truthout--2020-09-24--Greenwashing Capitalism Won’t Heal the Planet

As the world moves deeper into the climate crisis , too many of the official solutions to slow global warming and transition to a decarbonized society stop short of stating the obvious : our economic system is broken and must be replaced .
Capitalism is incompatible with life on Earth .
This irrefutable truth is something we all know deep down , whether we can bear to admit it or not .
The level of denial that we are all guilty of , to greater or lesser degrees , along with the fallacy of TINA ( There Is No Alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many more are resigned to , have brought our species to the brink of extinction .
We have been so conditioned into believing we can do no better than capitalism that the idea of ditching this rotten system can feel inconceivable — even though plenty of us hate it , even though it hurts us and our society , even though it is burning up the planet .
Instead , there is a strongly held view that we can make fixes to the current system and somehow , we will be OK .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ badly need , a compromise in which we can have our cake and eat it : We hold on to the current system while also preventing the end of the human race .
The desire for this to be possible is understandable .
After all , having to move away from everything familiar is daunting .
The unknown is a cold and scary place , change is uncomfortable and intimidating , and many of us would rather it did not have to happen .
That said , something more deliberate and conscious than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring we cling to this fantasy of compromise , and that is the tiny group of elites who own and control the system , who benefit greatly from the system , who are choosing to ignore the dangers posed by the system .
The Herculean efforts of the elites to maintain the status quo have made our economic system incredibly adaptable and resilient .
Events and conditions that would kill off most things only cause capitalism to evolve and morph into something even stronger .
It is persistent , it survives at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that kind of constant is appealing and comforting to us as humans .
This goes some way to explaining why we have allowed global warming to get to this critical point even though we have known for at least 50 years that human activity , especially economic activity , has been threatening the ability of the planet to sustain human life .
The compromise position , in which we have our cake and eat it , is everywhere .
Governments , political leaders and policy-makers at every level — from local authorities to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the European Union and the United Nations — have all manner of visions , charters , strategies and plans , as well as departments , action units and dedicated teams for tackling the climate crisis without disrupting capitalism .
On examination , the official documents produced are oddly similar in language and purpose , regardless of what country you care to look at .
They are often very long , peppered with eye-catching graphics and crammed with aspiration and positivity .
The content and terminology used is largely inoffensive and on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what then is the problem ?
To begin answering that , it is useful to analyze the trends that are observable in these documents .
Generally , they concede that we must take better care of the planet , reduce carbon emissions and waste , and increase energy efficiency and reuse of materials .
And the word “ sustainability ” takes on magical properties : prefix it to any word and that word is instantly climate-friendly .
“ Climate change , ” “ adaptation ” or “ mitigation ” are commonly used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any reference to “ global warming , ” “ crisis ” or “ emergency.
” Always , the environment is subservient to the economy , something to be protected for the sake of the economy and its needs .
Therefore , climate change is an economic risk or threat that must be managed like any other economic risk or threat .
Nowhere do the analyses conceive of an economy not driven by profit or based on continuous growth and GDP .
The best they might do is argue that economic growth can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth ” or “ clean growth.
” Some even suggest that tackling climate change can be an opportunity to spur economic growth .
If economic sustainability is mentioned at all , it is within the context of sustainable growth — surely an oxymoron — and of remaining competitive inside the global free market .
Not a syllable is given to the notion that for the Global North , there must be degrowth .
Or that for the Global South there must be economic development that allows those countries to break free of Western-imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoiding growth and more destruction of the Earth — that ’ s tricky but not impossible when we remove the profit motive .
Mainstream solutions depend on technology to save the day , and as such , advise that public money must be directed toward innovation , research and development ( R & D ) .
They include expensive high-tech solutions for many environmental problems , favoring them over low- or no-tech natural solutions and ignoring the environmental impact of the development , production and distribution of the “ savior tech.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solutions would be enormously lucrative for corporations ; natural solutions would be so much cheaper and could be implemented by individuals and local communities , cutting out corporations altogether .
What good would that be for profit margins and private pockets ?
As is to be expected , energy features heavily in all of these mainstream policy proposals for confronting the climate crisis .
Many policy makers talk of renewable energy sources , such as wind , solar and hydro as you might expect .
But they are often fond of other “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources which are not always sustainable or renewable .
For example , they promote biofuels like biogas from landfill and gasification plants and biomass from energy crops , not to mention nuclear energy and more spending on research into nuclear fusion .
And nearly always , the players in energy provision are the big corporations and polluters , not ordinary people or community-owned energy projects .
The documents support building large power stations for the centralized grid .
Distributed micro-provision is rarely an option .
These proposals continue to put faith in fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with extractive mining and fracking , with reassurances that their carbon emissions can be offset through carbon capture , usage and storage ( CCUS ) technologies .
CCUS is still largely in the R & D stage and will require more billions in investment .
But it is the carbon capture method of choice , preferred over simpler , cheaper , natural options , such as biological carbon sequestering created through forestry , seaweed and soil .
Again , the simple options don ’ t offer many opportunities for the elites to exploit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the while , the fossil fuel and nuclear industries continue to be subsidized to the tune of billions per year , globally .
When it comes to dealing with waste , official reports tend to favor waste-to-energy or energy-from-waste : a neat win-win solution , it is argued , which deals with the problem of waste while simultaneously providing a source of renewable energy .
What is not to like about that ?
Well , for a start , waste-to-energy is not renewable energy , and as a waste management method , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It amounts to little more than burying , burning or heating waste usually in large , centralized plants .
It also ignores the fact that large amounts of the waste generated are a direct result of the capitalist policies of overconsumption , built-in obsolescence , and the obsession with embalming everything in plastic .
There is scarcely a word about putting responsibility on corporations , building products that last , reducing packaging , or using alternatives to plastic packaging that can be reused or recycled .
And never is the most obvious solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Much better to keep producing too much waste and then just turning it into energy .
Bet you can guess which approach is the most profitable for the waste management industry .
When agriculture is discussed in governmental policies , the emphasis tends to be on agri-food and industrialized farming , eschewing suggestions for the deindustrialization of farming or reducing meat intake or food waste .
Nor is there a possibility of moving away from the use of artificial fertilizers , pesticides and animal and plant breeding technology toward more organic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not rely on fossil fuels and chemicals .
Transport strategies talk of electric cars and public transport fleets and of manufacturing more fuel-efficient vehicles , but never of limiting the number of cars produced .
Aviation options are also directed toward greater efficiency in both fuel and aircraft .
At the governmental level , there is rarely acceptance that the days of on-demand flights for tourism , personal and business purposes have to end , or that the policy of free market globalization , with its excessive and unnecessary exports and trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Financial Sector Has to Be Dismantled One of the more egregious proposals favored by politicians centers on how climate mitigation and a just transition to decarbonization can be financed .
This goes by many names , including green investment , responsible investment , green finance and green bonds , although ultimately , these are simply camouflage for finding new ways to make profits for the usual suspects .
The viewpoint of official documents is that current financial institutions can remain intact and at the same time come to our rescue by redirecting money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central banks and decision-makers who support green finance point out that these new investments must be made attractive for investors .
That is code for giving investors monetary , tax and regulatory incentives .
Naturally , the investors in question are the corporates , the elites and some of the biggest carbon polluters on the planet .
Average people see disaster and panic or worry about their welfare , the welfare of their loved ones and the welfare of the world around them .
For the elites , disaster , whether natural or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a buck .
The COVID-19 pandemic is the latest example of this very behavior .
On the one hand , wealthy people and corporations have created billions in new wealth and benefited from public contracts to deal with the pandemic , as well as tax savings , tax refunds and government monetary programs aimed at boosting the economy .
On the other hand , they have forced employees to continue working or made them return to work under unsafe conditions .
The wealthy elites will invest in green projects if they think they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — money .
They will not invest in anything that does not guarantee maximum return .
The financial system exists to support that .
Financing the just transition through existing financial institutions is a fundamentally flawed policy .
These institutions are responsible for extracting money from the productive economy and ensuring it gravitates toward a small minority of the world ’ s population to be put to use making them richer .
As a result , gross wealth and income inequalities are entrenched and the hegemony of corporations and elites is maintained .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the unfettered greed and excesses of this system and since then , little has changed .
It continues to stockpile vast wealth and the entire sector remains highly unregulated , so much so that many predict we are heading for another crash on the same scale as 2008 or worse .
The financial system as we know it needs to be dismantled and replaced with one that is more democratic and just , that directs credit to socially useful investment .
And in the meantime , we can allow it to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though not the role the mainstream climate reports propose .
Rather than trying to coax and incentivize the elites into investing in the green revolution and hoping they will toss a few crumbs in our direction , we should level wealth inequality .
We should force this small group of individuals to contribute to society the way the rest of us do and use the money recovered to finance the just transition to decarbonization : to finance renewable energy , mass transit , affordable and low-energy-intensive housing , living-wage employment , worker-owned cooperatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We should regain control of our own money , money held in savings and pensions that currently ends up being funneled into private profit-making investment vehicles .
We should establish mutual and democratic banks and financial institutions .
We should tighten financial and tax regulations to recoup the money accrued at the expense of the environment and of our labor , the trillions lost to tax avoidance , and the billions given away in subsidies and tax breaks .
But back to the question : What is the problem with the policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy-makers ?
Our Future Must Be One Without Economic Growth So focused on serving the needs of the wealthy elites , most governments , political leaders and policy-makers are stuck in the certainty that “ there is no alternative ” and their plans lie at the core of that belief .
The proposals support “ business as usual ” with a coat of greenwash and a nip and tuck here and there .
They fail to recognize that economic growth is in direct conflict with decarbonization , slowing down global warming or redistributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or vastly reduce certain activities altogether .
It is time to expose the extreme fallacy behind mainstream policy positions regarding the climate crisis .
Decarbonization that will slow global warming is going to require more than a few tweaks to the system and nods to green investment .
It will demand that we jettison our current economic paradigm altogether and replace it with a more socialist , participatory and democratic paradigm that puts social and environmental needs at its center and massively redistributes wealth .
We are only kidding ourselves if we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many millions of us have already come to this realization .
Recent polls conducted in Britain , for example , showed that just 6 percent wanted to go back to the economy as it was before the COVID-19 pandemic and 82 percent wanted to prioritize health and well-being over economic growth .
Grassroots activists and movements are busy creating and implementing the alternatives to the status quo .
“ Ordinary ” people are light-years ahead of the governments and political leaders in taking these courageous steps .
Despite the heroic efforts of everyday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are three hard truths we must face .
The first is that our governments and political leaders are a major barrier .
They may be pathetic but they hold the levers of power , albeit on behalf of the elites .
The second hard truth is that efforts at localized levels are insufficient .
Solving the climate crisis will necessitate the end of capitalism and that necessitates action on a global scale through global coordination , planning and regulation .
Both of these truths , therefore , make it critical for our governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working for and with us .
Some might argue that our task then is to speak truth to power .
Thanks to the writing of one particular Collective 20 member ( Noam Chomsky ) , that argument has been well and truly buried .
Powerful people already know the truth , and most of their waking hours are spent trying to manipulate and hide it .
Rather than naively believing that by showing governments and political leaders the error of their ways they would suddenly slap their foreheads in realization and thank us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure and coerce them into moving in the right direction .
How might we do that ?
By raising the social costs to them and their wealthy masters — a subject explored in a previous Collective 20 article .
Of course , none of this is to suggest that the job of transitioning to a post-capitalist , post-carbon world should happen overnight , or by taking a slash-and-burn approach that rebuilds everything we know from ground zero .
That might be tempting , but it would be traumatic and even short-sighted .
Actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard truth : Completely replacing capitalism with the more participatory socialist model alluded to in this article will take more time than we actually have to address global warming .
That leaves us with no choice but to work with the materials available to us , however inadequate , and to see the transition for what a transition is , a “ process or period of changing from one state or condition to another.
” As such , we should find ourselves taking steps of progressive change which recognize and accept policies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ultimately desire but that will suffice as interim measures .
And as we move along the road to a post-capitalist , post-carbon world , we must be mindful of the pitfalls , and we must not allow our work or ourselves to be hijacked , sabotaged or seduced by those who have only their own selfish , short-term interests at heart .

Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
As the world moves deeper into the climate crisis, too many of the official solutions to slow global warming and transition to a decarbonized society stop short of stating the obvious: our economic system is broken and must be replaced. Capitalism is incompatible with life on Earth. This irrefutable truth is something we all know deep down, whether we can bear to admit it or not.
The level of denial that we are all guilty of, to greater or lesser degrees, along with the fallacy of TINA (There Is No Alternative) that many are wedded to and many more are resigned to, have brought our species to the brink of extinction. We have been so conditioned into believing we can do no better than capitalism that the idea of ditching this rotten system can feel inconceivable — even though plenty of us hate it, even though it hurts us and our society, even though it is burning up the planet.
Instead, there is a strongly held view that we can make fixes to the current system and somehow, we will be OK. This gives us a lifeline that we badly need, a compromise in which we can have our cake and eat it: We hold on to the current system while also preventing the end of the human race.
The desire for this to be possible is understandable. After all, having to move away from everything familiar is daunting. The unknown is a cold and scary place, change is uncomfortable and intimidating, and many of us would rather it did not have to happen.
That said, something more deliberate and conscious than basic human trepidation is at work here ensuring we cling to this fantasy of compromise, and that is the tiny group of elites who own and control the system, who benefit greatly from the system, who are choosing to ignore the dangers posed by the system.
The Herculean efforts of the elites to maintain the status quo have made our economic system incredibly adaptable and resilient. Events and conditions that would kill off most things only cause capitalism to evolve and morph into something even stronger. It is persistent, it survives at all costs and, despite its deadliness, that kind of constant is appealing and comforting to us as humans.
Too many of the official solutions to slow global warming and transition to a decarbonized society stop short of stating the obvious: our economic system is broken and must be replaced.
This goes some way to explaining why we have allowed global warming to get to this critical point even though we have known for at least 50 years that human activity, especially economic activity, has been threatening the ability of the planet to sustain human life.
The compromise position, in which we have our cake and eat it, is everywhere. Governments, political leaders and policy-makers at every level — from local authorities to regions and nations, and international bodies like the European Union and the United Nations — have all manner of visions, charters, strategies and plans, as well as departments, action units and dedicated teams for tackling the climate crisis without disrupting capitalism.
Beware of Misleading Language
On examination, the official documents produced are oddly similar in language and purpose, regardless of what country you care to look at. They are often very long, peppered with eye-catching graphics and crammed with aspiration and positivity. The content and terminology used is largely inoffensive and on the face of it, reasonable.
So, what then is the problem?
To begin answering that, it is useful to analyze the trends that are observable in these documents.
Generally, they concede that we must take better care of the planet, reduce carbon emissions and waste, and increase energy efficiency and reuse of materials. And the word “sustainability” takes on magical properties: prefix it to any word and that word is instantly climate-friendly.
“Climate change,” “adaptation” or “mitigation” are commonly used in these policies but rarely is there any reference to “global warming,” “crisis” or “emergency.” Always, the environment is subservient to the economy, something to be protected for the sake of the economy and its needs. Therefore, climate change is an economic risk or threat that must be managed like any other economic risk or threat.
Governments have all manner of visions, charters, strategies and plans, as well as departments, action units and dedicated teams for tackling the climate crisis without disrupting capitalism.
Nowhere do the analyses conceive of an economy not driven by profit or based on continuous growth and GDP. The best they might do is argue that economic growth can be balanced with environmental protection through “green growth” or “clean growth.” Some even suggest that tackling climate change can be an opportunity to spur economic growth. If economic sustainability is mentioned at all, it is within the context of sustainable growth — surely an oxymoron — and of remaining competitive inside the global free market. Not a syllable is given to the notion that for the Global North, there must be degrowth. Or that for the Global South there must be economic development that allows those countries to break free of Western-imposed poverty and reach fair living standards while avoiding growth and more destruction of the Earth — that’s tricky but not impossible when we remove the profit motive.
Mainstream solutions depend on technology to save the day, and as such, advise that public money must be directed toward innovation, research and development (R&D). They include expensive high-tech solutions for many environmental problems, favoring them over low- or no-tech natural solutions and ignoring the environmental impact of the development, production and distribution of the “savior tech.” The reason for this is clear. High-tech solutions would be enormously lucrative for corporations; natural solutions would be so much cheaper and could be implemented by individuals and local communities, cutting out corporations altogether. What good would that be for profit margins and private pockets?
As is to be expected, energy features heavily in all of these mainstream policy proposals for confronting the climate crisis. Many policy makers talk of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydro as you might expect. But they are often fond of other “alternative” or “clean” energy sources which are not always sustainable or renewable. For example, they promote biofuels like biogas from landfill and gasification plants and biomass from energy crops, not to mention nuclear energy and more spending on research into nuclear fusion. And nearly always, the players in energy provision are the big corporations and polluters, not ordinary people or community-owned energy projects. The documents support building large power stations for the centralized grid. Distributed micro-provision is rarely an option. These proposals continue to put faith in fossil fuels, such as coal and gas with extractive mining and fracking, with reassurances that their carbon emissions can be offset through carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) technologies. CCUS is still largely in the R&D stage and will require more billions in investment. But it is the carbon capture method of choice, preferred over simpler, cheaper, natural options, such as biological carbon sequestering created through forestry, seaweed and soil. Again, the simple options don’t offer many opportunities for the elites to exploit the situation and make money. And all the while, the fossil fuel and nuclear industries continue to be subsidized to the tune of billions per year, globally.
High-tech solutions would be enormously lucrative for corporations; natural solutions would be so much cheaper and could be implemented by individuals and local communities.
When it comes to dealing with waste, official reports tend to favor waste-to-energy or energy-from-waste: a neat win-win solution, it is argued, which deals with the problem of waste while simultaneously providing a source of renewable energy. What is not to like about that? Well, for a start, waste-to-energy is not renewable energy, and as a waste management method, it is environmentally harmful and destructive. It amounts to little more than burying, burning or heating waste usually in large, centralized plants. It also ignores the fact that large amounts of the waste generated are a direct result of the capitalist policies of overconsumption, built-in obsolescence, and the obsession with embalming everything in plastic. There is scarcely a word about putting responsibility on corporations, building products that last, reducing packaging, or using alternatives to plastic packaging that can be reused or recycled. And never is the most obvious solution suggested: reducing excessive, luxury consumption. Much better to keep producing too much waste and then just turning it into energy. Bet you can guess which approach is the most profitable for the waste management industry.
When agriculture is discussed in governmental policies, the emphasis tends to be on agri-food and industrialized farming, eschewing suggestions for the deindustrialization of farming or reducing meat intake or food waste. Nor is there a possibility of moving away from the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides and animal and plant breeding technology toward more organic, less harmful and cheaper farming practices that do not rely on fossil fuels and chemicals.
Transport strategies talk of electric cars and public transport fleets and of manufacturing more fuel-efficient vehicles, but never of limiting the number of cars produced. Aviation options are also directed toward greater efficiency in both fuel and aircraft. At the governmental level, there is rarely acceptance that the days of on-demand flights for tourism, personal and business purposes have to end, or that the policy of free market globalization, with its excessive and unnecessary exports and trade miles, is ridiculous.
The Existing Financial Sector Has to Be Dismantled
One of the more egregious proposals favored by politicians centers on how climate mitigation and a just transition to decarbonization can be financed. This goes by many names, including green investment, responsible investment, green finance and green bonds, although ultimately, these are simply camouflage for finding new ways to make profits for the usual suspects. The viewpoint of official documents is that current financial institutions can remain intact and at the same time come to our rescue by redirecting money to green investment options. Governments, central banks and decision-makers who support green finance point out that these new investments must be made attractive for investors. That is code for giving investors monetary, tax and regulatory incentives. Naturally, the investors in question are the corporates, the elites and some of the biggest carbon polluters on the planet.
Financing the just transition through existing financial institutions is a fundamentally flawed policy.
Average people see disaster and panic or worry about their welfare, the welfare of their loved ones and the welfare of the world around them. For the elites, disaster, whether natural or humanmade, is an opportunity to turn a buck. The COVID-19 pandemic is the latest example of this very behavior. On the one hand, wealthy people and corporations have created billions in new wealth and benefited from public contracts to deal with the pandemic, as well as tax savings, tax refunds and government monetary programs aimed at boosting the economy. On the other hand, they have forced employees to continue working or made them return to work under unsafe conditions. The wealthy elites will invest in green projects if they think they can amass more of that other green — money. They will not invest in anything that does not guarantee maximum return. The financial system exists to support that.
Financing the just transition through existing financial institutions is a fundamentally flawed policy. These institutions are responsible for extracting money from the productive economy and ensuring it gravitates toward a small minority of the world’s population to be put to use making them richer. As a result, gross wealth and income inequalities are entrenched and the hegemony of corporations and elites is maintained. The financial crash of 2008 happened because of the unfettered greed and excesses of this system and since then, little has changed. It continues to stockpile vast wealth and the entire sector remains highly unregulated, so much so that many predict we are heading for another crash on the same scale as 2008 or worse.
The financial system as we know it needs to be dismantled and replaced with one that is more democratic and just, that directs credit to socially useful investment. And in the meantime, we can allow it to play a role in tackling climate change, though not the role the mainstream climate reports propose. Rather than trying to coax and incentivize the elites into investing in the green revolution and hoping they will toss a few crumbs in our direction, we should level wealth inequality. We should force this small group of individuals to contribute to society the way the rest of us do and use the money recovered to finance the just transition to decarbonization: to finance renewable energy, mass transit, affordable and low-energy-intensive housing, living-wage employment, worker-owned cooperatives, affordable child care, and more. We should regain control of our own money, money held in savings and pensions that currently ends up being funneled into private profit-making investment vehicles. We should establish mutual and democratic banks and financial institutions. We should tighten financial and tax regulations to recoup the money accrued at the expense of the environment and of our labor, the trillions lost to tax avoidance, and the billions given away in subsidies and tax breaks.
But back to the question: What is the problem with the policies proposed by governments, political leaders and policy-makers?
Our Future Must Be One Without Economic Growth
So focused on serving the needs of the wealthy elites, most governments, political leaders and policy-makers are stuck in the certainty that “there is no alternative” and their plans lie at the core of that belief. The proposals support “business as usual” with a coat of greenwash and a nip and tuck here and there. They fail to recognize that economic growth is in direct conflict with decarbonization, slowing down global warming or redistributing wealth, and that we must eliminate or vastly reduce certain activities altogether.
Decarbonization will demand that we jettison our current economic paradigm and replace it with a more socialist, participatory and democratic paradigm that puts social and environmental needs at its center.
It is time to expose the extreme fallacy behind mainstream policy positions regarding the climate crisis. Decarbonization that will slow global warming is going to require more than a few tweaks to the system and nods to green investment. It will demand that we jettison our current economic paradigm altogether and replace it with a more socialist, participatory and democratic paradigm that puts social and environmental needs at its center and massively redistributes wealth. We are only kidding ourselves if we think it can happen any other way.
Many millions of us have already come to this realization. Recent polls conducted in Britain, for example, showed that just 6 percent wanted to go back to the economy as it was before the COVID-19 pandemic and 82 percent wanted to prioritize health and well-being over economic growth. Grassroots activists and movements are busy creating and implementing the alternatives to the status quo. “Ordinary” people are light-years ahead of the governments and political leaders in taking these courageous steps.
Despite the heroic efforts of everyday people working at localized levels, there are three hard truths we must face. The first is that our governments and political leaders are a major barrier. They may be pathetic but they hold the levers of power, albeit on behalf of the elites. The second hard truth is that efforts at localized levels are insufficient. Solving the climate crisis will necessitate the end of capitalism and that necessitates action on a global scale through global coordination, planning and regulation. Both of these truths, therefore, make it critical for our governments and leaders to catch up and start working for and with us.
Some might argue that our task then is to speak truth to power. Thanks to the writing of one particular Collective 20 member (Noam Chomsky), that argument has been well and truly buried. Powerful people already know the truth, and most of their waking hours are spent trying to manipulate and hide it. Rather than naively believing that by showing governments and political leaders the error of their ways they would suddenly slap their foreheads in realization and thank us for enlightening them, we must instead pressure and coerce them into moving in the right direction. How might we do that? By raising the social costs to them and their wealthy masters — a subject explored in a previous Collective 20 article.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that the job of transitioning to a post-capitalist, post-carbon world should happen overnight, or by taking a slash-and-burn approach that rebuilds everything we know from ground zero. That might be tempting, but it would be traumatic and even short-sighted. Actually, it leads us to the third hard truth: Completely replacing capitalism with the more participatory socialist model alluded to in this article will take more time than we actually have to address global warming. That leaves us with no choice but to work with the materials available to us, however inadequate, and to see the transition for what a transition is, a “process or period of changing from one state or condition to another.” As such, we should find ourselves taking steps of progressive change which recognize and accept policies that may not be suitable for the world we ultimately desire but that will suffice as interim measures.
And as we move along the road to a post-capitalist, post-carbon world, we must be mindful of the pitfalls, and we must not allow our work or ourselves to be hijacked, sabotaged or seduced by those who have only their own selfish, short-term interests at heart.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-25--Sen. Thom Tillis Embraces QAnon’s Dangerous COVID Conspiracy Theory

During a virtual town hall on Thursday , Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-North Carolina ) responded to questions in a way that aligned with false QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the count of coronavirus deaths in the U.S. Tillis was asked by a participant in the town hall about the accuracy of COVID death counts in the country .
The individual had suggested that the count being offered at present , which states that more than 200,000 Americans have died from the disease , is an overestimate , due to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have died did not have underlying health conditions .
“ I just wanted to point out the CDC has made clear that the deaths , that 200,000-death mark , has been not only from COVID-related deaths directly , but also from things like heart attacks and slip-and-falls , and things like that , where people die but they have COVID in their system and they have marked it as a COVID death , ” the participant said in her comments .
The insinuation of her question matches a false conspiracy theory promulgated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ QAnon conspiracies .
While the CDC report does note that the vast majority of those who have died so far have had comorbidities listed on their death certificates , the same report also cites coronavirus as being the main cause of death in 95 percent of all instances .
Anthony Fauci , a member of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force and the head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases , testified this summer about the errant insinuations being made within the report , saying definitively that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn ’ t die of COVID-19 — they did.
” Nevertheless , during the town hall where the question was asked of him , Tillis implied that he agreed with the debunked conspiracy theory , telling the woman who brought it up that she was , in his mind , “ absolutely right.
” “ I think when the final counting is done , you are going to see , sadly , that the number of people who died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying health condition at the same time that they had COVID , ” Tillis said .
In truth , studies have demonstrated that the number of those who have died in the U.S. because of coronavirus is actually probably much higher than what we presently believe it is .
“ Excess ” deaths over the past several months — compared to death numbers from years in the past — are substantially higher , even when you subtract the total that are counted as having died from COVID-19 .
While discussing the matter more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proponent of the idea of “ herd immunity ” as a means to combat coronavirus — another questionable belief that purports that , as more people get sick with the disease , it will become less of a concern due to the general population having developed immunities to it .
Without evidence backing his claim , the senator said during the town hall that once 60 percent of the country contracts coronavirus , “ this will be a manageable illness in the United States.
” Herd immunity is largely viewed as an unsafe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease , as it will likely lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths before a given community is “ immune ” to it in a general sense .
Many have likened the idea to the practice of eugenics , as those whose immune systems are less resistant to an illness become more likely to die from it , as the rest of the community attempts to reach a threshold proportion of immunity in a given population .
As of this week , CDC Director Robert Redfield said he believes only about 10 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 percent “ susceptible ” to the disease .
With that in mind , considering how many have already died from the disease already , reaching the 60 percent figure that Tillis suggested would result in a catastrophically high number of additional casualties .
Besides being cruel to a number of at-risk individuals , herd immunity might also not work as Tillis describes it .
For a number of diseases , the threshold proportion needed to reach herd immunity ( usually achieved through vaccinations and not the way the senator and others are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 60 percent .
When it comes to measles , for example , the threshold proportion is 94 percent .
Tillis ’ s errant and misplaced comments , based on widely discredited conspiracy theories emanating from followers of QAnon , come as he ’ s in a political battle to retain his seat in the Senate .
Presently , Tillis is trailing his Democratic opponent Cal Cunningham by a five-point margin , according to a recent Change Research poll .
As of Friday , more than 7.1 million Americans have contracted coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease so far .

During a virtual town hall on Thursday, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) responded to questions in a way that aligned with false QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the count of coronavirus deaths in the U.S.
Tillis was asked by a participant in the town hall about the accuracy of COVID death counts in the country. The individual had suggested that the count being offered at present, which states that more than 200,000 Americans have died from the disease, is an overestimate, due to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that showed just 6 percent of individuals who have died did not have underlying health conditions.
“I just wanted to point out the CDC has made clear that the deaths, that 200,000-death mark, has been not only from COVID-related deaths directly, but also from things like heart attacks and slip-and-falls, and things like that, where people die but they have COVID in their system and they have marked it as a COVID death,” the participant said in her comments.
The insinuation of her question matches a false conspiracy theory promulgated by followers of the broader set of QAnon conspiracies. While the CDC report does note that the vast majority of those who have died so far have had comorbidities listed on their death certificates, the same report also cites coronavirus as being the main cause of death in 95 percent of all instances.
Anthony Fauci, a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force and the head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified this summer about the errant insinuations being made within the report, saying definitively that the figures being cited by QAnon followers “does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn’t die of COVID-19 — they did.”
Nevertheless, during the town hall where the question was asked of him, Tillis implied that he agreed with the debunked conspiracy theory, telling the woman who brought it up that she was, in his mind, “absolutely right.”
“I think when the final counting is done, you are going to see, sadly, that the number of people who died from this may have died from an underlying health condition at the same time that they had COVID,” Tillis said.
In truth, studies have demonstrated that the number of those who have died in the U.S. because of coronavirus is actually probably much higher than what we presently believe it is. “Excess” deaths over the past several months — compared to death numbers from years in the past — are substantially higher, even when you subtract the total that are counted as having died from COVID-19.
While discussing the matter more, Tillis also suggested he was a proponent of the idea of “herd immunity” as a means to combat coronavirus — another questionable belief that purports that, as more people get sick with the disease, it will become less of a concern due to the general population having developed immunities to it.
Without evidence backing his claim, the senator said during the town hall that once 60 percent of the country contracts coronavirus, “this will be a manageable illness in the United States.”
Herd immunity is largely viewed as an unsafe way to go about dealing with any disease, as it will likely lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths before a given community is “immune” to it in a general sense. Many have likened the idea to the practice of eugenics, as those whose immune systems are less resistant to an illness become more likely to die from it, as the rest of the community attempts to reach a threshold proportion of immunity in a given population.
As of this week, CDC Director Robert Redfield said he believes only about 10 percent of Americans have contracted COVID-19, leaving around 90 percent “susceptible” to the disease. With that in mind, considering how many have already died from the disease already, reaching the 60 percent figure that Tillis suggested would result in a catastrophically high number of additional casualties.
Besides being cruel to a number of at-risk individuals, herd immunity might also not work as Tillis describes it. For a number of diseases, the threshold proportion needed to reach herd immunity (usually achieved through vaccinations and not the way the senator and others are proposing) is a much higher rate than 60 percent. When it comes to measles, for example, the threshold proportion is 94 percent.
Tillis’s errant and misplaced comments, based on widely discredited conspiracy theories emanating from followers of QAnon, come as he’s in a political battle to retain his seat in the Senate. Presently, Tillis is trailing his Democratic opponent Cal Cunningham by a five-point margin, according to a recent Change Research poll.
As of Friday, more than 7.1 million Americans have contracted coronavirus, and nearly 208,000 have died from the disease so far.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-25--Bernie Sanders Issues Warning About Prospect of Trump Refusing to Leave Office

In an address to the country , Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has issued a stark warning about the threat posed by President Trump ’ s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the November election .
Trump , who has made spurious claims of voter fraud and election-rigging against Democrats for months , recently ramped up his efforts to discredit the election results by suggesting he will refuse to concede if he loses .
“ This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy .
And democracy must win , ” Sanders said .
We air excerpts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
As we end this segment , let ’ s hear from President Trump speaking to delegates at the Republican National Convention last month .
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election .
We ’ re going to win this election .
We ’ re going to win this election .
… What they ’ re doing is using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re using COVID to defraud the American people , all of our people , of a fair and free election .
And we can ’ t do that .
AMY GOODMAN : On Thursday afternoon , independent Senator Bernie Sanders spoke out , responding to Trump ’ s remarks .
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS : I think it is terribly important that we actually listen to and take seriously what Donald Trump is saying .
Several weeks ago , speaking at the Republican National Convention , Trump said — and I quote — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this election away from us is if this is a rigged election , ” end of quote .
What is remarkable about that statement is that he made it at a time when almost every national poll had him behind and when he was trailing in polls in most battleground states .
Think about what that statement means .
Think hard about what that statement means .
What he is saying is that if he wins the election , that ’ s great , but if he loses , it ’ s rigged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only way he can lose is if it ’ s rigged .
And if it ’ s rigged , then he is not leaving office .
Heads , I win ; tails , you lose .
In other words , in Trump ’ s mind , there is no conceivable way that he should leave office .
AMY GOODMAN : And this is how independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont ended his address .
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS : In this unprecedented moment what can we as a people do in the struggle to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absolutely imperative that we have , by far , the largest voter turnout in American history and that people vote as early as possible .
As someone who is strongly supporting Joe Biden , let ’ s be clear : A landslide victory for Biden will make it virtually impossible for Trump to deny the results , and is our best means for defending democracy .
Second , with the pandemic and a massive increase in mail-in voting , state legislatures must take immediate action now — now — to allow mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as they come in .
In fact , 32 states allow for the counting or processing of absentee ballots — verifying signatures , for example — before Election Day .
All states should do the same .
The faster all ballots are counted , the less window there is for chaos and conspiracy theories .
Third , the news media needs to prepare the American people to understand there is no longer a single Election Day and that it is very possible that we may not know the results on November 3rd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally get their act together and stop people from using their tools to spread disinformation and to threaten and harass election officials .
Fifth , in the Congress and in state legislatures , hearings must be held as soon as possible to explain to the public how the Election Day process and the days that follow will be handled .
As we count every vote and prevent voter intimidation , everything possible must be done to prevent chaos , disinformation and , yes , even violence .
Lastly , and most importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their political view , must make it clear that American democracy will not be destroyed .
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Bernie Sanders , speaking in Washington , D.C. , Thursday in his first major public speech since bowing out of the presidential race .

The Vermont senator made the remarks during his first major public speech since bowing out of the presidential race.
In an address to the country, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has issued a stark warning about the threat posed by President Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the November election. Trump, who has made spurious claims of voter fraud and election-rigging against Democrats for months, recently ramped up his efforts to discredit the election results by suggesting he will refuse to concede if he loses. “This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy. And democracy must win,” Sanders said. We air excerpts from his speech.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! As we end this segment, let’s hear from President Trump speaking to delegates at the Republican National Convention last month.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election. We’re going to win this election. We’re going to win this election. … What they’re doing is using COVID to steal an election. They’re using COVID to defraud the American people, all of our people, of a fair and free election. And we can’t do that. Related Story News | Politics & Elections Trump Won’t Commit to Honor Election Results If He Loses The peaceful transition of power between presidents has been respected since the early years of the country's founding. Truthout
AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday afternoon, independent Senator Bernie Sanders spoke out, responding to Trump’s remarks.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I think it is terribly important that we actually listen to and take seriously what Donald Trump is saying. Several weeks ago, speaking at the Republican National Convention, Trump said — and I quote — “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election,” end of quote. What is remarkable about that statement is that he made it at a time when almost every national poll had him behind and when he was trailing in polls in most battleground states. Think about what that statement means. Think hard about what that statement means. What he is saying is that if he wins the election, that’s great, but if he loses, it’s rigged, because the only way — the only way he can lose is if it’s rigged. And if it’s rigged, then he is not leaving office. Heads, I win; tails, you lose. In other words, in Trump’s mind, there is no conceivable way that he should leave office.
AMY GOODMAN: And this is how independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont ended his address.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: In this unprecedented moment what can we as a people do in the struggle to preserve American democracy? First, it is absolutely imperative that we have, by far, the largest voter turnout in American history and that people vote as early as possible. As someone who is strongly supporting Joe Biden, let’s be clear: A landslide victory for Biden will make it virtually impossible for Trump to deny the results, and is our best means for defending democracy. Second, with the pandemic and a massive increase in mail-in voting, state legislatures must take immediate action now — now — to allow mail-in votes to be counted before Election Day, as they come in. In fact, 32 states allow for the counting or processing of absentee ballots — verifying signatures, for example — before Election Day. All states should do the same. The faster all ballots are counted, the less window there is for chaos and conspiracy theories. Third, the news media needs to prepare the American people to understand there is no longer a single Election Day and that it is very possible that we may not know the results on November 3rd. Fourth, social media companies must finally get their act together and stop people from using their tools to spread disinformation and to threaten and harass election officials. Fifth, in the Congress and in state legislatures, hearings must be held as soon as possible to explain to the public how the Election Day process and the days that follow will be handled. As we count every vote and prevent voter intimidation, everything possible must be done to prevent chaos, disinformation and, yes, even violence. Lastly, and most importantly, the American people, no matter what their political view, must make it clear that American democracy will not be destroyed.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking in Washington, D.C., Thursday in his first major public speech since bowing out of the presidential race.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-25--Republicans Are Pushing State-Level Measures to Block Defunding of Police

Roughly a month before Minneapolis police officers murdered George Floyd , a 42-year-old man named Michael Ramos was killed by police in Austin , Texas .
The blazing Texas heat was beginning to let up on the evening of Friday , April 24 , when eight police officers cornered Ramos in an apartment parking complex .
The officers were responding to a call about possible drug use , and they arrived on the scene with guns drawn .
Body camera footage later revealed a terrified Ramos trying to comply with every demand , all while telling officers he does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When a policeman hit him with a so-called “ less lethal ” projectile , Ramos took shelter inside his car .
A few seconds later , he tried to drive out of the parking lot .
Ramos was shot and killed , and no gun wass found in or around his car .
Throughout the Austin-based protests against police brutality , Michael Ramos ’ s name became a rallying cry alongside George Floyd ’ s .
On August 13 , Austin ’ s progressive city council voted unanimously to cut the city ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one third .
That figure includes $ 20 million in immediate cuts , and a year-long process to transition an additional roughly $ 130 million out of the police budget .
The Republican outcry was swift .
Ken Paxton , the state ’ s attorney general , chalked up the move to another example of “ cancel culture.
” Gov .
Greg Abbott ( R-Texas ) accused the city council of shirking their duties to uphold public safety .
But he didn ’ t stop there .
Abbott recently unveiled a “ Back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defund the police .
He urged candidates and voters to sign it .
The pledge reads , in part , “ Defunding our police departments would invite crime into our communities and put people in danger .
That is why I pledge to support any measure that discourages or stops efforts to defund police departments in Texas.
” As the November elections approach , Abbott is one of hundreds of GOP leaders and lawmakers focusing on “ law and order.
” Echoing President Trump — the self-styled “ law and order ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ histrionic pledges and legislation to scare cities considering police reform .
In Austin , City Councilman Greg Casar has not minced words about Abbott ’ s recent posturing .
“ He doesn ’ t miss a political opportunity to punch down at movements for civil rights , ” Casar says .
“ The governor is trying to hurt the Black Lives Matter movement and attack the civil rights movement for his own political benefit.
” Casar drafted the city council ’ s three-tiered proposal to reform the Austin Police Department , which calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund that would allocate more money toward mental health initiatives .
People with mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by police officers .
A recent survey by the Police Executive Research Forum discovered that the average police officer spends only eight hours in “ Crisis Intervention Training , ” a mental health initiative often criticized for being ineffective or improperly implemented .
Meanwhile , that same research study found that new police recruits spend 60 hours learning how to use guns .
When it comes to access to mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state in the nation .
It ’ s also one of the states with the highest incarceration rates , and currently , Texas ’ largest cities spend more money on policing than anything else .
Yet Abbott has vehemently opposed any budget cuts and has recently threatened Texas cities who are considering police reform .
Shortly after the city council ’ s vote , Abbott said he plans to introduce legislation that would freeze property tax revenues for any city that cuts police budgets .
Abbott has also threatened to employ the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police force , to help “ stand in the gap ” and defend Austin residents , even as that department has come under fire for spending hundreds of hours tracking and arresting police brutality protesters .
Attorney Jessica Pishko , who has extensively researched policing , says both of the governor ’ s proposals are , at best , unrealistic .
“ The fact is cities are going to have to reduce budgets this year , ” Pishko says , citing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ But [ police ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and chiefs and sheriffs don ’ t like their budgets cut.
” Indeed , the Austin Police Association has taken to Twitter to repeatedly rail against the city council ’ s budget proposal .
But Pishko says the dialogue about defunding the police is about much more than reform .
While some polls show that Americans do not favor eliminating police forces , the majority of them support some level of police reform and the Black Lives Matter movement , two facts that Pishko says scare Republicans .
“ The Republican Party as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious that their goal is white supremacy and racism , and the idea that there are white people out there who don ’ t support that is pretty scary to them , ” she says .
“ So , you ’ re seeing politicians start to posture , and be more aggressive in their rhetoric .
They ’ re essentially taking on a Trumpian tone.
” That “ Trumpian tone ” is apparent in two new legislative proposals , one from Gov .
Ron DeSantis ( R-Florida ) , and one from Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 22 , DeSantis called for a new law that would give felony penalties to protesters who block traffic without a permit , while also prohibiting grant and state funding to any municipality that “ slashes ” its police budget .
Hawley ’ s legislation is similar .
His bill would authorize $ 15 billion for the U.S. attorney general to fund more police officer hiring and salary increases for state and local law enforcement .
Any city that votes to defund the police would not have access to those funds for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] s violence and rioting sweeps across American cities big and small , our courageous law enforcement officers are more vital now than ever , ” Hawley writes in the proposed legislation .
“ Democratic politicians are bending to radical activists who want to defund the police .
We should do just the opposite .
Our officers deserve a raise , not defunding.
” Similar rhetoric can be found in practically every corner of the U.S. A separate pledge , simply entitled “ The Police Pledge , ” has already received hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials .
The pledge was initiated by Heritage Action For America , a policy advocacy organization known for funneling millions of dollars into Republican congressional campaigns .
“ A lawful society — free from mob rule and violent insurrection — is not possible without Law Enforcement , ” the pledge reads .
When signers etch their names onto the document ’ s growing list of devotees , they promise to “ stand with America ’ s Police and pledge to oppose any bill , resolution , or movement to “ Defund the Police.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Nikki Haley and Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R-Georgia ) , as well as Senators Tom Cotton ( R-Arkansas ) and Rick Scott ( R-Florida ) .
Jim Henson , director of the Texas Politics Project , believes Governor Abbott ’ s focus on policing is both a political ploy and an intended distraction .
Texas has been ravaged by COVID-19 , as have many of the states whose politicians have signed “ The Police Pledge.
” “ It ’ s also an opportunity for Republican elected officials to shift the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shift the agenda of public discussion , away from the slog of trying to contain the pandemic , ” he told local television station KXAN .
Author and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has accused President Trump of the very same thing .
“ Trump muzzled the federal government ’ s most prominent and trusted immunologist , Dr. Anthony Fauci , while the White House tried to discredit him , ” Reich wrote in a recent blog post .
“ But the Trump campaign ran fictitious ads portraying cities as overrun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shameless Fox News lackeys have consistently depicted protesters as ‘ rioters ’ and the ‘ armed wing of the Democratic party.
’ ” While Pishko acknowledges the enduring legacy of “ law and order ” rhetoric , she claims widespread pledges , threats to freeze funding and bills targeting cities are more “ aggressive ” than pro-police proposals of the past .
“ And I think we have Trump to credit for that , ” she says .
“ People are tying their fates to him.
” While hundreds of Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police reform , Michael Ramos ’ s mother is grieving her son .
Brenda Ramos has struggled to eat since her son was killed , she said in an interview aired on Austin ’ s NPR station , and the stress of recent months has taken a physical toll .
She ’ s suffering from intense back pain , and hoping some change can result from Michael ’ s death .
She wants the officer who killed her son to be prosecuted — which the Travis County district attorney has thus far failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the city ’ s police funds to be re-allocated for after-school programs in Austin .
Yet her greatest wish is that police violence ends .
“ [ The violence ] got to be stopped , ” she said .
“ It ’ s been happening way too long , and we all need to come together and make a change .
”

Roughly a month before Minneapolis police officers murdered George Floyd, a 42-year-old man named Michael Ramos was killed by police in Austin, Texas.
The blazing Texas heat was beginning to let up on the evening of Friday, April 24, when eight police officers cornered Ramos in an apartment parking complex. The officers were responding to a call about possible drug use, and they arrived on the scene with guns drawn.
Body camera footage later revealed a terrified Ramos trying to comply with every demand, all while telling officers he does not know what he had done wrong. When a policeman hit him with a so-called “less lethal” projectile, Ramos took shelter inside his car. A few seconds later, he tried to drive out of the parking lot. Ramos was shot and killed, and no gun wass found in or around his car.
Throughout the Austin-based protests against police brutality, Michael Ramos’s name became a rallying cry alongside George Floyd’s. On August 13, Austin’s progressive city council voted unanimously to cut the city’s $434 million police budget by one third. That figure includes $20 million in immediate cuts, and a year-long process to transition an additional roughly $130 million out of the police budget. The Republican outcry was swift.
Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, chalked up the move to another example of “cancel culture.” Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) accused the city council of shirking their duties to uphold public safety. But he didn’t stop there.
Abbott recently unveiled a “Back the Blue” pledge, promising not to defund the police. He urged candidates and voters to sign it. The pledge reads, in part, “Defunding our police departments would invite crime into our communities and put people in danger. That is why I pledge to support any measure that discourages or stops efforts to defund police departments in Texas.”
As the November elections approach, Abbott is one of hundreds of GOP leaders and lawmakers focusing on “law and order.” Echoing President Trump — the self-styled “law and order” president — Republicans are using threats, histrionic pledges and legislation to scare cities considering police reform.
In Austin, City Councilman Greg Casar has not minced words about Abbott’s recent posturing.
“He doesn’t miss a political opportunity to punch down at movements for civil rights,” Casar says. “The governor is trying to hurt the Black Lives Matter movement and attack the civil rights movement for his own political benefit.”
Casar drafted the city council’s three-tiered proposal to reform the Austin Police Department, which calls for a “Reimagine Public Safety” fund that would allocate more money toward mental health initiatives. People with mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed by police officers. A recent survey by the Police Executive Research Forum discovered that the average police officer spends only eight hours in “Crisis Intervention Training,” a mental health initiative often criticized for being ineffective or improperly implemented. Meanwhile, that same research study found that new police recruits spend 60 hours learning how to use guns.
When it comes to access to mental health care, Texas is the worst state in the nation. It’s also one of the states with the highest incarceration rates, and currently, Texas’ largest cities spend more money on policing than anything else. Yet Abbott has vehemently opposed any budget cuts and has recently threatened Texas cities who are considering police reform.
Republicans are using threats, histrionic pledges and legislation to scare cities considering police reform.
Shortly after the city council’s vote, Abbott said he plans to introduce legislation that would freeze property tax revenues for any city that cuts police budgets. Abbott has also threatened to employ the Texas Department of Public Safety, a state police force, to help “stand in the gap” and defend Austin residents, even as that department has come under fire for spending hundreds of hours tracking and arresting police brutality protesters. Attorney Jessica Pishko, who has extensively researched policing, says both of the governor’s proposals are, at best, unrealistic.
“The fact is cities are going to have to reduce budgets this year,” Pishko says, citing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. “But [police] unions exert a lot of power, and chiefs and sheriffs don’t like their budgets cut.”
Indeed, the Austin Police Association has taken to Twitter to repeatedly rail against the city council’s budget proposal. But Pishko says the dialogue about defunding the police is about much more than reform. While some polls show that Americans do not favor eliminating police forces, the majority of them support some level of police reform and the Black Lives Matter movement, two facts that Pishko says scare Republicans.
“The Republican Party as led by Trump has made it quite obvious that their goal is white supremacy and racism, and the idea that there are white people out there who don’t support that is pretty scary to them,” she says. “So, you’re seeing politicians start to posture, and be more aggressive in their rhetoric. They’re essentially taking on a Trumpian tone.”
That “Trumpian tone” is apparent in two new legislative proposals, one from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), and one from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri).
On September 22, DeSantis called for a new law that would give felony penalties to protesters who block traffic without a permit, while also prohibiting grant and state funding to any municipality that “slashes” its police budget.
Hawley’s legislation is similar. His bill would authorize $15 billion for the U.S. attorney general to fund more police officer hiring and salary increases for state and local law enforcement. Any city that votes to defund the police would not have access to those funds for new hires or raises.
“[A]s violence and rioting sweeps across American cities big and small, our courageous law enforcement officers are more vital now than ever,” Hawley writes in the proposed legislation. “Democratic politicians are bending to radical activists who want to defund the police. We should do just the opposite. Our officers deserve a raise, not defunding.”
Similar rhetoric can be found in practically every corner of the U.S. A separate pledge, simply entitled “The Police Pledge,” has already received hundreds of signatures from federal, state and local officials. The pledge was initiated by Heritage Action For America, a policy advocacy organization known for funneling millions of dollars into Republican congressional campaigns.
“A lawful society — free from mob rule and violent insurrection — is not possible without Law Enforcement,” the pledge reads. When signers etch their names onto the document’s growing list of devotees, they promise to “stand with America’s Police and pledge to oppose any bill, resolution, or movement to “Defund the Police.” Those devotees include former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Gov. Brian Kemp (R-Georgia), as well as Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Rick Scott (R-Florida).
Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project, believes Governor Abbott’s focus on policing is both a political ploy and an intended distraction. Texas has been ravaged by COVID-19, as have many of the states whose politicians have signed “The Police Pledge.”
“It’s also an opportunity for Republican elected officials to shift the public agenda, or at least attempt to shift the agenda of public discussion, away from the slog of trying to contain the pandemic,” he told local television station KXAN.
Author and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has accused President Trump of the very same thing.
“Trump muzzled the federal government’s most prominent and trusted immunologist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, while the White House tried to discredit him,” Reich wrote in a recent blog post. “But the Trump campaign ran fictitious ads portraying cities as overrun by violent leftwing mobs, and Trump’s shameless Fox News lackeys have consistently depicted protesters as ‘rioters’ and the ‘armed wing of the Democratic party.’”
While Pishko acknowledges the enduring legacy of “law and order” rhetoric, she claims widespread pledges, threats to freeze funding and bills targeting cities are more “aggressive” than pro-police proposals of the past.
“And I think we have Trump to credit for that,” she says. “People are tying their fates to him.”
While hundreds of Republicans continue to voice their fervent opposition to police reform, Michael Ramos’s mother is grieving her son.
Brenda Ramos has struggled to eat since her son was killed, she said in an interview aired on Austin’s NPR station, and the stress of recent months has taken a physical toll. She’s suffering from intense back pain, and hoping some change can result from Michael’s death. She wants the officer who killed her son to be prosecuted — which the Travis County district attorney has thus far failed to do — and she wants some of the city’s police funds to be re-allocated for after-school programs in Austin. Yet her greatest wish is that police violence ends.
“[The violence] got to be stopped,” she said. “It’s been happening way too long, and we all need to come together and make a change.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-25--GOP Lawsuit to Repeal the ACA Would Give Huge Tax Cut to the Richest Americans

The Republican lawsuit that seeks to strike down the Affordable Care Act would save the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans an average of $ 198,000 per year , according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities .
The case , which was initiated by 18 state attorneys general and backed by the Trump administration , is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court a week after the November election .
A Texas judge ruled in 2018 that the entire Obamacare law was unconstitutional , after the Republican-led Congress eliminated the individual mandate penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeals court then sent the case back for the judge to decide whether the entire law needed to be struck down .
Legal experts have called the idea that the individual mandate rendered the entire law unconstitutional “ ridiculous ” and a “ mockery of the rule of law.
” But conservatives currently hold a 5-3 majority on the Supreme Court , which could soon swell to a 6-3 majority if President Trump successfully replaces the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , putting the fate of the law and health coverage and protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt .
Repealing Obamacare would be a boon for the richest Americans , however , because of the taxes imposed by the law .
Obamacare imposed a 0.9 % tax on earnings over $ 200,000 for individuals and $ 250,000 for couples , along with an additional 3.8 % tax on unearned income like capital gains and royalties .
The analysis also includes other Obamacare revenue streams , like a $ 2.8 billion annual fee on pharmaceutical companies and the law ’ s employer mandate .
These taxes were used to cover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those buying health care on the exchanges created by the law .
The top 0.1 % of earners , who make more than $ 3 million per year , would see a tax savings of about $ 198,000 per year , according to the CBPP analysis .
Households earning more than $ 1 million per year would get tax cuts of about $ 42,000 per year .
Households in the bottom 80 % would see average tax cuts of less than $ 80 a year .
The top 0.1 % would receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law ’ s repeal .
Tax cuts for households with incomes above $ 200,000 per year would cost the government about $ 30 billion per year , enough to cover the cost of the Medicaid expansion for more than 4 million people , according to the analysis .
“ In effect , the Administration and the state attorneys general are seeking a massive transfer of resources from low- and moderate-income people to those at the top of the income scale , ” the CBPP researchers wrote .
“ The lawsuit would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hispanic people disproportionately likely to lose health coverage and the overwhelming share of the tax cuts flowing to white people.
” Based on estimates from the Urban Institute , the analysis found that nearly 10 % of non-elderly Black people and 10 % of Hispanic people would lose health coverage if the law were repealed .
About one of every 16 white people would also lose coverage .
“ Meanwhile , the tax cuts that would result from striking down the law would flow disproportionately to white households , which are three times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in the top 1 percent of the income scale , ” the researchers wrote .
The lawsuit was filed after Senate Republicans unsuccessfully tried to repeal Obamacare despite campaigning on the issue for years .
“ Repealing ObamaCare has always been about tax cuts for the rich , ” Steve Wamhoff , the director of federal tax policy at the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy , wrote in an op-ed during the repeal push .
An ITEP analysis also found that if Congress had repealed the law ’ s 3.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about 90 % of the benefits would have gone to the richest 1 % of households .
“ Opposition to the ACA has always been about opposition to the taxes that were included to finance the expansion of health insurance , ” Wamhoff wrote .
“ No one should be gullible enough to believe that this has changed .
”

The top 0.1 percent would see a tax cut of nearly $200,000 per year if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the repeal.
The Republican lawsuit that seeks to strike down the Affordable Care Act would save the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans an average of $198,000 per year, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The case, which was initiated by 18 state attorneys general and backed by the Trump administration, is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court a week after the November election. A Texas judge ruled in 2018 that the entire Obamacare law was unconstitutional, after the Republican-led Congress eliminated the individual mandate penalty in its 2017 tax bill and an appeals court then sent the case back for the judge to decide whether the entire law needed to be struck down.
Legal experts have called the idea that the individual mandate rendered the entire law unconstitutional “ridiculous” and a “mockery of the rule of law.” But conservatives currently hold a 5-3 majority on the Supreme Court, which could soon swell to a 6-3 majority if President Trump successfully replaces the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, putting the fate of the law and health coverage and protections for tens of millions of Americans in doubt.
Repealing Obamacare would be a boon for the richest Americans, however, because of the taxes imposed by the law. Obamacare imposed a 0.9% tax on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, along with an additional 3.8% tax on unearned income like capital gains and royalties. The analysis also includes other Obamacare revenue streams, like a $2.8 billion annual fee on pharmaceutical companies and the law’s employer mandate. These taxes were used to cover the cost of the Medicaid expansion and subsidies for those buying health care on the exchanges created by the law.
The top 0.1% of earners, who make more than $3 million per year, would see a tax savings of about $198,000 per year, according to the CBPP analysis. Households earning more than $1 million per year would get tax cuts of about $42,000 per year.
Households in the bottom 80% would see average tax cuts of less than $80 a year. The top 0.1% would receive 42% of the tax benefits from the law’s repeal.
Tax cuts for households with incomes above $200,000 per year would cost the government about $30 billion per year, enough to cover the cost of the Medicaid expansion for more than 4 million people, according to the analysis.
“In effect, the Administration and the state attorneys general are seeking a massive transfer of resources from low- and moderate-income people to those at the top of the income scale,” the CBPP researchers wrote. “The lawsuit would also widen racial gaps, with Black and Hispanic people disproportionately likely to lose health coverage and the overwhelming share of the tax cuts flowing to white people.”
Based on estimates from the Urban Institute, the analysis found that nearly 10% of non-elderly Black people and 10% of Hispanic people would lose health coverage if the law were repealed. About one of every 16 white people would also lose coverage.
“Meanwhile, the tax cuts that would result from striking down the law would flow disproportionately to white households, which are three times likelier than Black or Hispanic households to be in the top 1 percent of the income scale,” the researchers wrote.
The lawsuit was filed after Senate Republicans unsuccessfully tried to repeal Obamacare despite campaigning on the issue for years.
“Repealing ObamaCare has always been about tax cuts for the rich,” Steve Wamhoff, the director of federal tax policy at the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, wrote in an op-ed during the repeal push.
An ITEP analysis also found that if Congress had repealed the law’s 3.8% tax on unearned income in 2016, about 90% of the benefits would have gone to the richest 1% of households.
“Opposition to the ACA has always been about opposition to the taxes that were included to finance the expansion of health insurance,” Wamhoff wrote. “No one should be gullible enough to believe that this has changed.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.