therealnews--2020-01-24--Progressives Want to Beat Corporate Dems, Not Just Trump

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jaisal Noor : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Jaisal Noor .
The race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is heating up , and the media has highlighted a recent clash between front runners , Senator Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
Newscaster : Tempers were hot in the moments after Tuesday ’ s Democratic Presidential Debate , and so were the mics .
Senator Warren : I think you called me a liar on national TV .
Senator Sanders : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren : I think you called me a liar on national TV .
Senator Sanders : Let ’ s not do it right now .
You want to have that discussion , we ’ ll have that discussion .
Senator Sanders : You called me a liar .
You told me… All right , let ’ s not do it .
Anderson Cooper : Probably the most talked-about moment at last night ’ s Democratic Debate .
Candidate : You know , other candidates , particularly the moderate ones , may stand to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth that goes on , on the left .
Jaisal Noor : But progressive groups say they want supporters of both candidates to focus on the greater threats like defeating corporate Democrats who oppose policies like the Green New Deal , Medicare for All , and taxing the wealthy to pay for it .
Speaker 6 : My plan gives everybody access to Medicare .
Others say it ’ s Medicare for All or nothing .
I approved this message to say the choice should be yours .
Joe Biden : I believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obamacare .
That ’ s why I proposed adding a public option to Obamacare as the best way to lower costs and cover everyone .
Speaker 7 : There ’ s an America waiting to be rebuilt , where everyone without health insurance is guaranteed to get it , and everyone who likes theirs can go ahead and keep it .
Jaisal Noor : These groups , who have also been fighting the far right policies of Donald Trump , argue either Warren or Sanders would be the party ’ s best choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joining us to discuss this , are two guests .
Maurice Mitchell is the National Director of the Working Families Party , a national organization that ’ s building parties in 15 States .
His organization has endorsed Senator Warren .
And we have Jennifer Epps Addison , Co-Executive Director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action , a coalition of groups in 34 states , Puerto Rico , and DC with hundreds of thousands of members .
And they have endorsed Senator Sanders .
Thank you both for joining us .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently about whether this recent fight , which the mainstream media has really focused on , between Warren and Sanders could have lasting damage in the progressive movement .
Maurice , you coauthored a recent article in Buzzfeed arguing that progressives should focus on defeating corporate Democrats .
You ’ re not saying that progressives shouldn ’ t argue , but you ’ re saying let ’ s stick to policy disagreements and focus on defeating Mayor Pete or Biden or Bloomberg , who ’ s spent 115 million at least so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wrote that piece .
Maurice M. : Sure .
Well , and also it ’ s a pleasure to be here .
I wrote that piece because it ’ s pretty clear to us that progressives need to keep our eyes on the prize , that the progressive wind of the electorate is growing , and it ’ s growing because both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are in this fight .
We think that ’ s a good thing for our movement .
And as somebody who ’ s building a movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the movement first , and we understand that the movement is what ultimately allows us to have the changes that we ’ ve seen all throughout the trajectory of this country ’ s several hundred years .
It ’ s been movements , it ’ s been people on the ground that have done that .
And presidential candidates have used the opportunity that movements have created in order to do that .
Right now we have two movement candidates that are talking about big progressive change , and it only benefits our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing of the Democrats , discrediting their failed policies and lift up big progressive change .
Jaisal Noor : So Jen , your colleague coauthored that piece with Maurice .
And again , you ’ re not arguing , let ’ s not have fights within the progressive movement , let ’ s not debate , because Sanders and Warren are not the same .
To be clear , you ’ re not saying we shouldn ’ t have those arguments , and I hope to maybe host a debate with both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But can you elaborate on that ?
Why is it important that we still have disagreements within the progressive movement ?
Jennifer Epps A : Yeah , I mean , first of all , great to be here with my good friend and colleague Maurice , who is the leader of my political home , the Working Families Party .
I think people have to understand what is at stake in this moment .
We are not just looking to go back to the status quo that has failed so many people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to black and brown communities to we ’ re all in geographically isolated communities .
We are looking to build a country in which we all have the freedom to thrive , and we believe that right now there is a moment for the left to ascend to build a country where we don ’ t put profits of a small handful of individuals and corporations over the health and wellbeing and the lives of our people .
The only candidates who are offering that type of vision for our country are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race .
And so we believe that what benefits us all as does the Working Families Party is for those progressive based on our ideals to go out there and build the broadest , biggest coalitions that they can .
So when it comes time , we can defeat the corporate Democrats and defeat Trump and Trumpism once and for all .
Jaisal Noor : And so some have argued that there would actually be an upside to having two Progressive ’ s in the primary , deep into the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
Maurice let ’ s start with you .
Because the downsides are easy .
To think about the downsides because the downsides are , is that they ’ re going to keep clashing with each other and they ’ re going to be going for each other supporters .
What ’ s your response ?
Maurice M. : What we know is that there are millions of people who is still trying to make up their mind .
In all of the polls that we ’ ve seen , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still have yet to make up their mind .
That ’ s still true in the early primary states .
And we think it ’ s important that the Progressives engage those people and bring them onto the Progressive tent before they ’ re influenced by the Centrist .
And so we think there ’ s a lot of people to pick up and having two candidates running grassroots campaigns that are focusing on organizing allows that to happen .
Both of these candidates are lifting up Progressive values and doing it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So we feel like that just grows the tent in bigger ways .
And they ’ re building , each of them are building grassroots armies and coalitions that are distinct .
And we think that that ’ s a good thing .
The other thing I will say is that unity does not mean uniformity .
And so I think it ’ s great that we could argue about not whether or not health care is a right or a commodity , but what is the path to Medicare for All .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ great that we ’ re arguing , not the idea that we need to take corporate money out of politics , but how we do that .
And so when you have multiple Progressive ’ s in the race , we could actually challenge ourselves to achieve the greatest outcomes but actually settled the debate on these fundamental questions about whether or not the economy and the democracy should work for everyday people .
Jaisal Noor : And Jen , I wanted you to respond to that as well .
Jennifer Epps A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest risk we have in our strategy is that somehow the disagreements and the sort of strategy and policy differences end up poisoning the well for either of our two preferred candidates to move forward .
What we are trying to communicate to our membership , to our base in certainly with our presence online is that we can not do ourselves a disservice here to say that is our candidate or the only candidate .
We have to actually see ourselves in struggle and in unity with folks who have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support in the primary .
Because at the end of the day when we get down to those final states , when we get down to convention , we are going to need each other supporters in order to defeat the corporate wing .
And just to be clear , when we say the corporate wing , we are talking about folks who are taking money from pharmaceutical companies and from wall street who crashed our economy .
One of the reasons why black wealth has all but disappeared .
The limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build has all but disappeared in the last decade .
And we ’ re talking about people who are taking money from the fossil fuel industry as well , sitting there and pretending that they value the principles in the Green New Deal .
We must defeat that because , Democrats , we are a big tent coalition in terms of the elected representatives we have , but when you actually poll us on these issues , when you ask folks , do they want to make sure everybody in this country has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , do they want a humane immigration system that treats people as people and not as criminals ?
When you ask people , do they want to reform our criminal justice system ?
Are they tired of seeing black bodies slain by the police in this country ?
The answers to those questions are uniformly yes for people who identify as Democrats and then for a lot of people who have been disillusioned in this political process , who people like Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are welcoming back in .
Jaisal Noor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week by saying in an interview based on a documentary she ’ s in , nobody likes him , Bernie Sanders , called him a career politician and also said , she didn ’ t commit to backing him in the primary , which she later walked back on Twitter , a short time afterwards , but I wanted to use those recent comments to set up a clip of a freshman congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York .
She was in conversation with Ta-Nehisi Coates , famed author and journalist at Riverside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a bit of what she said .
Alexandria O. : We don ’ t have a left party in the United States .
Democratic Party is not a left party .
The Democratic Party is a center or center conservative party .
We do not advocate for , we do not… We can ’ t even get a floor vote on Medicare for All , not even a floor vote that gets voted down .
We can ’ t even get a vote on it .
So this is not a left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Party that are working to try to make that shift happen .
Jaisal Noor : So final question , we ’ re almost out of time , Maurice .
How important is it going to be to wage this fight , not only on the presidential level , but throughout the democratic party and beyond 2020 ?
Maurice M. : Sure .
I mean , that ’ s why we ’ re building the Working Families Party .
We believe that the way to expand our politics in this rigid two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power and to join forces with members in Congress , like member , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and grassroots leaders up and down the ballot .
From municipal races like our recent WFP city council , woman , Kendra Brooks , all the way up and hopefully a Progressive president .
You have to create an inside , outside coalition that includes the forces on the left of the democratic party and all of these forces in our grassroots movements and labor organizations to push for these changes .
Because we know that just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the democratic party , there ’ s a strong organized capital wing that ’ ll always drag us to the right .
And so I think that that is spot on .
And I also think that what Hillary Clinton had to say was correct .
People in Washington are afraid of true Progressive ’ s like Bernie Sanders .
That ’ s why we endorsed him last cycle .
That ’ s why we are very supportive of his movement this cycle , even though we ’ ve endorsed , Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why so many people have embraced him at that big bold , progressive change that both him and Elizabeth Warren have been champion .
Jaisal Noor : All right Jen , we ’ ll give you the last word .
Jennifer Epps A : Well I would just say I like that quote from AOC but I liked the one more where she talks about that the party , we are not dragging the party left .
We ’ re bringing the party home and the reality is the millions and millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic Party are with us on the issues are with Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the issues .
What we have to do is actually inspire them to believe that a better world is possible and that they can actually achieve it through their political participation .
And so that ’ s why we need a candidate who not just represents policies and ideas , but who brings a movement of people willing to put their time , energy , and hard earned dollars on the line to help elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t see that happening for any of the corporate Democrats .
We see it with candidates who are movement candidates like Senator Warren and Senator Sanders .
Jaisal Noor : We want to thank you both for joining us .
Jennifer Epps Addison , co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action who has endorsed , Senator Sanders .
And Maurice Mitchell , national director of the Working Families Party who have endorsed Senator Warren .
Thank you so much for joining us .
Maurice M. : Thank you .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @

While the media focuses on the Sanders/Warren spat, Maurice Mitchell of the Working Families Party and Jennifer Epps-Addison of the Center for Popular Democracy Action argue progressives must defeat the forces that gave rise to Trump.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jaisal Noor: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Jaisal Noor. The race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is heating up, and the media has highlighted a recent clash between front runners, Senator Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Newscaster: Tempers were hot in the moments after Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential Debate, and so were the mics.
Senator Warren: I think you called me a liar on national TV.
Senator Sanders: You think I did what?
Senator Warren: I think you called me a liar on national TV.
Senator Sanders: Let’s not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.
Senator Warren: Any time.
Senator Sanders: You called me a liar. You told me… All right, let’s not do it.
Anderson Cooper: Probably the most talked-about moment at last night’s Democratic Debate.
Candidate: You know, other candidates, particularly the moderate ones, may stand to benefit from the more swiping back and forth that goes on, on the left.
Jaisal Noor: But progressive groups say they want supporters of both candidates to focus on the greater threats like defeating corporate Democrats who oppose policies like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and taxing the wealthy to pay for it.
Speaker 6: My plan gives everybody access to Medicare. Others say it’s Medicare for All or nothing. I approved this message to say the choice should be yours.
Joe Biden: I believe we have to protect and build on Obamacare. That’s why I proposed adding a public option to Obamacare as the best way to lower costs and cover everyone.
Speaker 7: There’s an America waiting to be rebuilt, where everyone without health insurance is guaranteed to get it, and everyone who likes theirs can go ahead and keep it.
Jaisal Noor: These groups, who have also been fighting the far right policies of Donald Trump, argue either Warren or Sanders would be the party’s best choice to defeat him.
Well, now joining us to discuss this, are two guests. Maurice Mitchell is the National Director of the Working Families Party, a national organization that’s building parties in 15 States. His organization has endorsed Senator Warren. And we have Jennifer Epps Addison, Co-Executive Director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action, a coalition of groups in 34 states, Puerto Rico, and DC with hundreds of thousands of members. And they have endorsed Senator Sanders. Thank you both for joining us.
I’ve heard a lot of concern recently about whether this recent fight, which the mainstream media has really focused on, between Warren and Sanders could have lasting damage in the progressive movement. Maurice, you coauthored a recent article in Buzzfeed arguing that progressives should focus on defeating corporate Democrats. You’re not saying that progressives shouldn’t argue, but you’re saying let’s stick to policy disagreements and focus on defeating Mayor Pete or Biden or Bloomberg, who’s spent 115 million at least so far on this race. Tell us why you wrote that piece.
Maurice M.: Sure. Well, and also it’s a pleasure to be here. I wrote that piece because it’s pretty clear to us that progressives need to keep our eyes on the prize, that the progressive wind of the electorate is growing, and it’s growing because both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are in this fight. We think that’s a good thing for our movement. And as somebody who’s building a movement organization that endorses candidates, we put the movement first, and we understand that the movement is what ultimately allows us to have the changes that we’ve seen all throughout the trajectory of this country’s several hundred years. It’s been movements, it’s been people on the ground that have done that.
And presidential candidates have used the opportunity that movements have created in order to do that. Right now we have two movement candidates that are talking about big progressive change, and it only benefits our movements if we focus on the corporate wing of the Democrats, discrediting their failed policies and lift up big progressive change.
Jaisal Noor: So Jen, your colleague coauthored that piece with Maurice. And again, you’re not arguing, let’s not have fights within the progressive movement, let’s not debate, because Sanders and Warren are not the same. To be clear, you’re not saying we shouldn’t have those arguments, and I hope to maybe host a debate with both of you soon to hash that out. But can you elaborate on that? Why is it important that we still have disagreements within the progressive movement?
Jennifer Epps A: Yeah, I mean, first of all, great to be here with my good friend and colleague Maurice, who is the leader of my political home, the Working Families Party.
I think people have to understand what is at stake in this moment. We are not just looking to go back to the status quo that has failed so many people in this country, from the working class to black and brown communities to we’re all in geographically isolated communities. We are looking to build a country in which we all have the freedom to thrive, and we believe that right now there is a moment for the left to ascend to build a country where we don’t put profits of a small handful of individuals and corporations over the health and wellbeing and the lives of our people.
The only candidates who are offering that type of vision for our country are the two Progressive’s that are left in the race. And so we believe that what benefits us all as does the Working Families Party is for those progressive based on our ideals to go out there and build the broadest, biggest coalitions that they can. So when it comes time, we can defeat the corporate Democrats and defeat Trump and Trumpism once and for all.
Jaisal Noor: And so some have argued that there would actually be an upside to having two Progressive’s in the primary, deep into the primary race, which is very different than 2016. Maurice let’s start with you. Because the downsides are easy. To think about the downsides because the downsides are, is that they’re going to keep clashing with each other and they’re going to be going for each other supporters. What’s your response?
Maurice M.: What we know is that there are millions of people who is still trying to make up their mind. In all of the polls that we’ve seen, we’ve seen significant percentages of people that still have yet to make up their mind. That’s still true in the early primary states. And we think it’s important that the Progressives engage those people and bring them onto the Progressive tent before they’re influenced by the Centrist. And so we think there’s a lot of people to pick up and having two candidates running grassroots campaigns that are focusing on organizing allows that to happen.
Both of these candidates are lifting up Progressive values and doing it in different ways and have different appeals. So we feel like that just grows the tent in bigger ways. And they’re building, each of them are building grassroots armies and coalitions that are distinct. And we think that that’s a good thing.
The other thing I will say is that unity does not mean uniformity. And so I think it’s great that we could argue about not whether or not health care is a right or a commodity, but what is the path to Medicare for All. Right? I think it’s great that we’re arguing, not the idea that we need to take corporate money out of politics, but how we do that. And so when you have multiple Progressive’s in the race, we could actually challenge ourselves to achieve the greatest outcomes but actually settled the debate on these fundamental questions about whether or not the economy and the democracy should work for everyday people.
Jaisal Noor: And Jen, I wanted you to respond to that as well.
Jennifer Epps A: Yeah, I mean I think the biggest risk we have in our strategy is that somehow the disagreements and the sort of strategy and policy differences end up poisoning the well for either of our two preferred candidates to move forward. What we are trying to communicate to our membership, to our base in certainly with our presence online is that we cannot do ourselves a disservice here to say that is our candidate or the only candidate. We have to actually see ourselves in struggle and in unity with folks who have made a different strategic choice on which candidates to support in the primary. Because at the end of the day when we get down to those final states, when we get down to convention, we are going to need each other supporters in order to defeat the corporate wing.
And just to be clear, when we say the corporate wing, we are talking about folks who are taking money from pharmaceutical companies and from wall street who crashed our economy. One of the reasons why black wealth has all but disappeared. The limited amount that we had been able to build has all but disappeared in the last decade. And we’re talking about people who are taking money from the fossil fuel industry as well, sitting there and pretending that they value the principles in the Green New Deal.
We must defeat that because, Democrats, we are a big tent coalition in terms of the elected representatives we have, but when you actually poll us on these issues, when you ask folks, do they want to make sure everybody in this country has health care? When you ask folks, do they want a humane immigration system that treats people as people and not as criminals? When you ask people, do they want to reform our criminal justice system? Are they tired of seeing black bodies slain by the police in this country? The answers to those questions are uniformly yes for people who identify as Democrats and then for a lot of people who have been disillusioned in this political process, who people like Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are welcoming back in.
Jaisal Noor: So Hillary Clinton made headlines this week by saying in an interview based on a documentary she’s in, nobody likes him, Bernie Sanders, called him a career politician and also said, she didn’t commit to backing him in the primary, which she later walked back on Twitter, a short time afterwards, but I wanted to use those recent comments to set up a clip of a freshman congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. She was in conversation with Ta-Nehisi Coates, famed author and journalist at Riverside’s Church on Monday. This is a bit of what she said.
Alexandria O.: We don’t have a left party in the United States. Democratic Party is not a left party. The Democratic Party is a center or center conservative party. We do not advocate for, we do not… We can’t even get a floor vote on Medicare for All, not even a floor vote that gets voted down. We can’t even get a vote on it. So this is not a left party. There are left members inside the Democratic Party that are working to try to make that shift happen.
Jaisal Noor: So final question, we’re almost out of time, Maurice. How important is it going to be to wage this fight, not only on the presidential level, but throughout the democratic party and beyond 2020?
Maurice M.: Sure. I mean, that’s why we’re building the Working Families Party. We believe that the way to expand our politics in this rigid two party system is to build independent political power and to join forces with members in Congress, like member, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and grassroots leaders up and down the ballot. From municipal races like our recent WFP city council, woman, Kendra Brooks, all the way up and hopefully a Progressive president. You have to create an inside, outside coalition that includes the forces on the left of the democratic party and all of these forces in our grassroots movements and labor organizations to push for these changes. Because we know that just like there’s a left wing of the democratic party, there’s a strong organized capital wing that’ll always drag us to the right.
And so I think that that is spot on. And I also think that what Hillary Clinton had to say was correct. People in Washington are afraid of true Progressive’s like Bernie Sanders. That’s why we endorsed him last cycle. That’s why we are very supportive of his movement this cycle, even though we’ve endorsed, Elizabeth Warren. And that’s the reason why so many people have embraced him at that big bold, progressive change that both him and Elizabeth Warren have been champion.
Jaisal Noor: All right Jen, we’ll give you the last word.
Jennifer Epps A: Well I would just say I like that quote from AOC but I liked the one more where she talks about that the party, we are not dragging the party left. We’re bringing the party home and the reality is the millions and millions of people who make up the voting base of the Democratic Party are with us on the issues are with Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the issues. What we have to do is actually inspire them to believe that a better world is possible and that they can actually achieve it through their political participation.
And so that’s why we need a candidate who not just represents policies and ideas, but who brings a movement of people willing to put their time, energy, and hard earned dollars on the line to help elect that candidate president. And we don’t see that happening for any of the corporate Democrats. We see it with candidates who are movement candidates like Senator Warren and Senator Sanders.
Jaisal Noor: We want to thank you both for joining us. Jennifer Epps Addison, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy Action who has endorsed, Senator Sanders. And Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party who have endorsed Senator Warren. Thank you so much for joining us.
Maurice M.: Thank you. It’s good to be here.
Jennifer Epps A: Thank you.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Taylor Hebden
Production: Taylor Hebden, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-24--How Israel Exploits the Holocaust to Justify War Crimes Against Palestinians

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

Dr. Shir Hever grew up in Israel and now lives in Germany. He has been reporting on Israel/Palestine stories for 16 years, and for the Real News specifically since 2016. He’s the author of two books and many articles, and is a committed member of several Palestine solidarity groups.


therealnews--2020-01-24--American College of Physicians Prescribes Single Payer Healthcare

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s the Real News Network and I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
The country ’ s largest medical specialist association , the American College of Physicians or ACP has endorsed single payer as a solution for addressing the healthcare coverage problems in the United States .
The ACP is the national organization of internists .
It published an extensive analysis of the current U S healthcare system in their main publication , the Annals of Internal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Americans lack healthcare coverage , why U S healthcare is so expensive and what alternative health care provision systems would address these problems .
They recommend two main solutions to the healthcare problem , either the creation of a single pair model , which is also known as Medicare for all or a public insurance option in order to achieve universal coverage .
The ACP is the first medical specialist association to recommend such a solution to the healthcare provision problem .
The American Medical Association or AMA , which is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , rejected a single payer proposal last June in a 53 to 47 % vote against it .
Joining me now to discuss the ACPs analysis and recommendations is ACP President , Dr. Robert McLean .
Thanks for joining us today , Dr. McLean .
Robert McLean : Well , thank you very much for having me .
Greg Wilpert : So , let ’ s start with the ACPs diagnosis of the healthcare problem .
Those of us who are familiar with the issue might know some of these figures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that the United States is the only developed country in the world without a universal healthcare system .
Also , that the U S spends about twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of its GDP than any other country in the world .
And that 30 million Americans , nearly 10 % , are uninsured and another 28 % are under-insured .
Now , what did you find are the main reasons for this lack of insurance and for the high cost of healthcare in the United States ?
Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very well that the main problems that we have found and experienced in the last couple decades is that too many of our patients are left behind and it ’ s really due to problems with affordability and accessibility .
And that is kind of what led us to create these papers .
I should say it ’ s helpful to understand where these came from .
So , as you mentioned , there ’ s a tremendous problem with the uninsured and the under-insured and over the past 20 to 30 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it ’ s priorities , access to healthcare being a goal and then universal acts as being a primary goal .
This goes back to around 1990 when we first did a policy paper on that .
And the ACPs had a number of policy papers , many in the two thousands that look at the issues , which include inadequate primary care , problems with Medicare and Medicaid , lots of details .
And while the ACA got us farther than we had been in terms of the number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant affordability problem .
And so , we asked the question , what would it take for us to get our healthcare system to reach certain goals ?
Goals being universal access , being protection for patients who have preexisting conditions and another huge goal being how do we simplify the tremendous amount of administrative burden that ’ s in our system ?
That ’ s experienced , especially by practicing physicians , but by hospitals and hospital systems and patients alike .
So , that was our goal .
How do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked that question or decided to give that as a charge to our policy committees and said , “ What ’ s the evidence ?
” You know , we do evidence , we print practice guidelines and that ’ s what we do well .
So , we said , “ Listen , what ’ s the evidence out there ?
” Because there is a lot of evidence in the last 10 or 20 years of different countries that have done different things and different states that have essentially acted as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyze states , countries , various things that had been done , what works , what doesn ’ t work and we came to a significant conclusion , which was that two options could get us to that place of the things that I mentioned .
And that would include a single pair financed option , government financed and also a public option within a system that still has much more regulated private insurance than we currently have .
Greg Wilpert : Yeah .
I want to dig a little bit deeper on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you examined .
Greg Wilpert : You know it ’ s been a major issue in the presidential campaigns on the of the democratic party and give us an idea , a summary basically , of what this model would look like if it were implemented .
Robert McLean : Well , as you , I think , said earlier , these are some long detailed papers and I can ’ t quote all the details off the top of my head as you ’ re well aware .
They really weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary , I think what we realize is that the only way to get rid of a lot of the administrative burden is to have a significant standardization of how healthcare payment is administered .
Aim for value much more , aim for primary care better .
To get at kind of the question I think you ’ re getting with single payer , you know , how would we pay for it ?
Well , in fact it would be subsidized premiums and payments .
We know that people need care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chronic disease on us and we think that the system would do better by actually significantly either eliminating or reducing co-payments for a lot of those really critically important services because if people actually get care for those services , they won ’ t get sick down the road , they won ’ t go to the ER as much , they won ’ t get hospitalized as much .
And so , the system of overall will improve things .
We think , and this is the first time we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact a role for global budgets for health systems for hospitals .
That is a new recommendation from us .
So , those are two , I think fairly major things .
We think that there needs to be a lot more funding for primary care services as I said .
One of the reasons that we ’ ve really avoided calling it Medicare For All is because some of the plans out there that are touted use that term .
We don ’ t want to necessarily be grouped in with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same .
As an example , I think one of the proposals out there from one of the candidates talks about kind of just switching over to Medicare For All .
I think we clearly recognize that current Medicare rates are not sustainable for many private practice doctors and so , no , that would not work .
Medicare has to be paying a reasonable rate for physicians to hospital systems so that they can actually afford to be in this system .
We think that involvement in this system needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in it , but that we really need to have a way for all patients to have universal access to affordable care .
Greg Wilpert : All right .
I want to dig a little bit deeper on the issue of how it would be paid for .
I mean that has been one of the main controversial issues , particularly in this presidential campaign or where the critics of the system say would increase taxes on everyone and those kinds of arguments .
What ’ s your response to that ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your paper .
Robert McLean : I think we explicitly say that there are situations here depending upon , I mean this is not a bill , so we do not have all the details ironed out , that ’ s the bill of the legislators , quite frankly .
But I think that there needs to be recognition that there may well need to be a specific tax related to healthcare expenses .
People obviously will push back on that .
However , in a simplified system like this , we freely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , deductibles , premiums could potentially and would be significantly less for many people .
So , in the end the amount of money that they are spending on healthcare , but would be the same or potentially significantly less than it is now .
So , it can ’ t be looked at just as there ’ s going to be an extra tax when on the backend so many other expenses we will expect and models would predict it ’ ll be lower .
Greg Wilpert : And finally , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally , has been very reluctant to endorse single payer it seems .
That is the AMA , as I mentioned earlier , rejected the proposal just last June .
Why do you think that is ?
Why have they been so reluctant ?
Robert McLean : Well , I think there is a lot of a distrust of the government , of big government .
There ’ s concern about lack of control , lack of autonomy , which a lot of physicians enjoy as kind of small businesses in certain ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the increasing administrative burden is making the practice of medicine increasingly challenging .
So many things are not working for the physician practices and for our patients and I think the vast majority of physicians are willing to kind of take a pause and say , and really recognize what is not working in our current system .
And that ’ s what we really dive into in a lot of great detail with a lot of evidence .
And I think taking a fresh look is really appropriate and necessary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you ask the questions the right way , will agree with most if not everything that we say .
I would say you ’ d pointed out at the top of the interview , the statistics on the vote at the AMA meeting and 53 to 47 is close .
You know that is way different from what it would have been a few years , if not a few decades ago .
And I think that really does show that the physicians of today are much more willing to kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current system is just so dysfunctional for our patients especially and for us that I think they realize that with the right rules and guardrails in place , single payer system is not unreasonable .
I mean , as I said , that does not mean that we would transition everything over to the current Medicare .
Medicare has lots of problems , done a lot of good things in the last couple of years , which is great , but the payment that Medicare has would need to have significant changes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we put that in our proposal .
Greg Wilpert : Finally , how do you think that this proposal would proceed ?
I mean , do you hope that members of Congress will pick it up or that it will be integrated in some of the plans that are currently existing ?
How do you envision this to move forward ?
Robert McLean : Yeah , I think that ’ s it .
I mean we put this out this time of year , this has been in the planning for a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if things aren ’ t working , it ’ s time for some bold changes .
The ACA had taken us a certain distance .
It ’ s still done a lot of great stuff with Medicaid expansion , but when Medicaid is not paying adequately , there still is not enough affordable insurance in many states and the goal was to put out something that is evidence based that people can look at as a non partisan proposal .
It ’ s political because this is policy and people will regard this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political because you can ’ t do policy without being in politic .
But it ’ s not a partisan , we are not endorsing anyone else ’ s plan .
We ’ re not endorsing any other candidate and we hope that the candidates will look at this and take it or aspects of it and incorporate it into what they ’ re thinking .
This is much more detailed than any of the proposals and bills out there because it just has to be , this is complex stuff .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been frustrated with and we hope to help change the dialogue and elevate the conversation is it ’ s really , I think tiresome to hear medical issues be simplified as rhetoric on the campaign trail as you know , one or two sentence paragraphs of some really complicated stuff .
And our hope is to educate the legislators and the elected officials that this needs to be looked at with a fresh look .
And the other thing too , to really empower our patients to understand some of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and really demand of their election officials that healthcare is not a commodity like other commodities and it has been treated as such .
Our analysis as I said , came to these two conclusions as possible paths .
We clearly concluded that purely market driven approaches will not work to get us , if those are the goals that at least we have and I think most people have , which are pretty straight forward things that most people would agree with .
But everyone , I ’ m a doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week who can not afford their prescription drugs , they can not afford copays .
They complain about having gone to the ER and now having huge deductibles and the financial burdens are huge .
And there was a poll , I think just a week or two ago , how the highest causes of either family and individual bankruptcy in this country , our medical bills .
So , we think the time is right for people to kind of really wake up and hopefully look at some bold proposals which have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and push things along .
That ’ s our hope .
Greg Wilpert : I think that your last point is extremely crucial , especially considering the nature of the presidential debates and discourse where each candidate gets only a minute to present their proposal , which obviously doesn ’ t do anywhere near the justice that these kinds of topics deserve .
So , I think this is really great that you have presented such a detailed analysis and proposal , but we ’ re going to have to leave it there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Dr. Robert McLean , President of the American College of Physicians .
Thanks again for having joined us today .
Robert McLean : And if people want to go and find it , it ’ s online at acponline.org .
There are links to the policy papers where I ’ d really encourage people to take a look .
Thank you very much .
Greg Wilpert : Okay , well we ’ re certainly going to link to it when we publish this story .
Robert McLean : Well , thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wilpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

The second largest American medical association analyzed the ailing U.S. healthcare system and prescribed public health insurance as the remedy. We discuss the diagnosis with ACP President Robert McLean.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s the Real News Network and I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. The country’s largest medical specialist association, the American College of Physicians or ACP has endorsed single payer as a solution for addressing the healthcare coverage problems in the United States. The ACP is the national organization of internists. It published an extensive analysis of the current U S healthcare system in their main publication, the Annals of Internal Medicine where they look at why so many Americans lack healthcare coverage, why U S healthcare is so expensive and what alternative health care provision systems would address these problems.
They recommend two main solutions to the healthcare problem, either the creation of a single pair model, which is also known as Medicare for all or a public insurance option in order to achieve universal coverage. The ACP is the first medical specialist association to recommend such a solution to the healthcare provision problem. The American Medical Association or AMA, which is the largest general medical association in the United States, rejected a single payer proposal last June in a 53 to 47% vote against it. Joining me now to discuss the ACPs analysis and recommendations is ACP President, Dr. Robert McLean. Thanks for joining us today, Dr. McLean.
Robert McLean: Well, thank you very much for having me.
Greg Wilpert: So, let’s start with the ACPs diagnosis of the healthcare problem. Those of us who are familiar with the issue might know some of these figures, but they bear repeating, for example, that the United States is the only developed country in the world without a universal healthcare system. Also, that the U S spends about twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of its GDP than any other country in the world. And that 30 million Americans, nearly 10%, are uninsured and another 28% are under-insured. Now, what did you find are the main reasons for this lack of insurance and for the high cost of healthcare in the United States?
Robert McLean: Well, you pointed out very well that the main problems that we have found and experienced in the last couple decades is that too many of our patients are left behind and it’s really due to problems with affordability and accessibility. And that is kind of what led us to create these papers. I should say it’s helpful to understand where these came from. So, as you mentioned, there’s a tremendous problem with the uninsured and the under-insured and over the past 20 to 30 years, the ACP has had as one of it’s priorities, access to healthcare being a goal and then universal acts as being a primary goal. This goes back to around 1990 when we first did a policy paper on that. And the ACPs had a number of policy papers, many in the two thousands that look at the issues, which include inadequate primary care, problems with Medicare and Medicaid, lots of details.
And while the ACA got us farther than we had been in terms of the number of people who had insurance, there was still a significant affordability problem. And so, we asked the question, what would it take for us to get our healthcare system to reach certain goals? Goals being universal access, being protection for patients who have preexisting conditions and another huge goal being how do we simplify the tremendous amount of administrative burden that’s in our system? That’s experienced, especially by practicing physicians, but by hospitals and hospital systems and patients alike.
So, that was our goal. How do we get to that? And we asked that question or decided to give that as a charge to our policy committees and said, “What’s the evidence?” You know, we do evidence, we print practice guidelines and that’s what we do well. So, we said, “Listen, what’s the evidence out there?” Because there is a lot of evidence in the last 10 or 20 years of different countries that have done different things and different states that have essentially acted as kind of pilots. So, we analyze states, countries, various things that had been done, what works, what doesn’t work and we came to a significant conclusion, which was that two options could get us to that place of the things that I mentioned. And that would include a single pair financed option, government financed and also a public option within a system that still has much more regulated private insurance than we currently have.
Greg Wilpert: Yeah. I want to dig a little bit deeper on the issue of the single payer possibility that you examined.
Robert McLean: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Greg Wilpert: You know it’s been a major issue in the presidential campaigns on the of the democratic party and give us an idea, a summary basically, of what this model would look like if it were implemented.
Robert McLean: Well, as you, I think, said earlier, these are some long detailed papers and I can’t quote all the details off the top of my head as you’re well aware. They really weren’t a good read. In summary, I think what we realize is that the only way to get rid of a lot of the administrative burden is to have a significant standardization of how healthcare payment is administered. Aim for value much more, aim for primary care better. To get at kind of the question I think you’re getting with single payer, you know, how would we pay for it? Well, in fact it would be subsidized premiums and payments. We know that people need care, certain primary care, certain aspects of chronic disease on us and we think that the system would do better by actually significantly either eliminating or reducing co-payments for a lot of those really critically important services because if people actually get care for those services, they won’t get sick down the road, they won’t go to the ER as much, they won’t get hospitalized as much. And so, the system of overall will improve things.
We think, and this is the first time we’ve said this, that there is in fact a role for global budgets for health systems for hospitals. That is a new recommendation from us. So, those are two, I think fairly major things. We think that there needs to be a lot more funding for primary care services as I said. One of the reasons that we’ve really avoided calling it Medicare For All is because some of the plans out there that are touted use that term. We don’t want to necessarily be grouped in with that because it’s not exactly the same. As an example, I think one of the proposals out there from one of the candidates talks about kind of just switching over to Medicare For All.
I think we clearly recognize that current Medicare rates are not sustainable for many private practice doctors and so, no, that would not work. Medicare has to be paying a reasonable rate for physicians to hospital systems so that they can actually afford to be in this system. We think that involvement in this system needs to be voluntary, on the basis of those people in it, but that we really need to have a way for all patients to have universal access to affordable care.
Greg Wilpert: All right. I want to dig a little bit deeper on the issue of how it would be paid for. I mean that has been one of the main controversial issues, particularly in this presidential campaign or where the critics of the system say would increase taxes on everyone and those kinds of arguments. What’s your response to that? And the response that we find in your paper.
Robert McLean: I think we explicitly say that there are situations here depending upon, I mean this is not a bill, so we do not have all the details ironed out, that’s the bill of the legislators, quite frankly. But I think that there needs to be recognition that there may well need to be a specific tax related to healthcare expenses. People obviously will push back on that. However, in a simplified system like this, we freely plan and anticipate that things like copays, deductibles, premiums could potentially and would be significantly less for many people. So, in the end the amount of money that they are spending on healthcare, but would be the same or potentially significantly less than it is now. So, it can’t be looked at just as there’s going to be an extra tax when on the backend so many other expenses we will expect and models would predict it’ll be lower.
Greg Wilpert: And finally, I’m wondering the medical profession more generally, has been very reluctant to endorse single payer it seems. That is the AMA, as I mentioned earlier, rejected the proposal just last June. Why do you think that is? Why have they been so reluctant?
Robert McLean: Well, I think there is a lot of a distrust of the government, of big government. There’s concern about lack of control, lack of autonomy, which a lot of physicians enjoy as kind of small businesses in certain ways. But I think that the recognition that the increasing administrative burden is making the practice of medicine increasingly challenging.
So many things are not working for the physician practices and for our patients and I think the vast majority of physicians are willing to kind of take a pause and say, and really recognize what is not working in our current system. And that’s what we really dive into in a lot of great detail with a lot of evidence. And I think taking a fresh look is really appropriate and necessary. I think a lot of doctors, if you ask the questions the right way, will agree with most if not everything that we say. I would say you’d pointed out at the top of the interview, the statistics on the vote at the AMA meeting and 53 to 47 is close. You know that is way different from what it would have been a few years, if not a few decades ago.
And I think that really does show that the physicians of today are much more willing to kind of look at change to recognize that the current system is just so dysfunctional for our patients especially and for us that I think they realize that with the right rules and guardrails in place, single payer system is not unreasonable. I mean, as I said, that does not mean that we would transition everything over to the current Medicare. Medicare has lots of problems, done a lot of good things in the last couple of years, which is great, but the payment that Medicare has would need to have significant changes for this kind of stuff to work and we put that in our proposal.
Greg Wilpert: Finally, how do you think that this proposal would proceed? I mean, do you hope that members of Congress will pick it up or that it will be integrated in some of the plans that are currently existing? How do you envision this to move forward?
Robert McLean: Yeah, I think that’s it. I mean we put this out this time of year, this has been in the planning for a year and a half. The idea was if things aren’t working, it’s time for some bold changes. The ACA had taken us a certain distance. It’s still done a lot of great stuff with Medicaid expansion, but when Medicaid is not paying adequately, there still is not enough affordable insurance in many states and the goal was to put out something that is evidence based that people can look at as a non partisan proposal. It’s political because this is policy and people will regard this as being political. Yes it is political because you can’t do policy without being in politic.
But it’s not a partisan, we are not endorsing anyone else’s plan. We’re not endorsing any other candidate and we hope that the candidates will look at this and take it or aspects of it and incorporate it into what they’re thinking. This is much more detailed than any of the proposals and bills out there because it just has to be, this is complex stuff. I think one of the things that we’ve been frustrated with and we hope to help change the dialogue and elevate the conversation is it’s really, I think tiresome to hear medical issues be simplified as rhetoric on the campaign trail as you know, one or two sentence paragraphs of some really complicated stuff.
And our hope is to educate the legislators and the elected officials that this needs to be looked at with a fresh look. And the other thing too, to really empower our patients to understand some of these issues better and for them to stand up and really demand of their election officials that healthcare is not a commodity like other commodities and it has been treated as such. Our analysis as I said, came to these two conclusions as possible paths. We clearly concluded that purely market driven approaches will not work to get us, if those are the goals that at least we have and I think most people have, which are pretty straight forward things that most people would agree with. But everyone, I’m a doctor in Connecticut and I see patients every week who can not afford their prescription drugs, they cannot afford copays. They complain about having gone to the ER and now having huge deductibles and the financial burdens are huge.
And there was a poll, I think just a week or two ago, how the highest causes of either family and individual bankruptcy in this country, our medical bills. So, we think the time is right for people to kind of really wake up and hopefully look at some bold proposals which have lots of facts and evidence behind them and push things along. That’s our hope.
Greg Wilpert: I think that your last point is extremely crucial, especially considering the nature of the presidential debates and discourse where each candidate gets only a minute to present their proposal, which obviously doesn’t do anywhere near the justice that these kinds of topics deserve. So, I think this is really great that you have presented such a detailed analysis and proposal, but we’re going to have to leave it there for now. I’m speaking to Dr. Robert McLean, President of the American College of Physicians. Thanks again for having joined us today.
Robert McLean: And if people want to go and find it, it’s online at acponline.org. There are links to the policy papers where I’d really encourage people to take a look. Thank you very much.
Greg Wilpert: Okay, well we’re certainly going to link to it when we publish this story.
Robert McLean: Well, thank you very much for having me.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Will Arenas, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-24--200,000 Canadian Teachers Strike to Defend Public Education

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--2020-01-27--Exclusive: Drug Lobbyist Caught Heading Prescription Affordability Board

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--2020-01-28--Students Say the Cost of Underfunding Schools Is Too High

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jaisal Noor : I ’ m Jaisal Noor for The Real News .
Chanting , “ Our schools , our rules.
” About 200 Baltimore youth marched on the state ’ s capital to demand more funding for city schools .
Protesters 1 : Okay , okay .
Listen here .
Protesters 2 : Like you matter .
Are we clear ?
Speaker 4 : I ’ m out here to protest and let everyone know that youth voices need to be heard .
Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City is under-resourced , underfunded .
Jaisal Noor : And they came with a message for Maryland ’ s Republican Governor , Larry Hogan .
Speaker 4 : With the amount of funding we get , we can not succeed .
We will not be able to see success and get farther in our life is we want to .
Speaker 5 : If you see the difference when you go to a public school every day and you can see like , “ Yeah , I don ’ t want to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students every time .
Students graduate from Baltimore City , most of our students got to take remedial math classes .
Jaisal Noor : Maryland ’ s legislature is currently considering a plan to overhaul its education system as proposed by the Kirwan Commission .
Its recommendations would change school funding formulas , revamp curricula , teacher assessment , early childhood education and more .
Speaker 4 : Me being a junior , I still got a whole another year .
And it ’ s not just for high school , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well .
So this is important to me because I plan on being able to stay in school , achieve my dreams , achieve my goals and what I actually want to be when I grow up .
Jaisal Noor : And an analysis by the centrist Sage Policy Group found Kirwan would start paying for itself in 15 years .
Speaker 6 : And you didn ’ t even really need to hire expensive people to tell you that when folks are better educated , they end up with better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better jobs , they end up paying into the system instead of money being put toward supporting them in the system .
So there ’ s been an analysis that says within 20 years , not only will the investment be recouped , after that , the state ’ s going to actually be in a better economic conditions than if they hadn ’ t made that investment in the first place .
Speaker 7 : But ultimately , if you don ’ t invest in young people , if you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and make that a part of the strategy for the school system , then there are no opportunities and it doesn ’ t matter how much money you spend on public safety in the long run .
Jaisal Noor : With Cameron Granadino , this is Jaisal Noor , Annapolis , Maryland .

200 Baltimore students and their allies ask why there’s always money to fund police and the military, but never any for public schools.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Protesters 1: Our schools.
Protesters 2: Our rules.
Protesters 1: Our schools.
Protesters 2: Our rules.
Jaisal Noor: I’m Jaisal Noor for The Real News. Chanting, “Our schools, our rules.” About 200 Baltimore youth marched on the state’s capital to demand more funding for city schools.
Protesters 2: [inaudible 00:00:17] are we clear?
Protesters 1: Okay, okay. Listen here.
Protesters 2: Like you matter. Are we clear?
Speaker 4: I’m out here to protest and let everyone know that youth voices need to be heard.
Speaker 5: We all know that Baltimore City is under-resourced, underfunded.
Jaisal Noor: And they came with a message for Maryland’s Republican Governor, Larry Hogan.
Speaker 4: With the amount of funding we get, we cannot succeed. We will not be able to see success and get farther in our life is we want to.
Speaker 5: If you see the difference when you go to a public school every day and you can see like, “Yeah, I don’t want to be here.” I saw a bunch of students every time. Students graduate from Baltimore City, most of our students got to take remedial math classes.
Jaisal Noor: Maryland’s legislature is currently considering a plan to overhaul its education system as proposed by the Kirwan Commission. Its recommendations would change school funding formulas, revamp curricula, teacher assessment, early childhood education and more.
Speaker 4: Me being a junior, I still got a whole another year. And it’s not just for high school, it’s going up to college career readiness, as well. So this is important to me because I plan on being able to stay in school, achieve my dreams, achieve my goals and what I actually want to be when I grow up.
Jaisal Noor: And an analysis by the centrist Sage Policy Group found Kirwan would start paying for itself in 15 years.
Speaker 6: And you didn’t even really need to hire expensive people to tell you that when folks are better educated, they end up with better life prospects, they end up with better jobs, they end up paying into the system instead of money being put toward supporting them in the system. So there’s been an analysis that says within 20 years, not only will the investment be recouped, after that, the state’s going to actually be in a better economic conditions than if they hadn’t made that investment in the first place.
Speaker 7: But ultimately, if you don’t invest in young people, if you don’t invest in economic opportunities for young people and make that a part of the strategy for the school system, then there are no opportunities and it doesn’t matter how much money you spend on public safety in the long run.
Jaisal Noor: With Cameron Granadino, this is Jaisal Noor, Annapolis, Maryland.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-28--Dems Load Platform Committee to Stop Progressive Movement

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
According to the polls , Bernie Sanders is in the lead in Iowa and some national polling as well .
The Democratic establishment is clearly on the edge and nervous about Sander ’ s potential to win this domination .
So , DNC chair Tom Perez is doing the official majority work , to circumvent any chance that either Sanders could get the nomination or the progressives will have a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention itself .
This week as our guest Kevin Gosztola pointed out on Twitter and later in a piece for Grayzone , the DNC chair Tom Perez nominated members to the DNC platform committee that were against progressive agenda that either Warren or Sanders supports .
When Perez defeating Keith Ellison for the chair of the DNC , he began purging progressives from committees .
Clearly the internal war among Democrats is heating up .
Could all this lead to Trump being given another four years ?
Could the Democrats defeat themselves ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ another while the right wing surrounding Trump laughs all the way .
We ’ re joined now by the man who broke the story on Twitter about Perez packing the DNC platform committee and once again joins us here , Real News .
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shatterproof.com and cohost of the podcast Unauthorized DIs .
DIs , do I have that right ?
Marc Steiner : Disclosure .
Great .
That ’ s what I have for DIS period , it ’ s my mistake .
Good to have you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this from the top , just how you came to this story and what your take was .
Kevin Gosztola : There was a list that was posted on social media on a few days ago and it was just before the weekend and I decided to go digging and look at who the individuals were that DNC chair Tom Perez nominated for these standing committees .
You have the rules committee , you ’ ve got the very crucially important platform committee .
Then you have the credentials committee , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether a member is still in good standing and deserves to remain a part of the Democratic Party or a part of any of these committees .
So they ’ ll hear any challenges as to whether a person is eligible for a committee or any of these positions or these party positions , et cetera .
I started to look at all of the different individuals .
I recognized some of the names and basically I did some research on who these people work for , what their ties are .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton campaign officials for both Hillary ’ s campaigns as well as Bill Clinton ’ s campaign .
Some of these are recognizable because they worked for president Barack Obama .
Then you begin to see a picture as you look through the different lists of individuals who have positions on corporate consulting firms , have positions as lobbyist , and so that ’ s… So I just let this take me wherever it would go .
Marc Steiner : So I mean you , you point out some people are very specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , and others that you kind of deem as kind of emblematic of what ’ s being done here and how the packing committee .
So talk a bit about who really jumped out at you and why and I have some more specific questions about this .
Kevin Gosztola : I ’ d break it down into these groups of people who you could go after because they ’ re a pro-Israel Democrats .
I think that ’ s really significant because we saw this outline appear back in 2016 when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zogby , who is someone who was part of the DNC executive committee , which appoints all these people to the standing committees , he was purged by Tom Perez from the executive committee in 2017 .
So he was the voice on the platform drafting committee in 2016 for changing some of the language speak to the humanitarian crisis that was going on in Gaza to acknowledge that there is an Israeli military occupation and the Clinton delegates thwarted any efforts along with some of the DNC deligates so they prevented Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a battle over changing language so that it didn ’ t treat the Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions movement as this movement that is antisemitic .
So you see that now that there are people who are put on these standing committees who are part of groups , like one of them is Meghan Stabler who is Democratic Majority for Israel that was recently created last year .
Its sole existence is to prevent the Democratic Party from being changed in the way that it treats Palestinians , but most importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel in order to be this ally that fights , that we use to fight different countries in the middle East .
But then you look at Bakari Sellers , he actually spearheaded the fight back in 2016 to prevent any changes to the platform .
Over the last years , as you look at them , not only do you have that , you have the fact that he ’ s cast aspersions on Bernie Sanders and his ability to appeal to black voters making it seem like his record as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all and should bear no significance , and he ’ s been involved in basically weaponizing his identity as a black commentator at CNN in order to use this as a kind of cudgel against Bernie Sanders to make it difficult for the Sanders campaign to show that they have wide appeal outside of white voters essentially .
So you have that subset .
Then you have these corporate consultants .
You have people who are involved in representing interests that are against progressive politics .
So there ’ s the Dewey Square @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are working for them , Maria Cardona , you have Minyon Moore and you have Charlie Baker who is the founder and president of the Dewey Square Group .
The Intercept had previously reported that this group had fought against the health reform legislation that Barack Obama was responsible for passing and that they also have represented interests that don ’ t have much interest in raising the minimum wage .
So you have this reality that there are these people who are on one hand neo-liberals and then you also have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status quo when it comes to how Democrats treat foreign policy .
Marc Steiner : So I mean , listen , so when you look at this list , and clearly this list is really weighted towards corporate Democrats and there ’ s clearly a push to minimize Sanders and the power of the Sanders movement or even Elizabeth Warren as well .
I think , there ’ s a clear push here from inside .
But the question becomes then , if the Democratic Party at this point in American history is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unseat Trump , what does this mean for that internal battle and where that takes us November election ?
I mean , that to me was the thing that really glared .
I ’ d also read David Frum ’ s piece in The Atlantic just before we went on the air , that just came on just before we got into this conversation together where he also said to the Democrats , you have to… Bernie can ’ t win , I think but that you have to take some of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any hope of defeating Trump .
So it was interesting , David Frum who was a Republican and worked for Bush , but let ’ s talk a bit about what this means in the larger sense when you have this internal war going on and what that could mean towards the convention and post-convention .
Kevin Gosztola : Yeah , and what David Frum wrote is incredible because he ’ s obviously someone who is part of the Bush administration and he helped bring us the Iraq war and he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Bernie Sanders is going to meet this army and he ’ s using war metaphors when in fact he sent us into a war and never found weapons of mass destruction .
Anyways , we all know that .
I think what people need to know is that there was this battle over super delegates that played out in 2016 and the Bernie Sanders camp decided that they were going to go to war in order to make sure that they removed these super delegates and they fought and eventually they got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who represented the Clinton campaign ’ s interests , represented some of the DNC ’ s interests , and then you had people who represented what the Sanders campaign wanted out of the Democratic Party .
Kevin Gosztola : They ended up diminishing the power of super delegates .
The Sanders campaign did not win an abolition of super delegates , but what you have now is the super delegates do not get to vote until after the first ballot .
What we see happening here with these DNC standing committees is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way that they are going to be able to help these super delegates when they are supposed to take that vote .
So if Bernie Sanders does not have enough pledged delegates during the democratic national convention in July , which will be in Milwaukee , then it ’ s going to go to the super delegates to add , and they have over 700 super delegates that are going to be able to add their vote and none of them are supposed to or required to vote the way in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote against Bernie Sanders from a state where Bernie Sanders won , and then all of these people can carry out this agenda .
But even if Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee , the other struggle that you see is that they could thwart his agenda in the platform .
So very possible that you could nominate Bernie Sanders , but then have a Democratic Party platform that caters to corporate interests as it has for the last few decades as it has for the new Democrat .
Marc Steiner : But just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have to get into this too deeply here .
But if Bernie Sanders is in fact the nominee for the Democratic Party , if that should happen , if he can he can win on the first ballot , which is probably not going to happen .
But who knows .
If he was nominee , he could do whatever he wanted .
He doesn ’ t have to listen .
Nobody listens to the platform once they ’ re out running in the field .
They ’ re running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pushing as hard as they can to win .
So the question is what does this lead ?
What do you think , before we close , with this internal struggle going on , leads the Democrats in their fight against this kind of white nationalist takeover of the executive branch and pushing this arch conservative agenda , but where does that leave that struggle ?
Kevin Gosztola : This just shows what we ’ ve been going through for the last four years , which the Democratic Party has been entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferred to fight Donald Trump by making people believe that he ’ s some kind of Russian asset when in fact they haven ’ t been able to provide any proof or evidence .
That was all a distraction .
All of this deflection from addressing how Hillary Clinton actually lost in the 2016 election was so they didn ’ t have to change the way in which they allow corporations and lobbyists and think tank board members , the very people who are on these standing committees , they didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have and the direction of the party .
So they created this whole idea that Donald Trump is controlled somehow and getting orders and being influenced by the Russian government and they wanted us to be distracted .
Now we come to 2020 when we really need to have our best nominee to beat Donald Trump , the Democrats have to have their best nominee to beat Donald Trump and they ’ re in trouble because everything that they ’ ve organized is politically against where the progressive base is .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this energy .
So they ’ ve nominated all these people who are actually going to be suppressing the vote , suppressing people who are enthusiastic .
I think what we see happening is we ’ re going to have a battle in July and either Bernie Sanders prevails or you see something with Sanders and Warren coming together to form a coalition and they prevail or you see something where maybe some of these smaller candidates like Tang and Tulsi Gabbard could contribute in some ways .
But if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve got a corporate candidate who becomes the nominee and you ’ re going to see a repeat of 2016 where people just say , “ I ’ m fed up .
I ’ m sick and tired of being sick and tired and I don ’ t want to play this game anymore.
” Marc Steiner : Well , we ’ ll probably have to leave it there though I ’ d love to kind of delve more deeply about what that means for the next four years if Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for your future , our futures , the entire country ’ s future .
But we ’ ll get into that another day .
Kevin Gosztola .
It ’ s always great to talk to you .
Appreciate your writing and what you expose today in this .
Kevin is managing editor of Shadowproof .
You can read his article over the Grayzone .
Once again , thank you so much for being with us .
Marc Steiner : My pleasure .
I ’ m Marc Steiner here for the Real News Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please let us know what you think and where you ’ d like us to take these conversations .
Take care .

DNC Chair Tom Perez is stacking party committees to sideline Sanders and to push a corporate agenda that kills progressive ideas and campaigns.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. According to the polls, Bernie Sanders is in the lead in Iowa and some national polling as well. The Democratic establishment is clearly on the edge and nervous about Sander’s potential to win this domination. So, DNC chair Tom Perez is doing the official majority work, to circumvent any chance that either Sanders could get the nomination or the progressives will have a significant voice in the DNC or at the convention itself. This week as our guest Kevin Gosztola pointed out on Twitter and later in a piece for Grayzone, the DNC chair Tom Perez nominated members to the DNC platform committee that were against progressive agenda that either Warren or Sanders supports.
When Perez defeating Keith Ellison for the chair of the DNC, he began purging progressives from committees. Clearly the internal war among Democrats is heating up. Could all this lead to Trump being given another four years? Could the Democrats defeat themselves? Neo-liberals and progressives taking aim at one another while the right wing surrounding Trump laughs all the way. We’re joined now by the man who broke the story on Twitter about Perez packing the DNC platform committee and once again joins us here, Real News. Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shatterproof.com and cohost of the podcast Unauthorized DIs. DIs, do I have that right?
Kevin Gosztola: It’s Unauthorized Disclosure.
Marc Steiner: Disclosure. Great. That’s what I have for DIS period, it’s my mistake. Good to have you with us, Kevin. So talk about this from the top, just how you came to this story and what your take was.
Kevin Gosztola: There was a list that was posted on social media on a few days ago and it was just before the weekend and I decided to go digging and look at who the individuals were that DNC chair Tom Perez nominated for these standing committees. You have the rules committee, you’ve got the very crucially important platform committee. Then you have the credentials committee, which is essentially a committee that looks at whether a member is still in good standing and deserves to remain a part of the Democratic Party or a part of any of these committees. So they’ll hear any challenges as to whether a person is eligible for a committee or any of these positions or these party positions, et cetera.
I started to look at all of the different individuals. I recognized some of the names and basically I did some research on who these people work for, what their ties are. I knew that some of them were former Clinton campaign officials for both Hillary’s campaigns as well as Bill Clinton’s campaign. Some of these are recognizable because they worked for president Barack Obama. Then you begin to see a picture as you look through the different lists of individuals who have positions on corporate consulting firms, have positions as lobbyist, and so that’s… So I just let this take me wherever it would go.
Marc Steiner: So I mean you, you point out some people are very specifically on this list. Bakari Sellers being one, and others that you kind of deem as kind of emblematic of what’s being done here and how the packing committee. So talk a bit about who really jumped out at you and why and I have some more specific questions about this.
Kevin Gosztola: I’d break it down into these groups of people who you could go after because they’re a pro-Israel Democrats. I think that’s really significant because we saw this outline appear back in 2016 when Bernie Sanders with the assistance of James Zogby, who is someone who was part of the DNC executive committee, which appoints all these people to the standing committees, he was purged by Tom Perez from the executive committee in 2017. So he was the voice on the platform drafting committee in 2016 for changing some of the language speak to the humanitarian crisis that was going on in Gaza to acknowledge that there is an Israeli military occupation and the Clinton delegates thwarted any efforts along with some of the DNC deligates so they prevented Sanders from changing the platform.
There was also a battle over changing language so that it didn’t treat the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as this movement that is antisemitic. So you see that now that there are people who are put on these standing committees who are part of groups, like one of them is Meghan Stabler who is Democratic Majority for Israel that was recently created last year. Its sole existence is to prevent the Democratic Party from being changed in the way that it treats Palestinians, but most importantly, the way that it might abandon arming Israel in order to be this ally that fights, that we use to fight different countries in the middle East.
But then you look at Bakari Sellers, he actually spearheaded the fight back in 2016 to prevent any changes to the platform. Over the last years, as you look at them, not only do you have that, you have the fact that he’s cast aspersions on Bernie Sanders and his ability to appeal to black voters making it seem like his record as a civil rights activist does not matter at all and should bear no significance, and he’s been involved in basically weaponizing his identity as a black commentator at CNN in order to use this as a kind of cudgel against Bernie Sanders to make it difficult for the Sanders campaign to show that they have wide appeal outside of white voters essentially.
So you have that subset. Then you have these corporate consultants. You have people who are involved in representing interests that are against progressive politics. So there’s the Dewey Square Group, and I found three individuals that are working for them, Maria Cardona, you have Minyon Moore and you have Charlie Baker who is the founder and president of the Dewey Square Group. The Intercept had previously reported that this group had fought against the health reform legislation that Barack Obama was responsible for passing and that they also have represented interests that don’t have much interest in raising the minimum wage. So you have this reality that there are these people who are on one hand neo-liberals and then you also have these others who want to protect the status quo when it comes to how Democrats treat foreign policy.
Marc Steiner: So I mean, listen, so when you look at this list, and clearly this list is really weighted towards corporate Democrats and there’s clearly a push to minimize Sanders and the power of the Sanders movement or even Elizabeth Warren as well. I think, there’s a clear push here from inside. But the question becomes then, if the Democratic Party at this point in American history is most likely the only force that can unseat Trump, what does this mean for that internal battle and where that takes us November election? I mean, that to me was the thing that really glared. I’d also read David Frum’s piece in The Atlantic just before we went on the air, that just came on just before we got into this conversation together where he also said to the Democrats, you have to… Bernie can’t win, I think but that you have to take some of his platform and his ideas if you have any hope of defeating Trump.
So it was interesting, David Frum who was a Republican and worked for Bush, but let’s talk a bit about what this means in the larger sense when you have this internal war going on and what that could mean towards the convention and post-convention.
Kevin Gosztola: Yeah, and what David Frum wrote is incredible because he’s obviously someone who is part of the Bush administration and he helped bring us the Iraq war and he’s using throughout his piece this metaphor of how Bernie Sanders is going to meet this army and he’s using war metaphors when in fact he sent us into a war and never found weapons of mass destruction. Anyways, we all know that. I think what people need to know is that there was this battle over super delegates that played out in 2016 and the Bernie Sanders camp decided that they were going to go to war in order to make sure that they removed these super delegates and they fought and eventually they got this unity reform commission where there were people who represented the Clinton campaign’s interests, represented some of the DNC’s interests, and then you had people who represented what the Sanders campaign wanted out of the Democratic Party.
Marc Steiner: Right.
Kevin Gosztola: They ended up diminishing the power of super delegates. The Sanders campaign did not win an abolition of super delegates, but what you have now is the super delegates do not get to vote until after the first ballot. What we see happening here with these DNC standing committees is that you have them stacked in such a way that they are going to be able to help these super delegates when they are supposed to take that vote. So if Bernie Sanders does not have enough pledged delegates during the democratic national convention in July, which will be in Milwaukee, then it’s going to go to the super delegates to add, and they have over 700 super delegates that are going to be able to add their vote and none of them are supposed to or required to vote the way in which their state voted.
So they could vote against Bernie Sanders from a state where Bernie Sanders won, and then all of these people can carry out this agenda. But even if Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee, the other struggle that you see is that they could thwart his agenda in the platform. So very possible that you could nominate Bernie Sanders, but then have a Democratic Party platform that caters to corporate interests as it has for the last few decades as it has for the new Democrat.
Marc Steiner: But just for argument’s sake, we don’t have to get into this too deeply here. But if Bernie Sanders is in fact the nominee for the Democratic Party, if that should happen, if he can he can win on the first ballot, which is probably not going to happen. But who knows. If he was nominee, he could do whatever he wanted. He doesn’t have to listen. Nobody listens to the platform once they’re out running in the field. They’re running on what they believe in and they are pushing as hard as they can to win. So the question is what does this lead? What do you think, before we close, with this internal struggle going on, leads the Democrats in their fight against this kind of white nationalist takeover of the executive branch and pushing this arch conservative agenda, but where does that leave that struggle?
Kevin Gosztola: This just shows what we’ve been going through for the last four years, which the Democratic Party has been entirely ignoring, and instead they’ve preferred to fight Donald Trump by making people believe that he’s some kind of Russian asset when in fact they haven’t been able to provide any proof or evidence. That was all a distraction. All of this deflection from addressing how Hillary Clinton actually lost in the 2016 election was so they didn’t have to change the way in which they allow corporations and lobbyists and think tank board members, the very people who are on these standing committees, they didn’t want to change the role that these people have and the direction of the party.
So they created this whole idea that Donald Trump is controlled somehow and getting orders and being influenced by the Russian government and they wanted us to be distracted. Now we come to 2020 when we really need to have our best nominee to beat Donald Trump, the Democrats have to have their best nominee to beat Donald Trump and they’re in trouble because everything that they’ve organized is politically against where the progressive base is. It’s politically against the grassroots and all of this energy. So they’ve nominated all these people who are actually going to be suppressing the vote, suppressing people who are enthusiastic.
I think what we see happening is we’re going to have a battle in July and either Bernie Sanders prevails or you see something with Sanders and Warren coming together to form a coalition and they prevail or you see something where maybe some of these smaller candidates like Tang and Tulsi Gabbard could contribute in some ways. But if they don’t prevail, then you’ve got a corporate candidate who becomes the nominee and you’re going to see a repeat of 2016 where people just say, “I’m fed up. I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired and I don’t want to play this game anymore.”
Marc Steiner: Well, we’ll probably have to leave it there though I’d love to kind of delve more deeply about what that means for the next four years if Trump is in there and what that could mean for your future, our futures, the entire country’s future. But we’ll get into that another day. Kevin Gosztola. It’s always great to talk to you. Appreciate your writing and what you expose today in this. Kevin is managing editor of Shadowproof. You can read his article over the Grayzone. Once again, thank you so much for being with us.
Kevin Gosztola: Thank you.
Marc Steiner: My pleasure. I’m Marc Steiner here for the Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Please let us know what you think and where you’d like us to take these conversations. Take care.
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-28--Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ Ensures Israeli Domination and Palestinian Oppression