Thursday, October 02, 2014
Legal Rights Are For Everybody - Or Nobody
Recently, President Obama set aside some federal money to provide attorneys for the Central American children who made their way to this country and turned themselves in at the border. He did this because these children deserve a fair hearing in an immigration court (especially since many, if not most, would have their lives placed in danger if returned to their country of origin), and an attorney is a requirement for having a fair hearing.In fact, our Constitution guarantees everyone the right to an attorney when facing our legal system.
Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country don't agree with the president. The chart above was made from information in a new Rasmussen Poll (taken on September 29th and 30th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error). It shows that a whopping 68% (nearly seven out of 10 Americans) don't think those children deserve the same rights that Americans have. They want them deported without a fair hearing.
That's a pretty head-hearted attitude, and it's very disappointing. But it's also unconstitutional. Our Constitution doesn't just guarantee legal rights to American citizens -- it guarantees those sam legal rights to everyone on American soil (regardless of who they are or why they are here). Our policing agencies and courts cannot treat a non-citizen in this country any differently than they would treat a citizen. Would we want a tourist to be abused and denied constitutional rights while visiting the United States? Of course not. Why then would we want to deny those rights to these unfortunate children?
These legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be granted to everyone in this country. Otherwise, we would have police and courts deciding whether a person has rights, or can be abused without recourse -- and if they can decide one person or group doesn't deserve any rights, then they can also decide any other individual or group doesn't deserve those rights. I don't think we should want to go down that road (especially with this country's history of denying rights to American citizens).
Rights are not something that should be parceled out at the whim of those in authority. They are either guaranteed to everybody, or to nobody.
Noam Chomsky On The Situation In Gaza
I believe the state of Israel has a right to exist, and has the right to defend itself. But I do not believe they have the right to steal Palestinian land, or to abuse, maim, or kill innocent Palestinians. And I do not believe they have the right to keep the Palestinian people bottled up in what can only be described as a giant concentration camp. In fact, I find it shocking that only six decades after the holocaust, the state of Israel can itself commit the same kind of crimes against humanity that were committed against the Jewish people in Europe.
Noam Chomsky recently gave an interview to C.J. Polychroniou over at truthout.org. The interview covered a number of topics (ISIS, capitalism, etc.), and the entire article is worth reading, but a part of it that I found particularly interesting was Chomsky's comments on the situation in Gaza. Here is what he had to say in that interview:
Life in Gaza has returned to normalcy after Hamas and Israel agreed to a cease-fire. For how long?
I would hesitate to use the term "normalcy." The latest onslaught was even more vicious than its predecessors, and its impact is horrendous. The Egyptian military dictatorship, which is bitterly anti-Hamas, is also adding to the tragedy.
What will happen next? There has been a regular pattern since the first such agreement was reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in November 2005. It called for "a crossing between Gaza and Egypt at Rafah for the export of goods and the transit of people, continuous operation of crossings between Israel and Gaza for the import/export of goods, and the transit of people, reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank, bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza, the building of a seaport in Gaza, [and the] re-opening of the airport in Gaza" that Israeli bombing had demolished.
Later agreements have been variants on the same themes, the current one as well. Each time, Israel has disregarded the agreements while Hamas has lived up to them (as Israel concedes) until some Israeli escalation elicits a Hamas response, which gives Israel another opportunity to "mow the lawn," in its elegant phrase. The interim periods of "quiet" (meaning one-way quiet) allow Israel to carry forward its policies of taking over whatever it values in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians in dismembered cantons. All, of course, with crucial US support: military, economic, diplomatic and ideological, in framing the issues in accord with Israel's basic perspective.
That, indeed, was the purpose of Israel's "disengagement" from Gaza in 2005 - while remaining the occupying power, as recognized by the world (apart from Israel), even the US. The purpose was outlined candidly by the architect and chief negotiator of the "disengagement," Prime Minister Sharon's close associate, Dov Weissglass. He informed the press that "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a [US] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
That pattern has been reiterated over and over, and it seems that it is being re-enacted today. However, some knowledgeable Israeli commentators have suggested that Israel might finally relax its torture of Gaza. Its illegal takeover of much of the West Bank (including Greater Jerusalem) has proceeded so far that Israeli authorities might anticipate that it is irreversible. And they now have a cooperative ally in the brutal military dictatorship in Egypt. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS and the general shattering of the region have improved the tacit alliance with the Saudi dictatorship and possibly others. Conceivably, Israel might depart from its extreme rejectionism, though for now, the signs do not look auspicious.
The latest Israeli carnage in Gaza stirred public sentiment around the world increasingly against the state of Israel. To what extent is the unconditional support rendered by the US toward Israel the outplay of domestic political factors, and under what conditions do you see a shift in Washington's policy toward Tel Aviv?
There are very powerful domestic factors. One illustration was given right in the midst of the latest Israeli assault. At one point, Israeli weapons seemed to be running low, and the US kindly supplied Israel with more advanced weapons, which enabled it to carry the onslaught further. These weapons were taken from the stocks that the US pre-positions in Israel, for eventual use by US forces, one of many indications of the very close military connections that go back many years. Intelligence interactions are even better established. Israel is also a favored location for US investors, not just in its advanced military economy. There is a huge voting bloc of evangelical Christians that is fanatically pro-Israel. There is also an effective Israel lobby, which is often pushing an open door - and which quickly backs down when it confronts US power, not surprisingly.
There are, however, shifts in popular sentiments, particularly among younger people, including the Jewish community. I experience that personally, as do others. Not long ago I literally had to have police protection when I spoke on these topics on college campuses, even my own university. That has greatly changed. By now Palestine solidarity is a major commitment on many campuses. Over time, these changes could combine with some other factors to lead to a change of US policy. It's happened before. But it will take hard, serious, dedicated work.
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
Texas Dems Have Some Great Down-Ballot Candidates
The Democratic candidate for governor, Wendy Davis, and senator, David Alameel, has gotten most of the press coverage regarding the 2014 election in Texas, and that is normal. But Texas Democrats have nominated some great down-ballot candidates also. Four of them are pictured above -- Leticia Van De Putte (for Lt. Governor), Mike Collier (for Comptroller), Sam Houston (for Attorney General), and Steve Brown (for Railroad Commissioner).
Leticia Van De Putte is an experienced and very capable state senator, who would make an excellent Lt. Governor. She would represent all of the citizens of the Lone Star State -- not just the corporations. Her opponent is the most extremist Republican on the ballot (making even many die-hard teabaggers look moderate by comparison).
Mike Collier is a conservative "blue dog" Democrat, but in the position he is running for that might actually be a good thing. The comptroller is the person who collects the taxes and keeps the financial books for the state -- and Collier is imminently qualified for the position.
Sam Houston is a capable attorney who was born in small-town Texas. He understands the needs of both rural and urban Texans, and would defend the legal rights of all Texans. But he wouldn't waste taxpayer money and the time of both federal and state courts with frivolous lawsuits -- as our current Attorney General has done. Houston's opponent has admitted breaking the law by committing more than one felonious act, and is probably going to be indicted in the near future. We really don't need an Attorney General who will soon be going on trial for criminal misdeeds.
Steve Brown is running for Railroad Commissioner. In Texas, the Railroad Commission regulates the oil and gas industry -- and the current members of that commission were bought and paid for by the giant oil and gas companies long ago. We need an independent voice who will speak up for the rights of ordinary Texans -- and Brown would fill that role nicely.
I haven't pictured the Democratic candidate for Land Commissioner, John Cook, but he is also an excellent candidate. Cook understands the value of state-owned lands to all the citizens of Texas -- and he won't try to sell them off as the current Land Commissioner tried to do. Cook's opponent is George P. Bush (Jeb's son), who is trying to get his political start with this race. The last thing Texas needs is another Bush holding state-wide office.
THE EXCEPTION
Fortunately, their is a great alternative on the ballot. It is Kenneth Kendrick (pictured), who is the Green Party candidate for Agriculture Commissioner. Mr. Kendrick is honest, accessible, capable, and courageous (having exposed the health problems existing in the peanut industry in West Texas). He is a progressive who will run that agency for the benefit of the people of Texas.
I urge all Democrats to forgo voting a straight ticket this year -- and cast a vote for Kenneth Kendrick as Agriculture Commissioner. I will certainly do so.
Public Likes The President Much Better Than Congress
I am still hearing political pundits say the Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives in the coming election because of the unpopularity of President Obama. I have to wonder just what kind of dream world these pundits are living in. Not only was the president elected by large margins twice, but his approval ratings remain much higher than those of Congress.
The chart above show the approval ratings of both the president and Congress over the last two months. Note that the approval ratings of the president have not dipped below 44% during August and September. That's the kind of approval the House can only dream about. Congressional approval has never climbed above 14% in that same time period. That's a 30 point gap on Congress' best day and the president's worst day (and most of the time the gap is even larger -- currently 34.4 points).
I can understand why the congressional Republicans want to make this an election about how "unpopular" the president is -- since they certainly don't want to talk about their own unpopularity (or the voter anger with Congress). But why are the pundits falling for that silly argument? Do not not have to ability to read the polls consistently showing voter disapproval of Congress? Can they not fathom that this election is about voter anger with Congress -- and not about the president?
The voters are in an angry anti-incumbent mood -- and it's not the president they want to kick out of office -- it's the members of Congress. They are tired of Congress playing ideological games instead of compromising to fix the economy and create jobs. We're probably going to see a lot of new faces in Congress come January -- and there's a real possibility that a majority of those new faces will be Democrats.
The numbers in the chart above for the president are from the Rasmussen Poll -- which does a daily average of the previous three days (with 500 voters queried each of those days) to get the days approval number. The numbers for Congress are the average of all polls done at RealClearPolitics.
GOP Economic Policies Are Destroying The Middle Class
I was in Seattle, Washington, recently, to congratulate union and community organizers who helped Seattle enact the first $15 per hour minimum wage in the country.
Other cities and states should follow Seattle’s example.
Contrary to the dire predictions of opponents, the hike won’t cost Seattle jobs. In fact, it will put more money into the hands of low-wage workers who are likely to spend almost all of it in the vicinity. That will create jobs.
Conservatives believe the economy functions better if the rich have more money and everyone else has less. But they’re wrong. It’s just the opposite.
The real job creators are not CEOs or corporations or wealthy investors. The job creators are members of America’s vast middle class and the poor, whose purchases cause businesses to expand and invest.
America’s wealthy are richer than they’ve ever been. Big corporations are sitting on more cash they know what to do with. Corporate profits are at record levels. CEO pay continues to soar.
But the wealthy aren’t investing in new companies. Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of new business formation in the United States dropped by half, according to a Brookings study released in May.
Corporations aren’t expanding production or investing in research and development. Instead, they’re using their money to buy back their shares of stock.
There’s no reason for them to expand or invest if customers aren’t buying.
Consumer spending has grown more slowly in this recovery than in any previous one because consumers don’t have enough money to buy.
All the economic gains have been going to the top.
The Commerce Department reported last Friday that the economy grew at a 4.6 percent annual rate in the second quarter of the year.
So what? The median household’s income continues to drop.
Median household income is now 8 percent below what it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation. It’s 11 percent below its level in 2000.
It used to be that economic expansions improved the incomes of the bottom 90 percent more than the top 10 percent.
But starting with the “Reagan” recovery of 1982 to 1990, the benefits of economic growth during expansions have gone mostly to the top 10 percent.
Since the current recovery began in 2009, all economic gains have gone to the top 10 percent. The bottom 90 percent has lost ground.
We’re in the first economic upturn on record in which 90 percent of Americans have become worse off.
Why did the playing field start to tilt against the middle class in the Reagan recovery, and why has it tilted further ever since?
Don’t blame globalization. Other advanced nations facing the same global competition have managed to preserve middle class wages. Germany’s median wage is now higher than America’s.
One factor here has been a sharp decline in union membership. In the mid 1970s, 25 percent of the private-sector workforce was unionized.
Then came the Reagan revolution. By the end of the 1980s, only 17 percent of the private workforce was unionized. Today, fewer than 7 percent of the nation’s private-sector workers belong to a union.
This means most workers no longer have the bargaining power to get a share of the gains from growth.
Another structural change is the drop in the minimum wage. In 1979, it was $9.67 an hour (in 2013 dollars). By 1990, it had declined to $6.84. Today it’s $7.25, well below where it was in 1979.
Given that workers are far more productive now – computers have even increased the output of retail and fast food workers — the minimum wage should be even higher.
By setting a floor on wages, a higher minimum helps push up other wages. It undergirds higher median household incomes.
The only way to grow the economy in a way that benefits the bottom 90 percent is to change the structure of the economy. At the least, this requires stronger unions and a higher minimum wage.
It also requires better schools for the children of the bottom 90 percent, better access to higher education, and a more progressive tax system.
GDP growth is less and less relevant to the wellbeing of most Americans. We should be paying less attention to growth and more to median household income.
If the median household’s income is is heading upward, the economy is in good shape. If it’s heading downward, as it’s been for this entire recovery, we’re all in deep trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)