Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Letter to the Editor in response to "Invitation to a Dialogue: Time for a Third Party?", Dec. 27, 2011
(NY Times)
From: Scott McLarty
To the Editor,
Instead of illusory centrism, America needs a permanent alternative party that rejects corporate campaign checks and instead represents We The People -- the 99 percent. The Green Party matches this description. Two candidates are competing for the 2012 Green presidential nomination, Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay.
There is no centrist gap between Democratic and Republican, just an overlap at the points where the parties have the most in common. We have two factions competing over how best to serve the one percent, with Democrats capitulating and adopting G.O.P. ideas (e.g., the 2010 health-care reform bill mandates, originally a Republican proposal), and Republicans sinking into extremism.
Democratic and Republican leaders measure the health of the U.S. economy according to Dow Jones, the G.D.P., corporate profit margins -- how the rich are getting richer. Greens judge our economy by the number of working Americans who enjoy financial security and good health care, the number of people lifted out of poverty, and the number of jobs created (potentially millions) in the effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption and stem global warming.
The survival of our democracy depends on the right of voters to vote for whichever candidates best represent their needs and ideals, without being told that the only viable choice is between Big Mac and Whopper.
Scott McLarty
Washington, DC
Note: I serve as media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States (www.gp.org).
From: Scott McLarty
To the Editor,
Instead of illusory centrism, America needs a permanent alternative party that rejects corporate campaign checks and instead represents We The People -- the 99 percent. The Green Party matches this description. Two candidates are competing for the 2012 Green presidential nomination, Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay.
There is no centrist gap between Democratic and Republican, just an overlap at the points where the parties have the most in common. We have two factions competing over how best to serve the one percent, with Democrats capitulating and adopting G.O.P. ideas (e.g., the 2010 health-care reform bill mandates, originally a Republican proposal), and Republicans sinking into extremism.
Democratic and Republican leaders measure the health of the U.S. economy according to Dow Jones, the G.D.P., corporate profit margins -- how the rich are getting richer. Greens judge our economy by the number of working Americans who enjoy financial security and good health care, the number of people lifted out of poverty, and the number of jobs created (potentially millions) in the effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption and stem global warming.
The survival of our democracy depends on the right of voters to vote for whichever candidates best represent their needs and ideals, without being told that the only viable choice is between Big Mac and Whopper.
Scott McLarty
Washington, DC
Note: I serve as media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States (www.gp.org).
Monday, December 26, 2011
Another element of the Obama Administration’s Lesser but Still real Evil
Tikkun Magazine
When people often say that they are going to reelect Obama as “the lesser evil,” it is important to acknowledge that though lesser evil, the Obama Administration has been involved in considerable evil.
By Jeffrey Sachs
Huffington Post
The wonder of our world is that scientific knowledge is
now so powerful that we can save millions of children,
mothers, and fathers from killer diseases each year at
little cost. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and
Malaria has mobilized that knowledge over the past
decade to save more than 7 million lives and to protect
the health of hundreds of millions more. Yet now the
Global Fund is under mortal threat because of budget
cuts approved by President Obama and the Congress.
The Obama Administration had pledged $4 billion during
2011-13 to the Global Fund, or $1.33 billion per year.
Now it is reneging on this pledge. For a government
that spends $1.9 billion every single day on the
military ($700 billion each year), Washington’s
unwillingness to follow through on $1.33 billion for a
whole year to save millions of lives is a new depth of
cynicism and recklessness.
As a result of US budget cutbacks, and me-too cutbacks
by other countries, the Global Fund this week closed
its doors on providing new funds to impoverished
nations. It was supposed to accept proposals next month
from the poorest countries for an 11th round of
disease-control funds. Instead, it has scrapped any new
funding until 2014 at the earliest, and will only fund
the continuation of the coverage of existing programs.
US officials will prevaricate, noting that the US
spends this amount or that amount. History will treat
such excuses with the scorn they deserve.
Millions of people are now at risk of death in the
coming years as a result of Obama’s lassitude and
neglect. Hundreds of thousands of children who would
have been saved will now die of mosquito bites. They
will die because they live in poor tropical
environments where a mosquito bite kills, and where
their impoverishment makes it impossible for them to
afford a $5 bed net, $1 diagnostic test, $1 dose of
anti-malaria medicine, or access to a clinic. Countless
others will die because they cannot get AIDS or TB
treatments to stay alive.
If you think that money spent on the Global Fund is
money down the drain, think again. The Global Fund was
created a decade ago because the world needed to
respond to the uncontrolled epidemics of AIDS, malaria,
and TB. It has been a historic success, proving the
skeptics wrong. The Global Fund keeps alive 3.2 million
people on anti-retroviral treatment. It has financed
8.2 million courses of TB treatment and the
distribution of 190 million insecticide-treated nets.
You can read an overview here.
The Global Fund money has reached millions of people in
need. When its programs have been hit by corruption,
audits have paused the funding and reoriented the
programs. The result of this practical approach is
great success in many of the world’s poorest places.
Malaria has come down sharply, averting an estimated
400,000 deaths per year in Africa compared to the
baseline path as of the year 2000. Yet there are still
around 700,000 malaria deaths each year that can be
prevented if the Global Fund has the means. Read here
about the remarkable progress against malaria. Similar
progress is being made against AIDS. Now that progress
is at dire risk.
Reorienting less than 1 day’s military budget to help
save millions of lives (in conjunction with the efforts
of other countries) is not only a great humanitarian
step but also the most cost-effective step we can take
for our own security. Countries like Yemen or Somalia
are falling apart because they cannot meet their most
basic needs. We send in drone missiles – each one at
the cost of at least 20,000 bed nets — but we will
find no real security until we help address the
problems of disease, poverty, and hunger that
destabilize these regions.
It is painful to recall the campaign promises made by
Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton. Both promised that
they would step up the fight to control AIDS, TB, and
malaria. Empty words. President Obama’s aides tell him
that foreign assistance is bad domestic politics and he
listens. On this issue even George W. Bush knew better.
The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Congress,
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, is not quiet. She is
an aggressive and outspoken foe of foreign assistance,
pretending to her constituents that cutting a $1
billion to the Global Fund is the way to balance the
budget. Great, we’re now 0.001 of the way there.
The United States Government, I noted earlier, is not
alone in the collapse of morality, decency, and common
sense. Each government that once contributed to the
Global Fund takes refuge in the budget cuts by the US
and the others. The apparent belief of the politicians
is that there is safety in numbers if they all starve
the Global Fund together.
We live in a country where the Federal Government
doesn’t think twice about the fate of impoverished and
dying people. Such a government won’t act to save your
life or mine. Politicians so brazen and irresponsible
need to be voted out of office. In the meantime, I will
join the efforts around the world to find new means and
new leaders to continue the struggle against the killer
diseases. I hope that you will do so too.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs is a professor and director of
the Earth Institute at Columbia University; Special
Advisor to the UN Secretery-General; author, ‘The Price
of Civilization’ Follow Sachs on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs
When people often say that they are going to reelect Obama as “the lesser evil,” it is important to acknowledge that though lesser evil, the Obama Administration has been involved in considerable evil.
By Jeffrey Sachs
Huffington Post
The wonder of our world is that scientific knowledge is
now so powerful that we can save millions of children,
mothers, and fathers from killer diseases each year at
little cost. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and
Malaria has mobilized that knowledge over the past
decade to save more than 7 million lives and to protect
the health of hundreds of millions more. Yet now the
Global Fund is under mortal threat because of budget
cuts approved by President Obama and the Congress.
The Obama Administration had pledged $4 billion during
2011-13 to the Global Fund, or $1.33 billion per year.
Now it is reneging on this pledge. For a government
that spends $1.9 billion every single day on the
military ($700 billion each year), Washington’s
unwillingness to follow through on $1.33 billion for a
whole year to save millions of lives is a new depth of
cynicism and recklessness.
As a result of US budget cutbacks, and me-too cutbacks
by other countries, the Global Fund this week closed
its doors on providing new funds to impoverished
nations. It was supposed to accept proposals next month
from the poorest countries for an 11th round of
disease-control funds. Instead, it has scrapped any new
funding until 2014 at the earliest, and will only fund
the continuation of the coverage of existing programs.
US officials will prevaricate, noting that the US
spends this amount or that amount. History will treat
such excuses with the scorn they deserve.
Millions of people are now at risk of death in the
coming years as a result of Obama’s lassitude and
neglect. Hundreds of thousands of children who would
have been saved will now die of mosquito bites. They
will die because they live in poor tropical
environments where a mosquito bite kills, and where
their impoverishment makes it impossible for them to
afford a $5 bed net, $1 diagnostic test, $1 dose of
anti-malaria medicine, or access to a clinic. Countless
others will die because they cannot get AIDS or TB
treatments to stay alive.
If you think that money spent on the Global Fund is
money down the drain, think again. The Global Fund was
created a decade ago because the world needed to
respond to the uncontrolled epidemics of AIDS, malaria,
and TB. It has been a historic success, proving the
skeptics wrong. The Global Fund keeps alive 3.2 million
people on anti-retroviral treatment. It has financed
8.2 million courses of TB treatment and the
distribution of 190 million insecticide-treated nets.
You can read an overview here.
The Global Fund money has reached millions of people in
need. When its programs have been hit by corruption,
audits have paused the funding and reoriented the
programs. The result of this practical approach is
great success in many of the world’s poorest places.
Malaria has come down sharply, averting an estimated
400,000 deaths per year in Africa compared to the
baseline path as of the year 2000. Yet there are still
around 700,000 malaria deaths each year that can be
prevented if the Global Fund has the means. Read here
about the remarkable progress against malaria. Similar
progress is being made against AIDS. Now that progress
is at dire risk.
Reorienting less than 1 day’s military budget to help
save millions of lives (in conjunction with the efforts
of other countries) is not only a great humanitarian
step but also the most cost-effective step we can take
for our own security. Countries like Yemen or Somalia
are falling apart because they cannot meet their most
basic needs. We send in drone missiles – each one at
the cost of at least 20,000 bed nets — but we will
find no real security until we help address the
problems of disease, poverty, and hunger that
destabilize these regions.
It is painful to recall the campaign promises made by
Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton. Both promised that
they would step up the fight to control AIDS, TB, and
malaria. Empty words. President Obama’s aides tell him
that foreign assistance is bad domestic politics and he
listens. On this issue even George W. Bush knew better.
The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Congress,
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, is not quiet. She is
an aggressive and outspoken foe of foreign assistance,
pretending to her constituents that cutting a $1
billion to the Global Fund is the way to balance the
budget. Great, we’re now 0.001 of the way there.
The United States Government, I noted earlier, is not
alone in the collapse of morality, decency, and common
sense. Each government that once contributed to the
Global Fund takes refuge in the budget cuts by the US
and the others. The apparent belief of the politicians
is that there is safety in numbers if they all starve
the Global Fund together.
We live in a country where the Federal Government
doesn’t think twice about the fate of impoverished and
dying people. Such a government won’t act to save your
life or mine. Politicians so brazen and irresponsible
need to be voted out of office. In the meantime, I will
join the efforts around the world to find new means and
new leaders to continue the struggle against the killer
diseases. I hope that you will do so too.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs is a professor and director of
the Earth Institute at Columbia University; Special
Advisor to the UN Secretery-General; author, ‘The Price
of Civilization’ Follow Sachs on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Hardship in America: Homelessness Growing Among Families with Children
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The number of homeless families has been growing in recent years, but major programs that have proven effective at helping families find stable housing will serve fewer of them next year because of limited funding.
Since the recession began in late 2007, the number of homeless families with children living in temporary shelters has risen by 28 percent, to nearly 170,000 families in 2010, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Roughly four times as many families are living “doubled-up” or in other unstable home situations, school enrollment data from the Department of Education data suggest.
Numerous studies have documented the harmful long-term impact of housing instability on children. Compared to other kids, children whose families are homeless or living in unstable homes:
■Perform less well in school, are more likely to repeat a grade, and are less likely to complete high school — and the effects worsen with cumulative moves.
■Experience higher rates of mental health problems and developmental delays.
■Will more likely have physical health problems such as asthma or ear infections. (The Center for Housing Policy provides helpful summaries of the research here and here.)
Equally well-documented, housing assistance dramatically improves housing stability for low-income families that receive it. A recent study of families with children eligible for welfare assistance, for example, concluded that housing vouchers reduced the incidence of homelessness among these families by 75 percent. (Housing vouchers, which are federally funded, enable low-income households to rent modest housing in the private market at an affordable cost.)
Due to funding limitations, however, only about 1 in 4 eligible low-income families receives a housing voucher or other type of federal rental assistance.
Moreover, even fewer families will likely receive rental assistance in the future. Congress provided $1.5 billion for homelessness prevention in the 2009 Recovery Act, which likely averted an even sharper increase in family homelessness in 2010 (see graph), yet most local housing agencies will exhaust these funds well before the end of next year. Also, in HUD’s fiscal year 2012 budget, total funding for programs will fall by $3.7 billion (9 percent) below the 2011 level. Hardest hit are public housing and programs that promote the production of affordable housing. But even programs that fared relatively well in the budget, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, will likely serve fewer families next year due to inadequate funding.
The number of homeless families has been growing in recent years, but major programs that have proven effective at helping families find stable housing will serve fewer of them next year because of limited funding.
Since the recession began in late 2007, the number of homeless families with children living in temporary shelters has risen by 28 percent, to nearly 170,000 families in 2010, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Roughly four times as many families are living “doubled-up” or in other unstable home situations, school enrollment data from the Department of Education data suggest.
■Perform less well in school, are more likely to repeat a grade, and are less likely to complete high school — and the effects worsen with cumulative moves.
■Experience higher rates of mental health problems and developmental delays.
■Will more likely have physical health problems such as asthma or ear infections. (The Center for Housing Policy provides helpful summaries of the research here and here.)
Equally well-documented, housing assistance dramatically improves housing stability for low-income families that receive it. A recent study of families with children eligible for welfare assistance, for example, concluded that housing vouchers reduced the incidence of homelessness among these families by 75 percent. (Housing vouchers, which are federally funded, enable low-income households to rent modest housing in the private market at an affordable cost.)
Due to funding limitations, however, only about 1 in 4 eligible low-income families receives a housing voucher or other type of federal rental assistance.
Moreover, even fewer families will likely receive rental assistance in the future. Congress provided $1.5 billion for homelessness prevention in the 2009 Recovery Act, which likely averted an even sharper increase in family homelessness in 2010 (see graph), yet most local housing agencies will exhaust these funds well before the end of next year. Also, in HUD’s fiscal year 2012 budget, total funding for programs will fall by $3.7 billion (9 percent) below the 2011 level. Hardest hit are public housing and programs that promote the production of affordable housing. But even programs that fared relatively well in the budget, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, will likely serve fewer families next year due to inadequate funding.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Occupy Movement Must Also Become a Voters' Rebellion
FDL, By Scott McLarty
To vote or not to vote -- that is the question for Occupy Wall Street protesters and for Americans sympathetic to the Occupy movement taking place in cities throughout the US.
For many of those who intend to vote, it means casting a ballot for Democratic candidates, including President Obama. For those who don't plan to vote at all, the outcome of elections is irrelevant, because nothing will change under the current political system. Are these the only two choices?
The US is in a crisis, a political holding pattern in which Democratic presidents and party leaders keep adopting more and more Republican agenda while Republican politicians sink deeper into irrationality and borderline fascism.
The crisis won't be solved by intoning "We must vote to reelect Obama and other Dems because Republicans will be worse" or by denial that voting can have any effect on the future.
Are we locked into a rightward-sliding two-party paradigm for the rest of history? What if millions of voters began to think outside of the two parties?
We'll never interrupt the bipartisan assault on protections for working people and the environment until we change the political landscape. Wall Street banksters have nothing to worry about as long as Ds and Rs keep getting voted into office. The status quo will be validated in 2012, as it is in every election cycle, in three ways:
(1) Non-voting and anti-voting: Nonvoters have no effect on the political landscape. Occupy activists and others who have ruled out voting as a way to effect change ensure that they'll have no collective influence on who gets elected or the policies of the candidates who get elected.
(2) Zombie voting: mindless votes for incumbents and party lines, regardless of a candidate's platform, background, and qualifications. For such voters, Election Day is an empty but necessary ritual undeserving of critical thought.
(3) The mistaken belief among liberals, progressives, antiwar voters, and others that the Democratic Party offers change, that things will get better if we just keep voting to elect Democrats, or that we have to keep voting for Dems because they're not as awful as the GOP.
By justifying votes for a party that long ago abandoned its "party of the people" principles, progressive, antiwar, environmentally-minded, and pro-labor voters have participated in their own political demise. We are long past the point at which lesser-of-two-evils voting has turned into self-defeat.
The position of progressives in the Democratic Party was clarified recently when President Obama scolded the Congressional Black Caucus for daring to complain about the White House's numerous capitulations to the GOP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/25/obama-to-congressional-bl_n_979708.html). Rahm Emanuel, when he was White House Chief of Staff, called progressive critics "retards."
The Democratic Party expects progressives to continue voting for a party hostile to their ideals on the assumption that they have no one else to vote for and that a Republican victory would be far worse. When genuine progressives, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, run for the Democratic nomination, their loss is assured and their campaigns ultimately serve to herd supporters into voting for a nominee that rejects nearly everything they stand for.
As Les Leopold argues ("Don't 'Occupy the Democratic Party' -- Four Lessons From the Populist Movement," AlterNet, Dec. 13, http://www.alternet.org/story/153354), there is no hope for a rehabilitation of the Democratic Party. If anything, the Democratic Party is likely to jump even further to the right in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which struck down limits on corporate advertising for favored candidates, increasing the influence of business elites over both major parties.
Republicans are already trying to discredit the Occupy movement. We can predict that pro-GOP ads will slander the Occupy movement, and that, based on their usual tendency to retreat when challenged by the GOP, Obama and Dem leaders will dissociate themselves from the protesters and their demands. (See
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/gingrich-to-obama-repudiate-the-concept-of-the-99-percent/) If the 2012 presidential race is limited to D vs. R, the grievances and demands of the Occupiers will be banished to the margins by late spring 2012.
Beyond Protest
Electoral activism and street activism both have their limits and both are necessary. (Other strategies, like targeted boycotts, are effective too. Why rule out any nonviolent strategy?)
Street protest can be successful at capturing public attention, as demonstrations have proved throughout history. But it can be easy to mistake the vigor of protest movements, numbers of participants, and public sympathy with real success in changing the world.
The protests against the Iraq War during the last decade collapsed after Barack Obama's inauguration, because so many Democrats, believing they had just elected a progressive antiwar president, decided that protest was no longer necessary -- just when we needed it most.
What will happen in 2012 when pro-Dem unions and liberal groups and other Obama supporters are forced to decide whether to continue participating in Occupy protests against the Administration's policies or help get President Obama reelected? Organizations like MoveOn.org and Van Jones' American Dream are already trying to coopt the Occupy movement and spin it into "Reelect Obama." These groups will be reluctant to join the angry demonstrations that many of us hope to see outside the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina (as well as the Republican Convention, of course).
Participants in protest movements often espouse a variety of sometimes inconsistent ideals and tend to offer very general complaints and ideas for change. Demanding economic justice or an end to a war isn't a program for systematic change. The Vietnam War protests focused public opposition to the war and may have hastened the pullout of US troops. In the end, however, the protests didn't overturn the military-industrial complex or imperial culture of Washington, DC. Subsequent administrations, beginning with Jimmy Carter, maintained the pattern of US intervention in countries around the world.
In some cases, those in power simply ignore protest. The mass rallies throughout the US against President George W. Bush's order to invade Iraq in 2003 had no effect at all.
The Occupy movement must continue. We should look forward to its survival through the winter and renewed vitality when spring 2012 rolls around. But we must also find ways to make systematic changes and rebuild the political culture of the US so that wars of aggression, capitalist depredation, ecological irresponsibility (exhibited by the Obama Administration in early December during the UN meeting in Durban, South Africa, on climate change), assaults on the US Constitution, and other evils don't keep repeating every few years. In other words, we must replace people who are in power.
Vote For Yourself
The good news is that more and more Occupiers are showing interest in electoral action outside of the two Titanic parties. They've begun to embrace the vote as a strategy for challenging the corporate corruption and the erosion of democracy, in efforts like Occupy the Ballot (http://www.occupytheballot.org/).
Occupy Cincinnati demonstrators are already working to establish their own party
(http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19279413 / http://www.occupationparty.org/ ). Carl Mayer, public defender and long-time supporter of Ralph Nader and the Green Party, recently spoke before Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park and expressed "his hopes of the OWS movement's becoming a viable third party in the future" (http://www.policymic.com/articles/2251/carl-mayer-speaks-at-zuccotti-park-says-ows-can-be-third-party).
On December 13, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson launched a presidential campaign, via his newly founded Justice Party (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/13/ex_salt_lake_mayor_rocky_anderson).
Alternative parties have been responsible for introducing urgent changes, whether the parties themselves have succeeded (the anti-slavery Republican Party in the mid 1800s) or failed. The list of reforms introduced by third parties and initially rejected by the political establishment includes abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the eight-hour day and other workers' rights and protections, and civil rights for Blacks. If you're worried that the US is drifting into a new Robber Baron Era, remember that the Populist and Progressive parties helped end the last one in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Who will represent the important ideas on the electoral stage in the 21st century?
The Green Party (http://www.gp.org/) holds promise as an established national party, having laid a foundation for willing Occupy candidates to run for public office. In many states, Greens have accomplished the difficult task of achieving ballot status, overcoming prohibitive rules enacted by Democratic and Republican politicians to hinder alternative parties and candidates. Greens have spent more than two decades building party infrastructure and gaining campaign experience. The demands of Occupy protesters are clearly reflected in the Green Party's platform and refusal to accept corporate checks.
In New York, the Green Party achieved major-party status through Howie Hawkins' campaign for governor in 2010, fulfilling the state's stringent requirements and earning Greens their place on the 2012 ballot. New York Greens have been active in Occupy Wall Street since the protests began in September. In the 2011 general election, Cheri Honkala, a long-time housing activist and founder of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, ran for Sheriff of Philadelphia as a Green on an anti-eviction platform. Ms. Honkala spoke publicly at Occupy events about her pledge not to cooperate, if elected, with banks attempting to foreclose on Philadelphians' homes (http://www.cherihonkala.com/).
Speaking on the party's hope of emerging as a permanent independent political force in the 21st century, 2008 Green vice-presidential nominee Rosa Clemente said "The Green Party is no longer the alternative, the Green Party is the imperative." Some Greens have challenged Rocky Anderson to run for the Green nomination, noting that the Green Party already has ballot lines. (Greens will choose their nominee during the party's 2012 national convention in Baltimore, July 12 to 15.)
Whether Occupy activists decide to go Green or some other partisan route, they have the potential to lead a national voters' rebellion against the Titanic parties and trigger a sorely need seismic shift in US politics.
The day a few non-corporate-money Occupy candidates are elected to Congress is the day Democratic and Republican politicians are no longer each others' sole competition. The public debate on any given issue would open up to new ideas outside of the narrow D vs. R spectrum of policies and legislation approved by Wall Street, the oil companies, arms manufacturers, insurance companies, and other corporate interests.
There is no such thing as two-party democracy. Two-party elections are a single step removed from one-party states like the Soviet Union and China. At the heart of the voters' rebellion is the right to choose whichever candidates best represent one's own interests and ideals, without being told our choice is restricted to Big Mac vs. Whopper.
Refusing to vote and insisting on loyalty to Democrats will have the same effect -- a future limited to the parties of war and Wall Street. Thanks to the momentum of the Occupy movement, 2012 gives us an opportunity to save the US from the demise of our republic, collapse of the middle class, and descent into terrain that would be familiar to Benito Mussolini in the 1920s.
Given the increasing entrenchment of corporate-money politics in the age of Citizens United and accelerated redistribution of wealth and power to the one percent, this opportunity might be our last.
Scott McLarty is media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States and for the DC Statehood Green Party. He lives in Washington, DC.
To vote or not to vote -- that is the question for Occupy Wall Street protesters and for Americans sympathetic to the Occupy movement taking place in cities throughout the US.
For many of those who intend to vote, it means casting a ballot for Democratic candidates, including President Obama. For those who don't plan to vote at all, the outcome of elections is irrelevant, because nothing will change under the current political system. Are these the only two choices?
The US is in a crisis, a political holding pattern in which Democratic presidents and party leaders keep adopting more and more Republican agenda while Republican politicians sink deeper into irrationality and borderline fascism.
The crisis won't be solved by intoning "We must vote to reelect Obama and other Dems because Republicans will be worse" or by denial that voting can have any effect on the future.
Are we locked into a rightward-sliding two-party paradigm for the rest of history? What if millions of voters began to think outside of the two parties?
We'll never interrupt the bipartisan assault on protections for working people and the environment until we change the political landscape. Wall Street banksters have nothing to worry about as long as Ds and Rs keep getting voted into office. The status quo will be validated in 2012, as it is in every election cycle, in three ways:
(1) Non-voting and anti-voting: Nonvoters have no effect on the political landscape. Occupy activists and others who have ruled out voting as a way to effect change ensure that they'll have no collective influence on who gets elected or the policies of the candidates who get elected.
(2) Zombie voting: mindless votes for incumbents and party lines, regardless of a candidate's platform, background, and qualifications. For such voters, Election Day is an empty but necessary ritual undeserving of critical thought.
(3) The mistaken belief among liberals, progressives, antiwar voters, and others that the Democratic Party offers change, that things will get better if we just keep voting to elect Democrats, or that we have to keep voting for Dems because they're not as awful as the GOP.
By justifying votes for a party that long ago abandoned its "party of the people" principles, progressive, antiwar, environmentally-minded, and pro-labor voters have participated in their own political demise. We are long past the point at which lesser-of-two-evils voting has turned into self-defeat.
The position of progressives in the Democratic Party was clarified recently when President Obama scolded the Congressional Black Caucus for daring to complain about the White House's numerous capitulations to the GOP (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/25/obama-to-congressional-bl_n_979708.html). Rahm Emanuel, when he was White House Chief of Staff, called progressive critics "retards."
The Democratic Party expects progressives to continue voting for a party hostile to their ideals on the assumption that they have no one else to vote for and that a Republican victory would be far worse. When genuine progressives, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, run for the Democratic nomination, their loss is assured and their campaigns ultimately serve to herd supporters into voting for a nominee that rejects nearly everything they stand for.
As Les Leopold argues ("Don't 'Occupy the Democratic Party' -- Four Lessons From the Populist Movement," AlterNet, Dec. 13, http://www.alternet.org/story/153354), there is no hope for a rehabilitation of the Democratic Party. If anything, the Democratic Party is likely to jump even further to the right in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which struck down limits on corporate advertising for favored candidates, increasing the influence of business elites over both major parties.
Republicans are already trying to discredit the Occupy movement. We can predict that pro-GOP ads will slander the Occupy movement, and that, based on their usual tendency to retreat when challenged by the GOP, Obama and Dem leaders will dissociate themselves from the protesters and their demands. (See
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/29/gingrich-to-obama-repudiate-the-concept-of-the-99-percent/) If the 2012 presidential race is limited to D vs. R, the grievances and demands of the Occupiers will be banished to the margins by late spring 2012.
Beyond Protest
Electoral activism and street activism both have their limits and both are necessary. (Other strategies, like targeted boycotts, are effective too. Why rule out any nonviolent strategy?)
Street protest can be successful at capturing public attention, as demonstrations have proved throughout history. But it can be easy to mistake the vigor of protest movements, numbers of participants, and public sympathy with real success in changing the world.
The protests against the Iraq War during the last decade collapsed after Barack Obama's inauguration, because so many Democrats, believing they had just elected a progressive antiwar president, decided that protest was no longer necessary -- just when we needed it most.
What will happen in 2012 when pro-Dem unions and liberal groups and other Obama supporters are forced to decide whether to continue participating in Occupy protests against the Administration's policies or help get President Obama reelected? Organizations like MoveOn.org and Van Jones' American Dream are already trying to coopt the Occupy movement and spin it into "Reelect Obama." These groups will be reluctant to join the angry demonstrations that many of us hope to see outside the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina (as well as the Republican Convention, of course).
Participants in protest movements often espouse a variety of sometimes inconsistent ideals and tend to offer very general complaints and ideas for change. Demanding economic justice or an end to a war isn't a program for systematic change. The Vietnam War protests focused public opposition to the war and may have hastened the pullout of US troops. In the end, however, the protests didn't overturn the military-industrial complex or imperial culture of Washington, DC. Subsequent administrations, beginning with Jimmy Carter, maintained the pattern of US intervention in countries around the world.
In some cases, those in power simply ignore protest. The mass rallies throughout the US against President George W. Bush's order to invade Iraq in 2003 had no effect at all.
The Occupy movement must continue. We should look forward to its survival through the winter and renewed vitality when spring 2012 rolls around. But we must also find ways to make systematic changes and rebuild the political culture of the US so that wars of aggression, capitalist depredation, ecological irresponsibility (exhibited by the Obama Administration in early December during the UN meeting in Durban, South Africa, on climate change), assaults on the US Constitution, and other evils don't keep repeating every few years. In other words, we must replace people who are in power.
Vote For Yourself
The good news is that more and more Occupiers are showing interest in electoral action outside of the two Titanic parties. They've begun to embrace the vote as a strategy for challenging the corporate corruption and the erosion of democracy, in efforts like Occupy the Ballot (http://www.occupytheballot.org/).
Occupy Cincinnati demonstrators are already working to establish their own party
(http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19279413 / http://www.occupationparty.org/ ). Carl Mayer, public defender and long-time supporter of Ralph Nader and the Green Party, recently spoke before Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park and expressed "his hopes of the OWS movement's becoming a viable third party in the future" (http://www.policymic.com/articles/2251/carl-mayer-speaks-at-zuccotti-park-says-ows-can-be-third-party).
On December 13, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson launched a presidential campaign, via his newly founded Justice Party (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/13/ex_salt_lake_mayor_rocky_anderson).
Alternative parties have been responsible for introducing urgent changes, whether the parties themselves have succeeded (the anti-slavery Republican Party in the mid 1800s) or failed. The list of reforms introduced by third parties and initially rejected by the political establishment includes abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the eight-hour day and other workers' rights and protections, and civil rights for Blacks. If you're worried that the US is drifting into a new Robber Baron Era, remember that the Populist and Progressive parties helped end the last one in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Who will represent the important ideas on the electoral stage in the 21st century?
The Green Party (http://www.gp.org/) holds promise as an established national party, having laid a foundation for willing Occupy candidates to run for public office. In many states, Greens have accomplished the difficult task of achieving ballot status, overcoming prohibitive rules enacted by Democratic and Republican politicians to hinder alternative parties and candidates. Greens have spent more than two decades building party infrastructure and gaining campaign experience. The demands of Occupy protesters are clearly reflected in the Green Party's platform and refusal to accept corporate checks.
In New York, the Green Party achieved major-party status through Howie Hawkins' campaign for governor in 2010, fulfilling the state's stringent requirements and earning Greens their place on the 2012 ballot. New York Greens have been active in Occupy Wall Street since the protests began in September. In the 2011 general election, Cheri Honkala, a long-time housing activist and founder of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, ran for Sheriff of Philadelphia as a Green on an anti-eviction platform. Ms. Honkala spoke publicly at Occupy events about her pledge not to cooperate, if elected, with banks attempting to foreclose on Philadelphians' homes (http://www.cherihonkala.com/).
Speaking on the party's hope of emerging as a permanent independent political force in the 21st century, 2008 Green vice-presidential nominee Rosa Clemente said "The Green Party is no longer the alternative, the Green Party is the imperative." Some Greens have challenged Rocky Anderson to run for the Green nomination, noting that the Green Party already has ballot lines. (Greens will choose their nominee during the party's 2012 national convention in Baltimore, July 12 to 15.)
Whether Occupy activists decide to go Green or some other partisan route, they have the potential to lead a national voters' rebellion against the Titanic parties and trigger a sorely need seismic shift in US politics.
The day a few non-corporate-money Occupy candidates are elected to Congress is the day Democratic and Republican politicians are no longer each others' sole competition. The public debate on any given issue would open up to new ideas outside of the narrow D vs. R spectrum of policies and legislation approved by Wall Street, the oil companies, arms manufacturers, insurance companies, and other corporate interests.
There is no such thing as two-party democracy. Two-party elections are a single step removed from one-party states like the Soviet Union and China. At the heart of the voters' rebellion is the right to choose whichever candidates best represent one's own interests and ideals, without being told our choice is restricted to Big Mac vs. Whopper.
Refusing to vote and insisting on loyalty to Democrats will have the same effect -- a future limited to the parties of war and Wall Street. Thanks to the momentum of the Occupy movement, 2012 gives us an opportunity to save the US from the demise of our republic, collapse of the middle class, and descent into terrain that would be familiar to Benito Mussolini in the 1920s.
Given the increasing entrenchment of corporate-money politics in the age of Citizens United and accelerated redistribution of wealth and power to the one percent, this opportunity might be our last.
Scott McLarty is media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States and for the DC Statehood Green Party. He lives in Washington, DC.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Sen. Levin Charging That Obama Asked for Americans be Subject to Life-Long Military Detention.
Daily Kos
In deference to people who do not have broadband connections and cannot easily view videos, here is a transcript because this is too important to not know exactly what Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said on the Senate floor. Too important to not make abundantly clear what is taking place.
Levin pointed out that the Senate Armed Services Committee had taken pains to specifically exclude American citizens, as the Constitution would require, from the indefinite military detention provisions of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act,) and that it was the Obama administration which specifically asked that Americans NOT be excluded. In other words, that they be subject to indefinite military detention the same as foreign nationals. The NDAA is now up for a vote.
Sen. Levin (addressing Senate president): "And I'm wondering whether the senator is familiar with the fact that the language, the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section?
Is the senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language we had in the bill which passed the committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration... that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? I'm just wondering is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language [excluding US citizens], the absence of which, is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?"
What does this mean for us? This in no way excuses congressmens' and senators' treasonous votes passing the unconstitutional legislation. What is does do is expose the game of good-cop-bad-cop that Obama is playing, and shows him for the two-face that he is.
He can no longer say "the Congress made me do it, and they have enough votes to override my veto." So much for Change You Can Believe In.
And in twenty years when effective political dissidents are routinely thrown into military isolation forever without charge or trial, the standard joke among them will be "which party put you in here?"
Once in military custody you can be tortured and driven insane through permanent isolation, be given drugs, and deprived of all contact with family, friends, legal counsel, and the rest of the outside world for the rest of your life. You are entitled to no due process, recourse, or any other rights.
No one knows about this, and if it wasn't for a sharp-eyed American doing her duty and following the proceedings on CSPAN like a hawk, these damning words would be lost in the ether. This is the "eternal vigilance" the Founders were talking about.
Obama is busted as no different than any other Neo-con, a wolf in sheep's clothing, from the mouth of a ranking member of his own party. This final shattering of the "lesser of two evils" strategy played by the masters of both parties is good for Americans of all political stripes. I call on the Democratic Party to renounce Obama and to pass what emergency by-laws may be necessary to effect the nomination of a new party candidate before the Convention. I call on the loyal rank-and-file of the Democratic Party to demand of their leaders why they are not doing so. Some will be angered by these words, but I care not. If we are to walk into this era, at the very least let us walk into it with our eyes wide open.
Please post widely, re-post, and post again.
In deference to people who do not have broadband connections and cannot easily view videos, here is a transcript because this is too important to not know exactly what Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said on the Senate floor. Too important to not make abundantly clear what is taking place.
Levin pointed out that the Senate Armed Services Committee had taken pains to specifically exclude American citizens, as the Constitution would require, from the indefinite military detention provisions of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act,) and that it was the Obama administration which specifically asked that Americans NOT be excluded. In other words, that they be subject to indefinite military detention the same as foreign nationals. The NDAA is now up for a vote.
Sen. Levin (addressing Senate president): "And I'm wondering whether the senator is familiar with the fact that the language, the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section?
Is the senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language we had in the bill which passed the committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration... that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? I'm just wondering is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language [excluding US citizens], the absence of which, is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?"
What does this mean for us? This in no way excuses congressmens' and senators' treasonous votes passing the unconstitutional legislation. What is does do is expose the game of good-cop-bad-cop that Obama is playing, and shows him for the two-face that he is.
He can no longer say "the Congress made me do it, and they have enough votes to override my veto." So much for Change You Can Believe In.
And in twenty years when effective political dissidents are routinely thrown into military isolation forever without charge or trial, the standard joke among them will be "which party put you in here?"
Once in military custody you can be tortured and driven insane through permanent isolation, be given drugs, and deprived of all contact with family, friends, legal counsel, and the rest of the outside world for the rest of your life. You are entitled to no due process, recourse, or any other rights.
No one knows about this, and if it wasn't for a sharp-eyed American doing her duty and following the proceedings on CSPAN like a hawk, these damning words would be lost in the ether. This is the "eternal vigilance" the Founders were talking about.
Obama is busted as no different than any other Neo-con, a wolf in sheep's clothing, from the mouth of a ranking member of his own party. This final shattering of the "lesser of two evils" strategy played by the masters of both parties is good for Americans of all political stripes. I call on the Democratic Party to renounce Obama and to pass what emergency by-laws may be necessary to effect the nomination of a new party candidate before the Convention. I call on the loyal rank-and-file of the Democratic Party to demand of their leaders why they are not doing so. Some will be angered by these words, but I care not. If we are to walk into this era, at the very least let us walk into it with our eyes wide open.
Please post widely, re-post, and post again.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Why I Protest: Dr. Arthur Chen of Oakland, Calif.
Time.com
A family physician, Dr. Arthur Chen, 60, was an unusual addition to the counter-culture of the Occupy Oakland movement. But the Connecticut-born Oakland resident who works in the city's Chinatown had a cause — health care reform — and the protests gave him a forum. He spoke to TIME's Jason Motlagh:
TIME: What was the event that precipitated your activism? And what made it personal?
Arthur Chen: I'm part of that 99%, proud to say, so it's very relevant. And then in addition to that... I've been seeing patients that are low-income impacted, many of them unemployed, and then struggling for survival. They're immigrants, and so I've seen the negative impacts in their lives from day to day. And I've seen uninsured patients who have to struggle with the recommendations that I make because of whether or not they can afford it. So it's been real to me on a personal level, and looking at the population as a whole, looking at the patients that I see, and just knowing intellectually that there's flaws in our current system. We're taking capitalism and its negative sides head on, which I think is essential to a democracy. And hopefully preserve the positive side of capitalism, because I'm not totally against capitalism; I just think at this point it's probably out of control.
How did you go about participating in the protests?
It was really hearing it in the news and hearing it through radio announcements, they're just totally on top of that. Democracy Now, if you're familiar with Amy Goodman. And so they were openly publicizing it and explaining it. So it was really helpful, and that prompted me to feel, okay, this is the moment and you really have to participate and you have to take time off and be there in solidarity with this and you know, help have representation. And then as a person of color, certainly here in Oakland, we have such a diverse population, but it's really important for people to see that the whole spectrum of our demographics are there, and feeling the need to really participate and be counted.
How did protests in other parts of the world affect, influence, or inspire you?
The Arab Spring, very inspiring. Just to have seen what had happened in Tahrir Square, and Tunisia and the start of things. And that it was really young people who played a significant role in that. All of that activity, the demonstrations in London around students outraged about increase in tuitions, and all of this activity and in Wisconsin, where people really spoke out against the governor, who really wanted to strip labor of its rights at that time, of collective bargaining. It's a combination of all of those things, and all of them, I think, again, representative about the growing resentment of the direction that our government is going, tax and policies that favor the rich, and don't really allow for an even spread of the resources to address our more needy populations.
What was the funniest thing you saw during the protests?
Well it really wasn't the funniest thing, but it made me think about a new generation. On the day of the general strike, when they started having speakers line up at the podium, right there at 14th and Broadway, one of the announcers said, we're going to start speaking and you're going to hear a lot of different views today. And you're going to hear some things that you may totally disagree with. And I chuckled a little bit, and then I thought, this generation is about inclusiveness and transparency. It was very moving, because I thought of previous demonstrations and big rallies where I know how controlled the speakers list is. And then in this particular case, they were just going the opposite direction and saying everyone's going to get a chance to speak. We aren't screening your point of view. That goes in line with the general assemblies, because I sat through a couple of those, and the way in which they're conducted, the inclusiveness, the way in which they ask us to sit down in groups with a few people around you. It's a different approach: it's horizontal. And so, it wasn't funny, but it made me smile.
What's an image of the protest you remember well?
The string people. They were expressing clearly the anguish and the pain of having to go through this economic downturn, but they were doing it with about four or five people caught up and tangled in string and rope.
What was the most memorable day of the protests in personal terms for you?
The most memorable day was when the camp was dismantled [which took place by around 5 a.m. on Nov. 14, 2011]. That day around 8:30 a.m. or so, I decided to swing by City Hall [outside of which the protesters were camped]. I wasn't seeing patients that morning; I was going to do some administrative work. So I swung by and I walked out. I had to get past a police barrier. And I just told an officer, look I have a meeting over in this other building in the rotunda, where I knew people, and he let me through. And so I walked by, and it was like walking by a graveyard. It was so disheartening to see just nobody there. And I had been there before and it was vibrant and alive and there were people who were energized and feeling really positive about making a statement. And so it was disheartening; the mood was really somber. There was nobody there. Then I heard helicopters flying overhead. And then I slipped into a coffee shop, just so I could stay out of the range of the officer that had let me by — and went in to just buy a roll, and they were totally empty. During that time I saw a battalion of police marching by, there was about 20 or 25 of them. And it just sent a chill down my spine, of where things had amounted to. A peaceful, nonviolent protest around the economic conditions and what are the causes of that, and here we had folks just cleared out and arrested, and now we had an oppressive looking police tactical squad coming in. That was probably my worst day.
A family physician, Dr. Arthur Chen, 60, was an unusual addition to the counter-culture of the Occupy Oakland movement. But the Connecticut-born Oakland resident who works in the city's Chinatown had a cause — health care reform — and the protests gave him a forum. He spoke to TIME's Jason Motlagh:
TIME: What was the event that precipitated your activism? And what made it personal?
Arthur Chen: I'm part of that 99%, proud to say, so it's very relevant. And then in addition to that... I've been seeing patients that are low-income impacted, many of them unemployed, and then struggling for survival. They're immigrants, and so I've seen the negative impacts in their lives from day to day. And I've seen uninsured patients who have to struggle with the recommendations that I make because of whether or not they can afford it. So it's been real to me on a personal level, and looking at the population as a whole, looking at the patients that I see, and just knowing intellectually that there's flaws in our current system. We're taking capitalism and its negative sides head on, which I think is essential to a democracy. And hopefully preserve the positive side of capitalism, because I'm not totally against capitalism; I just think at this point it's probably out of control.
How did you go about participating in the protests?
It was really hearing it in the news and hearing it through radio announcements, they're just totally on top of that. Democracy Now, if you're familiar with Amy Goodman. And so they were openly publicizing it and explaining it. So it was really helpful, and that prompted me to feel, okay, this is the moment and you really have to participate and you have to take time off and be there in solidarity with this and you know, help have representation. And then as a person of color, certainly here in Oakland, we have such a diverse population, but it's really important for people to see that the whole spectrum of our demographics are there, and feeling the need to really participate and be counted.
How did protests in other parts of the world affect, influence, or inspire you?
The Arab Spring, very inspiring. Just to have seen what had happened in Tahrir Square, and Tunisia and the start of things. And that it was really young people who played a significant role in that. All of that activity, the demonstrations in London around students outraged about increase in tuitions, and all of this activity and in Wisconsin, where people really spoke out against the governor, who really wanted to strip labor of its rights at that time, of collective bargaining. It's a combination of all of those things, and all of them, I think, again, representative about the growing resentment of the direction that our government is going, tax and policies that favor the rich, and don't really allow for an even spread of the resources to address our more needy populations.
What was the funniest thing you saw during the protests?
Well it really wasn't the funniest thing, but it made me think about a new generation. On the day of the general strike, when they started having speakers line up at the podium, right there at 14th and Broadway, one of the announcers said, we're going to start speaking and you're going to hear a lot of different views today. And you're going to hear some things that you may totally disagree with. And I chuckled a little bit, and then I thought, this generation is about inclusiveness and transparency. It was very moving, because I thought of previous demonstrations and big rallies where I know how controlled the speakers list is. And then in this particular case, they were just going the opposite direction and saying everyone's going to get a chance to speak. We aren't screening your point of view. That goes in line with the general assemblies, because I sat through a couple of those, and the way in which they're conducted, the inclusiveness, the way in which they ask us to sit down in groups with a few people around you. It's a different approach: it's horizontal. And so, it wasn't funny, but it made me smile.
What's an image of the protest you remember well?
The string people. They were expressing clearly the anguish and the pain of having to go through this economic downturn, but they were doing it with about four or five people caught up and tangled in string and rope.
What was the most memorable day of the protests in personal terms for you?
The most memorable day was when the camp was dismantled [which took place by around 5 a.m. on Nov. 14, 2011]. That day around 8:30 a.m. or so, I decided to swing by City Hall [outside of which the protesters were camped]. I wasn't seeing patients that morning; I was going to do some administrative work. So I swung by and I walked out. I had to get past a police barrier. And I just told an officer, look I have a meeting over in this other building in the rotunda, where I knew people, and he let me through. And so I walked by, and it was like walking by a graveyard. It was so disheartening to see just nobody there. And I had been there before and it was vibrant and alive and there were people who were energized and feeling really positive about making a statement. And so it was disheartening; the mood was really somber. There was nobody there. Then I heard helicopters flying overhead. And then I slipped into a coffee shop, just so I could stay out of the range of the officer that had let me by — and went in to just buy a roll, and they were totally empty. During that time I saw a battalion of police marching by, there was about 20 or 25 of them. And it just sent a chill down my spine, of where things had amounted to. A peaceful, nonviolent protest around the economic conditions and what are the causes of that, and here we had folks just cleared out and arrested, and now we had an oppressive looking police tactical squad coming in. That was probably my worst day.
Meet the new 1%: healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid
The Guardian
No bankers in top 10 of America's best-paid executives, but those in charge of healthcare and drugs firms are in the money
Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay.
There are no bankers in the top 10 of this year's GMI survey of CEO pay. In fact, they have been out since 2007, when Goldman Sachs boss Lloyd Blankfein competed for the top slot with Richard Fuld, boss of soon-to-be-bust Lehman Brothers, and Angelo Morzillo, head of Countrywide, once the largest sub-prime home loan firm.
With the bankers still recovering from their tussle with hubris, old age and infirmity were 2010's boom businesses – at least in terms of pay. Leading the pack was John Hammergren, chief executive of McKesson Corporation. The firm's 52-year-old chairman, chief executive and president took home $145,266,971 in 2010.
McKeeson is probably the biggest company you've never heard of. Headquartered in San Francisco, the company is the largest pharmaceutical distributor in North America, distributing a third of the medicines used in the US. McKeeson's sales topped $112bn last year.
Hammergren's next closest rival was Joel Gemunder, outgoing boss of Omnicare, where he had been president since 1981. Omnicare is a pharmacy company that dispenses drugs in nursing homes – among other services – and had sales of $6.15bn last year. When Gemunder started at the firm it had sales of $150m. His 2010 total pay package was worth $98,283,242.
CVS Caremark, which operates 7,000 pharmacies across the US, awarded chief executive Thomas Ryan $68,079,823 in 2010. Caremark's share price was $71.70 on 1 May 1998, when Ryan joined the firm, and ended 2010 at $34.29.
Ronald Williams, boss of health insurance giant Aetna, made $57,787,786 in 2010. Another recipient of a golden goodbye, Williams made $50.4m on his stock options last year. Williams is one of the US's most prominent African American business leaders, and has campaigned against healthcare reforms that would have introduced a government-backed public insurance option to compete with private insurers. Since he became CEO, Aetna's stock price declined by 70%.
No bankers in top 10 of America's best-paid executives, but those in charge of healthcare and drugs firms are in the money
Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay.
There are no bankers in the top 10 of this year's GMI survey of CEO pay. In fact, they have been out since 2007, when Goldman Sachs boss Lloyd Blankfein competed for the top slot with Richard Fuld, boss of soon-to-be-bust Lehman Brothers, and Angelo Morzillo, head of Countrywide, once the largest sub-prime home loan firm.
With the bankers still recovering from their tussle with hubris, old age and infirmity were 2010's boom businesses – at least in terms of pay. Leading the pack was John Hammergren, chief executive of McKesson Corporation. The firm's 52-year-old chairman, chief executive and president took home $145,266,971 in 2010.
McKeeson is probably the biggest company you've never heard of. Headquartered in San Francisco, the company is the largest pharmaceutical distributor in North America, distributing a third of the medicines used in the US. McKeeson's sales topped $112bn last year.
Hammergren's next closest rival was Joel Gemunder, outgoing boss of Omnicare, where he had been president since 1981. Omnicare is a pharmacy company that dispenses drugs in nursing homes – among other services – and had sales of $6.15bn last year. When Gemunder started at the firm it had sales of $150m. His 2010 total pay package was worth $98,283,242.
CVS Caremark, which operates 7,000 pharmacies across the US, awarded chief executive Thomas Ryan $68,079,823 in 2010. Caremark's share price was $71.70 on 1 May 1998, when Ryan joined the firm, and ended 2010 at $34.29.
Ronald Williams, boss of health insurance giant Aetna, made $57,787,786 in 2010. Another recipient of a golden goodbye, Williams made $50.4m on his stock options last year. Williams is one of the US's most prominent African American business leaders, and has campaigned against healthcare reforms that would have introduced a government-backed public insurance option to compete with private insurers. Since he became CEO, Aetna's stock price declined by 70%.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Health care system is weighing down America
The Newport (R.I.) Daily News
An article in the Dec. 1 Daily News stated that Newport Hospital provided more than $16 million in uncompensated care in the past fiscal year. The report concluded this crucial community hospital continues to operate in large part due to the charity of wealthy donors.
What I was surprised not to see was mention of the fact that this problem is a nationwide crisis and is due not to Rhode Island’s struggling economy, but to the fact that the funding of American health care is fatally flawed.
Hospitals like Newport provide free care because so many in the community lack health insurance. More than 50 million people nationally and 10 percent of all Rhode Islanders are uninsured, and a larger number are “underinsured,” meaning that because of the high deductibles, co-pays and caps on their insurance policies, a single critical illness such as cancer will bankrupt them. Nationally, more than 50 percent of all bankruptcies in 2010 were due to medical bills, and of those bankrupted, more than 60 percent had insurance at the onset of their illness. America pays roughly $7,800 annually per person in health care costs. For a little more than half that amount, Canada and Europe insure every citizen and medical bankruptcies do not occur. Why? Because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consumes about one-third of all U.S. health care dollars. Even worse, it is estimated that 48,000 Americans die each year due to a lack of health insurance.
In 2003, the New England Journal of Medicine, using the government’s own data, found that the U.S. could save $350 billion annually by changing from our current wasteful private-insurance system to a national single-payer system — enough savings to provide all necessary health care coverage for every American. One might ask, if the facts are so obvious, why does the government not enact these changes? The answer is: lobbyists.
In the summer of 2010, the health insurance industry spent $170 million per month to kill the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), and succeeded in stripping it of the public option and earlier Medicare eligibility. The weakened bill will not save money or fix the problem.
However, there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 676, the Medicare for All Act, which would create a single-payer system with the savings mentioned above. The bill has 72 sponsors in the House; unfortunately, they do not include Reps. David Cicilline or Jim Langevin. I would urge all Daily News readers to write to our congressmen to do the right thing for Rhode Islanders and our health care system and sign on as co-sponsors of this bill.
We cannot afford the current system.
It is literally killing us and bankrupting our country.
An article in the Dec. 1 Daily News stated that Newport Hospital provided more than $16 million in uncompensated care in the past fiscal year. The report concluded this crucial community hospital continues to operate in large part due to the charity of wealthy donors.
What I was surprised not to see was mention of the fact that this problem is a nationwide crisis and is due not to Rhode Island’s struggling economy, but to the fact that the funding of American health care is fatally flawed.
Hospitals like Newport provide free care because so many in the community lack health insurance. More than 50 million people nationally and 10 percent of all Rhode Islanders are uninsured, and a larger number are “underinsured,” meaning that because of the high deductibles, co-pays and caps on their insurance policies, a single critical illness such as cancer will bankrupt them. Nationally, more than 50 percent of all bankruptcies in 2010 were due to medical bills, and of those bankrupted, more than 60 percent had insurance at the onset of their illness. America pays roughly $7,800 annually per person in health care costs. For a little more than half that amount, Canada and Europe insure every citizen and medical bankruptcies do not occur. Why? Because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consumes about one-third of all U.S. health care dollars. Even worse, it is estimated that 48,000 Americans die each year due to a lack of health insurance.
In 2003, the New England Journal of Medicine, using the government’s own data, found that the U.S. could save $350 billion annually by changing from our current wasteful private-insurance system to a national single-payer system — enough savings to provide all necessary health care coverage for every American. One might ask, if the facts are so obvious, why does the government not enact these changes? The answer is: lobbyists.
In the summer of 2010, the health insurance industry spent $170 million per month to kill the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), and succeeded in stripping it of the public option and earlier Medicare eligibility. The weakened bill will not save money or fix the problem.
However, there is a bill in the House of Representatives, HR 676, the Medicare for All Act, which would create a single-payer system with the savings mentioned above. The bill has 72 sponsors in the House; unfortunately, they do not include Reps. David Cicilline or Jim Langevin. I would urge all Daily News readers to write to our congressmen to do the right thing for Rhode Islanders and our health care system and sign on as co-sponsors of this bill.
We cannot afford the current system.
It is literally killing us and bankrupting our country.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Students Occupy for Health Justice
AMSA On Call blog
I met a patient last week who stopped taking her antidepressant medications because she had been denied long-term health insurance and thought it would improve her chances of eligibility. Unfortunately this obviously wasn’t in the best interest of her health.
I had another patient who presented to the emergency department with metastatic lung cancer. He had not been to the doctor in over 30 years because he couldn’t afford it. If he had sought treatment earlier he may have been cured.
Everywhere I look private health insurance companies are making our patients sicker.
I was proud to be at in Lafayette Park in Albany, N.Y., last Sunday for the Health Professional Students Day of Action for the 99%. We carried a banner that said “Health Professional Students Occupy for Health Justice and Single Payer.”
I support the occupy movement because I feel that powerful and profiting insurance companies get in the way of my practice of medicine. Treatment should be the same high quality for everyone; instead, we have to consider what someone can afford.
It too often becomes treatment for the “haves” and neglect for the “have nots.” But the thing is, these days you may not know which group you fall into. Insurance plans are so spotty, with major gaps in coverage, that you don’t even realize it until you need medical attention, and you find your plan does not cover it.
I see it every day in the clinic – treatment is designed around what the insurance will pay (or not) instead of what is best for the patient first and foremost. It’s no fault of the medical team; we want to give the patients the best care, but the insurance industry has our hands tied.
Today’s future doctors realize that health care is more than physical health, social determinants of health are equally as important. The schools our kids attend, the neighborhoods we grow up in, the cleanliness of the environment, joblessness, and poverty all deeply impact our health.
A classmate said today, “There is so much inequity and injustice, it cuts into everything, including caring for patients. If you really want to care for patients you’ve got to care about everything, not just their liver.”
I asked some of the other attendees why they support the Occupy movement. “Health care is a fundamental human right and by increasing access to health care we can reduce some of the inequality,” said one medical student. Another classmate agreed: “We’re here for health care because you can’t do anything if you’re not healthy.” Yet another: “As a future physician, it’s disconcerting that patients can’t get into my exam room, and I want to change that.”
Even early in their medical careers, these students see that there are major problems with the health of our nation.
As I talked with my classmates, I found that we were all there for slightly different reasons. “I feel like too much of our country’s infrastructure has been diverted away from the important stuff like health and well-being,” said another student. His peer believes “the system is broken and change needs to start somewhere.”
The United States is the only industrialized country that does not provide health care to all its citizens regardless of employment status or economic class. Our profit-driven health care industry raises costs and inequality.
But our political system has been corrupted by corporate money and power, and the 1% have rejected evidence-based health policy that save lives and money, namely expanded and improved Medicare for all. We support Occupy Wall Street because economic and social inequality makes our patients sick.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Occupy welcomes physician sharing vision for single-payer health system
The Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Dr. Steve Auerbach has shared his vision for a single-payer health system with Occupy movements nationwide, and on Friday he brought it to Chapel Hill.
Auerbach, a pediatrician and a leader of the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program, pointed at a handwritten sign reading “Corporate greed makes us sick” while speaking to a crowd in Alumni Hall.
“It’s not a moral statement, it’s a matter of fact,” he said.
After his speech at the University, Auerbach and a crowd moved on to Peace and Justice Plaza outside the town’s courthouse to continue the discussion.
Auerbach’s speeches were part of a series of “teach-ins” being held across the country by “Health care for the 99 percent,” a branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He also spoke Saturday in Durham and Greensboro.
Auerbach discussed the role of insurance companies and lobbyists in health care. He criticized the fact that insurance companies might not cover people with certain conditions.
“If you take home one message, it’s this: You can’t make money insuring sick people,” he said. “That’s insane, it makes no sense.”
He said a single-payer health care system — where medical care for the entire population is funded by one entity, such as a government-run organization — would solve the inequality.
Some veterans of the Occupy movement viewed the speech and participated in the walk to Occupy Chapel Hill, including freshman Laura Carroll.
“I had been to some of the Occupy events before the raids happened, and I wanted to see how the movement shifted,” she said.
Other attendees said they were simply curious.
“I’ve sort of been watching from afar,” said freshman Mariah Earle. “My family always ridiculed the single–payer system, so I learned some actual factual things.”
Junior Addison Evans said speakers like Auerbach can spark conversation on campus.
“It is important to have informed debate,” said Evans, who received extra credit from her professor for attending.
Auerbach said he was glad to be part of the tradition of doctors advocating in civil rights movements.
“I consider myself extremely patriotic,” he said. “Despite 30 years of propaganda, the American people get it.”
Dr. Steve Auerbach has shared his vision for a single-payer health system with Occupy movements nationwide, and on Friday he brought it to Chapel Hill.
Auerbach, a pediatrician and a leader of the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program, pointed at a handwritten sign reading “Corporate greed makes us sick” while speaking to a crowd in Alumni Hall.
“It’s not a moral statement, it’s a matter of fact,” he said.
After his speech at the University, Auerbach and a crowd moved on to Peace and Justice Plaza outside the town’s courthouse to continue the discussion.
Auerbach’s speeches were part of a series of “teach-ins” being held across the country by “Health care for the 99 percent,” a branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement. He also spoke Saturday in Durham and Greensboro.
Auerbach discussed the role of insurance companies and lobbyists in health care. He criticized the fact that insurance companies might not cover people with certain conditions.
“If you take home one message, it’s this: You can’t make money insuring sick people,” he said. “That’s insane, it makes no sense.”
He said a single-payer health care system — where medical care for the entire population is funded by one entity, such as a government-run organization — would solve the inequality.
Some veterans of the Occupy movement viewed the speech and participated in the walk to Occupy Chapel Hill, including freshman Laura Carroll.
“I had been to some of the Occupy events before the raids happened, and I wanted to see how the movement shifted,” she said.
Other attendees said they were simply curious.
“I’ve sort of been watching from afar,” said freshman Mariah Earle. “My family always ridiculed the single–payer system, so I learned some actual factual things.”
Junior Addison Evans said speakers like Auerbach can spark conversation on campus.
“It is important to have informed debate,” said Evans, who received extra credit from her professor for attending.
Auerbach said he was glad to be part of the tradition of doctors advocating in civil rights movements.
“I consider myself extremely patriotic,” he said. “Despite 30 years of propaganda, the American people get it.”
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
List of essential services under U.S. health reforms is ‘skimpy’ and dangerous, say doctors
BMJ
A national doctors’ organization says that most of the authors of a federally sponsored report on recommended health insurance coverage have financial ties to insurers and drug companies and that the insurance scheme will leave many U.S. citizens without access to health care.
The Institute of Medicine, which was contracted by the federal government to write the report, brought in security guards at the institute’s annual meeting to prevent doctors from distributing leaflets outlining the financial conflicts of interest of the report’s authors. The doctors, former institute fellows and members of Physicians for a National Health Program, were registered at the meeting and tried to give the leaflets to colleagues attending it.
Danny McCormick, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and a former fellow of the institute, distributed leaflets at the meeting. He has signed a protest letter sent to the U.S. secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, along with more than 2,400 doctors, nurses, and health advocates, stating that the recommendations for “essential benefits” to be provided under the Affordable Care Act will provide “skimpy” care that would endanger the health of many citizens.
Although the report outlines 10 categories of benefits that insurers must cover, such as costs of hospitalization, preventive care, and ambulance transport, it does not prohibit insurers from shifting costs to patients through premiums, co-payments, deductibles, and cost sharing. In the event of a catastrophic illness or injury, patients could be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Dr. McCormick said that a serious pitfall of the recommended essential benefits is that they would give patients the illusion that they have “real insurance.” He said, “Most patients, no matter how well informed, have no idea what their insurance policy covers. It’s only when some catastrophic event occurs that they find out that they are not fully covered.”
Nor would the insurance scheme necessarily cut over-testing and over-treatment, which Dr. McCormick says should be cut. Although the report panel recommends establishing an independent “national health benefits council” to review scientific evidence regarding new technologies, the plan does not task the council with assessing current testing and treatment strategies that might be unnecessary or dangerous.
Howard Brody, a member of the Institute of Medicine and Physicians for a National Health Program, told the BMJ that the Affordable Care Act “is truly a game changer” that will extend coverage to more people. Nevertheless, he added, “It’s not enough.”
Dr. Brody called the act a “sop to the insurance industry” and a “political decision, not a scientific decision,” since a single-payer system is considered unacceptable in the United States. He said that the institute was assigned a narrow task of defining only “what absolutely must be covered.” Unfortunately, he said, nothing in the recommendations would prevent insurers from providing “shoddy” coverage.
Dr. Brody said that the institute’s actions to prevent doctors from leafleting about the panelists’ conflicts of interest were “indefensible.” He said, “The institute is supposed to be an educational organization, the elite of American medicine, yet they treat their own members as if they were children incapable of assessing the information for themselves.”
The institute said that it complied with its policy on conflicts of interest by promptly disclosing committee members with a conflict of interest but whose expertise was needed to fulfill the committee’s charge.
A national doctors’ organization says that most of the authors of a federally sponsored report on recommended health insurance coverage have financial ties to insurers and drug companies and that the insurance scheme will leave many U.S. citizens without access to health care.
The Institute of Medicine, which was contracted by the federal government to write the report, brought in security guards at the institute’s annual meeting to prevent doctors from distributing leaflets outlining the financial conflicts of interest of the report’s authors. The doctors, former institute fellows and members of Physicians for a National Health Program, were registered at the meeting and tried to give the leaflets to colleagues attending it.
Danny McCormick, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and a former fellow of the institute, distributed leaflets at the meeting. He has signed a protest letter sent to the U.S. secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, along with more than 2,400 doctors, nurses, and health advocates, stating that the recommendations for “essential benefits” to be provided under the Affordable Care Act will provide “skimpy” care that would endanger the health of many citizens.
Although the report outlines 10 categories of benefits that insurers must cover, such as costs of hospitalization, preventive care, and ambulance transport, it does not prohibit insurers from shifting costs to patients through premiums, co-payments, deductibles, and cost sharing. In the event of a catastrophic illness or injury, patients could be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Dr. McCormick said that a serious pitfall of the recommended essential benefits is that they would give patients the illusion that they have “real insurance.” He said, “Most patients, no matter how well informed, have no idea what their insurance policy covers. It’s only when some catastrophic event occurs that they find out that they are not fully covered.”
Nor would the insurance scheme necessarily cut over-testing and over-treatment, which Dr. McCormick says should be cut. Although the report panel recommends establishing an independent “national health benefits council” to review scientific evidence regarding new technologies, the plan does not task the council with assessing current testing and treatment strategies that might be unnecessary or dangerous.
Howard Brody, a member of the Institute of Medicine and Physicians for a National Health Program, told the BMJ that the Affordable Care Act “is truly a game changer” that will extend coverage to more people. Nevertheless, he added, “It’s not enough.”
Dr. Brody called the act a “sop to the insurance industry” and a “political decision, not a scientific decision,” since a single-payer system is considered unacceptable in the United States. He said that the institute was assigned a narrow task of defining only “what absolutely must be covered.” Unfortunately, he said, nothing in the recommendations would prevent insurers from providing “shoddy” coverage.
Dr. Brody said that the institute’s actions to prevent doctors from leafleting about the panelists’ conflicts of interest were “indefensible.” He said, “The institute is supposed to be an educational organization, the elite of American medicine, yet they treat their own members as if they were children incapable of assessing the information for themselves.”
The institute said that it complied with its policy on conflicts of interest by promptly disclosing committee members with a conflict of interest but whose expertise was needed to fulfill the committee’s charge.
Stein condemns White House blockade of Durban climate progress
jillstein.org
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate, criticized the White House today for effectively killing a legally binding global agreement at the UN Climate Change meeting in Durban. The meeting concludes on December 9th. Stein has called for a Green New Deal to create jobs while reducing climate change.
"I condemn the White House's inaction in the face of a global emergency," said Stein. "The U.S.' and other rich countries' inaction on climate change is not only inexcusable. U.S. and global emissions continue to rise and national legislation to reduce emissions is nowhere in sight. Even when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 2009-10, efforts to pass even weak legislation to reduce emissions were completely unsuccessful due to the powerful influence of Big Oil and Big Coal on both of the establishment political parties."
The White House's global position reflects the influence of the fossil fuel companies that continue to dominate the energy agenda of both the Democrats and the Republicans. President Obama has himself supported offshore drilling, including granting permits to exploit the pristine environment of the Arctic, expanding nuclear power, and promoting the unproven technique of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
"Climate change is the biggest threat facing the U.S. and the planet. We don't need a nice sounding but meaningless statement coming out of Durban. The White House continues to block the creation of binding agreements for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions and provide financial upport for developing countries to transition to carbon-free economies," stated Dr. Stein.
As part of her aggressive plan to combat climate change, Stein has proposed a Green New Deal, "that would create millions of green jobs through investment in weatherization, renewable energy, clean manufacturing, sustainable agriculture, public transportation and reforestation. The Green New Deal, according to Stein, would be paid for by redirecting trillions of dollars being squandered on wars for oil, Wall Street bailouts, and tax breaks for the wealthy. She says she will also end the White House's subsidies for "clean coal" schemes.
The emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement on greenhouse gases, expire in 2012. Despite the weakness of the Protocol, the U.S. has failed to ratify the agreement under both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States and some other industrialized nations say they will adopt emissions limits only if rising powers like China, India, and Brazil (which were excluded from the original 1997 goals) also commit to matching reductions, which, according to Stein, "has been a formula for stalemate. The U.S. and a few other developed countries are responsible for releasing the vast majority of the global warming pollution that's in the atmosphere. It is appropriate that we take the lead in reducing the emissions."
"Global warming is already having a serious impact on the United States and the rest of the world. The year 2011 has been a year of extreme weather events marked by record rainfall and flooding, forest fires, and deadly tornadoes, and severe hurricane activity. These events have taken a huge toll on the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of U.S. residents. The global picture is one of growing climate instability and ever rising emissions. Yet the developed countries have made it clear that a new global agreement will not be in effect until 2020 at the earliest. U.S. leadership is desperately needed to galvanize a new world treaty to rescue the climate and our future economy that depends on it."
Since the disastrous UN climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, the White House has worked to undermine the chances of a rules-based global agreement along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol. The Administration's support for ineffective voluntary commitments to reduce emissions in the form of a so-called "pledge and review" system has brought the UN process to the brink of collapse, as other major emitters have followed the U.S. and lowered their own already inadequate emissions reductions targets.
"This isn't leadership" said Stein. "It's an abdication of responsibility to the future that we can no longer tolerate."
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate, criticized the White House today for effectively killing a legally binding global agreement at the UN Climate Change meeting in Durban. The meeting concludes on December 9th. Stein has called for a Green New Deal to create jobs while reducing climate change.
"I condemn the White House's inaction in the face of a global emergency," said Stein. "The U.S.' and other rich countries' inaction on climate change is not only inexcusable. U.S. and global emissions continue to rise and national legislation to reduce emissions is nowhere in sight. Even when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 2009-10, efforts to pass even weak legislation to reduce emissions were completely unsuccessful due to the powerful influence of Big Oil and Big Coal on both of the establishment political parties."
The White House's global position reflects the influence of the fossil fuel companies that continue to dominate the energy agenda of both the Democrats and the Republicans. President Obama has himself supported offshore drilling, including granting permits to exploit the pristine environment of the Arctic, expanding nuclear power, and promoting the unproven technique of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
"Climate change is the biggest threat facing the U.S. and the planet. We don't need a nice sounding but meaningless statement coming out of Durban. The White House continues to block the creation of binding agreements for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions and provide financial upport for developing countries to transition to carbon-free economies," stated Dr. Stein.
As part of her aggressive plan to combat climate change, Stein has proposed a Green New Deal, "that would create millions of green jobs through investment in weatherization, renewable energy, clean manufacturing, sustainable agriculture, public transportation and reforestation. The Green New Deal, according to Stein, would be paid for by redirecting trillions of dollars being squandered on wars for oil, Wall Street bailouts, and tax breaks for the wealthy. She says she will also end the White House's subsidies for "clean coal" schemes.
The emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement on greenhouse gases, expire in 2012. Despite the weakness of the Protocol, the U.S. has failed to ratify the agreement under both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States and some other industrialized nations say they will adopt emissions limits only if rising powers like China, India, and Brazil (which were excluded from the original 1997 goals) also commit to matching reductions, which, according to Stein, "has been a formula for stalemate. The U.S. and a few other developed countries are responsible for releasing the vast majority of the global warming pollution that's in the atmosphere. It is appropriate that we take the lead in reducing the emissions."
"Global warming is already having a serious impact on the United States and the rest of the world. The year 2011 has been a year of extreme weather events marked by record rainfall and flooding, forest fires, and deadly tornadoes, and severe hurricane activity. These events have taken a huge toll on the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of U.S. residents. The global picture is one of growing climate instability and ever rising emissions. Yet the developed countries have made it clear that a new global agreement will not be in effect until 2020 at the earliest. U.S. leadership is desperately needed to galvanize a new world treaty to rescue the climate and our future economy that depends on it."
Since the disastrous UN climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, the White House has worked to undermine the chances of a rules-based global agreement along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol. The Administration's support for ineffective voluntary commitments to reduce emissions in the form of a so-called "pledge and review" system has brought the UN process to the brink of collapse, as other major emitters have followed the U.S. and lowered their own already inadequate emissions reductions targets.
"This isn't leadership" said Stein. "It's an abdication of responsibility to the future that we can no longer tolerate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)