California Free Press

Biden Can Go Bigger and Not ‘Pay for It’ the Old Way

By focusing on how much revenue they hope to raise from tax increases on the well-off, Democrats risk limiting the scope of their ambitions.

by Stephanie Kelton, April 7, 2021

Last week, President Biden introduced a $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan in a speech, calling it “a once-in-a-generation investment in America.” And on Wednesday, he and the Treasury Department outlined many of the package’s details, including how to “pay for” it. A close look at those so-called pay-fors, however, shows Democrats are thinking about fiscal responsibility the wrong way. They could be on the verge of sparking some unpleasant short-term overheating of the economy, in which price increases accelerate and the purchasing power of our dollars falls somewhat. If the final legislation were to grow much larger — toward the $10 trillion level many progressives in Congress are pushing — it could send such inflation soaring.

In an interview on MSNBC last week, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York explained her mixed feelings about the president’s proposal, saying she has “serious concerns that it’s not enough to realize the very inspiring vision that Mr. Biden has advanced.” Rather than spending roughly $2 trillion over eight years, Ms. Ocasio Cortez and many of her Progressive Caucus colleagues would prefer “to go way higher” and on a shorter timeline.

She’s right that it is possible for Congress and the Biden administration to go bigger, faster — but only by shifting to a completely different budgeting framework: Instead of passing legislation that leans on taxing corporations and the rich to keep spending from increasing the deficit, they would have to develop a robust plan with a focus on containing inflationary pressures as that heightened government spending hits the real economy.

The president called his plan “fiscally responsible” during his speech simply because it will raise more revenue than what he’s proposing to spend. On paper, and according to conventional wisdom, this is a balanced policy. It may satisfy the scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office or even earn high marks from deficit hawks. But because these proposed hikes fall exclusively on corporations and more affluent Americans — who have a relatively high marginal propensity to save rather than spend — the taxes may not diminish enough private sector spending to prevent the government’s own increased outlays from igniting some inflationary overheating, especially if Congress does “go way higher.”

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden's Trillion Dollar Budget Plan

by John Lawrence

Don't worry about how to pay for it. Any nation with a sovereign currency (let alone the world's reserve currency) and a floating exchange rate can never go bankrupt. The Federal Reserve can issue the money. In fact in the real world this is exactly how it works for any budgetary legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Let's say, for example, Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan is signed by him into law. The US Treasury has an account at the Federal Reserve bank. Let's say there is only a trillion dollars in that account. What happens next is that the Fed just augments the Treasury's account by a trillion dollars by means of a few keystrokes on a computer. Bingo the government now has all the money it needs to spend on infrastructure. It didn't have to receive tax money in advance of the money it needed to spend. At the same time the Treasury Department creates a trillion dollars worth of Treasury bonds and sells them to the primary dealers who are required by law to buy them. These are mainly big Wall Street banks. These banks sell the bonds in the secondary market. If they can't find enough buyers, the Fed "adds liquidity to the market" by taking the Treasuries onto its balance sheet in return for marking up the Wall Street banks accounts at the Fed with the appropriate amounts of cash. Now everybody is happy. The US government has the money it needs in its Treasury's account at the Fed. The Wall Street banks have plenty of liquidity in their reserve accounts at the Fed, and the amazing thing is that it didn't require any money from additional taxes.

Another amazing thing is that most politicians are totally ignorant about how government financing actually works. The Republican Governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine gets on TV and opines about the fact that the US is going into too much debt and how will our grandchildren ever pay it off. "Here in Ohio," I'm paraphrasing," we have to pay our bills and pay down our debts. Every household has to be fiscally responsible and pay their debts." Well households and states are in a different category from the Federal government. They actually do have to pay their debts. So what he is claiming is a half truth. States and households cannot issue a sovereign currency whereas the Federal government can. States and households use the Federal government's currency. The big lie, however, is that the US government has to pay off its debts. It never does, and no entity can force it to do so. The other constraint that Larry Summers and others worry about is inflation or currency devaluation. Inflation could be a problem, and that problem, should it arise, can be dealt with by sucking money out of the economy by means of taxes. Biden's plan to tax the rich will suck some of their superfluous wealth out of the economy thus forestalling inflation while tending to reduce the runaway economic inequality that is now threatening democracy in the US.

The Federal government is not like a household or a state. Households and states actually do have to pay back the money they borrow plus interest. That's why it's so important that the various COVID rescue plans provide the states and municipalities with money. Otherwise, they could become financially insolvent and go bankrupt like Orange County in California did a few years ago. Birmingham, AL also got itself in hot water and went bankrupt. Countries in the Euro zone have the same problem as states in the US. They gave up their sovereign currencies when they joined the EU. So now countries like Greece and Italy have to beg the European Central Bank for relief, relief they could have provided for themselves if they had retained their sovereign currencies like Britain did. Britain will not have any problem with financial shortages because, like the US, its government can issue whatever currency is deemed necessary to weather any storm.

So in addition to the Big Lie that Trump won the election, politicians of both parties are perpetrating another Big Lie that the US actually has to borrow the money to pay for Biden's trillion dollar infrastructure and safety net programs. Some politicians, like Bernie Sanders and AOC, actually know the truth, and, evidently, they have convinced Joe Biden thereof as well although they won't actually come out and say it to the media: the US government can just issue money into the private economy. It doesn't need to borrow it or even tax for it in advance in order to spend. So the real policy of the Biden administration is not tax and spend. It's spend and maybe tax later, but target those taxes on the wealthiest among us. As opposed to the Republican philosophy of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and taking the social safety net away from the poor.

Off the Top of My Head

The Solution to Gun Violence in America

by John Lawrence

The government should simply buy out the gun industry. According to Fortune Business Insights: "The global guns and accessories market size was $6.14 billion in 2019 and is projected to reach $9.33 billion by 2027." So for just $10 billion or so, the US government could buy out the gun industry and shut it down except for those guns that are needed by police and the military. Without lobbying and campaign donations to Republican Congressmen, political support for guns would quickly dry up, and gun sales could be carefully controlled by the government. Throw in another $10 billion to buy back guns that are already on the street, and for a measly $20 billion the government could buy up the gun industry and get guns off the street. Or a billionaire could do it. With the government spending trillions of dollars on an annual basis, $20 billion is peanuts in order to solve the gun violence epidemic in America. It would also be peanuts for a consortium of billionaires. Bill Gates is an advocate for global health and eliminating global disease. He could singlehandedly eliminate this one.

Other countries are capable of controlling the sale, distribution and licensing of guns in rational manners. Only in the US is there a literal fury about the right to own a gun as if it were a sine qua non more precious than food or water. There have been 47 mass murders in the last month, and it will only be getting worse without control of gun distribution. Why not replace the right to gun ownership by the right to health care and the right to adequate housing? We have the world's worst and most expensive health care system with the pharmaceutical industry along with the car industry practically supporting network television with ads. It would be better to eliminate pharmaceutical ads like they used to be disallowed before Republicans made them legal. These ads have been generating a nation of hypochondriacs. Sickness is becoming a booming entrepreneurial industry. Better to encourage the American population to have more healthy lifestyles.

Sad to say but the US is becoming a second rate nation incapable of maintaining public order. Liberty has gotten out of hand. There can be too much of anything, and Republicans have doubled down on the Second Amendment despite mass violence which is draining the life and security out of the American people. No one is safe and secure any more as long as mentally disturbed people have the right to buy guns. Republican demands for liberty are also affecting the pandemic response as they demand that Americans go about their business in any way they freely choose despite the best advice from responsible experts on pandemics. Rights should be balanced with responsibilities but in the US there are no responsibilities expected of citizens. Compulsory voting, also called mandatory voting, is the requirement in some countries that eligible citizens register and vote in elections. Penalties might be imposed on those who fail to do so without a valid reason. According to the CIA World Factbook, 21 countries, including 10 Latin American countries, officially had compulsory voting as of December 2017. Instead the US is doing its best to restrict voting. It is a country getting out of whack with the rest of the world yet pretending it has the right to control the world. Even the vaunted US dollar is losing ground as other countries find workarounds to avoid US sanctions.

Compulsory public service should be required as an alternative to military service. This could be in return for free public education. The US has been turned into an exploiter's dream where everything must be paid for or people have to go into debt or people have to do without the necessities of life if they can't pay. Money talks and shit walks. Instead of a rational public order, we get sold a bill of goods about the need for a bloated military and the right to own guns when the biggest threat to the security of American lives is domestic terrorism and random nuts with guns. In short unless some things are changed, America will lose whatever moral authority it ever had. This is a fast track to second ratedness and moral bankruptcy.

Off the Top of My Head

Sadness for a Good Man Leaving After a Life Well Lived Contrasted With the Sadness for Victims of Mass Murders Gone Before Their Time

by John Lawrence

Prince Philip lived a good, successful and honorable life to the age of 99. It is sad to see him go, but that is tempered by the nobility of his life and the fact that we all have to go at some time. On the other hand, the US is in the throes of mass murders on a daily basis killing people senselessly before their time on earth was up. Is there nostalgia for a monarchy to replace the chaos that the descendants of the rebels against the British monarchy have created? Did the emphasis on liberty and the Second Amendment make this inevitable? Now we have politicians whose sole purpose in life is to fund raise off the chaos that they themselves have created. The First and Second Amendments are killing us. That includes the "peaceful protests" that turn into rioting and looting when the sum goes down. God save the queen.

The US is alone in the civilized world with an unrestricted right to gun ownership. The only other countries which have a right to bear arms written into their Constitution are Mexico and Guatemala, Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws. The US should do the same. The US is the only country with a right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions. Americans own nearly half of all the civilian-owned guns in the world, and on a per capita basis, the US has far more guns than any other nation.

Just south of the US border, the Mexican government has a strict hold over civilian gun ownership. Although Mexicans have a right to buy a gun, bureaucratic hurdles, long delays, and narrow restrictions make it extremely difficult to do so. Article 10 of the 1857 Mexican Constitution guaranteed that "every man has the right to keep and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense." But 60 years later in 1917, lawmakers amended it following Mexico's bloody revolution. During the rewriting of the constitution, the government placed more severe restrictions on the right to buy guns. The law precluded citizens from buying firearms "reserved for use by the military" and forbid them from carrying "arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations." Today, Mexicans still have a right to buy guns, but they must contend with a vague federal law that determines "the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized."

In Guatemala individuals who want to purchase a gun for private security purposes need approval from the government. They are also limited in how much ammunition they can own, and they must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licenses every one to three years, according to GunPolicy.org. A license also requires proof that the applicant has a clean police record, does not suffer from mental illness, and has not deserted the army or police. Although Guatemalans are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons, they are allowed to buy semi-automatic weapons, handguns, rifles, and shotguns if they obtain a permit. Still, that can be difficult.

Although Mexico and Guatemala both have a constitutional right to bear arms, the US is in a league of its own, because it is the only country without any restrictions on gun ownership in its Constitution. The US makes up 4.4 percent of the world’s population but has almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world. The horror show of mass violence will continue until there is gun control at the Federal level or gun restrictions are written into the Constitution. The latter is probably not possible. The Second Amendment to the Constitution in and of itself is probably enough to doom the US to the fate of a second class nation or worse. In the People's Republic of China, access by the general public to firearms is subject to some of the strictest control measures in the world. With the exception of individuals with hunting permits and some ethnic minorities, civilian firearm ownership is restricted to non-individual entities. China is surging ahead of the US economically and doesn't have to deal on a daily basis with the spectacle of mass violence committed by its citizens on other citizens. As Joe Biden said, mass murders are a national embarrassment.

The conclusion is that most of the world's nations are much more sensible about gun control. The US is the outlier, and it's turning the US into a police state not because police own all the weapons but because the citizens own so many of them and are using them on fellow citizens with increasing frequency. This is having a destabilizing effect on the whole citizenry because no one knows who may be next to suffer a random act of mass violence. Lenin once famously remarked that businessmen would happily sell for a profit the rope that would later be used to hang them. American businessmen who sell guns and ammunition are now happily selling American citizens the guns with which on a daily basis they are slaughtering each other senselessly and for no reason at all. The US is degenerating into a nation dragging itself down and destabilizing itself into a black hole that seemingly it can't recover from.

Off the Top of My Head

America to End Forever War in Afghanistan Thanks to Joe Biden

by John Lawrence, April 15, 2021

So far Biden is making all the right moves, and I'm sure he has more up his sleeve. He's playing 3 dimensional chess while the Republicans haven't even learned to play checkers yet. The military-industrial complex is crying, "Oh, no," because they justify the huge expenditures on them by the need for continuance of forever wars. They are aghast at the prospect that their trillion dollar annual budget will be inevitably reduced. It has become obvious that the biggest threat to the US is not international terrorism but domestic terrorism. The FBI and the National Guard will deal with that very nicely; they don't need the Pentagon. The FBI is doing a remarkable job cleaning up the terrorists who took part in the January 6 bungled coup attempt. Over 400 arrests and counting so far. The idiots self videoed their own arrest warrants.

The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. As an added service they also train the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and the Three Percenters. The military-industrial complex has done a lot to militarize the consciousnesses of young Americans, especially young non-college bound Americans. College graduates, especially in engineering, often end up, like I did, in the military-industrial complex working for companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and General Dynamics. As a country we have been spending our money in all the wrong places, but the military-industrial complex wants to hang on to its prerogatives. When I was an employee of General Dynamics many years ago, they encouraged you to vote Republican. Otherwise their budgets might be cut and there might be a RIF (Reduction in Force). When the military-industrial complex is cut down to size, right sized as they say, the Republican party will lose its raison d'être, its justification, because that's all in reality that it stands for - large defense budgets and tax cuts for the wealthy.

If we really want to compete with China, then we should cut our defense budget down to the size of China's and spend our money in more constructive ways like China is doing like building infrastructure with its Belt and Road initiative. The only infrastructure the US has been doing in foreign countries has been the building of military bases of which there are approximately 800 in practically every country in the world. Meanwhile, China has one military base in a foreign country - in Djibouti! If the US wants to compete with China, it will take a page out of China's book and build infrastructure not military bases. China and the US need to cooperate on problems facing the whole earth like global warming. It's no consolation to win the competitive war while the home we all live in goes up in flames or drowns as the case may be.

Republicans want Biden to tell them how he's going to pay for all his ambitious social programs? Let's see. Let me count the ways. Taxes on the rich - that's a good one. Reduce the size of the military-industrial complex budget. Even better. Military contractors, among others, provide the campaign donations for the Republican party as long as the guys they are providing the financial jet fuel for are hardliners for a "strong" defense. Well now, maybe they should stand up for transferring the money to the FBI so they can deal with domestic terrorism instead of a useless military engaged in forever wars which are only killing civilians, destroying real estate and creating refugees. The world doesn't need an America which thinks it has the self-appointed job of being the world's policeman or moral arbiter. There is something in the Bible about taking the beam out of our own eye before telling our neighbor to take the mote out of theirs.

The US bloated military is wasting our money while militarizing the consciousness of our young men many of whom think their patriotism justifies invading and laying waste to our Capitol. Lawmakers were shocked, shocked to find out that the invaders of the People's House were present and former members of the military and police forces! Patriots! This is what happens when you define patriotism in military terms. The true patriots are the doctors and nurses, supermarket workers, delivery drivers, meat packers and others who put their lives at risk to help us get through this pandemic. True patriotism consists of reducing our military-industrial complex and defense budget to a reasonable size comparative with other countries and the real threats in the world while building up our infrastructure assets and social safety net programs as every other advanced country has already done. Joe Biden is on the road to doing this. May he prosper and prevail. And God bless our doctors and nurses.

Off the Top of My Head

The Only Successful War the US Has Fought in the Last 70 Years is the War We Lost

by John Lawrence, April 14, 2021

The US definitively lost the Vietnam war, and Vietnam is a success story. Korea is an absolute mess. Afghanistan is a mess and so is Iraq. Thank God, after 20 years of the US' accomplishing nothing, Biden is finally getting out September 11. The last "good" war was World War II which was fought to save the world from a brutal tyrant. The participants, both winners and losers, have recovered nicely.The Middle East in general was much better off before the US under George W Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. The Korean war began on June 25, 1950, and at least 2.5 million persons lost their lives. Today there is a rogue, pariah regime in North Korea which is developing nuclear weapons and is hostile to the US. It would have been a better outcome if the US had lost that war too, and at least Korea would be a unified country today probably much like Vietnam. Vietnam's economy is surging. According to the Wall Street Journal: "First-quarter gross domestic product was up 4.5% relative to last year’s figure, according to an initial estimate released [in March 2021]. The recovery is being driven by a surge in goods and services sold abroad, which rose almost 20% year-over-year in March. While the US response to the pandemic has been abysmal especially under the Trump administration, Vietnam's response has been remarkable. According to Our World in Data: "As of December 31, 2020, Vietnam had reported 1,465 laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 35 deaths. This success has been attributed to several key factors, including a well-developed public health system, a decisive central government, and a proactive containment strategy based on comprehensive testing, tracing, and quarantining." All of the things that were lacking in the Trump administration.

Trillions of dollars have been spent to build a military-industrial complex which has done nothing but lose wars and create geopolitical messes. Iraq was a stable society under Saddam Hussein. He would have never tolerated the ISIS so-called caliphate to find a haven in northern Iraq which is what happened after Bush's invasion in 2003 under the pretense that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction which he did not. Bush and the American government intelligentsia in general never understood that the fundamental cleavage in the Middle East was the Sunni Shiite Islamic divide. Iraq was a majority Shiite country under a Sunni leadership. After the US achieved a "democracy" in Iraq, it became a Shiite led country allied with that other bastion of Shiitism, Iran, America's arch enemy. Nice work, Bush. Of course we couldn't let that alliance really materialize with the result that the Iraq war destabilized the whole Middle East. Let's see how many trillions of dollars were spent on it, how many lives were lost and how much real estate was destroyed in the process? Perhaps as many as a million civilians were killed and as many as 40% of Iraq's middle class became refugees. Columbia University Economics Professor Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, have put the cost at well over $3 trillion. The LA Times reported: "In case you were wondering, the price tag for the war in Iraq could eventually top $6 trillion." And this is just the US' cost. What about the cost of destroyed houses and production facilities in Iraq?

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had to be invaded in order to get the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden was taken out by US intelligence and special forces. This was accomplished without the necessity for a land invasion and destabilization of either country. By the way bin Laden was discovered in Pakistan not Iraq or Afghanistan so should we have invaded Pakistan instead? The New York Times wrote in December 2019: "What Did the U.S. Get for $2 Trillion in Afghanistan? All told, the cost of nearly 18 years of war in Afghanistan will amount to more than $2 trillion. Was the money well spent? There is little to show for it. The Taliban control much of the country. Afghanistan remains one of the world’s largest sources of refugees and migrants. More than 2,400 American soldiers and more than 38,000 Afghan civilians have died."

Moral of the story? After being a successful general in World War II followed by a successful Presidency, subsequent US Presidents should have taken Eisenhower's advice regarding the military-industrial complex: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." This is from Brittanica:

"The term military-industrial complex was first used by U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961. Eisenhower warned that the United States must “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…by the military-industrial complex,” which included members of Congress from districts dependent on military industries, the Department of Defense (along with the military services), and privately owned military contractors—e.g., Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. Eisenhower believed that the military-industrial complex tended to promote policies that might not be in the country’s best interest (such as participation in the nuclear arms race), and he feared that its growing influence, if left unchecked, could undermine American democracy."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Corporations Crush the Working Class

by Robert Reich

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

The most dramatic change in the system over the last half-century has been the emergence of corporate giants like Amazon and the shrinkage of labor unions.

The resulting power imbalance has spawned near-record inequalities of income and wealth, corruption of democracy by big money, and the abandonment of the working class.

Fifty years ago, General Motors was the largest employer in America. The typical GM worker earned $35 an hour in today’s dollars and had a major say over working conditions.

Today’s largest employers are Amazon and Walmart, each paying far less per hour and routinely exploiting their workers, who have little recourse.

The typical GM worker wasn’t “worth” so much more than today’s Amazon or Walmart worker and didn’t have more valuable insights about working conditions.

The difference is those GM workers had a strong union. They were backed by the collective bargaining power of more than a third of the entire American workforce. 

Today, most workers are on their own. Only 6.4% of America’s private-sector workers are unionized, providing little collective pressure on Amazon, Walmart, or other major employers to treat their workers any better.

Fifty years ago, the labor movement had enough political clout to ensure labor laws were enforced and that the government pushed giant firms like GM to sustain the middle class.

Today, organized labor’s political clout is minuscule by comparison. 

The biggest political players are giant corporations like Amazon. They’ve used that political muscle to back “right-to-work” laws, whittle down federal labor protections, and keep the National Labor Relations Board understaffed and overburdened, allowing them to get away with egregious union-busting tactics.

They’ve also impelled government to lower their taxes; extorted states to provide them tax breaks as a condition for locating facilities there; bullied cities where they’re headquartered; and wangled trade treaties allowing them to outsource so many jobs that blue-collar workers in America have little choice but to take low-paying, high-stress warehouse and delivery gigs. 

Oh, and they’ve neutered antitrust laws, which in an earlier era would have had companies like Amazon in their crosshairs.

This decades-long power shift – the ascent of corporate leviathans and the demise of labor unions – has resulted in a massive upward redistribution of income and wealth. The richest 0.1% of Americans now have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90% put together.

The power shift can be reversed – but only with stronger labor laws resulting in more unions, tougher trade deals, and a renewed commitment to antitrust.

The Biden administration and congressional Democrats appear willing. The House has just passed the toughest labor reforms in more than a generation. Biden’s new trade representative, promises trade deals will protect American workers rather than exporters. And Biden is putting trustbusters in critical positions at the Federal Trade Commission and in the White House.

And across the country, labor activism has surged – from the Amazon union effort, to frontline workers walking out and striking to demand better pay, benefits, and safety protections.

I’d like to think America is at a tipping point similar to where it was some 120 years ago, when the ravages and excesses of the Gilded Age precipitated what became known as the Progressive Era. Then, reformers reined in the unfettered greed and inequalities of the day and made the system work for the many rather than the few.

It’s no exaggeration to say that we’re now living in a Second Gilded Age. And today’s progressive activists may be on the verge of ushering us into a Second Progressive Era. They need all the support we can give them.

'We Have to Act': Atmospheric CO2 Passes 420 PPM for First Time Ever

Published on Tuesday, April 06, 2021

by Common Dreams

"It is truly groundbreaking," Greta Thunberg said of the growing concentration of the heat-trapping gas. "And I don't mean that in a good way."

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer

 

32 Comments

Activists hold signs reading "We Are Treating the Symptoms, Not the Cause" and "There Is No Planet B" during a climate justice demonstration outside the Spanish Parliament on September 25, 2020 in Madrid. (Photo: Pablo Blazquez Dominguez via Getty Images)

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide surged past 420 parts per million for the first time in recorded history this past weekend, according to a measurement taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii.

When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research station "began collecting CO2 measurements in the late 1950s, atmospheric CO2 concentration sat at around 315 PPM," the Washington Post reported. "On Saturday, the daily average was pegged at 421.21 PPM—the first time in human history that number has been so high."

Climate activist Greta Thunberg took notice of NOAA's most recent data on CO2 levels. She described the first-ever documented eclipse of 420 PPM of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere as "truly groundbreaking."

Exceeding 420 PPM of the heat-trapping gas "is a disconcerting milestone in the human-induced warming of the planet, around the halfway point on our path toward doubling preindustrial CO2 levels," the Post noted, adding:

There is special significance in reaching and surpassing a concentration of 416 PPM. It means we've passed the midpoint between preindustrial CO2 levels, around 278 PPM, and a doubling of that figure, or 556 PPM.

The record of 421 PPM reached Saturday is just a single point and occurred as CO2 levels are nearing their yearly peak. But the levels over the past two months, of more than 417 PPM, signal that the annual average concentration is likely to exceed 416 PPM.

While the growing concentration of atmospheric CO2—which increases the global average temperature and the number and severity of extreme weather events—is a long-term trend that corresponds with the rise of fossil fuel-powered capitalism, it has accelerated particularly rapidly since the 1970s.

The doubling of atmospheric CO2 is expected to increase Earth's temperature by 2.6 to 4.1ºC above preindustrial averages, a level of planetary heating that would "rul[e] out more modest warming scenarios," as the Post noted.

"Even if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were to plummet overnight, the planet would continue warming for years to come," the Post added. That's because, as Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute in California, told the newspaper: "The amount of warming that the world is experiencing is a result of all of our emissions since the industrial revolution—not just our emissions in the last year."

As the Post reported, CO2 isn't the only GHG with "worrying trends." Emissions of methane and sulfur hexafluoride have spiked, too.

Although methane doesn't remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, it absorbs heat much more effectively, which means that it greatly exacerbates the climate crisis. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, methane is 84 times more potent than CO2 in the first two decades after its release. 

Here's the Post on sulfur hexafluoride, a GHG that "results from the production of insulators used on electrical grids [and] also reached all-time records of 10 parts per trillion":

While its concentration remains orders of magnitude more dilute than that of most other major greenhouse gases, its rate of increase in the atmosphere has doubled since 2003.

Sulfur hexafluoride is also thousands of times more potent—a single molecule can cause 23,900 times more warming than a molecule of CO2. And a single molecule of sulfur hexafluoride can stick around in the atmosphere for more than three millennia.

While the Paris climate agreement seeks to limit the rise in annual mean global temperature to 1.5°C above preindustrial averages by the end of the 21st century, the World Meteorological Organization warned last year that there is a 20% chance the world will hit or surpass that level of warming in at least one year by 2024.

"The science is clear," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in December. "Unless the world cuts fossil fuel production by 6% every year between now and 2030, things will get worse. Much worse."

As forest ecologist Giorgio Matteucci tweeted Monday, "We have to act!"

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

If Republican Voters Want the Infrastructure Bill, Why Don't Republican Lawmakers?

by John Lawrence, April 12, 2021

Is this a failure of representative democracy? Polls show that a majority of Republican voters support Biden's infrastructure plan including the "care" components thereof. Yet Republican Senators are dead set against it, and the bill will probably not garner one Republican vote. It can still pass the Senate based on budget reconciliation which only requires a majority vote as long as all Democrats vote for it. Other Biden proposals involving voter's rights and gun control would require at least 10 Republican votes in the Senate under the current rules which involve the filibuster for non-budgetary items. In a representative democracy, a party should represent its voters. Otherwise, you don't really have a representative democracy which the US purports itself to be. So at present the US is in the position of being a government swerving back and forth from a representative democracy as long as Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the Presidency and a dictatorship of an elite when Republicans control either party or the Presidency.

The same applies to other issues like gun control, voter's rights and immigration which aren't subject to budgetary reconciliation and must garner 60 votes in the Senate. One of the minimum elements of democracy is majority rule. Because the filibuster is anti-majoritarian, this leaves the American democracy in the position of not really being a democracy at all in terms of non-budgetary items. So the US is on its way to being an authoritarian regime if Republicans control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. All that would be necessary is a President like Trump with authoritarian tendencies. Then the US government becomes a government that's all about the use of power to get its way internationally and domestically, not about making the world a better place. Unfortunately, this leaves the US in the eyes of other nations as being untrustworthy since there is no consistent policy going forward. Other countries have more consistent leadership and hence are considered more trustworthy.

China, on the other hand, has very consistent policies going far into the future. China isn't perfect but most of the Chinese people and the leadership are on the same wavelength. US leadership likes to make a big deal of the plight of the Uyghurs, a Chinese minority that represents less than 1% of the Chinese population. So it's pretty remarkable that the only problem China seems to have with a minority that resents Chinese leadership  is with a minority that composes 0.31% of the population. The US should be so lucky yet the US harps on the Chinese over this situation of which little is actually know by the western world. China has pilled 800 million people out of poverty since 1990, one of the outstanding feats in human history, yet the US leadership continues to harp about the Uyghurs while giving no credit to China on poverty reduction. During the same time period the wages of US workers has stagnated. Kishore Mahbubani, author of the book, "Has China Won" writes: "In contrast to America's stagnation, China's culture, self-concept, and morale are being transformed at a rapid pace - mostly for the better." Rather than China's recent success being an assessment of the comparative values of Marxist-Leninist doctrines vis a vis American democracy, The Chinese Communist Party could more appropriately be called the Chinese Civilization Party since it reflects the 2000 year history of China more than it does Communist ideology.

So the response of the US to the progress of China in the last 30 years, instead of congratulating them on their remarkable accomplishments, is to be fearful that China is getting ahead of us. Well, duh, if you compare a society that is mostly all on the same wavelength and making remarkable steps forward with one that is divided and experienced a certain segment almost accomplishing a coup d'etat in a recent insurrection which threatened the lives of lawmakers in the seat of democracy itself. However, rather than viewing the world situation as a competition between the US and China, a more fruitful approach would be to cooperate with China with regard to climate change and pandemics, two things that affect the whole world and which require fast action, not a lackadaisical approach in which maybe we'll cooperate down the road, but in the meantime we have to compete. There's no time for that. The planet earth has almost passed an inflection point after which there will be no more time available.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Manchin Is Living in La La Land

by John Lawrence, April 8, 2021

Joe Manchin is not facing the reality that exists in the US today. He is nostalgic for a day when a bipartisan consensus was possible. Today it's not. The best we can do is to go ahead with Joe Biden's agenda with the slim majority Democrats possess in the Senate, but Manchin is essentially siding with Republicans, the Party of No. Manchin wants stability in American governing, but his vision of stability is one in which Republicans will negate every attempt Biden makes to bring the US into the 21st century and effectively compete with China. Yes, America will swerve back and forth policywise if Federal control switches between parties. But that's the best that American democracy is capable of at this point in time. The alternative that Manchin suggests is a stability of no progress. China has no such problem. Their society is basically all on the same long term wavelength. They will go full steam ahead with progress.

In his recent op-ed in the Washington Post, Manchin states: "The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation." Is he kidding? "usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground" There is no way that is going to happen in the current political environment. There is very little to no common ground. Democrats want to get things done for the American people to improve their lot. Republicans only seek political power because their personal fortunes go up to the extent that they hold political power, and all they care about is their personal power and fortunes. Republicans have determined that their personal power increases to the extent that they make the Democratic agenda fail. Mitch McConnell actually stated this when Obama was President. McConnell was quoted as saying: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That's pretty clear. It's not about helping the American people except for the wealthy class of which they themselves are members. It's about making the other party fail.

So Joe Manchin has his head up his ass if he thinks there is going to be a new age of bipartisan consensus. It's wishful thinking. It's not going to happen right now or any time in the near future. Maybe some day, but right now the best hope is for the Democrats to go ahead and make improvements in American society while they hold power. Any other course only dooms the US to fall further behind the rest of the world, doom earth to catastrophic climate change and lets China zoom ahead in making progress. Joe Manchin is incredibly naive or else he wants to be the main power broker in the US Senate. "Generations of senators who came before us put their heads down and their pride aside to solve the complex issues facing our country. We must do the same. The issues facing our democracy today are not insurmountable if we choose to tackle them together." Doesn't he realize that the only issue Republicans want to face is how to make themselves and the rich even richer? Doesn't he realize that the only thing Republicans are interested in is political power? They will lie and cheat, create conspiracy theories and do anything that's even quasi legal to achieve and maintain political power.

Manchin is playing his role as the skunk at the party which is too bad. Biden's job is not trying to form a bipartisan consensus with Republicans. It's trying to appease Joe Manchin in order to get anything done. The only hope for America is to go big when Democrats hold power which they do only by a miracle in the fact that two Democratic Senators were elected in runoffs in the state of Georgia. Somehow Biden will get Manchin to go along with most of his agenda that Republicans will not be able to undo if and when they control the Federal government again. The atmosphere has already set the record this year of 420 parts per million of carbon dioxide making it unlikely that our planet will not face the worst consequences of global warming. Only cooperation with China, not only on this but on future pandemicsand other issues, will give our grandchildren the slightest chance at a decent life. To the extent Republicans control the Federal government this chance will be reduced to zero.

 

 

Off the Top of My Head

The Caring Component of Biden's Infrastructure Plan

by John Lawrence, April 6, 2021

It's about time that the need for a caring infrastructure is addressed. Caring used to be supplied almost entirely by wives when wives didn't work outside the house. However, they did considerable work inside the house caring for children, sick relatives and elders in addition to taking care of their husband's needs. Now that most wives are required by economic necessity to work outside the home, there is a need for child care for young children not old enough to attend school. There is a need for pre-K education plus babysitting services. Older family members have special needs for care giving as well. Who is to provide for this if wives are in the work force? Rich people can pay tuition for pre-K and child care as well as hiring caregivers for older relatives or paying for senior living facilities. For poorer people, wives have to do all this themselves in addition to working to provide income for the family.

That's why Biden's initiatives provides for a caring infrastructure. However, it is insufficient. The Guardian reported:

Just as our physical infrastructure is crumbling and requires substantial reinvestment in a 21st-century economy, our care infrastructure is fundamentally broken. As the only industrialized country in the world without a national paid family and medical leave program, only 17% of our people have paid family leave through their employers. Hundreds of thousands face daunting waitlists for essential home care. Childcare is the highest household expense for families in much of the United States. And the median annual pay of childcare and home care workers is $25,510 and $17,200, respectively, leading to high turnover and reliance on public assistance.

In the past most elderly people on Medicaid that needed care giving were forced into institutional care like nursing homes. There was no comparable funding level that provided care givers for people to stay in their own homes. Biden's care infrastructure corrects this anomaly by providing money for care givers to provide care outside of nursing homes and other institutions. However, the limitation is that people who qualify for either nursing homes or home care must be on Medicaid. Basically, this means that they have no assets. They could stay in their own home only if they don't own it. If they owned it, that would be considered an asset that would disqualify them from being on Medicaid. So older people on Medicare, but not Medicaid would not qualify under Biden's "care infrastructure" initiative. People with assets like home ownership usually want to pass those assets on to their children. It represents the intergenerational transfer of wealth. That's how white people have built wealth over the generations whereas black people, who were by and large prevented from owning their own homes after WW II, are by and large renters.

Elderly renters are mainly poor people who live off of social security which hardly provides for a decent living much less the intergenerational transfer of assets once the person dies. Biden's pre-election agenda called for an uping of social security payments so that people could have a decent existence just based on social security alone. It also called for an increased amount of social security for people who had been on social security for 20 years, in other words, the really old. The Boston Globe reported:

A critical part of Biden’s campaign plan was not only raising funds for Social Security but also expanding the benefits to reduce poverty among elderly Americans. It would, for example, ensure that benefits for workers who were in the labor force for 30 years or more would be at least 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The oldest beneficiaries would also receive a bump to offset dwindling retirement savings, and widows and widowers would receive a 20 percent increase so that their Social Security benefits don’t get cut in half when their partner dies.

The reason that Biden didn't include this in his "caring infrastructure" initiative is that the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax would (in the minds of politicians) have to be raised to "pay for" it, and Biden has promised not raising taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 annually. Right now, payroll taxes that go toward funding Social Security are capped at the first $142,800 of a taxpayer’s income. First of all the social security trust fund is basically a hoax. Money is available for social security in the same way that money is available for COVID relief, infrastructure and even tax cuts. As Modern Monetary Theory points out, the Federal Reserve creates the money without the need of taxes to pay for it. The same is true for social security. But Biden did not want to complicate the discussion around his infrastructure plan so he left his plan for social security increases behind presumably to be brought up at a later date.

There is much talk about enlisting the help of Republicans for Biden's infrastructure initiative, but it is a not a secret that Republicans will help with nothing Democrats want to do. The working across the aisle thing is a loosely held fiction. Democrats know that they must pass all Biden's bills just with the slim Democratic majority. That gives Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most conservative Democrat, enormous power. You can bet your booty that West Virginia will get more than their fair share of roads and bridges. He wants to not raise the corporate tax rate to 28% as Biden as suggested. Big deal! Again tax money is not required for government spending. The Federal Reserve just issues the money, and then the Treasury Department sells the bonds. What bonds can't be sold to individuals or foreign governments end up on the Fed's balance sheet. The deficit between money spent and tax money collected is irrelevant. Taxes are only relevant to reduce income inequality as long as they are targeted on the rich. The Fed controls the interest rate, and as long as it keeps it at about zero, the Federal government can keep the amount of money it spends on interest under control.

What if We Actually Taxed the Rich?

by Robert Reich

Thursday, April 1, 2021

Income and wealth are now more concentrated at the top than at any time over the last 80 years, and our unjust tax system is a big reason why. The tax code is rigged for the rich, enabling a handful of wealthy individuals to exert undue influence over our economy and democracy. 

Conservatives fret about budget deficits. Well, then, to pay for what the nation needs – ending poverty, universal health care, infrastructure, reversing climate change, investing in communities, and so much more – the super-wealthy have to pay their fair share. 

Here are seven necessary ways to tax the rich.

First: Repeal the Trump tax cuts.

It’s no secret Trump’s giant tax cut was a giant giveaway to the rich. 65 percent of its benefits go to the richest fifth, 83 percent to the richest 1 percent over a decade. In 2018, for the first time on record, the 400 richest Americans paid a lower effective tax rate than the bottom half. Repealing the Trump tax cut’s benefits to the wealthy and big corporations, as Joe Biden has proposed, will raise an estimated $500 billion over a decade.

Second: Raise the tax rate on those at the top. 

In the 1950s, the highest tax rate on the richest Americans was over 90 percent. Even after tax deductions and credits, they still paid over 40 percent. But since then, tax rates have dropped dramatically. Today, after Trump’s tax cut, the richest Americans pay less than 26 percent, including deductions and credits. And this rate applies only to dollars earned in excess of $523,601. Raising the marginal tax rate by just one percent on the richest Americans would bring in an estimated $123 billion over 10 years. 

Third: A wealth tax on the super-wealthy.

Wealth is even more unequal than income. The richest 0.1% of Americans have almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent put together. Just during the pandemic, America’s billionaires added $1.3 trillion to their collective wealth. Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax would charge 2 percent on wealth over $50 million and 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. It would only apply to about 75,000 U.S. households, fewer than 0.1% of taxpayers. Under it, Jeff Bezos would owe $5.7 billion out of his $185 billion fortune – less than half what he made in one day last year. The wealth tax would raise $2.75 trillion over a decade, enough to pay for universal childcare and free public college with plenty left over.

Fourth: A transactions tax on trades of stock.

The richest 1 percent owns 50 percent of the stock market. A tiny 0.1 percent tax on financial transactions – just $1 per $1,000 traded – would raise $777 billion over a decade.That’s enough to provide housing vouchers to all homeless people in America more than 12 times over.

Fifth: End the “stepped-up cost basis” loophole.

The heirs of the super-rich pay zero capital gains taxes on huge increases in the value of what they inherit because of a loophole called the stepped-up basis. At the time of death, the value of assets is “stepped up” to their current market value – so a stock that was originally valued at, say, one dollar when purchased but that’s worth $1,000 when heirs receive it, escapes $999 of capital gains taxes. This loophole enables huge and growing concentrations of wealth to be passed from generation to generation without ever being taxed. Eliminating this loophole would raise $105 billion over a decade.

Six: Close other loopholes for the super-rich.

For example, one way the managers of real estate, venture capital, private equity and hedge funds reduce their taxes is the carried interest loophole, which allows them to treat their income as capital gains rather than ordinary wage income. That means they get taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than the higher tax rate on incomes. Closing this loophole is estimated to raise $14 billion over a decade.

Seven: Increase the IRS’s funding so it can audit rich taxpayers.

Because the IRS has been so underfunded, millionaires are far less likely to be audited than they used to be. As a result, the IRS fails to collect a huge amount of taxes from wealthy taxpayers. Collecting all unpaid federal income taxes from the richest 1 percent would generate at least $1.75 trillion over the decade. So fully fund the IRS.

Together, these 7 ways of taxing the rich would generate more than $6 trillion over 10 years – enough to tackle the great needs of the nation. As inequality has exploded, our unjust tax system has allowed the richest Americans to cheat their way out of paying their fair share. 

It’s not radical to rein in this irresponsibility. It’s radical to let it continue.

Off the Top of My Head

Unlike Trump, Biden's New Deal Will Actually Make America Great Again

by John Lawrence, April 4, 2021

GDP is the measure of national economic activity and is composed of 4 components: private consumer consumption, business investment, government investment and net of imports and exports. America's economy is 70% consumption compared to about 50% for most of our western allies. Government spending is about 17% compared to 40-50% for most of our allies. In fact for Norway, Belgium, Finland and France it's over 50%. Joe Biden's infrastructure plan will change all that bringing government spending on infrastructure both material and human more in line with the rest of the developed world. While most of our allies spend around 50% on consumption, America is primarily a consumer economy at 70%. That's about to change under Biden's New Deal. Government consumption and employment will increase while private consumption and employment will decrease. This is a good thing, but Republicans and states' rights advocates disagree. American infrastructure is falling to Third World status while Americans entertain themselves to death. Nothing has been invested and everything has been consumed. Biden's attempted change in these dynamics, which Mitch McConnell has vowed to fight "every step of the way" is a bid to preserve first world status for the US which is rapidly diminishing.

The one thing the US has going for itself right now is the fact that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. As such the US can spend large sums - trillions of dollars in fact - without fear of the dollar losing its value. So it might as well "go big" on spending because the dollar may not always retain that status. China is becoming the world's largest economy with major spending on infrastructure not only in China, but, with its Belt and Road Initiative, around the world. Meanwhile, what the US has to offer in that regard is using its bloated military to police the world. So if you were President of your country, which would you rather have - policing or investment. The answer seems clear to many, even to many US allies. China is consistent and values stability and unanimity of its citizens. The US government is subject to radical change every 2 or 4 years with deep divides among its populace, and more and more can't be counted upon by its allies even to the extent that a sizable number of US citizens invaded its Capitol! Autocratic countries may be brutal towards political dissidents, but they would never tolerate a threat to their very existence.

Some Americans will have to be brought kicking and screaming into the Biden economy. Just as they were cavalier about wearing masks, they could care less about good jobs at good wages. They just want good beer and football games. Cruises, spectator sports and abundant entertainment is what Americans have come to expect, and they prefer that to safer roads and rebuilt bridges. They are viscerally opposed to doing anything to prevent climate change or global warming. They don't want to work hard to make America great again. They want it all given to them on a silver platter preferably by an entertaining and charismatic President rather than a plodder who has their welfare at heart. There is a looming war between states rights Republicans who want the US to remain a private consumption economy and Democratic neo-New Dealers who want government to play a larger role in investing in American infrastructure, both material and human.There will be more and better paying jobs working in government infrastructure projects than there will be working in the entertainment industry. This infuriates some people.

Taxing the rich also brings Republicans out of the woodwork to proclaim that Biden will end up taxing the middle class as well "to pay for it" even though he has said that everyone making under $400,000 a year will not pay one penny more in taxes. Republican lawmakers will chomp at the bit to naysay that bit of profundity by saying over and over on their media outlets that it is not true. The truth is that Biden wants to construct a stronger safety net while rebuilding and extending American infrastructure, and a lot of Trump supporters just don't care about any of those things. They just want to be entertained and to eat out while watching spectator sports.

Off the Top of My Head

The Stock Market is Too Big to Fail

by John Lawrence, April 2, 2021

Just as the big Wall Street banks are too big to fail, so now is the stock market. The stock market will never take another radical dive downward because the Federal Reserve won't let it. The way the economy is shaping up Treasury bonds, which hardly pay any interest, are just a safe place to store your money and also for foreign nations which need the world's reserve currency (the US dollar) to have a savings account because they need dollars to conduct business. There is no worry that the US will have to pay off the trillion dollars in Treasuries that China owns because they need those dollars to do business with the US and other nations. If they did want to dump all their Treasuries for some reason the Fed could just create the money to pay them and effectively take the Treasuries on its own balance sheet.

So the stock market is the only game in town for those who want to actually "invest" their money. There is so much 401(k) money in the stock market that that is reason enough to never let it fail. Instead it will continue on its merry way upward while the Fed keeps interest rates at approximately zero so that not much in the way of interest will have to be paid on US debt. There is no reason to fear that Joe Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan will bankrupt the US. Since the US dollar is a sovereign currency, the Fed can print as much money as it wants. If international investors don't want to buy this debt, it ends up on the Fed's balance sheet which is an effective black hole from which it never has to emerge.

Then why is there all this kibuki theater about "how to pay for it," the $2 trillion infrastructure plan I mean. It's just that most Americans including most Congressmen are under the illusion that a country with a sovereign currency like the US faces any constraints in paying for anything. Well, there is one constraint - inflation. This is probably of little concern as long as the money is targeted at the lower middle class an the poor which haven't seen wages rise in 40 years. The real inflation in the economy is the asset inflation that the rich are mostly responsible for. That includes the stock market and real estate. Inflation in the stock market will be carefully controlled by the Fed. We've seen that the stock market moved up even during the pandemic. The real problem is inflation in the real estate market which has made housing unaffordable for many. It continues to get worse as the extra dollars the wealthy have to invest are driving up prices. That's why it makes sense to tax the rich ostensibly to pay for the infrastructure bill. The real reason, however, is that inequality is getting out of hand in the American and the world economy. Taxing the rich is the only effective means to reduce inequality to a reasonable level. It will also help to bring inflation in the real estate market under control.

The real problem that Biden's infrastructure bill will have to deal with is changing the nature of the US economy. When the economy was in full employment under Trump, there were still 4% unemployed. 5% unemployment is considered "full employment," but that still leaves about 15 million people out of work. Biden's infrastructure plan will put those 5% back to work. It had been considered by conservative neoliberal economists that 5% unemployment was necessary to ward off inflation, but that theory has been debunked by Modern Monetary Theory. While inflation will still be a concern with all of Biden's stimulus spending, the main concern is restructuring the US economy from an entertainment economy to a constructive labor economy. Trump's economy was arguably a full employment economy (except for the 4% unemployed), but it was an economy the jobs of which were mainly in the entertainment and military industries. In other words, in my opinion, it was an economy based on false unbeneficial values. An economy based on labor participation rebuilding American infrastructure will be an economy based on necessary and fundamentally beneficial values. This might mean that some of those presently employed in frivolous industries might be incentivized to change jobs. Reducing the entertainment and military sectors while increasing those employed rebuilding infrastructure would be, in my opinion, be a good thing.

 

Off the Top of My Head

Biden's Infrastructure Initiative: Don't Worry About How To Pay For It

by John Lawrence, March 30, 2021

Even Republicans agree that there is a need to upgrade the infrastructure of the US. But they don't want to raise taxes to pay for it. Good news! You don't need to pay for it with tax money. The US dollar is a sovereign currency. That means that the central bank, in this case the Fed, can just create the money. In fact this is how it's always been done. The deficit is just an accounting regime. Money created by the Fed need never be paid back. It just goes on the Fed's balance sheet. This is a fact known and agreed to by most economists but many politicians and the American public are totally ignorant of this basic fact about how the economy works. Modern Monetary Theory has attempted to explain it in books like "The Deficit Myth" by Stephanie Kelton. So why does Biden also propose tax increases on the rich to pay for it? These are really two separate issues. Taxes need to be raised on the rich to try to bring into balance the skyrocketing financial inequality that has been occurring, not to pay for the infrastructure bill. Why do politicians including President Biden continue to perpetuate the myth that appropriations bills need to be "paid for." Why don't they just come out and say the truth - that a nation with a sovereign currency can never run out of money?

When just a few people own most of the wealth, we're back in a neo-feudal society where the rich control the political process, and the rest of the people are merely peons who don't really have a stake in the society at all. The Republican attempts to change the voting laws to suppress the minority vote is a way to cement that fact in American society. That's why it's so important to liberalize the voting laws so that every American citizen is encouraged to vote, not discouraged from it. So the infrastructure initiative is really two or even three pronged: rebuild infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports, rail lines, airports and broadband thus putting millions back to work in good paying jobs. Secondly, to build back better in the sense that, insofar as possible, address the problem of global warming, and, thirdly, to make a first step in addressing economic inequality. All these things are important.

The only thing to watch out for while spending all this money is inflation, and some economists like Larry Summers are already sounding alarm bells over that. By taxing the rich and corporations money will be sucked out of the economy thus tending to reduce inflation. If sucking money out of the economy reduces inflation, then the sucking must be addressed to those areas where excess money really exists: namely, the rich and corporations who have been getting away with murder for years under both Republic and Democratic administrations. Forbes reported that "The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country." Forbes ought to know. Perhaps with Biden's plan to tax the rich, it'll take 10 of the richest to equal the bottom 50%'s share. As for inflation, so much money in so few hands has already produced asset inflation in the form of rising housing and rent prices making it problematic for the young and the poor to support themselves especially at a minimum wage that hasn't increased in 50 years. What Summers doesn't understand is that the inflation that has occurred has been in the money that has been made by the rich which is actually wealth inflation, not in the form of wage inflation of the poor and middle class. Therefore, in turning this process around Biden's infrastructure bill is actually pointing the American economy in the correct direction.

Off the Top of My Head

The Trouble With Belief Systems

by John Lawrence, March 28, 2021

Belief systems lead to cults. A cult can be defined as a group of people who all fervently believe the same things although there is no objective proof for any of their beliefs. People who believe Trump won the election are members of a cult. People who believe their religion is the only correct and true religion and everyone who does not accept their belief system is going to Hell are members of a cult. A lot of wars have been fought because members of one cult dehumanized members of another cult. The European wars of the 16th century were fought because Catholics and Protestants could not accept that there were people who did not have the same cult beliefs as they did. The 30 years war was a war between Protestants and Catholics. The Crusades were wars between Christians and Muslims. People who hold belief systems fervently cannot accept the fact that there are other people in the world who don't hold their same belief system.

There are some things that are unknowable, at least at this point in time, and they form fertile ground for some one or one to develop a belief system around. Charlatans and manipulators realize that there is money to be made by claiming to assuage peoples' anxieties. One of the biggest unknowables is what happens to us after we die. Another is is there a God or, if there is, is He a judgmental or a loving God? The Founding Fathers of the US, cognizant of the European wars of religion, were mainly Deists. They believed that God created the universe, but was not involved with it after that, the so-called "watchmaker God." Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists include Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was more influenced by the reason-centred Enlightenment than either Adams or Washington. Jefferson also created his own version of the Bible. This Bible was focused only on Jesus, but none of his mystical works. It didn’t include major scenes like the resurrection or ascension to heaven, or miracles like turning water into wine or walking on water. Instead, Jefferson’s Bible focused on Jesus as a man of morals, a teacher whose truths were expressed without the help of miracles or the supernatural powers of God.

Because of our existential anxiety caused by not knowing what's going to happen to us after death or even in this life, belief systems have grown up and attracted adherents. Fervent belief systems are really cults as they exclude and dehumanize people with alternative beliefs. There is no objective proof, but people are willing to kill those who aren't members of their cult. This is from Britannica:

"Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”: I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.''"

The problem with the Trump "true believers" is that they have been sold a bill of goods by those who shamelessly have made money off of feeding this cult a bunch of lies. These people have been conditioned by means of their religion to have a certain set of beliefs which they are willing to fight over. These beliefs coincide with a way of life predicated on an American version of history and an American narrative in which America is a shining city on a hill and a beacon of veracity and truth to the rest of the world. They believe in an America also which is fundamentally white like it's always been in their minds, but that's not the reality any more. American history is not all that noble. Indians were robbed of their lands and Africans were brought here and used as slaves. After they were freed, supposedly, Jim Crow laws made sure that they remained second class citizens. So there is  clash of belief systems. There are those who think the great and noble sentiments expressed by our Founding Fathers should not apply to everyone equally and those who point out the hypocrisy of not doing so.

The problem really is with belief systems which turn into cults. The way forward is really the one expressed by Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" With deference to Mission Impossible: your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to make the world a better place for this and future generations without regard to belief systems or ideology. Your vaunted way of life, as perceived to have existed in the past, is irrelevant.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden's Agenda

by John Lawrence, March 27, 2021

Biden has a definite agenda and a time table for putting it forward. His first two massive bills, COVID relief and infrastructure will go forward as planned because they can be passed with only a majority in Congress due to the budget reconciliation process. Other bills like voting rights and immigration are more dicey because they are subject to the filibuster. It's clear that Democrats will not get even one vote in the Senate for any bill subject to the filibuster. Biden will keep alive the meme that he "wants to work across the aisle" even though he knows that is impossible because he wants to at least appear moderate and cooperative. He doesn't want to alarm anyone, but push will come to shove inevitably when it becomes time to get a voting rights bill passed which is absolutely necessary if Democrats ever want to hold power again and accomplish anything. The coming figurative Civil War will be over voting rights. If Republicans are successful in rolling back voting rights for the poor and minorities, they will continue to hold power. If there is a Federal voting rights bill that will not only expand the way people can vote as was put into place because of the pandemic but also eliminate gerrymandering, then Democrats will continue to hold power because of the changing demographics of the American electorate. That's why a voting rights bill is so critical.

Republicans have devised different methods for voter suppression over the years not the least of which is gerrymandering. If they control how the voting districts are drawn on the map, they can insure that a Republican will be elected from each district. So expanding the voting franchise in a fair way is absolutely critical. If that is done, Democrats will hold and gain power for the foreseeable future. If not, Republicans will continue to hold power even as a minority party. So the stakes involved are huge. Biden has his timetable laid out. Do the easy stuff first. Two massive trillion dollar bills are the easy stuff because they can be passed in Congress with just a majority and without any Republican votes. When it comes time to pass a voting rights act, Democrats will have to attack the filibuster, and Mitch McConnell will go apoplectic. Be prepared for all kinds of threats from Republicans because they know that their time in power and the time when white people have controlled American politics is passed. America is becoming a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and very diverse society and American political power will reflect that if democracy and majority rule holds sway. Republicans and white people in general will do everything they can to hold onto power. American history demonstrates that.

However, Democrats, who have the slimmest of majorities in the Senate, have the power in their hands to change the filibuster rule or to eliminate it altogether, and I'm sure they will do whatever is necessary to pass their agenda. Their only problem is with the two conservative Democrats in the Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. They will have to make sure that these two will come on board with whatever the Democrats decide to do. Biden has two of the best leaders on his side in terms of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate. They will figure out a way to outsmart the Republicans and bring the American people to their side as well. Republicans will be furious, no doubt. Fortunately, they blew their wad with the failed coup attempt popularly known as an insurrection. Now the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security is focused on their case. It won't happen again.

Biden only has two years for certain in which to enact his agenda. The special election in Georgia which elected Warnock and Ossof was critical to the success of the Biden administration. Warnock only has two years to serve until the next state election in Georgia to fill his seat whereas Ossoff was elected to a 6 year term. That's why there is a furious attempt to change the voting laws in Georgia so that a Republican senator will be elected there in 2022 and Democrats will lose their majority in the Senate which will again be controlled by Republicans. It was a happy coincidence for Democrats that Ossoff and Warnock were both elected; it was an anomaly for the state of Georgia, and Republicans are determined that it won't happen again. The success of the Biden administration hangs on his first two years to get his agenda done, and, if he wants to get anything done in the last two years from 2022 to 2024, it is critical that Federal voting rights are established which will roll back the white supremicist Jim Crow voting legislation currently being passed in Georgia and other states.

So the critical issue really is the filibuster. If Democrats don't go all out and eliminate it or at least create carve outs for voting rights legislation, they will lose control of the Federal government in 2022, and Biden's agenda will be defenestrated. It's all about the future of American politics and who will hold power - the Democrats who will serve the American people especially the poor and the middle class or the Republicans who will serve the rich and the white supremicists.

Off the Top of My Head

The Code Breaker

by John Lawrence, March26, 2021

The Code Breaker by Walter Isaacson is an exciting new book which details the efforts and the knowledge to edit genes known as CRISPR. That means cutting into the DNA genome and removing "sick" genes and/or replacing them with the correct genes. The book details the quest to discover the mechanism by which this is possible. The book focuses on Jennifer Doudna but many researchers, many of them recent immigrants or workers at foreign universities, are involved. The fundamental insights can be explained in a few sentences. They noticed that bacteria have been fighting off viruses successfully for billions of years, and they were doing this by incorporating the virus DNA into the data base of their own genome. Upon encountering a new virus the bacteria knew how to encode that virus's DNA so that they could identify it in an attack in the future. Secondly, the bacteria knew how to dispatch a portion of RNA that would travel to the site of the virus and encode an enzyme that would then destroy the virus. The messenger RNA knew precisely where to point the enzyme which then cut the virus DNA thereby destroying it. So the e. coli bacterium has known how to edit genes for billions of years. The trick is to figure out exactly how the bacterium does this.

So Jennifer Doudna and cohorts did just that: They figured out how a bacterium cuts a virus's DNA precisely in a certain location. That's what the book is about. That's what gene editing is about. Gene editing is in its infancy, but it has already been used to correct the genetic mutation which causes sickle cell anemia which is caused by the mutation in one gene. Experimentally, it has been shown that if this gene can be cut out and replaced by one that contains the correct genetic information, the disease can be cured. If this can be done early in the development of an embryo, the correct gene can even be transmitted to succeeding generations. An estimated 8 million children are born each year with severe genetic disorders or birth defects. Gene editing can possibly correct some or all of these defects. In order to do this the enzyme which cuts the gene out of the DNA must be told precisely where to cut, and the correct gene must somehow be implanted precisely at this location and the DNA reconnected. In theory the whole idea is very simple. Figuring out how to do this either in the laboratory or in actual animals, much less in humans, is the hard part.

Whether or not this research will lead to an understanding of the origins of life is an open question. Perhaps there is a sub-atomic entity sort of like a neutrino which is massless and ubiquitous in the universe which is the progenitor of life wherever conditions are propitious. Perhaps it is able to generate an organism with the minimal genome, something which has never been discovered in nature. Even a virus which has the simplest known genomic structure has three thousand base pairs, compared to the three billion base pairs in human genomes. A base pair consists of the 4 nucleotides called A, C, G, T   which comprise one rung of the DNA ladder. So a successful gene edit would have to identify the precise rung of the DNA ladder where the mutation had occurred which means at least one of the 4 letters of the base pair was incorrect and correct it.

So I theorize that a life progenitor would have to be something that is ubiquitous in the universe and capable of starting life with a minimal genome which consists of only a few base pairs. This is a mystery but certainly not the only one. Gravity is an every day phenomenon but no one has detected a graviton which is thought to be the physical entity that distorts space time according to Einstein's theory of relativity. No one understands the "dark energy" which is thought to be responsible for the fact that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating. No one understands what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" which has been demonstrated to be a reality in quantum theory. Just as the line is blurred between what is material and what is massless energy, the line is blurred between what is spiritual and what is material. Is the creation of life in the universe a physical, material phenomenon or a spiritual one?

Off the Top of My Head

The Second Amendment Doesn't Preclude Strict Licensing Requirements for Guns

by John Lawrence, March 24, 2020

The "right to keep and bear arms" should be conditioned on strict licensing requirements just as the right to drive an automobile is. Licensing and training in the proper use of firearms should come before an individual is allowed to own one. An individual who passes a training course in the use of a particular firearm would then be authorized to own and bear just that firearm. The type of firearms that can be owned should be severely restricted which would not infringe on the Second Amendment which doesn't say that an individual has a right to own and bear any or all types of firearms. The type of firearms available should be just those necessary for hunting or self defense. Even animals should have a right not to be slaughtered by an assault rifle. Military style assault weapons should be banned altogether, and a buy back program for guns of all types should be implemented at the Federal level. Not everyone is allowed to drive an automobile. By the same token not everyone should be allowed to own or possess a gun.

I'm also in favor of expedited justice for mass murderers caught in the act like the Boulder killer. Why should they be housed, fed and kept alive for years while the wheels of justice slowly grind away and countless lawyers and judges not to mention media pundits make money off of the tragedy. They should be promptly shot within a few days using the same means by which they took the lives of others. They should not be allowed to become notorious on social media. Nothing that has been learned from questioning these murderers about their motives has ever become relevant or information that can be used to prevent such crimes in the future, and any relevant information can be found out after their deaths. Why should FBI and police resources be wasted on finding out stuff that hasn't prevented mass murders from continuing? We already know what is obvious and that is that most of them are mentally ill or have a political agenda.

I wrote on this blog in January 2020:

It seems like the conclusion of every news report about another senseless killing. Why are the police even figuring? It won't do anything to prevent another senseless killing. If only we could figure out a motive, they think, it would prevent another gun nut with an arsenal from going berserk? Or a mentally ill person from gunning down innocents? Basically it comes down to one thing: we live in a sick society, a society which glamorizes guns and criminal activities. While we spend a trillion dollars a year fighting foreign terrorism, we spent nothing on fighting domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorists have been responsible for more American deaths than foreign terrorists in recent years.

At the root of the problem is the proliferation of guns, guns that are accessible to the average nutcase in his [and it's usually his, hmmm] quest to prove something to himself or society or to gain his 15 minutes of fame in an otherwise dull, uneventful and uninteresting life devoid of any constructive activity, a life that needs an act of violence in order to stand out from the crowd, a life fueled by a fantasy life filled with violence made to seem normal by movies, TV and video games.

While the FBI claims to have stepped up its efforts to combat domestic terrorism attacks in recent years and months, evidence suggests that these efforts are falling short. The FBI’s most recent hate crimes report indicates that while hate crimes dipped slightly in 2018, violent hate crimes reached a 16-year high. The US is not spending its money where it needs to to create a more sane and violence free society. Many of the perpetrators have come out of the military where violence is the norm. Spending less money on military activities and more to end poverty and combat mental illness might help to end the senseless violence that the US is in the grip of. Especially in schools and places of worship, where people are most vulnerable, the perpetrators, knowing this, step up their targeting opportunities.

But even more important is the elimination of guns from our society, especially high power, military style guns. They should be outlawed as well as large capacity ammunition magazines. There will still be nuts around attempting to hurt or kill other people, but if these guns were eliminated, they would just not be able to do as much damage. Reducing the size of our military and spending the money on more peaceful pursuits would also help to set a different tone in society than the militaristic one being set now.

Off the Top of My Head

In Defense of Governor Cuomo

by John Lawrence, March 23, 2021

In the Access Hollywood tape Trump said he would go up to a woman and "just start kissing them." He would even "grab 'em by the pussy". Yet no women "came forward" to testify to the facts that Trump had done this to them. At least there was no wide spread media exposure except for adult film star, Stormy Daniels. Yet women are coming forward to accuse Governor Cuomo of "ogling their legs." Cuomo has said he hasn't touched any woman inappropriately. Well, I guess the definition of inappropriate touching would be touching or grabbing their pussies or breasts or butts. No woman has accused Cuomo of doing what for Trump was standard operating procedure. So is there a double standard here? Since when does "ogling" rise to the level of a crime or even something a woman should "come forward" about? Maybe a sin, something that should be taken up between Cuomo and his priest confessor, but nothing he should lose his job over. Jesus said "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." That's a pretty high standard and today adultery is defined as a married person having sex outside of married. Cuomo after all was single.

So is ogling a high crime and misdemeanor? What's the difference between ogling and simple observation? Is there video evidence to support the accusation of ogling? Where do you draw the line between ogling and disinterested observation? Is it possible that some men could be ogling but disguise this fact by adopting a demeanor of casual observation? What is the time frame after which a casual look becomes ogling - 2 seconds...5 seconds? Your honor, my ogling was within the time frame of casual observation. Give me a break. And the kissing? Some women accused Cuomo of trying to kiss them. Well, the time honored method of rejecting a kiss is to simply turn your head or pull away. Did Cuomo persist even after that? No. A kiss rejected with no follow-up persistence is no reason to come forward. An awkward or embarrassing moment, perhaps, but that should be the end of it. Did any of the women who came forward about Cuomo's behavior simply say to him, "Bug off, Bub. I'm not interested." Evidently not. That would be all that they would have to have said.

Now someone is even accusing Cuomo of saying, "Ciao Bella" to them. What? What country are we living in? Not Italy, I guess. There when you meet someone for this first time, you kiss them ... twice like Stanley Tucci does on his CNN program. You know there are a lot more serious issues to be concerned with than someone saying "Caio Bella", which some women might take as a compliment rather than a breech of demeanor. Again did the woman involved tell Cuomo not to say that to her or to quit ogling her or to bug off, you creep? No they just "came forward" instead to complain about something of little consequence. Poor Governor Cuomo. That guy has been working overtime as the only voice of reason for many months trying to get the COVID pandemic under control. He's lonely and horny. Won't some patriotic American woman go up to him and give him a kiss and a hug and tell him what a good job he has done? Instead these women who have come forward have effectively stabbed him in the back and threatened his job when they could have simply told him, "Bug off!" "Coming forward" is the modern day equivalent of pilloying someone in the public square.

Critics Say 'Scorched Earth' Threat Over Filibuster Shows McConnell 'Getting Scared'

Published on Tuesday, March 16, 2021

by Common Dreams

"McConnell is clearly getting desperate as momentum grows to eliminate the filibuster as a weapon he can use to maintain power from the minority."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

23 Comments

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) speaks during a news conference in the U.S. Capitol after the Senate Republican Policy luncheon in Washington on Tuesday, February 23, 2021. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's threat Tuesday to unleash never-before-seen "chaos" on the Senate if Democrats take aim at the legislative filibuster was viewed by progressives as a strong signal that the Kentucky Republican is beginning to get nervous about losing his most powerful tool of obstruction as support for weakening—or outright abolishing—the archaic rule continues to mount.

Just hours after Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) became the highest ranking Senate Democrat to speak out in support of filibuster reform, McConnell—the upper chamber's chief obstructionist—took to the floor to vow "a completely scorched-earth Senate" if the majority party moves to eliminate the 60-vote threshold, which effectively gives the minority veto power over most legislation in a narrowly divided chamber.

"Senate Democrats should ignore these latest hypocritical threats and continue their work delivering results in the face of unanimous Republican opposition."
—Eli Zupnick, Fix Our Senate

On top of promising that Republicans would "use every other rule" to obstruct the Democratic agenda should the majority vote to nuke the filibuster, McConnell said the GOP would take the first opportunity they get to "erase" every Democratic achievement and ram through longstanding right-wing policy objectives, such as "nationwide right-to-work" and "defunding Planned Parenthood."

Far from being a reason for Democratic leaders to shy away from mounting support within their caucus for filibuster reform or abolition, progressives said McConnell's threat-laced speech shows that the party is moving in the right direction and should step on the gas.

"Mitch McConnell is terrified of the filibuster being abolished," tweeted consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. "Is there any better sign that we should do it?"

Eli Zupnick of Fix Our Senate said in a statement Tuesday that "McConnell is clearly getting desperate as momentum grows to eliminate the filibuster as a weapon he can use to maintain power from the minority and prevent Democrats from delivering on their promises."

"McConnell eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees when he was in power and has already made it clear that he and his caucus plan to use every tool at their disposal to delay and obstruct the majority's popular agenda," Zupnick added, "so Senate Democrats should ignore these latest hypocritical threats and continue their work delivering results in the face of unanimous Republican opposition."

Sawyer Hackett, a senior adviser to Julián Castro, tweeted that McConnell's speech is "zero cause for flinching."

"McConnell has used every ounce of his power to enact his agenda without Dem input," Hackett wrote. "Without the filibuster, the GOP would have to actually campaign on their record and the public would see the benefit of Dems in majority."

McConnell's remarks came days after the House and Senate passed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that Democrats had to push through the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process due to unanimous Republican opposition. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) offered a taste of the kind of obstruction McConnell might have in mind for the near future when he forced the Senate clerk to read aloud all 628 pages of the bill, which took nearly 11 hours.

"McConnell has used every ounce of his power to enact his agenda without Dem input," Hackett wrote. "Without the filibuster, the GOP would have to actually campaign on their record."
—Sawyer Hackett

Given the rules constraining the reconciliation process, progressives have argued that the only way Senate Democrats will have any hope of passing a much-needed expansion of voting rights, immigration and labor law reform, climate legislation, and more is if they eliminate or significantly reform the legislative filibuster—moves that would require the support of all 50 Democratic senators plus a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris.

In recent weeks, several Senate Democrats previously skeptical of filibuster reform have come out in favor of reform or complete abolition, pointing to persistent Republican obstruction that turned the Senate into a legislative graveyard.

After calling the filibuster a "weapon of mass obstruction" on the Senate floor Monday, Durbin told HuffPost that it was McConnell's conduct in recent years that changed his opinion on the modern filibuster, which he used to support.

"Senator McConnell taught me that I was wrong," said Durbin. "He managed to use and abuse the filibuster so many times and stopped the Senate in its track."

Durbin suggested reviving the talking filibuster, which would require senators who wish to block a bill to speak continuously on the Senate floor—a dramatic change from the status quo of allowing the minority party to obstruct legislation via email.

Even Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the Senate's most conservative Democrat, has said he would be open to a return to the talking filibuster, telling Fox News earlier this month that "maybe it has to be more painful, maybe you have to stand there."

With momentum clearly on the side of significantly weakening the filibuster, Adam Jentleson of the Battle Born Collective argued Senate Democrats should plow ahead with a major change to the archaic rule without fearing the retaliation McConnell has promised.

"Trading this for the ability to actually pass bills like voting rights seems like an easy call," Jentleson, who previously served as a staffer for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said of McConnell's "scorched Earth" threat.

"If McConnell's tactics become truly onerous," Jentleson added, "Dems can always pass further reforms to end obstruction. McConnell's goal is to make government fail, Dems' goal should be to make it work."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Ending the Filibuster is Necessary for Voting Reform and Other Crucial Initiatives

by John Lawrence, March 18, 2020

Voting reform at the Federal level is necessary to counter all the state efforts to restrict voting. This is as important as Biden's COVID relief bill which was passed by budget reconciliation and only needed a majority vote. It is important to note how precarious the COVID relief bill was because it got zero Republican votes. If even one of the two Senators from Georgia had not won in the runoffs, there would be no COVID relief bill or Democratic majority in the Senate. The Republican party is the party of NO. Biden's trope of "working across the aisle" is a total fiction and he knows it, but he's trying to keep it alive for appearances sake as it makes him seem more moderate. He knows that he will get no Republican votes for any legislation he wants to get passed, but he will seem less extreme if he at least keeps the idea alive. But when it comes right down to it, Biden will do what he needs to do to get his legislation passed into law. He's  not naive.

So Republican Mitch McConnell has threatened a "scorched earth" policy if Republicans ever regain control of the Senate. He even threatened to defund Planned Parenthood. Golly gee! I'll take that in return for comprehensive national voting reform including eliminating gerrymandering and overruling state efforts to restrict voting. Democrats have a lot on their agenda for helping Americans; Republicans have nothing. Here is McConnell’s complete account of the horrors that await the country were the legislative filibuster to perish:

“As soon as Republicans wound up back in the saddle, we wouldn’t just erase every liberal change that hurt the country. We’d strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side. Nationwide right-to-work for working Americans. Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one. A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn. Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border.”

Jeesh, Mitch, I'm totally terrified! I say go ahead and abolish the filibuster. When you weigh all the good Democrats can do for the country against all the bad Republicans can do, the scales are tipped heavily in favor of ending the filibuster which is an archaic Jim Crow rule anyway. Any democracy worthy of the name should at least stand for majority rule. The things that Republicans are against are only manufactured pipe dreams anyway for the most part. If we have to give up Planned parenthood and sanctuary cities in return for solving the problem of global warming, I say go ahead and do it. There is so much important business that has to get done that Democrats are capable of doing. Biden learned his lesson under Obama when for 8 years Republicans slow walked him through a futile Presidency. Biden learned his lesson then although he still wants to seem moderate so he will appear to be just that. After Republican intransigence has been conclusively demonstrated, however, Biden will, as a seeming last resort, abolish the filibuster in order to get the job that he came to do done.

The For the People Act (also known as H.R. 1) is a bill in the United States Congress to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders. This is the minimum of what needs to be done that will require ending the filibuster. Much needed and much delayed immigration reform will also require that. The question is will the US be a nation that accomplished big things or one in which nothing gets done. Republicans can threaten all they want. Their agenda is a big nothing burger. If HR 1 is enacted into law, they may never be back in power again. Their access to power is based on restricting voting rights. Democratic access to power is based on expanding them. The real question is is the United States going to stand for a real democracy or is it going to retreat into an autocracy. The rest of the world including primarily China is moving ahead while head in the sand Republicans are challenging and threatening Americans with their damaging policies. Biden and the Democrats should not take that bait, and, having learned their lesson from the Obama years, go ahead and do what's necessary to get America on the move again towards a more equitable and rational nation which makes a positive contribution in world affairs.

Off the Top of My Head

Digital Nuclear is the Best Hope for Saving the Planet from Global Warming

by John Lawrence, March 16, 2020

France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. At the same time it's becoming clear that solar and wind are not the solutions capable of providing the energy needed to replace fossil fuels. They provide only intermittent energy and require large amounts of fossil fuel energy for their construction and deployment. Like most infrastructure they also have a rather small shelf life and must be replaced frequently. There are also big problems with natural gas and biofuels. France has a track record with nuclear which has proven to be cheap and reliable. The latest generation of nuclear reactors incorporates advanced digital technology which solves the problems of waste storage and blow ups. It is the best bet for solving the global warming problem in the time frame needed for it to be solved.

France's President Emmanuel Macron said: "Our energy and ecological future depends on nuclear power; our economic and industrial future depends on nuclear power; and France's strategic future depends on nuclear power." I think Macron is on to something. He seems to be in complete agreement with Bill Gates. Advanced nuclear holds the promise of cheap non-polluting energy without the dangers represented by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and also with the problem of nuclear waste solved. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points out, nuclear energy is a non-intermittent energy source that emits the least CO2. To produce 1 kWh, a coal-fired power plant emits 1000g of CO2, while a nuclear power plant emits only a negligible 6g.

According to Gates, the operation of nuclear power plants produces no greenhouse gas emissions. New innovations in nuclear technology (in which he is an investor) are making nuclear energy safer and more affordable, and countries around the world are starting to adopt nuclear power. Since 2006, Gates has also served as chairman of TerraPower, a company he helped launch in 2006 that aims to provide the world with a more affordable, secure and environmentally friendly form of nuclear energy. With TerraPower's advanced research and France's track record with nuclear, it seems obvious that this is the solution for clean energy which is non-intermittent and non-greenhouse gas emitting. The fact that a track record combined with advanced digital methods already exists, the build-out of advanced reactors all over the world in the shortest period of time is the best bet for combating global warming.

Gates tried to build a demonstration advanced nuclear plant in China to prove out the concepts involved. Popular Mechanics reported in 2019:

At least for now, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates is pulling back on nuclear power. He hasn't changed his mind on the science—he puts his blame on the Trump Administration's bitter relationship with China.

Gates invested in TerraPower in 2011 with the hope of helping to prove the company's core concept: a so-called traveling-wave reactor (TWR) which would run on depleted uranium, as opposed to the enriched uranium commonly used in nuclear plants. The concept is appealing on several levels—not only would its small design lower the currently rising price of nuclear energy, it would actually consume the trash pumped out by today's modern reactors.

Long story short, the Trump administration put the kibosh on the billion dollar project thus setting back development on this advanced nuclear reactor out of concerns for rivalry with China. This is at a time when cooperation with China to combat climate change is crucial. It could happen in the US now that we have a progressive Biden administration that is concerned about climate change rather than the denial of it by Trump. In his year-end letter for 2018, Gates notes that "we had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely." It seems clear that the US should go full steam ahead with a demonstration project followed by a build out worldwide in cooperation with China which is the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter. The US is second with India and Russia, third and fourth. It's clear that cooperating with countries that are traditional "enemies" is important if the planet is to survive climate change. Emerging countries in Africa also need to adopt nuclear and not coal fired energy generating plants. The need help from the rich countries of the world to do it.

 

Will 2021 Be Public Banking’s Watershed Moment?

Posted on March 4, 2021 by Ellen Brown on Web of Debt blog

 

Just over two months into the new year, 2021 has already seen a flurry of public banking activity. Sixteen new bills to form publicly-owned banks or facilitate their formation were introduced in eight U.S. states in January and February. Two bills for a state-owned bank were introduced in New Mexico, two in Massachusetts, two in New York, one each in Oregon and Hawaii, and Washington State’s Public Bank Bill was re-introduced as a “Substitution.” Bills for city-owned banks were introduced in Philadelphia and San Francisco, and bills facilitating the formation of public banks or for a feasibility study were introduced in New York, Oregon (three bills), and Hawaii. 

In addition, California is expected to introduce a bill for a state-owned bank later this year, and New Jersey is moving forward with a strong commitment from its governor to implement one. At the federal level, three bills for public banking were also introduced last year: the National Infrastructure Bank Bill (HR 6422), a new Postal Banking Act (S 4614), and the Public Banking Act (HR 8721). (For details on all these bills, see the Public Banking Institute website here.)

As Oscar Abello wrote on NextCity.org in February, “2021 could be public banking’s watershed moment.… Legislators are starting to see public banks as a powerful potential tool to ensure a recovery that is more equitable than the last time.”

Why the Surge in Interest?

The devastation caused by nationwide Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020 has highlighted the inadequacies of the current financial system in serving the public, local businesses, and local governments. Nearly 10 million jobs were lost to the lockdowns, over 100,000 businesses closed permanently, and a quarter of the population remains unbanked or underbanked. Over 18 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, and moratoria on rent and home foreclosures are due to expire this spring. 

Where was the Federal Reserve in all this? It poured out trillions of dollars in relief, but the funds did not trickle down to the real economy. They flooded up, dramatically increasing the wealth gap. By October 2020, the top 1% of the U.S. population held 30.4% of all household wealth, 15 times that of the bottom 50%, which held just 1.9% of all wealth. 

State and local governments are also in dire straits due to the crisis. Their costs have shot up and their tax bases have shrunk. But the Fed’s “special purpose vehicles” were no help. The Municipal Liquidity Facility, ostensibly intended to relieve municipal debt burdens, lent at market interest rates plus a penalty, making borrowing at the facility so expensive that it went nearly unused; and it was discontinued in December. 

The Fed’s emergency lending facilities were also of little help to local businesses. In a January 2021 Wall Street Journal article titled “Corporate Debt ‘Relief’ Is an Economic Dud,” Sheila Bair, former chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Lawrence Goodman, president of the Center for Financial Stability, observed:

The creation of the corporate facilities last March marked the first time in history that the Fed would buy corporate debt… The purpose of the corporate facilities was to help companies access debt markets during the pandemic, making it possible to sustain operations and keep employees on payroll. Instead, the facilities resulted in a huge and unnecessary bailout of corporate debt issuers, underwriters and bondholders….This created a further unfair opportunity for large corporations to get even bigger by purchasing competitors with government-subsidized credit.

….This presents a double whammy for the young companies that have been hit hardest by the pandemic. They are the primary source of job creation and innovation, and squeezing them deprives our economy of the dynamism and creativity it needs to thrive.

In a September 2020 study for ACRE called “Cancel Wall Street,” Saqib Bhatti and Brittany Alston showed that U.S. state and local governments collectively pay $160 billion annually just in interest in the bond market, which is controlled by big private banks. For comparative purposes, $160 billion would be enough to help 13 million families avoid eviction by covering their annual rent; and $134 billion could make up the revenue shortfall suffered by every city and town in the U.S. due to the pandemic. 

Half the cost of infrastructure generally consists of financing, doubling its cost to municipal governments. Local governments are extremely good credit risks; yet private, bank-affiliated rating agencies give them a lower credit score (raising their rates) than private corporations, which are 63 times more likely to default. States are not allowed to go bankrupt, and that is also true for cities in about half the states. State and local governments have a tax base to pay their debts and are not going anywhere, unlike bankrupt corporations, which simply disappear and leave their creditors holding the bag.

The Filibuster Is a Labor Issue

Published on Sunday, March 14, 2021

by In These Times

The PRO Act will not pass unless we end the filibuster. Those two things are a package deal.

by Hamilton Nolan

 

0 Comments

Joe Manchin speaks at a 2016 union rally. Time to pay up. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

On Tuesday, the House passed the PRO Act, the sweeping labor law reform bill that would re-energize unions in America. If it were to become law. Which it will not, as long as the filibuster remains in place in the Senate. The situation now is very simple: destroying the filibuster is a labor issue.

The Senate, an anti-democratic institution by design that exists to squash the dreams of the majority of our nation’s citizens, is evenly split, controlled by Democrats by only a single vote. It currently takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning that ten Republicans would have to join all of the Democrats to push through the PRO Act. There is zero chance of this happening. (Frankly, I doubt that every Senate Democrat would even line up behind the PRO Act if the Chamber of Commerce lobbyists really started putting the screws on them, but that is purely academic at this point.)

On top of that, it is hard to imagine any Congressional election in the coming decades that would change the composition of the Senate enough to allow the bill to pass with the filibuster in place. The PRO Act is not bullshit — it is serious, historic, pro-worker reform. That is something that is not now and will never be an issue that a large chunk of Republican senators will flock to support. The donors who pay to elect Republican senators, as a rule, are spending money to prevent a bill like this from ever passing.

"Words from Senate Democrats now about how pro-union they are do not mean anything at all if they are not accompanied by a commitment to end the filibuster."

 

So here is where we are: A) Organized labor went all out to get Joe Biden and a Democratic Congress in place, and they know they are owed payback; B) The PRO Act is labor’s highest priority; and C) The PRO Act has virtually no chance of becoming law as long as the filibuster stays in place. To be very gauche and transactional about all of this, words from Senate Democrats now about how pro-union they are do not mean anything at all if they are not accompanied by a commitment to end the filibuster. I would venture to say that it is time to start painting Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema, the two most outspoken Democrats committed to preserving the filibuster, as anti-union. They will certainly protest, but reality tells its own truth. We need the PRO Act. There is only one way to get it. Being unwilling to do something completely within their power to get the bill passed is indistinguishable from being against the bill. And if you’re against the bill, you are not pro-union.

The filibuster is a barrier to progress in worker rights, just like union-busting law firms and greedy bosses are. A barrier is a barrier is a barrier. It is absurd to treat this barrier as sacrosanct, and then declare that you are, nevertheless, strongly in support of doing the thing that the barrier is preventing. Get real!

The AFL-CIO’s executive board is meeting this week, and they are considering the possibility of taking a formal position on the filibuster. They should. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka has said ​“The PRO Act is our litmus test,” which should imply that opposition to the filibuster is a litmus test as well. At this point, eliminating the filibuster is part and parcel of the progressive reforms that we are all trying to get passed. Claiming to support the PRO Act, or a strong green infrastructure bill, or the voting rights bill, without supporting the end of the filibuster, is like claiming to support going into a building but refusing to open the door. Assuming that you don’t enjoy banging your head against the wall endlessly, you must do one in order to do the other.

It’s good that major unions are running publicity campaigns touting the PRO Act. It will also go down as a lot of wasted effort if we are not able to do away with the filibuster, as it seems rather futile to do all this work to promote a bill that will just languish in a Senate drawer. Ending the filibuster is a labor fight. It is an environmental fight. It is a healthcare fight. It is equivalent to the substance of all these issues themselves, because it is the thing that enables them to happen. There is a coalition to be built on this issue — of every progressive in America who wants tangible gains in the next two years — that is broad and powerful enough to push the Democratic Party where it needs to go. 

Any Senate Democrats who don’t like this ultimatum should consider themselves to be on the other side of working people. And we should be sure to tell them that, loudly.

Hamilton Nolan is a labor reporting fellow at In These Times. He has spent the past decade writing about labor and politics for Gawker, Splinter, The Guardian, and elsewhere. You can reach him at Hamilton@InTheseTimes.com.

Biden Must Get Manchin and Sinema to Fall in Line

by Robert Reich

 

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

America is at a turning point on voting rights – one that’s almost as critical as the mid-1960s when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed. 

The present choice is whether to expand voting rights and strengthen our democracy, or allow the GOP to enact even more restrictive voting laws and partisan gerrymandering — cementing themselves in minority rule for years to come. 

Just as in the mid-1960s, presidential leadership will be a decisive factor.

Across the country, state Republicans have introduced over 250 bills restricting the right to vote. As a lawyer for the Arizona GOP recently admitted before the Supreme Court in seeking to defend the state’s voting restrictions, if they’re eliminated, “it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”

Democrats in Congress are fighting back against this anti-democratic agenda with their For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. 

These bills would automatically register new voters, outlaw gerrymandering, expand early voting, ban restrictions on mail-in ballots, reform campaign finance laws, and restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Mitch McConnell calls it a “power grab.” It is a power grab – grabbing power back for the people.

Yet although Democrats now possess a razor-thin majority in the Senate, these efforts don’t stand a chance unless Democrats overcome two obstacles there.

The first is the filibuster, a rule requiring 60 votes to pass regular legislation. The filibuster is not in the Constitution and not even in law. It’s just a Senate rule, which Democrats can and must end with their 51-vote bare majority.

The filibuster has historically been used against civil rights and voting rights. So it’s appropriate that Democrats finally end it in order to protect and expand these rights in the face of state efforts to restrict them.

Which raises the second obstacle. Two Democratic senators – West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema – have said they won’t vote to end the filibuster, presumably because they want to preserve their centrist image and appeal to Republican voters in their states.

Well, I’m sorry. The stakes are too high. We are talking about the future of civil and voting rights — critical to fighting racism and preserving American democracy. There is no excuse for two Democratic senators to allow Republicans to stomp on our democracy and entrench their minority rule for generations.

And there is no reason President Joe Biden should let them. It’s time for him to assert the leadership that President Lyndon Baines Johnson asserted more than a half-century ago.

When someone tried to persuade LBJ not to waste his time on civil and voting rights, he replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson worked to break the southern filibuster – lobbying recalcitrant senators and pressuring their colleagues to do the same. As Senator Hubert Humphrey later described it, “the president grabbed me by my shoulder and damn near broke my arm.”

Historians tell us that Johnson’s efforts may have shifted the votes of close to a dozen senators, breaking the longest filibuster in Senate history and clearing the way for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

We are once again at a crucial juncture for civil rights and voting rights, one that will shape our nation for decades to come. Joe Biden must learn from LBJ, and wield the power of the presidency to make senators fall in line with the larger goals of the nation. Otherwise, as LBJ asked, “what the hell’s the presidency for?”

Off the Top of My Head

Inflation Probably Not a Problem If Biden Programs Are Carefully Targeted

by John Lawrence, March 14, 2021

Critics have said, "Oh, My your children and grandchildren are going to have to pay back all these trillions of dollars that have been spent by both the Trump and Biden administrations on COVID relief and to get the economy going again." Not True! Modern Monetary Theory has shown that the Federal Reserve can just create the money and the Treasury Department can just spend it without ever worrying about paying it back. Finance is not the problem. The problem is potentially inflation which economist Larry Summers has sounded the alarm about. Most of Biden's relief bill is targeted at the poor which means that that money will be sucked up to pay past due rent and mortgage bills as well as providing a decent lifestyle which should not be inflationary except if you believe the nonsense of the neoliberal Phillips curve which supposedly proves that a certain segment of the population has to live in poverty and penury in order to fight inflation. That has also been debunked by Modern Monetary Theory although most politicians are still on the wavelength of neoliberal economics which has been shown to be fallacious in this and many other regards.

State and local governments likewise will just suck up the money in the relief bill to bail themselves out of debt and provide an adequate level of social services. This also is not inflationary because the money will not be just sloshing around in the economy with nowhere to go. What is inflationary is tax breaks for the rich, but this money can be sucked out of the economy by taxing the rich. What Larry Summers fails to take into account is that the US and much of the rest of the world has a two tier economy. The rich and upper middle class are doing very well, thank you, while the lower middle class and the poor are suffering. The COVID pandemic illustrated this in even starker terms with the so-called K-shaped recovery. The upper classes made money; the lower classes are on the verge of losing whatever financial gains they had made during the Trump economy. Inflation is caused by too much money sloshing around in the economic system. Most of that inflationary money is held by the rich in assets like stocks and real estate. Money injected into the economic system targeted at the poor is immediately sucked out of the system to pay debts and to provide basic necessities. There is enough physical and material capacity in the system to provide basic necessities so this money is not inflationary.

Inflation is caused when there is too much money chasing too few goods. As long as there is the material and human capacity, money directed at those sectors of the economy will not cause inflation. The real problem in future Biden administration bills involving infrastructure and the Green New Deal is that the materials to build out infrastructure, namely, steel, cement and plastics, require fossil fuels to manufacture and the manufacturing processes themselves are inherently carbon dioxide emitting. This comes about from basic chemistry which involves the carbon and oxygen atoms every step of the way. Most basic materials are composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and the chemistry involved in manufacturing releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. The manufacture of solar panels requires mining high quality quartz and combining it with coal. It's hard to get away from fossil fuels as the Michael Moore movie, Planet of the Humans, pointed out. For this reason spending large amounts of money on infrastructure involving cement, steel, plastics and other materials could actually produce more global warming rather than preventing it. The finances are available; the proper materials are not. The manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels require the release of large amounts of greenhouse gasses.

Because of these fundamental limitations regarding materials, it doesn't make sense to throw trillions of dollars at either infrastructure or global warming mitigation. That would be either inflationary or misguided in the sense that large projects in these areas could produce even more global warming. As Bill Gates has pointed out, money should be invested in promising startups and research that can solve these basic problems and into digital nuclear which is the only renewable energy source that won't result in a lot of greenhouse gasses being created in the first place. Advanced nuclear is the most promising source of clean energy. Gates has invested in a company TerraPower which does research on advanced nuclear reactors. Their mission statement reads:

"TerraPower was founded by Bill Gates and a group of like-minded visionaries that decided the private sector needed to take action in developing advanced nuclear energy to meet growing electricity needs, mitigate climate change and lift billions out of poverty. Advanced reactors and other isotopic applications are now possible with technology and enhanced computing capabilities that were unimaginable a few decades ago. At TerraPower, we are innovating in nuclear to improve the lives of people everywhere and to build the clean energy of tomorrow – today."

So when the Biden administration gets around to their initiatives on infrastructure and global warming, they need to heed Bill Gates' warning about traditional manufacturing methods involving cement, steel and plastic. Energy from solar and wind are inadequate to solve the problem for many reasons. Large scale demonstration and build out of nuclear energy reactors should be the order of the day, They are the only clean energy source that has the potential for diminishing the world's reliance on fossil fuels.

Off the Top of My Head

If Two Democratic Senators Were Not Elected in Georgia Run-offs, There Would Be No COVID Relief Package Under Biden

by John Lawrence, March13, 2021

It was crucial that the two Georgia Democratic Senators were elected. Not one Republican voted for Biden's $1.9 trillion bill. If there were one less Democrat in the Senate, nothing like it would ever have been passed. Republicans are the Party of No. Not one Republican Senator will ever vote Yes on any legislation put forward by a Democrat so that Georgia election was crucial. That's why Republican legislatures not only in Georgia but around the country are scrambling to put restrictive Jim Crow voting regulations in place on the belief that Republican operative Paul Weyrich was right. He said, "So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

So now economist Larry Summers is worried about inflation due to the fact that trillions have been added to the deficit. So far, lawmakers have enacted six major bills, costing about $5.3 trillion, to help manage the pandemic and mitigate the economic burden on families and businesses. Even those economists know that the Federal government doesn't need taxes  in order to spend money. The Federal Reserve can create it with a few keystrokes on a computer just the way they did to bail out Wall Street banks during the Great Financial Recession (GFR) of 2008. Of course the public wasn't suppose to know about this "secret" bailout by the Fed. Authorities wanted you to believe that the $700 billion bill passed by Congress provided the bailout. In reality it was much more. Rolling Stone reported: "Washington Post “Fact-checker” columnist Glenn Kessler disputes the numerous studies showing the real bailout outlay was through the Fed, which the Sanders campaign had said was anywhere from $7.7 trillion (the number Bloomberg used in its coverage of secret Fed lending) to $29 trillion (the number the Levy Institute at Bard College calculated, including guarantees and other forms of aid).

So how is it that  Larry Summers was not so worried about inflation due to the Fed's trillions of dollars created and given to Wall Street? The answer is that that money was given to rich people which has caused no inflation because rich people are not going to spend money in ways that drive up the Consumer Price Index (CPI). They are mainly going to invest their money in ways that aren't included in the CPI. They are going to purchase assets like stocks and real estate. Consequence: no inflation at least as measured by the CPI. Instead the Wall Street bailout during the GFR as well as the $2 trillion tax breaks of the Trump administration produced asset inflation. It's the reason that home prices and rents are becoming increasingly unaffordable. But Summers is worried about inflation as measured by the CPI which is what happens when poor and middle class people get a trillion dollar bailout. They will spend that money at least partly on consumer goods that are included in the CPI and potentially drive up prices. However, much of the bailout money will go to pay off debts like past due rent and mortgage payments. This is not inflationary. So the real moral of the story is that, according to economists like Summers, bailing out rich people is good, bailing out poor people is bad.

So two lessons are to be learned here. 1) The Fed doesn't need taxes to create money and spend it into the economy whether that money is to bail out banks or to bail out the poor and middles class. 2) Democrats need to enact at the Federal level voting laws which encourage as many people to vote as possible and roll back Republican enacted restrictions on voting at the state level. In order to do the latter, Democrats will have to eliminate the filibuster at least for particular types of legislation. The only reason Biden's $1.9 trillion relief bill passed is that it was done by a process known as "budget reconciliation" which only requires a majority vote in the Senate. A national voting rights bill cannot be passed by that process and is subject to the filibuster which requires 60 votes. The Party of No wouldn't hesitate to use the filibuster to doom any voting rights legislation at the Federal level which means essentially that Jim Crow voting rights would again be put in place to discourage black people from voting. And don't worry about your children and grandchildren having to pay off the national debt. The Federal Reserve doesn't need their money.

Off the Top of My Head

Green New Deal: We Have a Problem and Its Not Money

by John Lawrence, March 5, 2021

Modern Monetary Theory has shown that a nation with a sovereign currency such as the US dollar need never fear running out of money, and that Federal spending does not depend on tax receipts. However, it does depend on whether the human and material resources are available. Just pouring money on the problem will cause inflation unless it is soaked up by available resources. The problem is that the material resources are not available. As Bill Gates has pointed out in his book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, the problem cannot be solved by the renewable energy resources that are now available, namely wind and solar. Building wind turbines requires immense amounts of concrete for the bases and steel for the turbines, and the manufacture of those resources emits tons of greenhouse gasses. Manufacturing solar panels requires mining of quartz sand and coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate. This manufacturing requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels, as the Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans, has pointed out.

Solving the problem of global warming can't be undertaken by using the available resources of concrete, steel and plastic the manufacture of which emits huge amounts of greenhouse gasses. So even though the financial resources are available, the material resources are not. The human resources, however, are arguably available. Wray and Tcherneva  write in a paper How to Pay for the Green New Deal:

"In the neoliberal era, we chronically operate below full employment. That is obvious in Euroland, which is probably operating 25 percent or more below full capacity. Even the US today has substantial excess capacity, in spite of claims that we have achieved full employment. Over the past quarter century, we have had to readjust our estimate for the natural rate of unemployment—the rate below which inflation is supposed to pick up—in every recovery, because inflation never arrives as unemployment falls. Most recently, in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, economists claimed that the natural rate of unemployment had increased to over 5 percent. Yet, the unemployment rate kept coming down, while inflation never materialized. We will not know precisely where the inflation barrier is until we ramp up aggregate demand."

So given that human resources are available, it is clear that the material resources are not. Bill Gates recommends spending the money on research to develop new non-greenhouse emitting substitutes for steel, concrete and plastic. That would require high level scientists who might be less available than low level workers. Assuming a full court press requiring large numbers of university and scientific human power, this project is probably feasible although it would not require trillions of dollars of financial resources at least in the initial phases. Later development would require more and finally building out renewable energy resources using these newly developed materials would require more money. So the problem is not that finance is not available. The problem is dispensing it in appropriate amounts over time. There is one promising energy source that would not require such a huge investment in research and development because that has largely been done and that is what we might call digital nuclear. Bill Gates has invested in a company called TerraPower which claims:

"With the growing demand for electricity, TerraPower entered the nuclear energy arena to lift billions out of poverty. Advanced reactors and other isotopic applications are possible with technology and enhanced computing capabilities that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. At TerraPower, we are ready to build the clean energy of tomorrow – today. TerraPower leads in advanced nuclear energy because it has spent the last decade investing in innovative technologies to solve some of the biggest challenges facing humanity."

Two things are clear. Much work has already been done on an advanced nuclear reactor that solves the problems of dangerous explosions such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima and also the problem of spent fuel radioactive storage. Using high level computing power and advanced digital technology which wasn't available to previous generations of nuclear reactors, Gates maintains that a safe design for nuclear power generation is close to being available. Considering the problems with solar, wind and biofuels which have a longer time horizon before being solved, it seems that nuclear is further along in its development phase and also has greater potential for being a carbon free source of energy. “Nuclear has actually been safer than any other source of [power] generation,” Gates told [CNBC's Andrew] Sorkin. “You know, coal plants, coal particulate, natural gas pipelines blowing up. The deaths per unit of power on these other approaches are — are far higher,” Gates said, a fact he also references in his new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”

In their section, “COSTING” THE GREEN NEW DEAL," Wray and Tcherneva write:

"Milton Ezrati, writing for Forbes, offers his own estimates for the various components of the GND, citing different sources (Ezrati 2019). Here we only use his estimates for “greening” projects. Based on estimates by physicist Christopher Clark, the cost of expanding renewable energy to 100 percent would be $2 trillion over 10 years. The smart power grid would cost an additional $400 billion over 10 years (estimate from the Electric Power Institute).13 Upgrading and retrofitting buildings would cost between $2.5 trillion and $3.9 trillion ($3.2 trillion midpoint estimate) over 10 years. The total cost of greening projects comes to $5.6 trillion over 10 years ($560 billion per year, or 2.87 percent of 2017 GDP)."

This is only one of the costing estimates that Wray and Tcherneva provide, but these costing estimates need to be further examined in terms of how much fossil fuels are necessary to build them out and manufacture them. Materials that require large amounts of carbon dioxide emission for their manufacture must be rejected. In the final analysis the Job Guarantee (JG) that Wray and Tcherneva advocate is partially limited to "what Tcherneva calls “care for community” and “care for people” projects: service projects related to senior and youth care, teacher’s helpers, neighborhood and park cleanup, artistic projects, and so on. Thus, the JG program can provide resources needed for green projects in an amount equal to 1 percent of GDP (and resources equal to another 1 percent of GDP for other care services). These would largely be in upgrading buildings and homes to improve energy efficiency, although some could be used in nontechnical maintenance of energy projects (landscape maintenance, for example)." So the mix of high level workers like scientists could be combined with a significant number of low level workers to provide a comprehensive approach."

The bottom line is that we had better get cracking, financing a Green New Deal is no problem because as Modern Monetary Theory has shown, the money is available, but resources must be carefully allocated to avoid the pitfalls of inflation and making the problem worse by using large amounts of traditional materials like concrete, steel and plastics. Nuclear is probably the best bet for power generation and it must be deployed quickly especially in India and China where coal fired power generating plants are still being deployed at a rapid rate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwbDETx3zo0

 

Urging Senate to 'Ignore the Parliamentarian,' Sanders to Force Vote on $15 Minimum Wage Amendment

Published on Tuesday, March 02, 2021

by Common Dreams

"I regard it as absurd that the parliamentarian, a Senate staffer elected by no one, can prevent a wage increase for 32 million workers."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

141 Comments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, arrives at a hearing on Capitol Hill on February 25, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Stefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

Calling on the Senate Democratic majority to disregard the advice of the unelected parliamentarian, Sen. Bernie Sanders late Monday announced he will force a vote this week on an amendment to include a $15 minimum wage provision in the pending $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.

"At a time when millions of workers are earning starvation wages, when the minimum wage has not been raised by Congress since 2007 and stands at a pathetic $7.25 an hour, it is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a statement.

"The Senate should ignore the parliamentarian's advice, which is wrong in a number of respects."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

The Vermont senator's announcement came as the White House and Senate Democrats signaled a retreat from the effort to include a minimum wage increase in the coronavirus relief package after the parliamentarian advised last week that the measure would run afoul of the Byrd Rule, which requires provisions of reconciliation bills to have a direct—not "merely incidental"—impact on the federal budget.

Citing two anonymous Democratic aides, the Washington Post reported Monday that "Senate Democrats will move forward with a version of the relief bill that does not attempt to raise the minimum wage." Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a floor speech Monday that the chamber will begin voting on the sprawling relief package this week, with an initial procedural vote expected as early as Wednesday.

In his statement Monday night, Sanders said he was "extremely disappointed by the decision of the parliamentarian, who ruled that the minimum wage provision was inconsistent with the Byrd Rule and the reconciliation process."

Echoing the calls of progressive House Democrats and dozens of grassroots advocacy groups representing millions of people across the U.S., Sanders said his "own personal view is that the Senate should ignore the parliamentarian's advice, which is wrong in a number of respects."

"I am not sure, however, that my view at this point is the majority view in the Democratic caucus," the Vermont senator added, alluding to opposition from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). "Obviously, as soon as we can, we must end the filibuster that currently exists in the U.S. Senate. Given the enormous crises facing working families today, we cannot allow a minority of the Senate to obstruct what the vast majority of the American people want and need."

Progressives in recent days have pushed Vice President Kamala Harris to overrule the parliamentarian's advice, which she has the constitutional authority to do. Should the vice president opt to use that authority, it would take 60 votes in the Senate to overrule her.

 

But White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was adamant during a Monday briefing that Harris will not attempt to overrule the parliamentarian, the official tasked with interpreting Senate rules.

Asked by NBC News reporter Geoff Bennett why the White House appears to be fighting harder to salvage the collapsing nomination of budget office pick Neera Tanden than to keep the minimum wage increase in the coronavirus relief package, Psaki accused Bennett of "mixing a few things kind of irresponsibly."

Sanders made clear Monday that he will continue pushing to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour if his coronavirus relief amendment fails to pass this week.

Following the parliamentarian's advisory ruling against the proposed pay raise last week, Sanders and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) began crafting a backup plan that would impose tax penalties on large corporations that don't pay their employees $15 an hour. But Sanders and Wyden reportedly dropped the plan after it became clear that the measure would be too difficult to implement and that there wouldn't be sufficient support to include it in the emerging Covid-19 relief package.

Speaking to the press about his new $15 minimum wage amendment, Sanders said Monday that "there will be a roll call vote, and we'll see who votes for it and doesn't."

"I would suggest that those who vote against it from a political point of view, that's a mistake. The American people want to see that minimum wage raised," Sanders continued. "Let me be very clear—if we fail in this legislation, I will be back."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Democrats Should Get Rid of the Filibuster No Matter What They Have to Promise Joe Manchin

by John Lawrence, March3, 2021

They have nothing to lose by ending the filibuster and much to gain. Democrats are the party of getting stuff done, stuff that the country and the world needs. On the other hand Republicans are the party of No. With the filibuster in effect they will say no to everything. There is much that needs to get done that will go undone if the filibuster remains in effect. Democrats have nothing to lose, but they need the votes of every Democrat in the Senate including Joe Manchin who has said he's against ending the filibuster. What would Republican do if they were in power without the filibuster? Not much more than they have already done with the filibuster - give tax breaks to the rich which they can do with the budget reconciliation process which effectively nullifies the filibuster for budget related legislation. So Democrats don't have much to fear if Republicans regain control without the filibuster. But the Biden administration needs to do much more than budget related stuff. For example, a national voting rights act which clarifies on a national level voting procedures. Right now each state is rolling back voting procedures in an attempt to massively suppress poor and black and brown voters.

Also the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the $15 an hour minimum wage increase cannot be part of the $1.9 trillion COVID relief act. She could be overruled by the President of the Senate, Kamala Harris, but this close to the beginning of his administration Biden doesn't want to do anything that radical. However, he has a deadline and that is 2022 when, if history is any guide, Republicans could regain control of one or both Houses of Congress. If that is the case, Biden will be neutered until his term is up in 2024 and will probably not be reelected after Republicans get done harping on him for 2 years that he has got nothing done (thanks to them). Unlike China which has continuity over 5 to 10 years in its policies, the US is in a situation now where it could likely swerve back and forth from left to right every 4 years. That does not lead to much admiration and respect from the other countries of the world which are already doubting how much they should trust and emulate America.

Trump undid as much as he could of what Obama had done by executive order, and now Biden has undid everything that Trump did also by executive order. Trump may have been an anomaly so that from now on good, consistent and stable leadership will prevail. But there is not much reason to believe in this happy scenario. Trump voters seem to be as hostile to the vision of Democrats as Democrats are hostile to the vision of Trump supporters. The two parties are at loggerheads. Will we swerve from belief in the necessity of doing something about global warming to denying global warming exists every four years? Will we go from extolling the benefits of fossil fuels to trying to get rid of fossil fuels every four years. Will we go from concern about the environment to allowing corporations to despoil the environment with impunity every four years? Will we go from tax breaks for the rich to government programs to support the poor every four years?

I'm thinking that, once Biden realizes that Republicans will not support his agenda on anything, he may support removal of the filibuster in 2022 before the next election so that he can force through all the legislation on his list that can't be passed by budget reconciliation. He'll have to buy off Joe Manchin somehow. His vaunted style of "working across the aisle" has been shown to be ineffectual even in his own eyes. That's the painful lesson he learned during the Obama administration when Republicans stalled and slow walked Obama for eight years, and, while they were doing it, they were at the same time putting Obama down for not getting anything done when they were not outright demonizing him. They will attempt the same thing with Biden, but I think Biden has learned his lesson. He will keep up the facade of wanting to work with Republicans, but he won't compromise in any significant way just to be a nice guy and get their support. The Republicans will not cooperate on anything unless they can diminish it and water it down. Obama thought he had to do just that. Biden has lost his naivete.

The Only Way Democrats Will Get Anything Done

by Robert Reich

Saturday, February 27, 2021

Mitch McConnell may no longer be Senate Majority Leader, but Republicans can still block legislation supported by the vast majority. That’s because of a Senate rule called the filibuster. If we have any hope of safeguarding our democracy and ushering in transformative change, Democrats must wield their power to get rid of the filibuster – and fast.

The filibuster is a Senate rule requiring a 60-vote supermajority to pass legislation. Which means a minority of senators can often block legislation that the vast majority of Americans want and need. 

It’s not in the Constitution. In fact, it’s arguably unconstitutional. Alexander Hamilton regarded a supermajority rule as “a poison” that would lead to “contemptible compromises of the public good.” 

Even without the filibuster, Senate Republicans already have outsized influence. The 50 of them represent 41 and a half million fewer Americans than the 50 Senate Democrats. Wyoming, with 579,000 people gets two senators. California, with 40 million also gets two senators. 

Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states are gearing up to pass even more restrictive voting laws along with additional partisan gerrymandering that could enable Republicans in Washington to maintain power for the next decade. 

The best way to prevent this is with national election standards through the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act – but these important bills are stymied as long as the filibuster remains in place.

The filibuster is rooted in racism. In the late 19th century, Southern senators crafted the “talking filibuster” – in which a member could delay the passage of a bill with a long-winded speech – in order to protect the pro-slavery Senate minority. 

The current version of the filibuster, requiring 60 votes to end debate, was popularized in the Jim Crow era by Southern senators seeking to prevent passage of civil rights legislation. From the end of Reconstruction to 1964, the filibuster was used only to kill civil rights bills.

Senators can now use a process called “reconciliation” to pass legislation on budgetary matters, requiring a bare majority of 51 votes. But the filibuster can still stop bills on voting rights, the climate crisis, campaign finance reform, and other crucial legislation Americans need – and on which Joe Biden has based much of his presidency.

Getting rid of the filibuster is also good politics. As long as the filibuster is intact, Senate Republicans could keep the Senate in gridlock, and then run in the 2022 midterms on Democrats’ failure to get anything done. 

The good news is the filibuster is a Senate rule. As I said, it’s not in the Constitution. It’s not even in a law. Like any other Senate rule it can be changed by a simple majority of senators. 

With Vice President Kamala Harris now serving as the tie-breaking vote, Senate Democrats can and must abolish the filibuster. 

There are a few conservative Senate Democrats who don’t like the idea, but Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer can get them to fall in line. That’s what leadership is all about. They must end the filibuster and get America moving. Now. 

Progressives to VP Kamala Harris: 'This Is Not a Difficult Decision. Use Your Power. Keep $15 In.'

Published on Friday, February 26, 2021

by Common Dreams

"A $15 federal minimum wage is now in the hands of Kamala Harris. There is a path to get it done. Refusing to step up will be seen as a huge failure."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

83 Comments

President Joe Biden listens as Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the Pentagon on February 10, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Brandon/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

The attention of the Fight for $15 movement and its allies turned to Vice President Kamala Harris Thursday night after the Senate parliamentarian opined—erroneously, according to progressives—that a wage hike proposed as part of the emerging coronavirus relief package runs afoul of budget reconciliation rules and should be removed from the aid legislation.

While the parliamentarian's advice is typically honored on Capitol Hill, progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups emphasized that the unelected official's opinion is not binding and that Harris, as presiding officer of the Senate, has the constitutional authority to ignore the recommendation.

"If Vice President Kamala Harris decides to use her constitutional power to disregard the decision of the parliamentarian and tell the clerk to call the roll for the vote, the only way her decision could be overruled is with 60 votes," Morris Pearl, chair of advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement Thursday night.

"Because there is no possibility of 10 Democrats breaking ranks, if the vice president of the United States decides to use the power that is granted to her in the Constitution, every lawmaker in America would then have to publicly vote to either support working people or continue to exploit human beings for profit," said Pearl. "This is not a difficult decision. Use your power. Keep $15 in."

Should Harris opt to exercise her authority to keep the pay hike in the coronavirus relief bill, the two Democratic lawmakers who have publicly opposed the $15 minimum wage provision—Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.)—would face a choice: Either abandon their opposition to the popular wage proposal, or vote to sink the entire $1.9 trillion aid package over its inclusion.

Though Harris herself has not spoken publicly about the parliamentarian's decision or what she intends to do in response, the Biden White House has thus far signaled that she would not be willing to disregard the official's recommendation, which accepts Republican arguments that the proposed wage increase would not have a sufficient budgetary impact to comply with Senate rules.

In an interview Wednesday ahead of the parliamentarian's decision, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain said that Harris would "certainly" not override the advice, adding, "We're going to honor the rules of the Senate and work within that system to get this bill passed."

But Klain's suggestion that disregarding the parliamentarian's opinion would somehow be inconsistent with Senate rules was swiftly refuted by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who pointed out that "there is no provision in the Constitution that says that the Senate parliamentarian has any power."

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) added late Thursday that "people don't care about listening to the parliamentarian."

"People care about getting the relief they need," Bush tweeted. "Do what it takes to raise the minimum wage to at least $15."

Bolstering the progressive case for Harris to step in and prevent an unelected official from quashing a popular and much-needed wage increase, a confidential memo circulating on Capitol Hill and obtained by The Daily Poster details precisely how Harris and Senate Democrats could team up to overrule the parliamentarian's decision and keep the pay raise in the relief package.

"It would take 60 votes to overturn the ruling of the chair [Harris] on a Byrd Rule point of order, regardless of what the parliamentarian advises," reads the memo obtained by The Daily Poster. "What would probably happen is a senator would appeal the ruling of the chair and then the full Senate would vote on whether to sustain the appeal."

"The chair's ruling would be upheld as long as there are not 60 affirmative votes to sustain the appeal," the memo continues. "So, if the majority could hold enough members together (less than 60 affirmative votes to sustain the appeal), the ruling that runs counter to the parliamentarian's advice would be upheld."

As progressive advocacy group RootsAction put it Thursday night, "A $15 federal minimum wage is now in the hands of Kamala Harris."

"There is a path to get it done," the group said. "Refusing to step up will be seen as a huge failure."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Bill Gates Needs to Get Up To Speed on Modern Monetary Theory

by John Lawrence, February, 28, 2021

Bill Gates is a smart guy. He has singlehandedly been the most influential person on pandemics and now on climate change with his book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In this book the most important thing he points out in my opinion is that it is not enough to put electric cars on the road and to use renewables to power electricity generating plants. There is also much carbon dioxide emission coming from manufacturing and agriculture. In particular the manufacture of cement, steel and plastic produce as much or more carbon dioxide ton for ton as those products themselves. In addition beef and dairy cows produce a lot of methane due to the fact that they are ruminants with a certain kind of digestive system. Gates believes that much innovation, research and development is needed to come up with substitute products in all these areas as well as electrifying everything and running it all with renewables including a new digitized nuclear system.

The one thing that this polymath doesn't seem up to speed on is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) which is important because all this innovation, research and development requires vast amounts of money. He personally can't provide it all although he has used his fortune in very constructive ways in terms of health care around the world and also seeding promising startups. The Gates Foundation is concerned with all these problems on a world wide basis and not only in the US. He is a globalist and not an America First type of guy which is altogether appropriate because pandemics and particularly global warming are universal problems affecting every country and all people on earth, and their solutions require a world wide approach.

Bill Gates like some economists is somewhat concerned about inflation after all these trillions of dollars are spent by the US government first on COVID relief and then on infrastructure and a Green New Deal. If they study MMT they would know that MMT shares that concern, but addresses it in terms of the amount of idle resources there are in the economy. For instance, if there is 5% unemployment (what is considered full employment by conventional economists), there are still over 15 million people available for work. If there are material resources available such as cement, steel and glass, the price of these items is not likely to be bid up causing inflation. However, while some material resources are readily available, their substitutes which don't cause carbon dioxide emissions in the manufacturing process are not. A large infrastructure project which requires huge amounts of concrete with rebar such as is necessary in constructing a bridge, for example, will also cause large amounts of carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere. As Gates points out, making things which require cement, steel and plastic adds about 31% of the total of greenhouse gasses which are emitted annually. For every ton of steel produced we emit 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide. For every ton of plastic, the figure is 1.3 tons of carbon dioxide, and for every ton of cement, we emit a ton of carbon dioxide.

With figures like that how is the US going to do a $4 trillion (which is the amount our infrastructure is in deficit) infrastructure project without producing even more billions of tons of greenhouse gasses (GHGs)? We need huge R&D projects funded by the government first before we can scale up the production of carbon free products which replace these traditional construction materials. Financing the R&D is not a problem as these human resources are widely considered to be available. This would cause no inflation. Getting the material resources when little or none of them is available would cause inflation. Nevertheless, the US ramped up production of ships and airplanes for World War II without causing much inflation. To deal with global warming or climate change is a thornier problem. If money is just poured into the economy on a non-targeted basis, it will cause inflation so it makes sense at least initially to pour the money into R&D as Bill Gates suggests. Doing a large infrastructure project without using the proper materials could make global warming even worse.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Are Restricting Voting Laws

by John Lawrence, February27, 2021

Republicans know that, if all eligible voters actually vote, they will lose. So they are busy at work at the state level to enact more restrictive voting laws making it as difficult as possible for people to vote. This will primarily affect Democratic voters, and they know that. They have been using voter suppression techniques ever since black people won the right to vote. They know that making voting easier will encourage more Democratic voters because many of them can't take a day off to go to the polls. So mail-in voting which was facilitated in many states because of the pandemic worked to their disadvantage. They are hurrying to correct that. Since Republicans control many state legislatures which set the voting rules, they are having a field day changing the laws so that they don't suffer any more humiliating defeats.

So Joe Biden needs to make the best of the two years he has during which Democrats control both Houses of Congress. Assuming that a Republican will be elected President in 2024, the nation will swerve to the right and disassemble all the Executive orders Biden has put in place. As a result of this division America will be seen, if it's not seen that way already, as unstable and inconsistent. World leaders will increasingly turn towards China for leadership because what China values most in consistency and stability. The US can't decide whether it wants to be a democracy or a republic. Democrats want a democracy in which it would seem appropriate that every citizen over the age of 18 should cast a vote. This should be made as easy and accessible as possible. Republicans, on the other hand, want a republic in which the levers of power are controlled by white Americans of European descant like they always have been and which the time honored methods of voter suppression of minorities and poor people remain fully in effect.

Paul Weyrich was an American conservative political activist and commentator, most notable for co-founding the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, both conservative think tanks.He famously said: "So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Quite a revealing quote. He identifies with "Christians" but chastens them that they shouldn't want everyone to vote. The question I ask is 'what would Jesus say?' Would Jesus want everyone to vote or not? Probably Jesus would be in favor of democracy as compared with a conservative minority that wants everything kept the way it has always been "from the beginning of our country." It makes me doubt the validity of the Christian religion as practiced by the "moral majority" of right wing Christians in this country. Jesus was for the poor and disenfranchised. They're not.

America can not remain a great country on the world stage if it swerves back and forth every two years between Democrats who genuinely want to make America and the world a better place and "America First" Republicans who don't give a hoot about the rest of the world except to dominate it with an outsized military establishment. The US is veering on the edge of autocracy if 74 million voters want Trump as their President in 2024 and Republicans are successful in suppressing 7 million voters because that was the margin between Biden and Trump. Trump did considerable damage not only to the US reputation vis a vis the rest of the world, but also within the US itself. It is a question of whether the US is a fact based country run by intelligent people or a no nothing country based on lies and conspiracy theories while the rich steal everything in sight and Republicans give their hoi polloi supporters political entertainment to keep their anger stoked. The rest of the world has looked to America as the Rock of Gibralter in the past because of its consistency and stability and its promotion of human rights (except the human rights having to do with economic rights). They may be looking now towards China for stability and consistency and be more concerned about intelligent leadership and economic human rights, especially if they observe that America's touting of human rights eliminates those of black people.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Throw Republicans for a Loop: Biden Should Propose Tax Breaks for the Middle Class and Tax Increases for the Rich

by John Lawrence, February 25, 2021

The proper use of taxation is to reduce income and wealth inequality. Instead Republicans use tax breaks to primarily benefit the rich. Democrats should modify this playbook. The increasing income and wealth inequality among American citizens cries out for redress. Robin Hood needs to come out and play. There's no law that says tax breaks have to go primarily to the wealthy or be based on some proportionate percentage over all incomes. Democrats should get into the tax break game too. We know that taxes aren't necessary to fund the government. Sure they're part of it, but the government can spend whatever Congress authorizes regardless of whether or not there is money from taxes to pay for it. The shortfall is made up with Treasury bonds most of which end up on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve just like the Fed used Quantitative Easing (QE), a fancy name that signified that the Fed issued trillions of dollars to bail out the Wall Street banks in 2008. In that case the Fed took MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities), most of which were worthless onto its balance sheet as "collateral." The Fed can lend money to any entity it likes as long as it takes collateral onto its balance sheet. Much of this collateral is worthless such as defunct MBSs and even old bicycles!

In the article, "Modern Monetary Theory and the Changing Role of Tax in Society," by Andrew Baker and Richard Murphy, published online by Cambridge University Press we find the following:

"Tax is traditionally viewed as the main funding mechanism for government spending. Consequently, social policy is often seen as something determined and constrained by tax revenue. Modern Monetary Theory (‘MMT’) presents a reversal of the tax-spend cycle, by identifying a spend-tax cycle. Using the UK as an example, we highlight that one of MMT’s most important, but under-explored, contributions is its potential to re-frame the role of tax from both a macroeconomic and social policy perspective. We use insights on the money removal, or cancellation function of taxes, derived from MMT, to demonstrate how this also creates possibilities for using tax to achieve social objectives such as mitigating income and wealth inequality, increasing access to housing, or funding a Green New Deal. For social policy researchers the challenge arising is to use these insights to re-engineer tax systems and redesign social tax expenditures (STEs) for creative social policy purposes."

MMT is a game changer. Conventional thinking is that government can only spend money collected from taxes. But that is not how the system really works. As a sovereign currency, the Fed can just create US dollars with a few keystrokes on a computer. The budget deficit and national debt just become accounting entries on the Fed's balance sheet. We are not mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future. This is money that never needs to be paid back, that our children never need to pay back. China is not holding this debt over our heads; China could be paid back tomorrow if need be. The US government operates on a different set of principles than the US states, European countries in the Euro zone, and households. All these entities do need to pay back loans. The US government does not because it can just create or issue the money which is how the Fed operates on a daily basis. Even local banks create money when a loan is taken out without the need for deposits. They just have to have collateral - usually 10% of deposits - in their reserve account at the Fed. So money can just be created by the Federal Reserve, but, obviously, it does not do so willy nilly. Like alcohol, this facility must be used responsibly. So that is what the debate should be about, not the size of the deficit or the national debt.

The national debt was a problem when the US dollar was on a gold standard. The US promised to redeem dollars - paper currency - for gold up until 1971. Obviously, there was not enough gold if, all of a sudden, China, let's say, wanted to take all its US dollars and demand gold at $35 an ounce. But in 1971 President Nixon took the US off the gold standard. He said the US would forevermore not redeem US currency for gold. At that point the US dollar became a "fiat" currency. That means that a dollar was worth a dollar just because the US government said it was. The US dollar did not become immediately worthless. People continued to use it, and it continued to retain its value vis a vis other currencies. In fact it's the world's reserve currency as Nixon made a deal with the Saudis only to accept payment for oil in US dollars. That alone meant that the other countries of the world needed US dollars if for no other reason than to buy oil. As a matter of fact today most business dealings of foreign countries are settled in US dollars. So the US dollar has a bright future at least for now.

The conclusion is that US households, businesses, US states and European nations that use the Euro need to pay back loans when they borrow money. A nation with a sovereign currency such as the US, the UK, Japan, China and others creates its money when its central bank issues it by means of keystrokes. No one can demand repayment or exchange of dollars for gold or anything else. If China wants to be paid back for the Treasury bonds it holds, the money in its Treasuries (savings) account at the Fed will be debited and credited to its checking account at the Fed. It's as simple as that. That money can be exchanged for Chinese currency on the open market at the prevailing exchange rate. But probably the Chinese would want to keep much of their financial assets in dollars rather than renminbi since their currency is pegged to the dollar and many of their business dealings are settled in dollars.

Off the Top of My Head

Beyond Meat and Cow Farts

by John Lawrence, February 24, 2021

About 19% of the 51 billion tons of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere each year comes from agriculture. There are roughly a billion cattle in the world raised for both meat and dairy. The 2 billion tons of GHGs they burp and fart account for 4 percent of global emissions each year. Also pig poop accounts for half of all poop related emissions with cows making up the other half. Industrial cow and pig farms create ponds full of poop which then sometimes break through to streams and rivers. In an article, "A million tons of feces and an unbearable stench: life near industrial pig farms", we find the following:

"Fifty yards from Miller’s family graveyard is a massive open-air cesspool storing the pigs’ waste – a stagnant pool containing their feces, urine, blood and other bodily fluids – often referred to as a “lagoon”, one of about 3,300 lagoons across the state. When the cesspool reaches its capacity, its contents are liquefied and sprayed into a field across the street from Miller’s house via a large, sprinkler-like apparatus. The sprayer releases a mist of waste on to the field, which, according to court documents, is about 200ft from Miller’s home at its closest rotation."

In addition to the environmental, health and stench problems, pig shit lagoons are contributing major amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. “Air pollutants from the routine operation of confinement houses, cesspools, and waste sprayers affect nearby neighborhoods where they cause disruption of activities of daily living, stress, anxiety, mucous membrane irritation, respiratory conditions, reduced lung function, and acute blood pressure elevation,” Wing and fellow UNC researcher Jill Johnston wrote in a 2014 study. They also found that the state’s industrial hog operations disproportionately affect African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. That pattern, they concluded, “is generally recognized as environmental racism”.

The Guardian article continued: "North Carolina’s pork production industry has shifted dramatically since the mid-80s. Today’s industrial farms, often called concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, raise pigs and other livestock in confinement until they are ready for slaughter. The hogs generally live in cramped quarters; Michelle B Nowlin, supervising attorney of Duke’s Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, estimates they typically get seven or eight square feet of space each." Chickens and cattle suffer the same fate of having to spend their meager existence in CAFOs.

As more people world wide become middle class, they want to eat more meat. This is not only a problem for the animals who suffer the most, but it is a problem for the GHGs that animal agriculture causes that contribute to global warming. But the nutritional aspects of eating animals are equally inefficient. A pig eats 3 times as many calories as we get when we eat it. Cows require six calories of feed for every calorie of beef that we eat. In China and other developing countries meat eating is becoming much more popular because of a growing and more affluent middle class.

There are several alternatives already on the market: plant based hamburgers called Beyond Meat and Impossible Burgers. These burgers are a pretty good approximation of the real thing, but there are even more products being developed that don't only mimic the taste of meat. They actually are meat except they are created without having to pass calories through a cow and then slaughtering the cow. They use the same metabolic processes that a cow does to deposit meat on its bones. This meat though is created in a lab and is already on the market in Singapore according to The Guardian:

"Cultured meat, produced in bioreactors without the slaughter of an animal, has been approved for sale by a regulatory authority for the first time. The development has been hailed as a landmark moment across the meat industry.

"The “chicken bites”, produced by the US company Eat Just, have passed a safety review by the Singapore Food Agency and the approval could open the door to a future when all meat is produced without the killing of livestock, the company said.

"Dozens of firms are developing cultivated chicken, beef and pork, with a view to slashing the impact of industrial livestock production on the climate and nature crises, as well as providing cleaner, drug-free and cruelty-free meat. Currently, about 130 million chickens are slaughtered every day for meat, and 4 million pigs. By weight, 60% of the mammals on earth are livestock, 36% are humans and only 4% are wild."

If the world's consumption of meat can be converted to lab grown meat that looks, taste, and feels like the real thing, then we can eliminate the whole process of passing calories through a cow or pig or chicken first and still get the same end result. That alone will save about 10 billion tons of GHGs per year.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Should Blue Collar Workers Have to Pay Taxes to Bail Out White Collar Student Loan Debt?

by John Lawrence

Short answer: There is no need for the Federal government to tax in order to spend. That has been demonstrated by Modern Monetary Theory. However, taxation, if imposed in order to fight inflation, needs to be imposed primarily on the rich and upper middle class, not on the poor or lower middle class. The smart thing for the Biden administration to do would be to decrease taxes on the lower middle class ^i.e. blue collar workers before 2022 thus drawing them away from the Trump camp. In general the American people need to be educated that deficits don't matter except just as accounting entries on the Fed's balance sheet. Biden's COVID relief initiative of $1.9 billion will not raise taxes nor will his follow-on trillion dollar initiative for the build-out of green infrastructure.

The question, "Can We Afford to Pay for the Green New Deal?" is equivalent to the question "Can We Afford to Pay the Costs of Avoiding Annihilation?". In the past we have been able to afford a massive build-up to pay for the Second World War. The climate challenge is the moral equivalent of war. If we lose this war we lose not just our freedom. We lose the habitability of the entire planet. Various attempts have been made to cost out the components of a Green New Deal. Green power generation and transportation are not sufficient in themselves to get to net zero carbon emission, but they are a start. As Bill Gates has pointed out in his recent book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, major industrial processes also generate much greenhouse gas emission. For instance, every ton of cement that is produced contributes one ton of carbon dioxide which goes into the atmosphere. Every ton of steel produced results in 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, and every ton of plastics produced emits 1.3 tons of carbon dioxide. So it's not enough just to deal with green transportation (electric vehicles) and green power generation (solar and wind).

The cost of "greening" these industrial processes is pretty steep. Capturing carbon dioxide at the site of the manufacturing process is possible, but there is no cheap way to do it. Bill Gates is investing in promising start-ups and is counting on innovation to come up with new processes and materials which will not result in so much carbon dioxide being released into the air. Gates points out that we need to electrify every possible manufacturing process and make sure that all that electricity is generated cleanly. He advocates a new generation of nuclear power sources as wind and solar can not possible fill every energy need mainly because they are intermittent. Nuclear can fill the gap for consistent power generation when solar and/or wind are offline. Smart nuclear power which Bill Gates has been instrumental in developing would solve the problems encountered so far of explosion and what to do with nuclear waste. As a last resort Direct Air Capture of carbon dioxide from the air is possible but also costly.

What it all boils down to is this: we will need on the order of a trillion dollars a year for 10 years commitment to address climate change if we have a prayer for avoiding the worst consequences. What's more a lot of this commitment must be made in cooperation with China which is one of the worst polluters. Rivalry and even a Cold War must be set aside if the world is to avoid the worst outcome from global warming. India and China are building coal fired power generation plants at a rapid pace because coal fired power plants are so cheap comparatively and those countries are developing so quickly. It's not enough just to "green" the US. It has to be cooperation on a world wide basis. Competition has to be set aside and replaced by cooperation. The ownership of intellectual property is irrelevant when it comes to saving the planet.

A national budget for a Green New Deal shouldn't contribute to inflation since there are currently so many unemployed people available for work, and particularly because so many of the small businesses that were lost during the pandemic are not coming back. Also further robotizing of manufacturing processes will eliminate whatever blue collar workers are left working in those fields. In World War II there was some postponement of consumption in order to fight inflation. That may be necessary for the moral equivalent of war which the Green New Deal represents. If so, workers in certain nonessential industries may have to be repurposed and retrained for industries involved in combating climate change.

'Words Are Not Enough': Biden Pushed to Take Bold Climate Action as US Returns to Paris Agreement

Published on Friday, February 19, 2021

by Common Dreams

"The livelihoods and dignity of billions of people who didn't create the climate crisis require that the Biden administration takes immediate and far-reaching climate action driven by justice, equity, and science."

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

29 Comments

Activists demanding climate and racial justice marched in New York City on September 20, 2020. (Photo: Steve Sanchez/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

While Democrats and scientists across the United States applauded the Biden administration for officially rejoining the Paris climate agreement on Friday and figures from around the world said "welcome back America," climate campaigners and experts emphasized that the nation now needs to take bold, immediate action.

As the advocacy group Public Citizen put it: "We have a tremendous amount of catching up to do."

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden delivered on his campaign promise to begin the process of returning to the deal—ditched by his predecessor the day after the November presidential election—which aims to limit global temperature rise this century to "well below" 2°C, and preferably 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels.

"We can no longer delay or do the bare minimum to address climate change. This is a global, existential crisis, and we'll all suffer—we'll all suffer the consequences if we fail," Biden declared Friday, addressing the virtual Munich Security Conference. "We have to rapidly accelerate our commitments to aggressively curb our emissions and to hold one another accountable for meeting our goals and increasing our ambitions."

Similar messages came from key members of the Biden administration. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement that "addressing the real threats from climate change and listening to our scientists is at the center of our domestic and foreign policy priorities. It is vital in our discussions of national security, migration, international health efforts, and in our economic diplomacy and trade talks."

Climate Envoy John Kerry—who, as the country's top diplomat during the Obama administration, played a key role of making the Paris agreement a reality—called climate change "among the most complex security issues we've ever faced." Pointing to the compounding crises in Texas this week, he added that "what these extreme weather events translate to on the ground should concern every single one of us."

Advocates of ambitious climate action welcomed the comments from the president and his allies, but they also made clear that "words are not enough."

"In a climate emergency, the only thing that will do is decisive action to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction that are #FossilFuels," tweeted Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International. "Now is the time to really act."

While thanking Biden for keeping his promise, Andrea McGimsey, senior director for Environment America's Global Warming Solutions campaign, said Friday that "as pleased as we are with our return to the Paris agreement, it must only be a start."

"From getting more electric buses on the road to installing more charging stations in our national parks, so much can and must be done," she continued. "We'll also need to electrify our buildings and all of our appliances, and power them with clean renewable energy. And it's time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels with Americans' tax dollars."

"Extreme weather continues to hammer communities across the country," added McGimsey, as Texans endured power, food, and water problems due to a winter storm. "It's clear that to protect our families' health and well-being today—and to achieve a stable climate for our children and grandchildren—we need to lean in now to meet the commitments of the Paris agreement and go far further."

Leading up to Friday, tens of thousands of people and scores of advocacy organizations backed a demand that the Biden administration commit the United States to doing its "fair share" to combat the climate crisis—both in terms of reducing emissions at home and helping developing countries reach their goals.

That call and the U.S. return to the agreement follow a study released last week which warned that countries' Paris pledges to cut emissions—called nationally determined contributions (NDCs)—should increase by 80% to meet even the deal's dangerously inadequate 2°C target.

As Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for climate and energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote Thursday:

On April 22, Earth Day, President Biden will host a Leaders' Climate Summit, aiming to catalyze greater ambition ahead of COP26. The major emitters will be urged to raise their emissions reductions pledges for 2030 and add more detail on the domestic policies they will implement to achieve them. Developing countries—members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum—will also be there to remind the world of their dire plight and the moral imperative for richer countries to act quickly and boldly to help stave off existential threats to people and the planet.

The U.S. is expected to announce its updated NDC ahead of that summit. An ambitious U.S. NDC is the strongest signal the nation can send to show the global community that we are not just back in the Paris agreement, but in it to do our fair share. It is the single most important thing we can do to reestablish our credibility, foster trust, and catalyze greater action from other nations.

In an opinion piece for CNN on Friday, Alok Sharma, president of COP26—which was delayed until this November because of the coronavirus pandemic—celebrated the U.S. return to the Paris agreement and said, "I have been extremely encouraged by the conversations I have had with Kerry and White House National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy—both formidable allies in the fight against climate change."

Sharma also emphasized that at the summit in Scotland, world leaders must contend with the fact that "developing nations, particularly those most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, need financial support from developed countries to tackle its causes and effects—especially smaller island states like in the Pacific."

"Tackling climate change is a shared endeavor. And the clock is ticking ever closer to the point of no return," he wrote. "And so, I look forward to working as a matter of urgency with President Biden's administration and governments around the world, to deliver decisive climate action on the road to and at Glasgow. We owe that to current and future generations."

Organizers worldwide echoed that call for the Biden administration to approach the climate crisis on a global scale.

Meena Raman of Friends of the Earth Malaysia asserted that "the U.S. must not repeat its earlier bullying stance of blocking and undermining developing countries on issues such as equity between countries and the transfer of finance and technology, including for loss and damage."

"To be taken seriously, President Biden must go far beyond just rejoining the Paris agreement—he must listen and work cooperatively with developing countries in addressing the challenges they face in implementing more climate action in the face of the pandemic and growing indebtedness," said Raman. "The U.S. must be seen as a cooperative player, taking responsibility for its historical emissions and doing its fair share of action to phase out fossil fuels and increase its financial contributions."

Dipti Bhatnagar, international program coordinator for climate justice and energy with Friends of the Earth International, noted that "the United States' refusal to accept and address the high level of responsibility it bears for the climate crisis and encouragement of high-carbon lifestyles has resulted in untold suffering for women, men, and children throughout the developing world."

"Droughts are destroying crops, cyclones are leveling homes, and whole nations are literally disappearing," added Bhatnagar, who is from Mozambique. "The livelihoods and dignity of billions of people who didn't create the climate crisis require that the Biden administration takes immediate and far-reaching climate action driven by justice, equity, and science."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

The Borders of Our Perceptions

Dear friends,

When we reach the outer borders of our perceptions, we either leap into a new awareness or we spin around in the circle of repetitive experience. Eventually we will come to a stop when we must make a change. Things fall apart when they have outlived their usefulness.  In human life, that means when we are no longer learning and growing from them. Time for a leap. Not a leap of faith but a leap of consciousness. That might be the time for some “what if”” ideas.

What if I were living exactly the way I would choose? What would that be? What if I were perfectly healthy? How would that change things?  What if I never worried about money? What would I be doing? Those are personal questions that could get us started on a possible leap into more conscious living. I believe that humanity is right there on the edge as well.  We cannot continue the way we have been up until now.  What if the human race leaped out of our fear of difference?

What if we were living with one another in peace and harmony? What thoughts about people would we be having?  What decisions would we make regarding the distribution of wealth, of goods and services?  What if war were obsolete, completely out of the realm of possibility? What would our young men and women be doing instead?  What if we knew that God was in us, not outside of us?  How would we access that power? 

“What if” questions are a good way to challenge our current beliefs and to get us thinking from the potential we all possess.  The human race has only just begun, really. We haven’t been around very long in universal terms. Can we make some leaps from survival to thrival?  I think we can. What if we believed that?

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carol-carnes.com

Off the Top of My Head

Former Energy Secretary Proposes Going to Capital Markets for Money to Upgrade Energy Grid Infrastructure: Is This Wise?

by John Lawrence, February 21, 2021

Clinton's Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, proposes going to the capital markets since the government has been spending so much money on COVID relief. He suggests a public-private partnership. Evidently, Mr. Richardson, like most politicians and dignitaries, is totally ignorant of Modern Monetary Theory. The Federal Reserve can create interest free money with a few computer keystrokes while the capital markets will charge interest, and not only that. Once you enter the Wall Street casino you're subject to all the vagaries of the financial markets like securitzation, credit default obligations, interest rate swaps, betting against the success of various programs and much more. These are the kind of financial activities that caused the 2008 Great Recession and the bankruptcy of Orange County, Birmingham, Milan Italy and the misery in Greece. What's more going to the capital markets causes the same inflation risks as having the Fed create the money because inflation is caused by the amount of money sloshing around in the economy not who supplies it.

Larry Summers is worried about Biden's big spending bills causing inflation. What he doesn't get is that these bills are targeted. It's not just money pumped into the economy. The money going to states and municipalities, for example, is going to pay off debts. That holds for all the money going to families who are behind on their rents and mortgages. Paying off debts is deflationary not inflationary. Money going to unemployment insurance is just money that allows people to consume as if they had a job. That is not inflationary. Money going to businesses to prevent them from failing and putting employees back to work is not inflationary because having these businesses fail and employees without jobs is deflationary. All those flights and cruises not taken, all the money not spent going to movie theaters, all the money not spent on consumption when consumption is 70% of the economy - is deflationary. In fact there is so much deflation during a recession that that is the main worry - not inflation.

But reorienting priorities should also play a part in controlling inflation. Decreasing the trillion dollar budget of the military and military-industrial complex would help to offset inflation and pay for infrastructure repair. It would also free up the human resources needed for a build out of green infrastructure because wage inflation is caused by not enough human resources being available thus bidding up wages. The integrity of the US dollar could also be increased by eliminating sanctions on other countries. The US is using the fact of sanctioning other countries because the US dollar is the world's reserve currency causing the diminution of the use of the US currency as sanctioned countries find workarounds using other currencies. In America's Other Forever War, Peter Beinart explains that these sanctions do not accomplish anything except to hurt the people that happen to be living in the countries that are sanctioned. The chickens will come home to roost as the US dollar looses value in the international currency markets as the euro, yen and reminbi are used more for international trade. As Beinart writes, "“It is past time,” Joe Biden pledged last year, “to end the forever wars.” He’s right. But his definition of war is too narrow."

A careful analysis of Biden's spending plans  as well as reorienting current spending priorities needs to be carried out so that runaway inflation does not occur. Certainly putting people back to work is not inflationary. Federal money targeted toward paying off debts by states, municipalities and families is not inflationary. Federal money spent on infrastructure is not inflationary providing that the human and material resources are available. Since the Federal Reserve can create US dollars without the need for taxes, Modern Monetary Theory has shown and economists widely agree that the only limit on Federal so-called "deficit" spending is inflation. Stephanie Kelton has explained that Deficits Don't Matter in her book, The Deficit Myth. People like Bill Richardson and most liberal and conservative politicians need to study up on economics. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are some of the few people that already have.

Transforming to an Ecological Civilization: The Alternative Is Unthinkable

Published on Friday, February 19, 2021

by YES! Magazine

A society based on natural ecology might seem like a far-off utopia—yet communities everywhere are already creating it. We need to forge a new era for humanity—one that is defined, at its deepest level, by a transformation in the way we make sense of the world, and a concomitant revolution in our values, goals, and collective behavior.

by

Jeremy Lent

 

22 Comments

When we consider the immensity of the transformation needed, the odds of achieving an ecological civilization might seem daunting—but it’s far from impossible. (Photo by Frédéric Soltan/Corbis via Getty Images)

As a new, saner administration sets up shop in Washington, D.C., there are plenty of policy initiatives this country desperately needs. Beyond a national plan for the COVID-19 pandemic, progressives will strive to focus the administration’s attention on challenges like fixing the broken health care system, grappling with systemic racial inequities, and a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

These are all critically important issues. But here’s the rub: Even if the Democratic administration were resoundingly successful on all fronts, its initiatives would still be utterly insufficient to resolve the existential threat of climate breakdown and the devastation of our planet’s life-support systems. That’s because the multiple problems confronting us right now are symptoms of an even more profound problem: The underlying structure of a global economic and political system that is driving civilization toward a precipice.

Take a moment to peer beyond the day-to-day crises capturing our attention, and you quickly realize that the magnitude of the looming catastrophe makes our current political struggles, by comparison, look like arguing how to stack deck chairs on the Titanic.

The climate emergency we’re facing is far worse than most people realize. While it was clearly an essential step for the United States to rejoin the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, the collective pledges on greenhouse gas emissions from that agreement are woefully insufficient. They would lead to a dangerous temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius this century—and many nations are failing to make even these targets. We are rapidly approaching—if we haven’t already passed—climate tipping points with reinforcing feedback loops that would lead to an unrecognizable and terrifying world.

Even if the climate crisis were somehow brought under control, our current growth-oriented economic juggernaut will bring us face-to-face with a slew of further existential threats in future decades. As long as government policies emphasize growth in gross domestic product and transnational corporations relentlessly pursue shareholder returns, we will continue accelerating toward global catastrophe.

We’re rapidly decimating the Earth’s forests, animals, insects, fish, fresh water—even the topsoil we need to grow our crops. We’ve already transgressed four of the nine planetary boundaries that define humanity’s safe operating space, and yet global GDP is expected to triple by 2060, with potentially calamitous consequences. In 2017, more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued an ominous warning to humanity that time is running out: “Soon it will be too late,” they wrote, “to shift course away from our failing trajectory.”

We need to forge a new era for humanity—one that is defined, at its deepest level, by a transformation in the way we make sense of the world, and a concomitant revolution in our values, goals, and collective behavior. In short, we need to change the basis of our global civilization. We must move from a civilization based on wealth accumulation to one that is life-affirming: an ecological civilization.

A Life-Affirming Civilization

Without human disruption, ecosystems can thrive in rich abundance for millions of years, remaining resilient in the face of adversity. Clearly, there is much to learn from nature’s wisdom about how to organize ourselves. Can we do so before it’s too late?

Changing our civilization’s operating system to one that naturally leads to life-affirming policies and practices rather than rampant extraction and devastation.

 

This is the fundamental idea underlying an ecological civilization: using nature’s own design principles to reimagine the basis of our civilization. Changing our civilization’s operating system to one that naturally leads to life-affirming policies and practices rather than rampant extraction and devastation.

An ecological civilization is both a new and ancient idea. While the notion of structuring human society on an ecological basis might seem radical, Indigenous peoples around the world have organized themselves from time immemorial on life-affirming principles. When Lakota communities, on the land that is now the U.S., invoke Mitakuye Oyasin (“We are all related”) in ceremony, they are referring not just to themselves but to all sentient beings. Buddhist, Taoist, and other philosophical and religious traditions have based much of their spiritual wisdom on the recognition of the deep interconnectedness of all things. And in modern times, a common thread linking progressive movements around the world is the commitment to a society that works for the flourishing of life, rather than against it.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Pay for a Green New Deal

by John Lawrence

In 1940 British economist J. M. Keynes’s book, How to Pay for the War: A Radical Plan for the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the economic guidance for financing the Second World War. Following Keynes, massive financial resources were devoted to the war resulting in full employment without inflation. There is a model here that can be used for the Green New Deal (GND) which is the Moral Equivalent Of War (MEOW). Bill Gates and J.D. Alt have put an upper bound of $5 trillion a year, but closer and more exacting estimates have put it at $1 trillion a year for 10 years. Yeva Nersisyan and L. Randall Wray write: "Instead of simply adding up estimates of the government spending that would be required, we assess resource availability that can be devoted to implementing GND projects. This includes mobilizing unutilized and underutilized resources, as well as shifting resources from current destructive and inefficient uses to GND projects. We argue that financial affordability cannot be an issue for the sovereign US government. Rather, the problem will be inflation if sufficient resources cannot be diverted to the GND. And if inflation is likely, we need to put in place anti-inflationary measures, such as well-targeted taxes, wage and price controls, rationing, and voluntary saving. Following Keynes, we recommend deferred consumption as our first choice should inflation pressures arise. We conclude that it is likely that the GND can be phased in without inflation, but if price pressures  do appear, deferring a small amount of consumption will be sufficient to attenuate them."

Their analysis is the most astute to date. We know that the money is available because the Federal Reserve can create it with a few keystrokes on a computer. This has been demonstrated time and time again from the bank bailouts of the Great Recession to the COVID relief bills. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has provided the theoretical framework that explains how the Fed creates money and the fact that the US can never run out of money. The US government which has a sovereign currency does not have to pay back loans whereas a private household or even a US state does have to pay back loans or else suffer the consequences. The only potential consequence when the Fed creates money for public purposes is inflation which can be controlled by a variety of measures. In How to Pay for the Green New Deal, the authors write: "Viewed from the MMT perspective, the government uses the monetary system to mobilize real resources and to move some of them to pursuit of the public purpose. Affordability is never an important question for a sovereign government—the relevant question concerns resource availability and suitability. There is thus a natural alliance between MMT and the GND. If we can identify technologically feasible projects that would achieve the GND’s goals, and if we can identify the resources to devote to these projects, then we can arrange for the financing of the programs." Bill Gates has identified a number of promising new technologies that he has invested in to address the GND issue.

As Keynes pointed out, it's a question of available resources to tackle any public problem. If the resources are available, the money is no problem although resources may need to be switched from the private to the public sector. Republicans who favor that all economic activity be confined to the private sector may have a problem with this. Nevertheless, this is exactly what happened during the Second World War. Resources, both human and material, were activated within the public sector to fight the war while at the same time were withdrawn from the private sector. Consumption was held to a minimum and deferred till the war's end. Then private resources, both human, financial and material, were unleashed so that the post war era was one of the most prosperous that the world has ever seen. The deflation brought about by wage and price controls and rationing during the war offset the inflation caused by the public money that was spent financing the war. The same tactic is necessary for a Green New Deal.

Yeva Nersisyan and L. Randall Wray write: "The approach is simple but also profound: total the resources available to prosecute the war while meeting the consumption needs of the population. If the available resources fall short of what is needed, the solution cannot be found in the finances. Government can always spend more to shift resources to the war effort; if consumption spending is not reduced, the result is inflation that generates a combination of “voluntary” saving and excess profits as real consumption falls. To prevent this undesirable outcome, government must reduce consumption demand by some combination of voluntary saving, taxes, deferred compensation, rationing, and wage and price controls. To be clear, the purpose of these actions is not to provide government with the financial means to “pay for” the war effort but rather to relieve pressure on scarce resources."

There will be much opposition from the America First crowd which is really a euphemism for Me First. The people who put their own freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want will probably not take too kindly to making any sacrifices so that future generations will have a habitable planet to live on. There will be demagogues ala Trump who will appeal to their baser instincts of solipsistic selfishness. They will be all about their First Amendment freedoms to resist any effort that is for the public good especially if it involves doing anything of a salutary nature for people in other parts of the world. I can visualize bars and restaurants complaining that they can't get enough hired help because everyone is employed by the Green New Deal. Let's hope that the better angels of mankind will prevail.

Off the Top of My Head

Despite All the Talk, Practically Nothing Has Been Done About Global Warming

by John Lawrence

Every year 51 billion tons of Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) go into the atmosphere. There has been no decrease in that number despite the Paris Accords, despite more hybrid cars, despite the build up of solar and wind renewables. 197 countries adopted the Paris Agreement at the COP21 in Paris on 12 December 2015, over 5 years ago and yet there has been no improvement in the number of tons of GHGs dumped into the atmosphere per year. Well, a couple of tons less this year due to the pandemic. In general it is slightly increasing according to Bill Gates in his new book, "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster." At the rate we are going, there is no way that the earth can escape the dire consequences of global warming. Should we just give up and enjoy the few remaining years of a habitable earth? I don't think so. What will it take to forestall catastrophe? Basically, it will take a Green New Deal or should we call it the Green Equivalent of World War II?

During World War II there was a huge amount of government deficit spending. Modern Monetary Theory has shown that this is no problem because a government such as the US which issues its own sovereign currency can never run out of money whether or not there are tax receipts to cover the spending. The problem is inflation which occurred in WW I despite more modest outlays. In the WW II years there were wage and price controls which effectively controlled inflation. There was also rationing. These measures made sure that all resources both human and material were devoted to the war effort. Everyone was on the same page. Is that possible for a Moral Equivalent of War (MEOW) today? Would people be willing to give up anything so that resources could be devoted to a MEOW as far as Global Warming is concerned? Many Americans are not even willing to wear a mask during a pandemic, and many also believe that global warming is a hoax. Would they sacrifice for a MEOW?

Bill Gates has invested his money in a variety of start-ups which have some promise of addressing the global warming issue. One of them is Direct Air Capture (DAC) in which carbon dioxide is removed directly out of the air. This is a feasible alternative which is already in use on a small scale. The problem is that it's the most expensive alternative out there. A combination of other methods to ameliorate GHGs in the atmosphere would not only be more feasible but cheaper. He estimates that removing 51 billion tons of GHGs per year would cost $5.1 trillion per year. This would be an upper bound on the cost of getting to zero GHG emissions. Actually this does not seem too unreasonable given the fact that between 2008 and 2015, the Fed’s balance sheet, its total assets, ballooned from $900 billion to $4.5 trillion. That means that the Fed "printed" $3.4 trillion with its Quantitative Easing (QE) program. The Fed has "printed" $3.5 trillion just in the year 2020 in response to the coronavirus pandemic to keep the economy from falling apart. This is the amount of money authorized by Congress in several spending bills. Add to that Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill and you get a total of $5.4 trillion. And yet there has been no inflation.

So there is a little hocus pocus going on in the relationship between the Fed and the Treasury. The Fed by law is not allowed to buy US debt directly from the Treasury department. How it works is Congress authorizes a spending bill. The Treasury issues a Treasury bond if there aren't enough taxes to cover it. That bond is sold to the "primary dealers" which are mainly big Wall Street banks, and then the Fed buys the bond on the "open market" which means it buys them from the primary dealers. So by a roundabout method, the Fed buys up US debt by means of "printing" money although it's actually by means of a few keystrokes on a computer crediting the Treasury's account at the Fed and the Fed takes the bonds onto its balance sheet from which theoretically it could sell them some day. One little distinction: this is not QE. QE was a term coined when the Fed "printed" money to bail out the big banks aka providing liquidity. The Fed took all the toxic junk of mortgage backed securities and other assets onto its balance sheet and gave the banks all the money they needed to cover bets on credit default obligations and interest rate swaps and other casino garbage. So while it amounts to the same thing - the Fed "printing" money and adding it into the economy - the money injected now is going into the real economy whereas the QE went into the Wall Street economy.

But I digress. So Bill Gates says it would require at most $5.1 trillion to get our GHGs down to zero on an annual basis. In other words keep the goddam fossil fuels, cow farts and Keystone pipeline and just get those DAC machines humming. Seems reasonable to me. The Fed can just print up that $5.1 trillion and we're home clear. J.D. Alt estimates that solving the global warming crisis will cost $60 trillion over 10 years which is about the same amount per year that Bill Gates estimates although supposedly we will reach some point at which renewables and other technologies will result in zero emissions so we will not have to go on spending that amount in perpetuity. So why don't we just go ahead and do it? The Fed could just print the money. No inflation is in sight. Modern Monetary Theory has shown that any country with a sovereign currency (such as the US dollar) can never run out of money and as long as the resources are available (both human and material) the financial resources will always be available. The only problem is the stupidity of most of the US Congress (mainly Republicans) whose only response to any Democratic initiative is just to Just Say No as well as their economic ignorance. So it is of paramount importance that next year after the pandemic is over and before Republicans take over (hope not) one of the branches of Congress in 2022, that Congress passes a $5 trillion per year Green New Deal or a $50 trillion GND spread over 10 years.

No Compromising with the GOP Cult

by Robert Reich

 

Monday, February 15, 2021

I keep hearing that Joe Biden has to govern from the “center.” He has no choice, they say, because he has razor-thin majorities in Congress and the Republican Party has moved to the right.

Rubbish. First, there is no “center” between the reality-based world and the conspiracy-fueled, hate-filled world of today’s Republican Party. Second, the problems the country is facing cannot be solved with milquetoast, centrist solutions – they demand immediate, bold action.

I’ve been in or around politics for 50 years. I’ve served several Democratic presidents who have needed Republican votes. But the Republicans now in Congress are nothing like those I’ve dealt with.

Today’s Republican Party is a cult.

93 percent of House Republicans voted against impeaching Trump for inciting an insurrection, and Senate Republicans refuse to convict him. This is after Trump’s insurrection threatened even their own lives.

The 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump are facing backlash from their colleagues, with some even calling to remove Liz Cheney from her leadership position. 

But hardly any have condemned the vile conspiracy theories spouted by Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has claimed that the Sandy Hook and Parkland school shootings were “false flags” and that the deadly California wildfires were sparked by a Jewish space laser, among other wild lies.

All of this marks the culmination of the GOP’s growing lunacy over the last four years. With Trump at its head, the Republican Party has embraced blatant white supremacy, and now inhabits a counterfactual wonderland of lies and conspiracies.

Even by mid-January, polls show three out of four Republicans don’t think Biden won legitimately. 45 percent support the storming of the Capitol; 57 percent say Trump should be the Republican candidate in 2024.

And a growing fringe – including some Republicans in Congress – openly talk of redressing grievances through violence.

With this Republican Party, Biden cannot be a “centrist.” 

Instead, he must deliver bold change for the American people, refusing to compromise with violent Trumpism. Barring Trump from ever holding public office again. Expelling Trump’s co-conspirators from Congress. 

Don’t listen to people claiming this would be a “distraction” from Biden’s agenda. There is no healing without accountability. If we let those who incited this insurrection off the hook, we’re inviting it to happen again. And next time they might succeed.

It should all be part of Biden’s agenda. Biden must fight for democracy and against authoritarianism – including strengthening voting rights, getting big money out of politics, and taking on the Republican Party’s anti-democratic agenda of gerrymandering and voter suppression. 

There is no longer a “center” in American politics. No middle ground between lies and facts. No halfway point between civil discourse and violence. No midrange between democracy and fascism.

We either have a future based on lies, violence, and authoritarianism – or on unyielding truth, unshakeable civility, and democracy. Biden and the Democrats must fight for the latter. And we must make them.

Love is an Energy That Restores Wholeness

Dear friends,

What could love do for you today?  Perhaps a release of old pain and resentments? Could it restore your faith inhumanity?  How about self respect and a change of habits?  If you desperately want to stop abusive drinking or smoking, would love be a factor in your decision to seek help?  What kind of love are we  speaking about here?  Love in its true power is not about romance; that is the least of it.  It is an energy that restores wholeness where there appears to be brokenness.

Love seems to cause us pain when it is withdrawn by another. Yet it remains within us, available to us whether we are alone or in a relationship.  Love is not something that is given to us. It is generated from within our very own soul.  Self Love is the starting point, the first use of Love.  From there it extends out into the world attracting and affecting a response.   When we see it as the most powerful energy in the universe, we might have more respect for what we can generate.

Ernest Holmes called love a “cohesive energy” that “brings things together what belongs together” and “maintains it in harmony” (as long as Love is active and present.)  We all know what happens to friendship, romance, business, anything really, when Love is withdrawn. Those things tend to unravel and fall apart. Love must be present to maintain harmony in every situation.  On this Valentine’s Day the question remains: What could I do with Love today?

Stay tuned in,

Carol Carnes www.carol-carnes.com

Off the Top of My Head

Where Will the Republican Party Go From Here?

by John Lawrence

The Republican party is having an identity crisis. Will it be dedicated to the adulation of Donald Trump or will it be based on conservative principles? What are conservative principles? Is the US a Republic or a Democracy or an Autocracy? This whole situation comes about because of the shifting demographics of the US. Historically, the US has been based on rule by white European Americans who have been able to keep minorities including chiefly African Americans in check by various means including slavery, Jim Crow laws, domestic terrorism, red lining, exclusion from education opportunities, even unemployment which has been used by the Federal Reserve to control inflation. That is changing because now there are more educated minorities including immigrants from all over the world gaining positions of political and economic power. 216 companies on the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or their children.

Is it any wonder then that poor and middle class whites want to tamp down immigration and keep black people in their place which they have always successfully been able to do until now. A lot of Trump supporters are effectively saying to hell with democracy if it means a multicultural society in which we have to tolerate multiple religions and multiple ethnicities and multiple shades of skin so it's not a question for them of having a democracy or a republic or any kind of society based on some version of popular rule. They want white European American rule like they've always had. There is also the added impetus that most of the once good paying manufacturing jobs have gone elsewhere which leads to even more insularity. So Trump supporters are the real conservatives in the respect that they want to conserve a way of life in which white people and European Americans have all the advantages. They abhor a democracy in which their lifestyle, their religion and their prerogatives are not paramount.

The Mitch McConnell conservatives overlap with the Trump conservatives, but the former stand for the privileges not of the white majority necessarily but of the white elite, of the white wealthy. They are even liberal enough to let wealthy people of different colors into their club while assuring less fortunate Americans that they too, if they work hard enough, may one day gain privileged positions of power and wealth. Basically, they represent rich people and abhor the white rabble. The problem is that this branch of the Republican party is increasingly irrelevant to the problems that America and the world faces. They stand for a strong defense which has morphed into endless wars which have gone nowhere and have only made matters worse in areas of the world in which the US has inserted itself. They stand for a bloated military-industrial-intelligence complex which has proven its incompetence in that it wasn't even able to predict an insurrection at the US Capitol, much less even defend against it once the attack was underway. They have proven to be focused on the wrong problems despite having been lavished with trillion dollar budgets.

What else do "principled" conservatives stand for? Low taxes but modern economic theory has proven that government spending need not be predicated on or limited by tax receipts. They stand for maximizing the private sector and minimizing the public sector at a time when dealing with climate change and even traditional infrastructure rebuilding demands the opposite. They stand for aiding and abetting the rich which has driven economic inequality to new heights. So what would be the role of a revamped and principled Republican party? Probably just to be a Democratic party lite or a party that criticizes Democratic programs. But that wouldn't assuage the interests of most power hungry politicians nor would it excite many members of their base who demand an entertaining leader who is focused by means of dog whistle diplomacy on white power.

The Trump party is similar to the Know Nothing movement, formally known as the Native American Party (at that time meaning descendants of colonists or settlers, rather than Indigenous Americans) before 1855 and the American Party after 1855. It was a nativist political party and movement in the United States, which operated nationwide in the mid-1850s, originally starting as a secret society. It was primarily an anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, anti-immigration, populist and xenophobic movement. So naturally they would resent an Irish Catholic President even though now there have been two of them. Adherents to the movement were to simply reply "I know nothing" when asked about its specifics by outsiders, providing the group with its common name. Qanon anyone? Supporters of the Know Nothing movement believed that an alleged "Romanist" conspiracy was being planned to subvert civil and religious liberty in the United States, and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in what they described as a defense of their traditional religious and political values. Sure enough sounds like the Trump base to me.

The question is will the US become a full fledged democracy and live up to its vaunted principles finally even though it traditionally never has or will it revert to some version of white European American rule by electing another entertaining autocrat. That may not be Trump who has been deplatformed from Twitter, his chief propaganda tool, and faces mounting legal challenges, but there are others waiting in the wings who will offer bells and whistles instead of sound programs that really benefit the American people as a whole. But do Americans want government based on democratic principles or neverending campaign rallies with flags, banners and chants? As my Dad used to say, we shall see what we shall see.

Off the Top of My Head

A Job Guarantee Would Win Over Trump Voters and Also Address Black Lives Matter

by John Lawrence, February 14, 2021

Joe Biden can win over disgruntled Trump voters with a job guarantee. There has been a lot of research indicating that, if government were the Employer of Last Resort (ELR) at say a wage of $15.00 an hour, this would save money on unemployment as well as setting a minimum wage. It's also the minimum wage called for in Biden's COVID relief bill. Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary says:

"[G]ive Republicans and independents every incentive to abandon the Trump cult.

"White working-class voters without college degrees who now comprise a large portion of it need good jobs and better futures. Many are understandably angry after being left behind in vast enclaves of unemployment and despair. They should not have to depend on Trump’s fact-free fanaticism in order to feel visible and respected.

"A jobs program on the scale necessary to bring many of them around will be expensive but worth the cost, especially when democracy hangs in the balance."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in his last letter requesting support for the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom”:

“It was obdurate government callousness to misery that first stoked the flames of rage and frustration. With unemployment a scourge in Negro ghettoes, the government still tinkers with half-hearted measures, refuses still to become employer of last resort. It asks the business community to solve the problems as though its past failures qualified it for success.”

It's clear that an ELT program would solve many problems not the least of which is wooing Trump voters to the Democratic party. Trump's appeal to them was partly that they had been left behind because jobs had been moved to China and Mexico and he was going to bring good paying manufacturing jobs back to America, something he never did or had a clue how to do. The ELR program will act as an automatic stabilizer adding jobs during a recession and eliminating them during an expansion when jobs will shift back to the private sector. All private employers would have to do is pay a wage slightly higher than the program wage of the ELR program which would effectively set the minimum wage. It has been thought that a certain level of unemployment was necessary to fight inflation, but that's not necessarily the case as jobs in the ELR program would not compete with jobs in the private sector. The program wage would be a floor below which wages could not drop.

The so-called "Phillips Curve" maintained that there was a trade-off between employment and inflation, that to achieve lower inflation you had to increase unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines full employment as an economy in which the unemployment rate equals the nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), no cyclical unemployment exists, and GDP is at its [full] potential. The Federal Reserve considers a base unemployment rate (the U-3 rate) of 5.0 to 5.2 percent as “full employment” in the economy. So government economists have been willing to trade off the misery of approximately 16 million unemployed people in order to achieve stable money. Those 16 million are mainly composed of African Americans. However, Modern Monetary Theory claims that this is not necessary. There are other policy tools to fight inflation. Taxes, for example, mainly targeted on the rich. Other countries such as Argentine and India have implemented ELR programs. The money spent would eliminate the need for food stamps, unemployment insurance and other government programs necessary to deal with poverty and homelessness. Anyone wanting a job could have one, and these jobs would be in areas like child and elder care where there is a need for additional workers.

'Subpoena Kevin McCarthy If You Have To': Democrats Urged to Bring Witnesses After Bombshell Report on Trump Call

Published on Saturday, February 13, 2021

by Common Dreams

"As evidence of Trump's behind-the-scenes sociopathy mounts, it becomes clearer that Dems must call witnesses."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

53 Comments

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) walks back to his office from the Senate floor on U.S. Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, February 4, 2021. (Photo: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Update:

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the lead House impeachment manager, said Saturday morning that his team will seek to subpoena Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) to testify before the Senate about her knowledge of a phone conversation between Donald Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) that took place during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"When McCarthy finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol," Herrera Beutler said in a statement late Friday. "McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That's when, according to McCarthy, the president said, 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.'"

The Senate voted by a margin of 55-45 Saturday morning to open the door to calling witnesses. Senators will soon vote on calling specific witnesses, including Herrera Beutler; Trump's defense team has threatened to call "lots" of witnesses, but their requests must be approved by the Senate.

"The significance of this development in the impeachment trial can't be overstated. We are now going to have witnesses. Each witness can lead to other witnesses and new information. This can also prompt others with new evidence to come forward voluntarily," tweeted Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "The focus for now is on Trump's conversation with Kevin McCarthy. That conversation goes to the critical issue of Trump's actions and state of mind after the rioters breached the Capitol."

Earlier:

Democratic House impeachment managers are facing growing public pressure to call witnesses to testify at Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial in the wake of bombshell reporting on the former president's conversation with Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy during the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by a right-wing mob.

Progressive watchdog groups, as Common Dreams reported earlier this week, have been urging Democrats to call witnesses since before the start of the trial, but CNN's late Friday story on Trump's conversation with McCarthy added fuel to those demands.

During the phone call, according to CNN, Trump told the California Republican, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," a comment that reportedly prompted a shouting match between the two GOP leaders as McCarthy pleaded with the then-president to speak out against the attack. Hours after the assault began, Trump finally released a video urging the insurrectionists to go home while praising them as "special."

"Trump's call with McCarthy is another powerful piece of evidence that Trump was on the side of the rioters attacking the Capitol," Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) tweeted late Friday. "He utterly failed his oath to protect and defend our nation. This should seal the conviction with every senator."

While the Democratic leadership is hoping for a speedy end to the trial in order to move forward with confirmation of President Joe Biden's nominees and legislative business—including coronavirus relief—critics argued Friday night that failure to call witnesses following news of Trump's remarks to McCarthy would be a dereliction of duty.

"Democrats should call Kevin McCarthy as a witness and have him testify under oath about this call," tweeted Judd Legum, author of the Popular Information newsletter. "I know they want to wrap this up but it won't take long. The American people deserve the truth."

After House impeachment managers, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), delivered their striking case in support of convicting the former president for inciting a deadly insurrection against the U.S. government, several members of the Senate Democratic caucus said Thursday that witnesses would not be necessary.

"I feel like we've heard from enough witnesses," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), referring to interviews played during House Democrats' presentation. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, "I think the case has been made. I don't know what witnesses would add."

But observers argued that the new details of Trump's phone conversation with McCarthy indicate that compelling the House Republican leader and others to testify under oath could yield important new information. Calling witnesses would require a simple-majority vote in the Senate.

"As evidence of Trump's behind-the-scenes sociopathy mounts, it becomes clearer that Dems must call witnesses," said the Washington Post's Greg Sargent.

 

Others echoed that sentiment, pointing also to new reporting confirming that Trump was aware that former Vice President Mike Pence was in danger when he tweeted an attack on Pence during the mob assault.

In an appearance on MSNBC late Friday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) argued the new reporting "undermines the entire defense that the president's lawyers have put on" and said he would be open to calling witnesses to testify at the trial.

"I think [House impeachment managers] have established a slam-dunk case that the president incited violence for the purpose of overturning the election," said Van Hollen. "If they make a decision to call witnesses... obviously we would welcome that."

Watch:

Joining the growing chorus, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tweeted Saturday morning that "the House Managers should ask for witnesses to be called, including anyone who communicated with Donald Trump or [has] direct knowledge of his actions and state of mind while he was in the White House after the Capitol was breached and while the attempted coup was ongoing."

Democrats are expected to decide on whether to call witnesses at some point Saturday morning. As Politico reported, "If Democrats and Trump's team opt against calling witnesses on Saturday, the trial will move immediately to closing arguments, expected to last no more than four hours. That would set up a vote on the charge against Trump in the early afternoon."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Cancel Perks for the Worst President in History

Monday, February 8, 2021

How should the nation respond to an ex-president who has incited an insurrection, brought our democracy to the brink of destruction, and left so much pain and suffering in his wake?

In addition to being convicted in the Senate, which could bar him from running for office again, he shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the cushy benefits former presidents receive.

These benefits were created under the Former Presidents’ Act of 1958, which was drawn up after Harry Truman told the House Majority Leader that he was going broke. 

The benefits in the Former President’s Act now include a yearly pension of over $200,000, an annual $1 million travel budget, an annual $500,000 travel budget for spouses, an office “appropriately furnished and equipped,” and staff to operate that office – for the rest of the former president’s life.

But what about a twice-impeached former president who did everything he could to attack Black and brown communities, and ended his presidency by inciting an insurrection against the United States government? 

Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think someone with that record should receive millions in taxpayer-funded benefits at all, let alone every single year for the rest of his life. 

Thankfully, it doesn’t have to happen: A simple majority in Congress can pass a law barring this ex-president from the normal perks afforded to former presidents. For the sake of the country, Congress must do so. 

He should also be barred from receiving national security briefings now that he’s left office. There is no reason that someone this dangerous should be privy to the highest levels of intelligence as a private citizen – especially given his looming legal and financial entanglements with foreign entities. He was already a national security risk in office; as a private citizen, there’s no telling what he would do with classified information. 

Fortunately, it doesn’t take an act of Congress to cut off access to briefings: It’s up to Joe Biden, and Joe Biden alone. He has the power to prevent his predecessor from receiving any and all national security briefings. For the sake of America and the world, he must do so.

Regardless of how the impeachment trial in the Senate ends, one thing is clear: Someone who has disgraced the office of the president so maliciously should not reap its amenities for the rest of his life.

No cushy benefits. No national security briefings. No perks for the worst president in history.