail for spitting at an officer during a @ @ @ @ @ reveals the extreme treatment she received and her exclusive interview reveals how law enforcement officers @ @ @ @ @ the mentally ill .

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.


therealnews--2020-01-17--Interest in its Natural Resources Is Tearing Libya Apart

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Gregory Wilpert is Managing Editor at TRNN. He is a German-American sociologist who earned a Ph.D. in sociology from Brandeis University in 1994. Between 2000 and 2008 he lived in Venezuela, where he first taught sociology at the Central University of Venezuela and then worked as a freelance journalist, writing on Venezuelan politics for a wide range of publications and also founded Venezuelanalysis.com, an English-langugage website about Venezuela. In 2007 he published the book, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government (Verso Books). In 2014 he moved to Quito, Ecuador, to help launch teleSUR English. In early 2016 he began working for The Real News Network as host, researcher, and producer. Since September 2018 he has been working as Managing Editor at The Real News. Gregory's wife worked as a Venezuelan diplomat since 2008 and from January 2015 until October 2018 she was Venezuela's Ambassador to Ecuador.


therealnews--2020-01-17--Toronto Uber Drivers First in Canada to Hold Union Vote

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-01-17--What Really Happened With Venezuela’s Parallel President?

Once again , media attention is on Venezuela .
According to the reports , in early January , the government of Venezuela ’ s President Nicolas Maduro maneuvered to close down the opposition ’ s last bastion of power , the National Assembly .
Almost all stories say Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó , the country ’ s parallel self-declared president for the past year , was denied access to the National Assembly ’ s parliamentary leadership election .
Guaidó ’ s position as president of the National Assembly helped legitimize his claim to the presidency , which would continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venezuela ’ s far-right opposition and the Trump administration , Nicolas Maduro ’ s election in 2018 was fraudulent .
They argue that Guaidó , as president of the National Assembly , is next in line for the presidency .
Over 50 countries , mostly in Europe and in North and South America , have supported this claim .
The rest recognize Maduro as Venezuela ’ s legitimate president .
Media outlets showed footage of Guaidó trying to scale a fence that surrounds the National Assembly compound to support their claim that Guaidó @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
The footage shows National Guard troops preventing him from climbing the fence .
The Trump administration ’ s special representative for Venezuela , Elliot Abrams , described the events as follows : ELLIOT ABRAMS : “ Yesterday Juan Guaido was re-elected president of Venezuela ’ s National Assembly with 100 votes – not only a clear majority of the 167-member legislature , but also , obviously , a quorum .
We congratulate him .
As you recall , we have been warning about the Maduro dictatorship ’ s efforts to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and intimidation .
More than 30 deputies are in hiding , in prison , or in exile .
Others were bought .
And yet this brutal and corrupt campaign failed .
Obviously , if the regime had had the votes , it would not have ordered soldiers to keep elected deputies out of the National Assembly in shameful scenes you ’ ve probably all seen in videos .
Those actions have been condemned and rejected by countries all over the world.
” What is missing from the media and Abrams ’ description of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to climb the fence , Guaidó argued with National Guard troops , and refused to enter unless eleven other representatives were allowed into the National Assembly with him .
The representatives who were denied entrance had been disqualified from office by the country ’ s top courts for a variety of reasons related to corruption and electoral fraud .
In Guaidó ’ s absence , a faction of opposition legislators joined forces with the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela to elect a new parliamentary leadership of opposiiton politicians .
This new leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few weeks earlier .
Meanwhile , Guaidó called a parallel meeting of mostly substitute National Assembly representatives , who voted to reelect him as president .
Even die-hard opposition journalists , such as Patricia Poleo – who was involved in the 2002 coup against president Chavez – and Francisco Bautista , declared their amazement and disagreement with Guaidó ’ s brazen maneuver .
PATRICIA POLEO : “ First , it ’ s true that Guaidó refused to enter .
There are videos .
In fact , I showed them in my program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he arrives at the door where all the representatives enter , and he comes with a representative whose parliamentary immunity has been lifted by the regime .
He sees the list , which has those on it who are not allowed to enter , because they have their parliamentary immunity lifted .
The guard says to Guaidó that he may enter , but that the other representative can not enter .
And Guaidó says , if he can not enter , then I won ’ t enter either.
” FRANCISCO BAUTISTA : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one wins .
Because in the end the government reaches some of its goals .
When Guaidó refuses to recognize the government and declares himself president , well , now anyone can self-declare as they feel like it .
In this disaster the one who wins is the one who is the most reasonable.
” “ He comes to go inside , but then says , ‘ IF THEY CAN ’ T ENTER , THEN I WON ’ T ENTER ’ .
But hold on man , if you say that , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue that western media outlets regularly ignore in their reporting on Venezuela is the extent to which Venezuela ’ s opposition is internally divided .
This began with the May 2018 presidential elections that the hardline opposition decided to boycott .
Western media regularly presents that election as fraudulent because several key opposition leaders were not allowed to participate , such as Leopoldo Lopez – who was in prison because of a conviction for inciting riots in 2014 – and Henrique Capriles – who was disqualified because of corruption allegations .
Left out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the opposition candidate who did run , Henri Falcón , was one of Venezuela ’ s more popular politicians , usually polling at least as well as Capriles or Lopez , and who could have won , had the hardline opposition not boycotted the vote .
Since then , the more moderate opposition in Venezuela has engaged in negotiations with the Maduro government .
They have even reached agreements to form a new electoral authority and for a new National Assembly election in late 2020 .
The opposition is also fracturing under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against each other .
Last year Guaido ’ s designated appointees embezzled $ 125,000 from the humanitarian aid program to Venezuela .
Guaidó himself has associated with a Colombian paramilitary group , known as “ Los Rastrojos.
” In one of the most serious allegations , one of Guaidó ’ s appointees was instrumental in losing the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo to the Canadian mining company Crystallex , due to a conflict of interest .
Opposition leaders have called Guaidó ’ s approach to overthrowing President Maduro reckless and ruinous , considering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s really happening in Venezuela , the US sanctions regime continues to devastate the country , making an economic recovery almost impossible .
Tens of thousands have lost their lives due to medicine and food shortages .
Ironically , the latest victims of US sanctions are seven opposition politicians who tried to challenge Guaidó ’ s leadership of the National Assembly .
On Monday , the US Department of the Treasury hit them with personalized sanctions .
The press release quoted treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin as saying , “ Treasury has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the bidding of Maduro , attempted to block the democratic process in Venezuela… These and other designated officials can have sanctions removed if they side with the people of Venezuela and Juan Guaidó as their legitimate leader .
”

Media reports and the Trump administration presented a very one-sided version of the election of Venezuela’s National Assembly leadership, presenting it as a coup. But who is trying to overthrow whom?
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: Once again, media attention is on Venezuela. According to the reports, in early January the government of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro maneuvered to close down the opposition’s last bastion of power, the National Assembly. Almost all stories say Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó, the country’s parallel self-declared president for the past year, was denied access to the National Assembly’s parliamentary leadership election. Guaidó’s position as president of the National Assembly helped legitimize his claim to the presidency, which would continue if he were reelected.
According to Venezuela’s far-right opposition and the Trump administration, Nicolas Maduro’s election in 2018 was fraudulent. They argue that Guaidó, as president of the National Assembly, is next in line for the presidency. Over 50 countries, mostly in Europe and in North and South America, have supported this claim. The rest recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president. Media outlets showed footage of Guaidó trying to scale a fence that surrounds the National Assembly compound to support their claim that Guaidó was prevented from participating in the leadership vote. The footage shows National Guard troops preventing him from climbing the fence.
The Trump administration’s special representative for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, described the events as follows:
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: Yesterday, Juan Guaido was reelected president of Venezuela’s National Assembly with 100 votes – not only a clear majority of the 167-member legislature, but also, obviously, a quorum. We congratulate him. As you recall, we have been warning about the Maduro dictatorship’s efforts to steal the vote through bribery, jailings, and intimidation. More than 30 deputies are in hiding, in prison, or in exile. Others were bought.
And yet this brutal and corrupt campaign failed. Obviously, if the regime had had the votes, it would not have ordered soldiers to keep elected deputies out of the National Assembly in shameful scenes you’ve probably all seen in videos. Those actions have been condemned and rejected by countries all over the world.
GREG WILPERT: What is missing from the media and Abrams’ description of the footage is that before he tried to climb the fence, Guaidó argued with National Guard troops, and refused to enter unless eleven other representatives were allowed into the National Assembly with him. The representatives who were denied entrance had been disqualified from office by the country’s top courts for a variety of reasons related to corruption and electoral fraud.
In Guaidó’s absence, a faction of opposition legislators joined forces with the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela to elect a new parliamentary leadership of opposiiton politicians. This new leadership had split from the Guaidó faction just a few weeks earlier. Meanwhile, Guaidó called a parallel meeting of mostly substitute National Assembly representatives, who voted to reelect him as president.
Even die-hard opposition journalists such as Patricia Poleo–who was involved in the 2002 coup against president Chavez–and Francisco Bautista declared their amazement and disagreement with Guaidó’s brazen maneuver.
PATRICIA POLEO: First, it’s true that Guaidó refused to enter. There are videos. In fact, I showed them in my program from today, a video, where he arrives at the door where all the representatives enter, and he comes with a representative whose parliamentary immunity has been lifted by the regime. He sees the list, which has those on it who are not allowed to enter, because they have their parliamentary immunity lifted. The guard says to Guaidó that he may enter, but that the other representative cannot enter. And Guaidó says, if he cannot enter, then I won’t enter either.
FRANCISCO BAUTISTA: It’s not true that no one wins. Because in the end the government reaches some of its goals. When Guaidó refuses to recognize the government and declares himself president, well, now anyone can self-declare as they feel like it. In this disaster the one who wins is the one who is the most reasonable. He comes to go inside, but then says, “If they can’t enter, then I won’t enter.” But hold on man, if you say that, you won’t get inside.
GREG WILPERT: One issue that western media outlets regularly ignore in their reporting on Venezuela is the extent to which Venezuela’s opposition is internally divided. This began with the May 2018 presidential elections that the hardline opposition decided to boycott. Western media regularly presents that election as fraudulent because several key opposition leaders were not allowed to participate, such as Leopoldo Lopez – who was in prison because of a conviction for inciting riots in 2014 – and Henrique Capriles – who was disqualified because of corruption allegations.
Left out of the usual narrative is the fact that the opposition candidate who did run, Henri Falcón, was one of Venezuela’s more popular politicians, usually polling at least as well as Capriles or Lopez, and who could have won, had the hardline opposition not boycotted the vote. Since then, the more moderate opposition in Venezuela has engaged in negotiations with the Maduro government. They have even reached agreements to form a new electoral authority and for a new National Assembly election in late 2020. The opposition is also fracturing under corruption allegations that opposition leaders have leveled against each other.
Last year, Guaido’s designated appointees embezzled $125,000 from the humanitarian aid program to Venezuela. Guaidó himself has associated with a Colombian paramilitary group, known as “Los Rastrojos.” In one of the most serious allegations, one of Guaidó’s appointees was instrumental in losing the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo to the Canadian mining company Crystallex, due to a conflict of interest. Opposition leaders have called Guaidó’s approach to overthrowing President Maduro reckless and ruinous, considering the impact of US sanctions.
While obscuring what’s really happening in Venezuela, the US sanctions regime continues to devastate the country, making an economic recovery almost impossible. Tens of thousands have lost their lives due to medicine and food shortages. Ironically, the latest victims of US sanctions are seven opposition politicians who tried to challenge Guaidó’s leadership of the National Assembly. On Monday, the US Department of the Treasury hit them with personalized sanctions.
The press release quoted Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin as saying: “Treasury has designated seven corrupt National Assembly officials who, at the bidding of Maduro, attempted to block the democratic process in Venezuela… These and other designated officials can have sanctions removed if they side with the people of Venezuela and Juan Guaidó as their legitimate leader.”
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-17--Turkey Cuts Deal with Russia, Intensifying the War for Gas in Libya

Host, The Marc Steiner Show
Marc Steiner is the host of "The Marc Steiner Show" on TRNN. He is a Peabody Award-winning journalist who has spent his life working on social justice issues. He walked his first picket line at age 13, and at age 16 became the youngest person in Maryland arrested at a civil rights protest during the Freedom Rides through Cambridge. As part of the Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, Marc helped organize poor white communities with the Young Patriots, the white Appalachian counterpart to the Black Panthers. Early in his career he counseled at-risk youth in therapeutic settings and founded a theater program in the Maryland State prison system. He also taught theater for 10 years at the Baltimore School for the Arts. From 1993-2018 Marc's signature “Marc Steiner Show” aired on Baltimore’s public radio airwaves, both WYPR—which Marc co-founded—and Morgan State University’s WEAA.
marc@therealnews.com
@marcsteiner