Category: bernie sanders

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders listens during a committee hearing in the Hart Senate Office building on February 17, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

    After the Biden administration canceled $415 million of student debt for victims of for-profit colleges, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called for all student debt to be canceled, a move that could relieve tens of millions of borrowers of what is often a huge financial burden.

    On Wednesday, the Education Department announced that it was canceling debt for students who were misled by for-profit colleges like DeVry University. The agency has been fielding complaints from borrowers and has found that the institution made “widespread substantial misrepresentations about its job placement rates.”

    Advocates and lawmakers lauded the decision, but pointed out that there is still more to be done if the administration is to substantially address the student loan crisis.

    “Good,” Sanders wrote on Twitter. “Now cancel the remaining $1,883,214,046,704 for 44,984,000 other Americans who are still drowning in student debt.”

    A mass nixing of student loans for victims of for-profit colleges has been years in the making; during the Trump administration, judges ordered the Education Department to cancel student loans for for-profit college victims, but former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos refused to do so.

    In a press release announcing the cancellation this week, the agency said that it has so far canceled about $2 billion for about 107,000 borrowers under this program. Overall, Joe Biden has canceled over $13 billion of student loans as of January.

    As Sanders pointed out, however, this is a miniscule amount of money when compared to the amount of student debt that is currently held by borrowers across the country.

    According to Federal Reserve data, borrowers held a collective roughly $1.75 trillion in student loan debt as of December, a record amount. Other estimates from the Student Debt Crisis Center peg the amount a bit higher, at about $1.88 trillion as of Friday.

    Either way, the number is astronomically high compared to the amount that Biden has canceled so far – $13 billion is less than 1 percent of the total amount of student debt weighing on borrowers. It’s also a far cry from the up to $10,000 of debt that the president promised to cancel for every borrower while on the campaign trail.

    Indeed, Biden has been dragging his feet on the issue of student debt, even though Democratic and progressive lawmakers have been pushing him to take action on the issue for over a year. In public, he has dodged questions about his failure to cancel debt so far, while the White House has said that it considers restarting student loans after the pandemic-related repayment freeze a “high priority.”

    The White House’s sluggishness on the issue and its purposeful obfuscation of Biden’s legal authority to cancel student loans have led debt advocates to cast doubt on whether or not Biden actually wants to address the crisis, despite its huge impact on the economy.

    Debt activists are planning a day of action in April to urge Biden to cancel student debt before loan payments are slated to restart in May, which a survey last year found would cause major financial distress for thousands, if not millions, of borrowers.

    Economic issues aside, proposals to cancel student debt are popular among voters – which is critical as the country approaches midterm elections that could lead to Democrats losing control of Congress. Recent polling from Data for Progress found that 63 percent of likely voters say that the federal government should eliminate some student debt for borrowers, with a whopping 88 percent of Democrats in agreement on the issue.

    In an interview this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) pointed out that canceling debt would be a “keystone action” for Biden to take ahead of the election this fall, especially as the rest of Democrats’ agenda is stalled in the Senate thanks to conservative Democrats.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on January 30, 2019, in Washington, D.C.

    On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) gave a powerful speech on the Senate floor, excoriating billionaires and CEOs for accumulating unfathomable amounts of wealth while millions of Americans struggle to get by.

    Since the start of the pandemic, millions of Americans have struggled economically, gotten ill or died – but for billionaires, “this moment has never been better,” Sanders said. Because of their rapid accumulation of wealth, the country is moving toward becoming an oligarchy.

    “In the 1950s, when I was growing up, CEOs did very, very well. They made 20 times more than their average worker. Well, if you are a CEO, the good news is those days are long gone, when you only made 20 times more than your average workers,” Sanders said. “Today, as I am sure the CEOs of this country know, they are now making 350 times more than what the average worker in America makes. Three hundred and fifty times more. Talk about greed.”

    While grocers like Kroger and oil and gas companies like Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil have jacked up prices for consumers, they’re also making record profits and spending billions on stock buybacks, Sanders pointed out. And as the U.S. pays the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, the CEOs of the top eight pharmaceutical companies were paid over $350 million in compensation in 2020, he went on.

    Meanwhile, Wall Street has a huge influence over the economy of the country. Finance giants BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street manage over $21 trillion in assets – which is larger than the GDP of the U.S., the largest economy in the world.

    CEOs and billionaires currently own a larger portion of the wealth in the U.S. than at any other point in history, Sanders pointed out.

    “We hear a lot of talk about transfer of wealth – ‘oh my god, we can’t tax the rich and transfer wealth. Terrible, terrible,’” he said, mocking lawmakers who refuse to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy. “But there has been, over the last many decades, a huge transfer of wealth. The only problem is, it’s gone in the wrong direction – from working families to the top 1 percent.”

    The concentration of wealth in the United States is extreme. The top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 92 percent of earners, Sanders said, while the two richest people in the U.S. – Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk – own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of the population. Indeed, a report in January found that while millions of people have died due to COVID, the 20 richest men in the world have doubled their wealth during the pandemic.

    The Vermont senator sarcastically suggested that the Senate should recognize billionaires in the same way that it recognizes football players like Tom Brady or Olympic athletes for their achievements. “Maybe the time is approaching when we should offer a unanimous resolution congratulating the billionaire class for their enormous success in moving this country into the oligarchic form of society that they have long desired,” he said.

    The lawmaker concluded by saying that Congress should start voting on individual issues that are popular among the American people, like lower prescription drug prices, expanding Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing, or putting taxes on corporations and the wealthy so they pay their “fair share.”

    “The time is long, long, long overdue for Congress to start addressing the needs of the American people,” he said. “Maybe, just maybe, we should do what the American people want, and not what wealthy campaign contributors want.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden

    A recent poll shows that a significant percentage of both Democratic- and Republican- leaning voters would prefer that their party nominate an alternative to President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

    In a CNN/SSRS poll published over the weekend, only 45 percent of Democratic-leaning voters said they want President Joe Biden to run again in 2024, while 51 percent said they want to see someone else win the nomination.

    Of those who said that they don’t want Biden to run again, 31 percent said they don’t want him to get reelected, while 35 percent said they don’t believe he can defeat a Republican in the general election contest.

    Former President Donald Trump didn’t fare much better – just 50 percent of the poll’s Republican-leaning respondents said they want Trump to be the GOP nominee in 2024, while a near-equal number (49 percent) said they wanted someone else. Thirty-nine percent of those who said they don’t want him to be the party’s nominee said they don’t want Trump to get elected, while 22 percent said they don’t believe he would be able to defeat a Democratic opponent.

    When asked to name a candidate that they would like to see their party nominate for the 2024 presidential race, Democratic-leaning voters had a harder time than Republican-leaning ones. Of the Democrats who said they wanted Biden to sit out of the 2024 presidential race, only 25 percent could name a specific person that they would like to see run instead. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) fared the best, but still only garnered 5 percent of support; second to him was former first lady Michelle Obama, who had 4 percent support for a presidential run.

    Meanwhile, a significant number of Republican-leaning voters seem to be in agreement over potential candidates that could run if Trump doesn’t. Among the Republicans who said Trump shouldn’t run in 2024, 38 percent listed a specific person that they wanted to run instead. More than 1 in 5 voters (21 percent) who didn’t want Trump to run said that Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis should be the party’s nominee in 2024. Second to him was Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who had only 1 percent support among Republicans who didn’t want Trump to run.

    The poll’s data suggests that both Biden and Trump could easily win the nominations for their respective parties. However, the two might have a more difficult time becoming their parties’ nominees than they did in 2020.

    Both Biden and Trump have seen significant drops in their favorability ratings as of late. But voters’ disapproval of Biden’s job performance doesn’t necessarily indicate that they preferred the Trump presidency, said Marquette Law School polling director Charles Franklin.

    “No nostalgia for the Trump years is a good way of putting it,” Franklin said.

    When the respondents of the poll were asked about a rematch between Biden and Trump, Biden fared 10 points better than Trump, with 43 percent of respondents saying they would vote for the current president while just 33 percent said they would back the former one.

    While Trump’s endorsement still holds massive influence in key GOP races, analysts have noted that Trump appears to be losing his firm grip on the Republican Party. Several members of the party have condemned the former president’s actions in recent weeks, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence.

    Trump has repeatedly made the erroneous claim that Pence had the power to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. But in a recent speech about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol building, Pence debunked the former president’s assertions.

    “President Trump is wrong,” Pence said earlier this month. “I had no right to overturn the election.”

    Republicans who have been condemning Trump’s rhetoric about the Capitol attack may be doing so strategically, as polling shows that most voters view the events of January 6 in a negative light. Indeed, 72 percent of voters in a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll said that the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol building by a mob of Trump loyalists was a threat to democracy. Trump has continually defended his loyalists’ actions and has even suggested that he would pardon them if he won the presidency for a second time; such statements likely embolden his base of support but alienate voters overall.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The SoFi Stadium logo prior to Super Bowl LVI between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Los Angeles Rams on February 13, 2022, at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California.

    Of the many commercials and advertisements displayed during Super Bowl LVI on Sunday, perhaps the most prominent was for the personal finance company with naming rights to SoFi Stadium, the game’s multibillion-dollar venue in Inglewood, California.

    SoFi offers a range of financial products and services, but what drew the most attention — and ire — during Sunday’s game was the company’s role in the lucrative student loan refinancing business, which is set to receive a major boost if President Joe Biden allows the federal student debt repayment moratorium to expire on May 1.

    “How does it happen that SoFi, a student loan refinancing company, could spend $625 million to put its name on the LA Rams football stadium when 45 million Americans are drowning in $1.8 trillion in student debt?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted during Sunday’s game. “Today would be a good day for the president to cancel student debt.”

    Despite sustained pressure from indebted former students, civil rights groups, and progressive lawmakers who say he has the authority to do so via executive order, President Joe Biden has thus far refused to enact broad-based cancellation of student loan debt, opting instead for more narrow forgiveness.

    According to data from the Department of Education, cancellation of $50,000 in federal student loan debt per borrower could fully wipe clean the debt burdens of 36 million borrowers, many of whom fear they won’t be able to make their monthly payments amid pandemic-related financial struggles.

    Nevertheless, Biden signaled in December that he intends to let the repayment moratorium expire in May without any sweeping cancellation, potentially spelling political disaster for his party in the upcoming midterms.

    SoFi — which also offers private student loans — stands to benefit hugely from the fast-approaching end of the repayment pause, which has been in place since March 2020 and has saved borrowers tens of billions of dollars. In November, SoFi CEO Anthony Noto said his company’s “student loan business got cut in more than half” following implementation of the federal moratorium on repayment.

    “It was our largest business, it was our oldest business,” said Noto. “That business has been running at about 50% of the pre-Covid volume for the last 20 months.”

    SoFi made clear Sunday that it viewed the Super Bowl as an opportunity to advertise its services in front of a massive audience. The company is reportedly set to pay $625 million for naming rights to SoFi Stadium over the next two decades.

    “I still can’t believe this game is being played at Student Debt Stadium,” Nina Turner, an Ohio congressional candidate and an outspoken proponent of student debt cancellation, lamented during the Super Bowl.

    “Student loan providers shouldn’t have $625,000,000 sitting around to buy naming rights to a stadium,” Turner tweeted. “It’s immoral.”

    The Debt Collective, a debtors’ union pushing for total cancellation of federal student loan debt, echoed Turner’s message.

    “Remember,” the group tweeted, “your debt is someone else’s profit.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders gestures as he speaks to striking Kellogg's workers in downtown Battle Creek, Michigan, on December 17, 2021.

    On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) demanded on the Senate floor that the chamber immediately take up debate on his and Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minnesota) new bill to lower prescription drug prices – but the effort was blocked by a pharmaceutical industry-backed Republican senator.

    Sanders and Klobuchar asked for unanimous consent for the Senate to debate and vote on the Cutting Medicare Prescription Drug Prices in Half Act, which would allow Medicare to access the same low drug prices that are enjoyed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    This would save some Medicare recipients hundreds or thousands of dollars monthly, depending on their medical needs. According to a Government Accountability Office report from 2020, Veterans Affairs’s prices are 49 percent lower for name brand drugs and 68 percent lower for generic drugs.

    “For decades, literally decades – 20, 30, 40 years – members of both political parties have come to the floor of the Senate, come to the floor of the House, and they have bemoaned the high cost of prescription drugs in this country,” Sanders said in an impassioned speech on the House floor. “For decades now, members of Congress have been talking about lowering the cost of prescription drugs. And for decades they have failed to deliver. Talk, talk, talk. Nothing happens.”

    Growing wealth inequality during the pandemic – which has now killed over 900,000 Americans – has demonstrated the urgency of making prescription drugs more accessible, Sanders continued. He also pointed out that rising prices for essentials like prescription drugs, which cost more in the U.S. than in any other country, are making it harder for lower- and middle-income families to survive.

    “During this pandemic alone, just the last few years, the billionaire class saw an increase in their wealth by some $2 trillion,” he said. “While at the same time, thousands of workers died as they went to their jobs. They didn’t have a choice about it. They went to work, and they died.”

    Republican Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho) blocked the effort, complaining that it would add “more bureaucracy.” Over the past election cycle, Crapo has received nearly $300,000 from the pharmaceutical industry.

    Democrats and progressives have been aggressively pursuing legislation to lower prescription drug prices. Sanders fought for months to include drug price reforms in the Build Back Better Act, making calls and introducing bills to move the issue along.

    Eventually, the prescription drug pricing plans were watered down, thanks to opposition from pharmaceutical industry allies like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), along with a group of conservative Democrats in the House whose top donors are the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

    Then – after a pharma-funded group hosted Democratic staffers at a retreat in November – the Build Back Better Act died an unceremonious death after months were wasted on negotiations.

    Though prescription drug pricing proposals face opposition from pharma-funded lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, polls find that such bills are overwhelmingly popular with the American public. In October, a CBS News poll found that 88 percent of Americans support lowering prescription drug prices using federal funding.

    This is likely because millions of Americans can’t afford to buy drugs that have been prescribed to them. In a Gallup poll from last year, about 10 percent of adults living in low-income households reported skipping pills in order to save money.

    Not only are drug prices higher in the U.S. than in other countries, the problem has also been worsening over time. This year, pharmaceutical companies raised drug prices by an average of 6.6 percent, hiking costs for 866 drugs.

    Part of the reason why it’s so difficult to move drug pricing reform through Congress is because the pharmaceutical industry is perhaps the single most powerful industry in politics. Last year, it spent nearly $353 million on lobbying, the most of any industry. This is nearly double the amount spent by the electronics manufacturing and equipment industry, which spent the second-most on lobbying in 2021, shelling out a total of $185 million.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Russian military T-72B3 tanks take part in a military exercise at the Kadamovsky Range in Russia's Rostov Region on January 27, 2022.

    Warning of the potentially catastrophic consequences of what could be the deadliest European conflict since World War II, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday stressed the imperative for a diplomatic solution to the Russia-Ukraine crisis that’s brought the world’s two nuclear superpowers perilously close to war.

    Writing for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) notes that “wars rarely turn out the way the experts tell us they will. Just ask the officials who provided rosy scenarios for the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, only to be proven horribly wrong. Just ask the mothers of the soldiers who were killed or wounded in action during those wars. Just ask the millions of civilians who became ‘collateral damage.’”

    Citing estimates that “there could be over 50,000 civilian casualties in Ukraine, and millions of refugees flooding neighboring countries,” the democratic socialist considers “the possibility that this ‘regional’ war could escalate to other parts of Europe.”

    “What might happen then is even more horrifying,” he says.

    Echoing anti-war activists who argue that U.S.-imposed economic sanctions are a dangerous provocation, Sanders asserts:

    The sanctions against Russia and Russia’s threatened response to those sanctions could result in massive economic upheaval — with impacts on energy, banking, food, and the day-to-day needs of ordinary people throughout the entire world. It is likely that Russians will not be the only people suffering from sanctions. And, by the way, any hope of international cooperation to address the existential threat of global climate crisis and future pandemics would suffer a major setback.

    While calling Russian President Vladimir Putin “most responsible for this looming crisis,” Sanders says that “I am extremely concerned when I hear the familiar drumbeats in Washington, the bellicose rhetoric that gets amplified before every war, demanding that we must show ‘strength,’ ‘get tough,’ and not engage in ‘appeasement.’”

    “A simplistic refusal to recognize the complex roots of the tensions in the region undermines the ability of negotiators to reach a peaceful resolution,” Sanders stresses before highlighting some of Moscow’s concerns — including the expansion of NATO into former Soviet republics and satellites and, specifically, the refusal of the U.S. to rule out Ukraine’s membership in what is seen as an anti-Russia alliance.

    “Does anyone really believe that the United States would not have something to say if, for example, Mexico was to form a military alliance with a U.S. adversary?” he asks.

    “Countries should be free to make their own foreign policy choices, but making those choices wisely requires a serious consideration of the costs and benefits,” Sanders contends. “The fact is that the U.S. and Ukraine entering into a deeper security relationship is likely to have some very serious costs — for both countries.”

    The senator concludes that “we must vigorously support diplomatic efforts to deescalate this crisis and reaffirm Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. And we must make clear that Putin and his gang of oligarchs will face major consequences should he continue down the current path.”

    “At the same time, we must never forget the horrors that a war in the region would cause and must work hard to achieve a realistic and mutually agreeable resolution — one that is acceptable to Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and our European allies,” he added, “and that prevents what could be the worst European war in over 75 years.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Amazon's logo is pictured on the opening day of a new distribution center in Augny, near Metz, eastern France, on September 23, 2021.

    Thanks to a tax code that favors corporations and the wealthy, Amazon was able to dodge billions of dollars of federal income taxes in 2021, a new report has found.

    According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the tech behemoth reported record profits last year, raking in $35 billion – 75 percent more than they made in 2020, which was also a record year for the company.

    Despite these record profits, the company paid a federal income tax rate of 6.1 percent, or $2.1 billion, in 2021. If the company hadn’t benefited from tax breaks and had paid the already low statutory corporate tax rate of 21 percent, it would have paid $7.3 billion in federal tax. This means that the company successfully dodged $5.2 billion in corporate taxes last year.

    Since 2018, the company has only paid an average effective tax rate of 5.1 percent. In 2018 and 2019, Amazon’s tax dodging was especially egregious; in 2019, the company paid 1.2 percent in federal income taxes. The year before, the company paid a negative 1.2 percent tax rate, meaning that it received more money from the government than it paid in taxes.

    “It has been well documented for decades that Amazon’s strategy for retail dominance rests on two tactics: avoiding taxes and using the savings to finance a slow strangulation of its retail competition,” the authors of the ITEP report wrote. “First at the state and local level, then federally and internationally, Amazon has bullied lawmakers into bending tax laws to its advantage and made that the source of its competitive advantage over small businesses in the retail space.”

    In their calculations, the report’s authors took into account tax credits, excess stock option deductions, and other tax breaks. Congress has the power to end these tax breaks as long as lawmakers can summon the political will, they pointed out.

    Corporate tax dodging runs rampant among large corporations. Last week, ITEP reported that Netflix also dodged a huge amount of federal income taxes last year. Though it made record profits in 2021 – nearly doubling its profits over 2020 – the company paid only $58 million in taxes, or a 1.1 percent rate. This means that the company dodged over $1 billion in taxes last year.

    In response to the report, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) reiterated the progressive call to tax the rich. “Corporate greed is Netflix making a record-breaking $5.1 billion profit, giving its CEO $43 million in total compensation, avoiding over $1 billion in taxes and paying a 1.1 percent effective federal income tax rate – a lower tax rate than a nurse, teacher or truck driver,” he said.

    As the authors of the ITEP report noted, Congress can implement simple reforms like the extremely popular corporate minimum tax rate to make it much harder for large corporations to dodge taxes to this degree in the future. The corporate minimum tax would create a minimum tax rate of 15 percent for profits over $1 billion. It would also levy the tax on book profits – the profits that the company reports to shareholders – rather than the deflated profits that the company reports to the government.

    Although Democrats were considering including the corporate minimum tax in the Build Back Better Act, the corporate-backed Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) has declared that the bill is now dead.

    Without tax reforms for corporations, the government will continue to miss out on billions of dollars of revenue each year due to tax dodging. Last year, ITEP found that 20 corporations had paid $0 in federal taxes in 2020, with many companies paying a negative effective tax rate due to tax breaks. Tax dodgers included companies like Nike and FedEx and energy companies like American Electric Power and Duke Energy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal speaks as members of Congress share their recollections on the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2022, in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

    A bill that would establish Medicare for All in the U.S. has reached 120 sponsors, Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) announced on Sunday.

    “We’ve officially got a record 120 co-sponsors on my Medicare for All Act!” said Jayapal, who introduced the legislation. “Thrilled to welcome Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida) to our fight to ensure health care as a human right!”

    Signing on to the bill as a cosponsor is one of Cherfilus-McCormick’s first acts since being sworn in as a member of Congress in mid-January. Last week, Representatives Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) also became cosponsors of the bill; original cosponsors include progressive “squad” members like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

    The Medicare for All Act of 2021, or H.R. 1976, would establish a single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. Under the bill, health care claims would be paid by the government and all U.S. residents would be able to access health care without having to pay out of pocket for most services.

    Jayapal’s bill would establish a more generous plan than in countries like Canada, where the single-payer health care system doesn’t cover vital services like vision, dental or prescriptions. H.R. 1976 includes those benefits as well as long-term nursing and rehabilitative services.

    For years, Medicare for All has been a rallying cry for progressives across the country, popularized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) during his 2016 presidential run. Some experts have pointed out that the original idea behind the Medicare program was for all residents to have access to health care, not just a few.

    “We mean a complete transformation of our health care system and we mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core benefits,” Jayapal said when she introduced the bill last March. “We mean universal care, everybody in, nobody out.”

    Though the bill is unlikely to pass Congress, the record number of cosponsors suggests that pushes for Medicare for All are gaining momentum as progressives in the House are growing in number.

    When Jayapal originally introduced the bill, it had only 112 cosponsors; when she introduced it in the last Congress, it only had 106 original cosponsors. In 2019, Sanders introduced a Medicare for All bill in the Senate with 14 cosponsors. He has not reintroduced the bill in this Congress.

    “In my view, the current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with health care. It’s all about greed and profiteering. It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows the top five health insurance companies to make over $20 billion in profits last year,” Sanders said in 2019. These profits have only multiplied since the start of the pandemic.

    Polling has found that a majority of Americans favor proposals for Medicare for All. But while the idea has gained some steam in Congress over the past years, it still faces fierce opposition from lobbyists and the lawmakers they solicit.

    Private health insurers are making record profits while insuring fewer people; reports have found that the U.S.’s health expenditures are the highest among member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), while the U.S.’s health care system ranks last on measures like access, efficiency, equity and health outcomes. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are hugely reliant on profits generated by U.S. citizens, and a report last year found that prices for top prescription drugs are as much as 10 times higher in the U.S. than they are in other countries.

    Lobbyists, looking to maintain these profits, play a huge role in the legislative equation – according to Politico, the health care industry lobby has created an “army” to fight Medicare for All in Congress, developing cozy relationships with Democrats and Republicans alike. Last year, health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists maxed out their donations to Democrats as they were crafting the Build Back Better Act, which included proposals that took aim at sky-high prescription drug prices.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks during an event at the U.S. Climate Action Centre during COP26 on November 9, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland.

    On Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said that backing a progressive primary challenger to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) would be the “easiest decision” she would ever have to make.

    In an interview with MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan, Ocasio-Cortez said that four years into her six-year term, the conservative Democrat hasn’t “given a compelling case as to why she should be renominated as the Democratic nominee” in Arizona.

    “She has proven herself an obstacle to the right to vote in the United States, she is not an ally on civil rights,” Ocasio-Cortez said, adding that Sinema has become a “threat” to securing a stable democracy in the U.S. “She is not standing up to corporate interests – in fact, she is a profound ally to them … she is not doing what voters in Arizona sent her to do.”

    The New York progressive said that she would gladly support a progressive challenger to Sinema should one arise when the senator is up for reelection in 2024.

    “If it came down to someone like Ruben Gallego and Kyrsten Sinema, I think that would be the easiest decision I would ever have to make,” she said. “There is no comparison…. We need someone that has more allegiance to the actual people of this country than special interests.”

    Representative Gallego, a Democratic Congress member from Phoenix, is an early progressive favorite to challenge Sinema. He recently said that he has been encouraged by political figures of all stripes – lawmakers, unions, Democratic advocacy groups and donors – to run against Sinema in two years.

    A recent poll by Data for Progress found that Sinema would lose against Gallego if the primary were held now. Among likely Arizona Democratic primary voters, a whopping 74 percent of respondents said that they would vote for Gallego, while only 16 percent said they would vote for Sinema. Against a less well-known potential candidate, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, Sinema would still lose by a large margin, securing only 17 percent of the vote, the poll found.

    If the polling data is reflective of the state’s Democratic populace, it means that Sinema has only gotten less popular since last October, when a similar poll conducted by Data for Progress found that Gallego would win 62 to 23 percent among Democratic primary voters. Against other hypothetical challengers, including Romero, Sinema received no more than 26 percent support, the poll found.

    Meanwhile, support for Sinema among Democrats has dropped drastically over the past year. The poll from last October found that Sinema’s job approval is dismal, with only 25 percent approval and 70 percent disapproval. Earlier this month, she lost the support of major Democratic organizations like Emily’s List, a prominent abortion rights PAC that helps to elect female Democratic candidates to office.

    Last week, Sinema even lost the support of her party in her home state, as the Arizona Democratic Party voted to censure the lawmaker on Friday. While they have had frustrations with Sinema over her opposition to filibuster abolition or reform, the party said, Sinema’s obstruction of voting rights legislation last week was a step too far.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) praised the party’s decision earlier this week, calling the move “exactly right.” Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-West Virginia) vote against changing filibuster rules to pass voting rights legislation was “a terrible, terrible vote” and “pathetic,” Sanders said. Last week, the progressive lawmaker also indicated that he was open to supporting primary challengers to Sinema and Manchin.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders gives an opening statement during a Senate Budget Committee hearing on June 8, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Voicing exasperation with months of fruitless backroom talks over the Build Back Better Act, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday demanded floor votes on individual pieces of the stalled legislation in order to force Republicans — and right-wing Democrats — to go on the record opposing policies with widespread public support.

    Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill that “amazingly, there have been no votes” in the Senate on the Build Back Better package, the House-passed version of which includes an extension of the boosted child tax credit, a plan to lower sky-high prescription drug prices, and significant investments in renewable energy, child care, housing, and other Democratic priorities.

    “The result: the Republican Party is able to escape responsibility for their reactionary positions and is now laughing all the way to likely political success in the 2022 elections,” the Vermont senator warned. “Here’s a radical idea for the Senate, ‘the world’s greatest deliberative body.’ Let’s vote. Let’s have every Republican and Democrat take a position on some of the most important issues facing the working families of this country.”

    Republicans haven’t exactly been quiet about their opposition to the Build Back Better package as a whole. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly derided the bill as a “liberal wish list,” and House Republicans unanimously voted against the $1.75 trillion measure in November.

    But Sanders argued that making Republicans cast votes on singular components of the legislation that are supported even by a large percentage of GOP voters — such as a plan allowing Medicare to negotiate medicine prices directly with pharmaceutical companies — would be good politics for the Democratic Party and beneficial for the country.

    “Eighty-three percent of the American people support empowering the federal government to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry to lower prescription drug prices,” Sanders noted Wednesday. “What do the Republicans think? Are they prepared to stand up to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry which charges us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?”

    “Let’s vote and find out,” the senator wrote.

    Sanders made the same demand of other portions of the Build Back Better Act, from Medicare expansion to paid family leave to tax hikes on the rich to climate action — all of which, the senator argued, have strong backing from the U.S. public.

    “This is an enormously difficult moment for the struggling working class of our country, and the Senate needs to act,” he wrote. “In our democracy, the American people have a right to know where their senators stand on the most important issues impacting their lives. No more endless ‘negotiations.’ No more hiding behind closed doors. Let’s vote.”

    Sanders’ op-ed was published as Democratic leaders signaled plans to revive the Build Back Better Act in some form — and potentially with a different name — after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) killed an earlier iteration of the bill and demanded that the party start “from scratch,” taking even his own counterproposal off the table.

    In a last-ditch push to make progress on a central element of his domestic policy agenda, President Joe Biden has suggested breaking up the Build Back Better package and attempting to pass “big chunks” of it, including green energy provisions. But it’s unclear whether such a strategy would be workable, given the constraints of the budget reconciliation process.

    “What the president calls ‘chunks,’ I would hope would be a major bill going forward. It may be more limited, but it is still significant,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters last week. “This is a reconciliation bill. So when people say let’s divide it up… No, they don’t understand the process.”

    With the path forward for Democrats’ main legislative priority highly uncertain and as key pandemic relief programs continue to lapse, Sanders and progressive activists have vocally warned in recent days that the party could face disaster in the fast-approaching midterm elections.

    “After six months of ‘negotiating’ behind closed doors with these two conservative Democratic senators, there is widespread understanding that this strategy has failed not only from a policy point of view, but politically as well,” Sanders wrote in an email to supporters Wednesday, referring to Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

    “The base of the Democratic Party is now demoralized and, according to many polls, Republicans stand a strong chance of winning the House and the Senate in the 2022 elections,” the Vermont senator continued. “We need a new direction, a new approach. We need to show the American people that we are prepared to stand up and fight for the working families of this country.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Congressional candidate Nina Turner speaks to a crowd of volunteers before a Get Out the Vote canvassing event on July 30, 2021, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

    Nina Turner has announced that she will be running to represent Cleveland in the House of Representatives after her campaign against Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) fell flat in the primaries last year.

    Turner, who formerly served as an Ohio state senator and as campaign co-chair for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), will likely go up against Brown again. Brown beat Turner in a Democratic primary and easily won the general election to fill the seat vacated by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge last year.

    “Families are struggling…. While corporations make record profits,” Turner said in a video announcing her campaign. “Greater Cleveland needs a change maker, not someone who will just go along to get along. We can put an agenda through Congress that puts working families first.”

    During last year’s run, Turner ran on a progressive platform that included supporting Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. She alluded to these priorities in her campaign announcement on Wednesday, saying that she would focus on climate, economic, racial and reproductive justice while in office.

    “The people of Greater Cleveland overwhelmingly support Medicare for All. So do I,” she wrote on Twitter. “Healthcare has been denied to millions of Americans for too long. I will fight for Medicare for All, and I won’t take a dime from the health insurance industry.”

    When she ran last year, Turner garnered endorsements from people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sanders, along with the support of progressive groups like the Working Families Party.

    In August, Brown won over Turner by about six points. Corporate media outlets framed the defeat as a public rejection of progressive ideology and as proof that President Joe Biden didn’t need to capitulate to the left. But progressives say that the takeaways from the election weren’t that simple.

    As Turner noted at the time of her loss, Brown had the support of the massively powerful Democratic establishment, and received a flood of money from PACs, corporate funders and even GOP donors during the campaign; Turner called these donations “evil money” in her concession speech.

    One of Brown’s major financial backers was a pro-Israel PAC called the Democratic Majority for Israel that spent over $2 million supporting Brown and running attack ads against Turner; other centrist and right-leaning organizations attempted to smear Turner by claiming that she isn’t a “real Democrat,” a common refrain of establishment Democrats targeting the left.

    After the primary, some political commentators noted that the election didn’t indicate a widespread rejection of progressivism. What many news outlets overlooked at the time, wrote The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey, was that special elections are often not indicative of voters’ preferences more generally.

    While a Turner win would have been a victory for the left, “Brown’s win indicates that the establishment was successful here, and that their late-in-the-game devotion of resources and manpower worked,” Godfrey wrote. “[T]hose are about the only reasonable extrapolations.”

    “There was an anybody-but-Nina campaign ran in 2021,” Turner told NBC recently. “Some of those forces may still decide to get into this race, but what they will not be able to do is totally concentrate [on the Ohio 11th District] because this will not be the only race.”

    Brown’s campaign last year touted her closeness with establishment Democrats. Her first TV ad bragged that she would “work with Joe Biden.”

    As Cleveland.com’s Brent Larkin noted in May of last year, “Brown will be a well-financed candidate with deep-pocketed supporters who aren’t afraid to play rough. That’s because Turner can’t be beaten unless opponents plant seeds of doubt about her fitness, convincing voters her harsh criticisms of President Joe Biden would make it impossible for her to get things done for her community.” Larkin then pointed out that Biden chose Kamala Harris as his vice president despite her harsh criticisms of Biden during the primary.

    Turner has said that it is important for progressive lawmakers to support Biden’s agenda while still demanding more from the party. “There is a need for people to both lift the president’s agenda when they agree with that agenda but also in that same motion push for more,” she told NBC. “I don’t see those things as mutually exclusive – even though people want to make it mutually exclusive.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senators Bernie Sanders and Kyrsten Sinema

    Over the weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) praised the Arizona Democratic Party for censuring Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) over her obstruction of federal voting rights.

    In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sanders called Sinema’s vote in the Senate last week against filibuster changes to allow the passage of voting rights legislation “terrible.”

    Certain Republican states “are moving in a very, very anti-democratic way,” he said. “It was absolutely imperative that we change the rules so we could pass strong voting rights legislation. All Republicans voted against us, two Democrats voted against us – that was a terrible, terrible vote.”

    “I think what the Arizona Democratic Party did was exactly right,” Sanders concluded.

    Last week, Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) voted against a proposal to enact a talking filibuster for Democrats’ voting rights bill, which would allow the Senate to pass the measure with a simple majority vote. It was a last-ditch effort to protect voting rights as Republicans shred them to pieces.

    The Arizona Democratic Party announced that it had voted to censure Sinema on Saturday after months of frustration with the senator’s obstinate defense of the filibuster.

    “[T]he Arizona Democratic Party is a diverse coalition with plenty of room for policy disagreements,” party chair Raquel Terán said in a statement. “[H]owever on the matter of the filibuster and the urgency to protect voting rights, we have been crystal clear.” Terán said that, while the party supports Democratic candidates, the consequences of Sinema’s “failure” to protect voting rights are too dire to ignore.

    The state party has expressed frustration over the senator’s obstruction before. Last year, it threatened to hold a vote of “no confidence” for Sinema’s filibuster defense, which has caused a near-absolute deadlock in the Senate over Democratic priorities.

    A censure is largely a symbolic ruling that does not carry formal consequences in this instance. However, it is a strong rebuke to Sinema, as her own party essentially rules to stand against her, and will likely fuel a primary campaign to unseat her when she’s up for reelection in 2024.

    In October, a poll found that, if the election were held soon, Sinema would easily be defeated by Democratic challengers. In a head-to-head race against Ruben Gallego, an early favorite to primary the senator, Sinema loses 62 to 23 percent, according to the poll.

    Sanders told reporters last week that he would be open to supporting a candidate who ran against her. In a video posted to his Twitter, he said that it was “pathetic” that Sinema and Manchin would vote to obstruct voting rights during such a crucial time for the country.

    However, with Sinema and Manchin not up for reelection for another four years, Sanders is saying that it’s crucial for their stances to be made clear now. In interviews and an op-ed in CNN last week, Sanders has made it clear that he thinks more Democratic agenda items should be put to a vote so that voters can clearly see what the conservative Democrats oppose.

    “Funny things happen when a bill gets to the floor,” Sanders said on “Meet the Press.” “Let’s put a strong bill on the floor. And if Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema want to vote against it whatever, Republicans want to vote against it – we can go from there. But what we cannot continue to do, in my view, is these endless backroom negotiations. The American people have got to see where we are.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • King Soopers grocery store workers walk the picket line as they strike at more than 70 stores across the Denver metro area on January 12, 2022, in Denver, Colorado.

    A strike waged by over 8,000 grocery workers in Colorado has ended after the union announced on Friday that it has reached a tentative agreement with King Soopers, which is owned by grocery giant Kroger.

    Union members will begin voting on the three-year deal on Monday. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 told workers that they are to return to work within a week.

    The terms of the agreement have not yet been made public, but workers will be given details in the coming days. Kim Cordova, the president of UFCW Local 7, praised the deal.

    “After months of negotiations and after our members walked out on strike, we have reached a tentative agreement with King Soopers/City Market that addresses the company’s unfair labor practices and ensures that our members will receive the respect, pay and protection they warrant,” Cordova said in a statement.

    “This fight will always be about the workers. I could not be prouder of our members who put it all on the line to have their voices heard,” she continued.

    The strike was originally slated to last three weeks after the company claimed its offer from early January was its “last, best and final” one.

    The company says that the current agreement will improve wages, health care and pension plans for its workers. But the company also claimed that the offer workers rejected last week would have raised wages – even though the union said that the raise would have amounted to mere pennies for some workers.

    The union, which was at the negotiating table for months, has previously said that the company wasn’t negotiating in good faith; Cordova said that the company continually made proposals during negotiations that were even worse than the offer that kicked off the strike. Last Friday, Cordova said that workers’ demands were being ignored by the company.

    “King Soopers’ latest proposal contains numerous poison pill provisions, one of which would make wage rates proposed by the Company worth less than the paper they are printed on,” Cordova said in a statement on January 14. “Under this proposal, workers could forfeit daily overtime pay and some are looking at wage cuts of up to $3.34 per hour.”

    The company has faced increased scrutiny as a result of the strike. In a survey last week of nearly 37,000 Kroger workers – including those in Colorado – researchers found that thousands of the company’s employees don’t make enough money to get by. In a portion of the survey that included workers who were members of UFCW Local 7, 63 percent of respondents said that they don’t earn enough to pay for basic expenses like food and rent.

    Seventy-eight percent of workers in the same portion of the survey said that they experienced either low or very low food security. Meanwhile, 14 percent of workers said that they were currently experiencing homelessness or that they had been homeless at one point over the past year.

    The company is well aware that its workers have been experiencing financial hardship, More Perfect Union found. In 2018, an internal “State of the Associate” presentation informed Kroger executives that a large swath of the company’s workers were in poverty and relying on food stamps to survive.

    At least 1 in 5 associates were on government assistance, the presentation said. It also noted that in Ohio, where Kroger is based, a $15 an hour wage is required to afford to pay rent for a two-bedroom home. “On average, 2.9 full-time jobs paying minimum wage are needed to rent a two-bedroom unit,” the presentation said.

    Meanwhile, in 2020, Kroger paid CEO Rodney McMullen $20.6 million in compensation, including an over 45 percent raise in the same year that the company cut employees’ $2 an hour “hero pay” after giving it to them for mere weeks at the beginning of the pandemic.

    The company has been condemned by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who wrote a letter to McMullen on Thursday demanding that the company give workers a fair agreement after presenting an “unacceptable offer” in the latest negotiations.

    “Your company is making record breaking profits that are expected to exceed $4 billion last year alone. Kroger has provided over $1.5 billion in stock buybacks and dividends to enrich wealthy shareholders,” Sanders wrote. “This is precisely the type of corporate greed that the American people are sick and tired of.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders talks to reporters outside the West Wing following a meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House on July 12, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, President Joe Biden appeared to snub left-leaning lawmakers in his party, implying that it’s progressives – not conservative Democrats – who are obstructing the president’s agenda.

    The implication came after Fox News’s Peter Doocy asked the president why he is trying to “pull the country so far to the left” – a question that itself is disingenuous, as fearmongering politicians and right-wing media have continually painted centrist Democrats as radical in order to mobilize their own followers.

    In response, Biden rebuffed the idea that he has been pulling the country to the left. “You guys have been trying to convince me that I am Bernie Sanders,” he said. “I’m not Bernie Sanders. I’m not a socialist. I’m a mainstream Democrat and I have been. And mainstream Democrats have overwhelmingly – if you notice, 48 of the 50 Democrats supported me in the Senate on virtually everything I’ve asked.”

    The president’s answer is contradictory; in the same breath that he casts Sanders as a non-mainstream Democrat, he implies that it is only mainstream Democrats who are supporting his policies.

    It’s true that Sanders, who identifies as an independent but caucuses with the party, may not fit the mold of a so-called mainstream Democrat by current party standards, even though he has had an enormous hand in shaping the party’s agenda.

    But Sanders has consistently rallied behind Biden since the president’s inauguration almost a year ago. In fact, Sanders has been Biden’s most stalwart advocate for priorities like the Build Back Better Act. Meanwhile, the two Senate Democrats who have obstructed nearly the entirety of Biden’s legislative agenda thus far are conservative “blue dog” Democrats.

    Indeed, Biden’s comment came just before conservative Democrats Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona delivered a fatal blow to one of the most pressing proposals on the Democratic docket on Wednesday night.

    After a year of fierce arguments over the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) set up a vote on Wednesday to amend Senate rules in order to pass the Democrats’ marquee voting bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

    The proposal would have allowed a talking filibuster on the bill to expand voting rights and increase campaign finance transparency, clearing the legislation – which has already been passed by the House – to pass in the Senate with a simple majority vote. Biden has endorsed the filibuster changes so that the party can protect voting rights as Republicans pass dozens of bills restricting voting rights across the country.

    However, Sinema and Manchin blocked the filibuster changes and the voting rights legislation. Although political journalists continually claim, with little evidence, that the two actually represent a less-outspoken faction of the party, Manchin and Sinema were the only Democrats who voted against the proposal, joining 50 Republicans in blocking the bill.

    After the vote, Sanders condemned the senators for obstructing Biden’s agenda in Congress. “It’s not just this vote” that Manchin and Sinema have blocked, he said, according to Talking Points Memo. “These are people who I think have undermined the president of the United States. They have forced us to go through five months of discussions which have gotten absolutely nowhere.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders answers questions from reporters at the Capitol on July 12, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Ahead of a crucial vote to amend the filibuster to support voting rights, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has said that he would be open to supporting candidates levying a primary challenge to conservative Democrats Senators Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona).

    Sanders told reporters on Tuesday that he would consider backing primary challenges to the two filibuster holdouts when they’re up for reelection. The senators, who are basking in the praise and political contributions from conservative groups, stand in the way of nearly every Democratic priority currently before Congress.

    The Senate’s protracted battle on the filibuster is coming to a head this week. Schumer announced on Tuesday that he will bring a filibuster reform vote to the chamber after Republicans inevitably vote to shoot down the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which could take place as soon as Wednesday or Thursday.

    Though the two lawmakers aren’t up for reelection until 2024, both senators’ approval ratings have been falling fast as they stand in the way of Democratic progress – and an October poll found that Sinema would lose to progressive challengers if the election were held immediately.

    Sanders, who has previously expressed frustration with the two senators, condemned their opposition to filibuster reform in a Twitter video on Tuesday.

    “Right now, every Republican will be voting against us, and that’s pretty pathetic,” he said. “But what’s equally pathetic, as of now, two Democrats will be voting against us as well. I would hope very much that those two Democrats, Senator Sinema and Senator Manchin, will rethink their position and understand that the foundations of American democracy are at stake.”

    According to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), the two lawmakers are the only Democrats in the chamber who still staunchly oppose any changes to the filibuster, essentially supporting minority rule. Some other legislators have said that they’re torn on the issue, but that they’re open to filibuster reform, which Sinema and Manchin are not.

    Schumer is proposing an implementation of a talking filibuster for the voting rights bill. This means that the bill will be able to pass with a simple majority vote after any opponents delay the vote by speaking on the Senate floor, if they so choose. Currently, bills must overcome a 60-vote threshold in order to pass.

    The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which is a combination of two voting rights bills that have both been passed by the House, would greatly increase financial transparency in campaign donations and restore provisions of the Voting Rights Act meant to protect marginalized voters.

    Voting rights advocates and progressives have welcomed Schumer’s plan, saying that it’s necessary to put senators’ views on the filibuster issue – which serves as somewhat of a proxy vote for voting rights – on the record. Sinema and Manchin have both already said that they will vote against the reform.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Portraits of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg

    As most of the world’s population suffered under a deadly pandemic, the world’s 10 richest people doubled their wealth while the world’s billionaires added $5 trillion to their collective wealth, a new report by Oxfam finds.

    Since the beginning of the pandemic, billionaires have been profiting greatly from the global economy, the report’s authors wrote. Since March 2021, billionaire wealth has risen from an already high $8.6 trillion to $13.8 trillion and previous reports have found that the 10 richest people alone account for hundreds of billions of dollars of that growth in wealth. This is a larger growth in billionaire wealth than that of the last 14 years combined.

    “A new billionaire has been created every 26 hours since the pandemic began,” the report reads. “The world’s 10 richest men have doubled their fortunes, while over 160 million people are projected to have been pushed into poverty.”

    The report’s authors wrote that such growing economic inequality is a result of purposeful choices by government officials.

    “This is not by chance, but choice: ‘economic violence’ is perpetrated when structural policy choices are made for the richest and most powerful people,” the report continued, noting that women and non-white people are particularly susceptible to poverty and its deleterious effects.

    They estimate that 21,300 people each day are dying partly as a result of inequality – or about one person every four seconds – an estimate that they characterize as “highly conservative” based on poverty-related factors like food insecurity, a lack of health care and gender-based violence.

    Black Americans have especially suffered during the pandemic, the report points out; if Black Americans had the same life expectancy as their white peers, 3.4 million Black people in the U.S. would still be alive today. This number has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

    The climate crisis is also a growing concern, the report says. Oxfam conservatively estimates that 231,000 people will die each year in poor countries due to the climate crisis by 2030. This is similar to previous estimates, though other research has found that climate crisis-related extreme weather is already killing millions of people every year.

    The report, which was released in time for the 2022 Davos Agenda economic forum, is scathing in its analysis of the mechanisms by which extreme inequality is being perpetuated.

    “There is no shortage of money” to help reverse this trend, the report authors wrote. “That lie died when governments released $16 trillion to respond to the pandemic. There is only a shortage of courage to tackle inequality, and the wealth and might of the rich and the powerful, and a shortage of the imagination needed to break free from the failed, narrow straitjacket of extreme neoliberalism.”

    Oxfam recommends an immediate tax on billionaires’ pandemic gains in order to provide aid to people in poverty. A 99 percent tax on just the pandemic wealth gains of the 10 richest men in the world, for instance, would raise $812 billion for that purpose.

    U.S. progressives reiterated their call for taxing the rich in reaction to Oxfam’s report. “Tax the billionaires. Invest in the working class,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

    Even if a wealth tax were to be levied just on American billionaires, the results could be transformative. A report by the Americans for Tax Fairness found that the U.S.’s nearly 750 billionaires gained $1 trillion in wealth in 2021 – a tax-free gain of 25 percent. Their collective wealth, the report found, is about $5.1 trillion, or enough to fund the Democrats’ extinct Build Back Better Act two times over.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders Holds Press Conference On The Budget

    Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that by vowing to uphold the archaic Senate rule standing in the way of voting rights legislation, his Senate colleagues Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are putting “the future of American democracy” at risk.

    “It is a sad day when two members of the Democratic caucus are prepared to allow the Freedom to Vote Act to fail,” the Vermont senator tweeted. “I hope very much they will reconsider their positions.”

    Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) opposition to weakening the 60-vote filibuster rule — a stance they reiterated Thursday — effectively tanks their party’s hopes of passing voting rights legislation to thwart the GOP’s mass disenfranchisement and election subversion efforts in states across the country.

    Despite the likelihood of failure, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY.) said the Senate will debate the newly assembled Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act on Tuesday, a day after the federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

    “If Senate Republicans choose obstruction over protecting the sacred right to vote — as we expect them to — the Senate will consider and vote on changing the Senate rules, as has been done many times before, to allow for passage of voting rights legislation,” Schumer said in a floor speech after Sinema made clear she would not back any such changes, intensifying calls for a 2024 primary challenge.

    The support of every member of the Senate Democratic caucus and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris would be needed to enact a rule change.

    With federal action likely not forthcoming, local Democratic officials and activists “now say they are resigned to having to spend and organize their way around” the slew of fresh Republican-authored voting restrictions, the New York Times reported, “a prospect many view with hard-earned skepticism.”

    In a July letter to President Joe Biden, a coalition of 150 civil rights organizations wrote that “while we support the notion of a broad-based coalition of advocates, we cannot and should not have to organize our way out of the attacks and restrictions on voting that lawmakers are passing and proposing at the state level.”

    “Nor can we litigate our way out of this threat to democracy,” the groups warned. “We must remember that at critical times in our history, one party has been forced to act alone in securing the fundamental democratic rights of American citizens, including Congress’ passage of both the 14th and 15th Amendments. Any rule or procedure that functions to stop bills from ever being considered on the floor is not a procedure to promote debate; it is a procedure to promote gridlock.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Hundreds of members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) march to the Manhattan headquarters of BlackRock, the largest shareholder in the mining company Warrior Met Coal, on November 4, 2021, in New York City.

    On Thursday, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) sent a letter to the CEO of BlackRock, demanding that the massive financial firm, which owns a large portion of Warrior Met Coal, intervene on behalf of striking mine workers in Alabama.

    “We hope you appreciate the kind of conditions that the miners at Warrior Met have experienced. The Warrior Met miners have worked up to 16 hours a day, seven days a week,” the lawmakers wrote to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, whose firm is Warrior Met’s largest shareholder. “The mines they work in are up to 2,100 feet deep and are extremely dangerous, releasing toxic, flammable and explosive methane gas.”

    Warrior Met Coal workers have been on strike since April of 2021, a strike that is potentially the longest in Alabama history; it has gone on so long that many workers have picked up other jobs to support themselves and their families during the strike, Labor Notes found. The 1,100 workers who initially went on strike have had to deal with routine abuse, including Warrior Met personnel hitting picketers with their cars.

    The United Mine Workers of America members are hoping to reverse concessions made in contract negotiations in 2016, including a pay cut of $6 an hour, worse benefits and more dangerous working conditions. Currently, the company has offered a raise of only $1.50 per hour over five years and has not budged on restoring health care and pension benefits.

    The company is also demanding the ability to fire workers who have engaged in so-called “picket line misconduct” – in essence, any worker who has been vocal on the picket line, including union leaders.

    “Basically, they went after all the union officials, strike captains, and people that’s been vocal on the picket line,” miner Brian Seabolt told Labor Notes.

    Sanders, Warren and Baldwin called the company’s platform outrageous, pointing out that Warrior Met is making these demands despite making billions and constantly rewarding shareholders with dividends.

    “While the extraordinary sacrifices made by the miners saved the company an estimated $1.1 billion over the past 5 years, the executives at Warrior Met and their Wall Street investors made out like bandits,” the letter reads. “Since 2017, Warrior Met has rewarded $1.4 billion in dividends to its wealthy shareholders while handing out bonuses of up to $50,000 to its executives.”

    Meanwhile, workers face dismal conditions, and are required to keep the mine operating 24 hours a day, including holidays. The company has violated mine safety regulations at least 40 times since 2016 and fires workers for missing over four days of work.

    “In our view, this is precisely the type of corporate greed that the American people are growing increasingly disgusted with,” the lawmakers wrote.

    Sanders has gone directly to CEOs of major corporations on labor issues before. Earlier this month, he sent a letter to Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and one of the world’s richest men, asking him to compel executives at a steel plant owned by the conglomerate to offer workers a fair agreement.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders makes his way to the Senate Demcrats luncheon on October 19, 2021.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has introduced legislation to send N95 masks to U.S. households as the Biden administration drags its feet on plans to issue high-quality masks to all Americans.

    “Today I introduced legislation, along with more than 50 of my colleagues, to produce N95 masks, one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of Covid-19, and distribute them to every American for free,” Sanders said on Wednesday.

    Sanders has previously introduced similar legislation to Wednesday’s proposal. In July 2020 – just as health officials were recommending widespread mask-wearing – Sanders proposed sending high-quality, reusable masks to every person in the country through the United States Postal Service.

    Recent research has found that high-quality masks like KN95s or N95s are significantly more effective at preventing spread of the virus. As such, some health officials have begun recommending that people swap out cloth masks for more protective options like a surgical mask, KN95s or N95s.

    But even as lower-level health authorities have recommended better masks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stopped short of recommending them. Recent reporting finds that the CDC is currently weighing issuing such guidance. The guidance would say that, if people can “tolerate wearing a KN95 or N95 mask all day, you should,” according to The Washington Post.

    The Biden administration is also considering a plan to send high-quality masks, potentially including N95s or KN95s, to all who want them. But it’s unclear if that will come with obstacles like the administration’s recent plan to provide free at-home COVID tests nearly exclusively for people with private insurance, who would have to jump through insurer’s hoops to get reimbursements for the test costs.

    Sanders has advocated for Biden to make use of the Defense Production Act, which the president can use to compel manufacturers to create medical equipment for the pandemic, to make N95s. “Not all face masks are created equal,” Sanders said over the weekend. “N95 face masks are far more effective than cloth masks in preventing the spread of COVID. We must utilize the Defense Production Act to mass produce these masks and distribute them to every household in the country.”

    Indeed, if the CDC begins recommending use of high-quality masks, it would follow that the administration should take action to make such masks more readily available. Nearly two years into the pandemic, it is still difficult for consumers to discern where to purchase real N95s and KN95s, with countless fake or poorly contracted masks being sold online, largely on Amazon. The fakes are so convincing that, last year, hospitals and state governments bought millions of counterfeit masks, thinking they were made by 3M.

    Another problem facing consumers is that N95s and KN95s can be expensive. Cheaper models can cost $1 or $2 a mask, and some manufacturers say that people shouldn’t wear N95s for more than a few hours at a time. Last year, the CDC recommended that health care workers only reuse N95s up to five times, storing the mask in a paper bag for at least five days between uses, and only reusing masks in times of major shortages.

    Even if people follow these recommendations and wear masks a handful of times before disposing of them, the costs can add up. Compared to cloth masks, which are less protective but that many have been washing and reusing through the pandemic, workers may opt to continue using the cheaper cloth mask option over the recurring cost of N95s or KN95s.

    If the government is interested in preventing spread of the virus, the government should be providing high-quality masks to the public for free or low cost, progressive lawmakers have said. Members of Congress and their staffers are reportedly set to receive KN95s in response to the Omicron variant, with no such programs announced so far for the public, with people left to fend for themselves with no additional stimulus bills coming.

    Sanders’s proposal comes as COVID-19 case numbers are skyrocketing in the country, with the highest case rate by far throughout the pandemic. According to The New York Times, an average of over 761,000 people are currently testing positive for the virus each day as of Tuesday, an increase of nearly 200 percent over two weeks ago.

    New cases are driven nearly exclusively by the Omicron variant. The new variant is more transmissible than previous versions of COVID, and appears to be causing higher numbers of breakthrough cases, even in people who have been fully vaccinated and boosted. In other words, masking is just as important now as it has ever been, regardless of vaccination status.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bernie Sanders

    Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday demanded refunds for seniors who have been hit by the 2022 Medicare premium hike after federal health officials recommended limiting the program’s coverage of Aduhelm, the unproven and expensive Alzheimer’s drug responsible for a large chunk of the premium increase.

    In a statement, Sanders said CMS officials’ preliminary decision Tuesday to restrict coverage of Biogen’s Aduhelm to patients taking part in approved clinical trials was “an important step forward.” CMS’ final decision on the drug is expected by April.

    “I urge the administration to immediately lower Medicare premiums by at least $11.50 a month and to provide a refund to 57 million senior citizens for the premium increases that have already gone into effect this month,” Sanders continued. “I would also urge the president to reinstate and expand the reasonable pricing clause that requires drug makers who have benefited from taxpayer-funded research to charge reasonable prices for drugs and treatments.”

    “Americans should not have to pay an outrageous price for a drug that their tax dollars helped develop,” he added.

    CMS’ announcement Tuesday came just 24 hours after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra instructed federal officials to “reassess” the increase in monthly Medicare Part B premiums to $170.10 in 2022, up from the previous year’s level of $148.50 — one of the largest premium hikes in the program’s history.

    Becerra did not provide a specific timeline for action.

    The Washington Post’s Amy Goldstein noted Monday that “beginning with this month’s checks, which start to be issued this week, Social Security has a 5.9% cost-of-living increase for 2022, but many people on Medicare may first notice that the relatively large premium increase for their health insurance is cutting into the size of their checks.”

    CMS has attributed roughly half of the 2022 Medicare premium increase to “additional contingency reserves” needed for the program’s potential coverage of Aduhelm, which the Food and Drug Administration approved in June despite experts’ vocal warnings that the drug had not been shown to be effective at slowing Alzheimer’s-induced cognitive decline.

    In his statement Tuesday, Sanders pointed to the fact that Aduhelm — now priced at $28,000 annually — “was rejected for coverage by the Veterans Health Administration and at least a half a dozen private health insurance companies in the United States, while 10 out of the 11 experts on the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory council voted against approval of the treatment.”

    “Biogen’s outrageous original price for Aduhelm, $56,000 per year, is the poster child for how dysfunctional our drug pricing system has become and it is the perfect example of why Medicare should be negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry,” said Sanders. “If the administration takes no action, Medicare recipients will continue to see their biggest premium increase in history, all because of Biogen’s greed. That cannot be allowed to happen.”

    Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, also applauded CMS for proposing to limit Medicare’s coverage of Aduhelm, the accelerated approval of which led several FDA advisers to resign in protest.

    “Implementation of this proposed decision would significantly mitigate the damage done by the Food and Drug Administration’s reckless decision last year to approve [Aduhelm] despite the lack of scientific evidence that the drug provides any clinically meaningful benefit to Alzheimer’s patients with respect to cognitive function outcomes and clear evidence that it can cause serious brain injury,” said Carome.

    “Unlike the FDA,” he added, “CMS wisely chose to follow the scientific evidence.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Workers from the Elmwood Starbucks are pictured on day 2 of their walkout on January 6, 2022.

    On Wednesday, workers at the Elmwood Starbucks location in Buffalo, New York, walked off the job to protest working conditions, citing the company’s failure to address COVID-related safety issues.

    According to the union, workers are protesting because they have been forced to work through “unsafe working conditions,” facing health concerns and understaffing.

    Elmwood organizer Michelle Eisen called the walkout a “necessary stand.”

    “Starbucks would rather let loyal employees walk than address critical issues regarding COVID,” Eisen wrote. “Corporate continues to put profits over partners. We’ve had enough.”

    Eisen said in an interview with More Perfect Union that employees were stonewalled after sharing their concerns about COVID with the company over the past week.

    “They said under no uncertain terms that as long as there are enough employees to meet the needs of the business then everything was being taken care of,” she said. “We’re not going to go back into the store until we feel that we’re safe.”

    Starbucks workers have highlighted COVID-related concerns in the past. Workers say that they have been forced to come in while sick – a problem exacerbated by understaffing issues which have resulted in the company pressuring employees to come to work.

    The protest comes weeks after the workers voted to form the first-ever union at a corporate-owned Starbucks location. Elmwood workers have reported receiving gifts from all over the country expressing solidarity with their union, including handwritten letters, tips and even an engraved plaque from the New York State Public Employees Federation.

    Their win has inspired other Starbucks locations across the country to organize and even file petitions to unionize, sparking what could potentially become a wave of unionizations across some of the company’s 9,000 corporate-owned locations.

    The unionization came amid a major resurgence of the labor movement, with workers across the country waging strikes and organizing their workplaces despite facing massive opposition. Though workers at Kellogg and John Deere recently ended long strikes after agreeing on contracts, some strikes that began last year are still ongoing; steelworkers in West Virginia, for instance, have been striking for higher wages and better benefits since October.

    The Elmwood workers were joined by McDonald’s workers in Palmdale, California, who walked off the job on Wednesday to demand safer working conditions. Workers say that the company has failed to fix crucial equipment in the store like air conditioning, drainage and ventilation.

    “Short staffing and the breakdown of kitchen equipment make it harder to do our jobs; we get yelled at while [McDonald’s] continues to profit,” wrote Fight for $15 LA on Twitter.

    The renewed labor activism that has been springing up across the country has caught the attention and support of influential figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who held a town hall on Wednesday to mark 2022 as “the year of solidarity.” During the town hall, Sanders reminded striking steel and coal workers that they are not just fighting for themselves, but for workers across the country.

    “If they get away with slashing your health care – you’ve got strong unions, great unions – what do you think they’re gonna do to the guy who doesn’t have a union? If they’re able to slash wages and not keep up with inflation, what do you think they’re going to do to people who don’t have a union?” Sanders asked. “So by standing strong, you are representing not only your own membership, but also workers across this country.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally with Peoples Action in front of PhRMAs Washington office on September 21, 2021.

    In an op-ed published on Tuesday, longtime labor advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) set a New Year’s resolution for himself and the working class: to “rise up together” and confront corporate power in 2022.

    2021 was a watershed year for the labor movement, Sanders noted in his op-ed for The Guardian. Workers for John Deere, Nabisco, Kaiser Permanente, Kellogg and more striked or authorized a strike last year, making strides toward fairer working conditions. Another major victory was won by Starbucks workers in Buffalo, New York, who formed the company’s first-ever union.

    “While the corporate-owned media may not be actively reporting it, working people all over the country, with extraordinary courage and determination, are taking on corporate greed, and they are winning,” Sanders wrote.

    Sanders detailed ongoing efforts in places like West Virginia, where roughly 450 steel workers at a company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Special Metals, have been striking since October. The company has offered “an outrageous and insulting contract” with no pay raises this year, while it quadruples health care premiums and reduces time off.

    The senator also pointed to a bakery workers’ strike in California, where about 100 workers – the majority of whom are Latina women – are striking against Rich Products Corporation for forcing them to work up to 16 hours a day. Employees at Warrior Met Coal in Alabama, who work similarly long hours, have been on strike since April. After facing pressure from Wall Street investors during a restructuring deal, workers suffered a pay cut of over 20 percent on average in 2016.

    While refusing to treat their workers fairly, these companies have all raked in enormous profits, Sanders pointed out. Last year, Special Metals made $1.5 billion and Rich Products made $4 billion. Meanwhile, Warrior Met has paid out $1.4 billion in shareholder dividends since 2014.

    Workers currently face ever-increasing corporate greed, a devastating pandemic and a political system that is rapidly deteriorating – and as class warfare is “intensifying,” organizing is more critical than ever. “The stakes are just too high,” Sanders wrote. “Despair is not an option. We must stand up and fight back.”

    Change can be achieved through the labor movement and through transformative social movements, Sanders went on, adding that corporate greed and growing oligarchy are the enemy of these movements.

    “The greatest weapon our opponents have is not just their unlimited wealth and power. It is their ability to create a culture that makes us feel weak and hopeless and diminishes the strength of human solidarity,” Sanders wrote. “And here is our new year’s resolution. Like the thousands of workers who stood up and fought courageously in 2021, we will do the same. No one individual is going to save us. We must rise up together.”

    The lawmaker has been a staunch supporter of the labor movement for years, and has stood with workers as they fought for better conditions and wages in 2021. In November, he traveled to Battle Creek, Michigan, to stand with striking Kellogg workers in the 11th week of their strike; in late December, he sent a letter to Buffett asking the Berkshire CEO to intervene in his company’s contract negotiations by offering a fair agreement to workers.

    As 2021 came to an end, Sanders continually pushed workers to stand in solidarity with each other. “I’ve got news for the ruling class: you cannot have it all,” he warned on Twitter. “The working class is fighting back.”

    During his presidential campaign in 2020, Sanders made the labor movement a central plank of his platform, vowing to end so-called “right to work” laws and aiming to double union membership during his first term. Union membership has been declining for decades, and was at a dismal 10.8 percent in 2020. This has led to a decline – of about $3,250 – in the median workers’ annual wage since 1979.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Department Of Health and Human Services, located in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building as seen on April 11, 2015, in Washington, D.C.

    As Medicare officials grapple with whether to cover Aduhelm — an Alzheimer’s medication approved by federal regulators despite a lack of evidence that the exorbitantly priced and potentially dangerous drug helps patients — many doctors are urging them not to.

    Medicare plans to issue a preliminary decision this month on whether the federal health insurance program for U.S. residents 65 and older will cover Aduhelm, a monoclonal antibody also known by its scientific name, aducanumab, The New York Times reported Friday. Following a public comment period, the high-stakes coverage decision is expected to be finalized by mid-April.

    “Please, please, please, do not cover this medicine,” Dr. James Castle, an Illinois neurologist who treats Alzheimer’s patients, wrote last July in the comment section of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) website. “Send a strong and clear message to the pharmaceutical industry that they need to show proof of both efficacy and safety before releasing their medicines on the market.”

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has faced sharp criticism for approving Aduhelm in June even though clinical trials exposed serious safety risks — 41% of patients experienced brain bleeding or swelling — and failed to demonstrate that the drug benefits Alzheimer’s patients. Three advisers resigned in protest.

    “Hopefully the planned investigation of the FDA will get to the bottom of why this medicine was ever cleared by the FDA,” Castle added, referring to FDA acting commissioner Janet Woodcock’s request for an independent probe into the agency’s review of Aduhelm, which followed an exposé showing “inappropriately close collaboration” between FDA officials and drugmaker Biogen.

    Regulators in the European Union on December 16 recommended against authorizing Aduhelm, and Canada’s leading Alzheimer’s research groups said last year that approving it “cannot be justified,” meaning that Medicare’s forthcoming decision could determine the drug’s fate.

    The Times reported:

    Roughly 80% of potential Aduhelm patients are old enough to receive Medicare, making the program’s coverage decision crucial. Private insurers often follow Medicare’s lead.

    Medicare almost always pays for FDA-approved drugs, at least for the medical conditions designated on their label, health policy experts said. But with Aduhelm, Medicare officials have undertaken a monthslong review that could result in no coverage, full coverage, or limited coverage.

    James Chambers, a researcher at the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center, called the deliberations by CMS “truly unprecedented.”

    Sean Tunis, a former official with CMS who is now a senior fellow at the Tufts Medical Center, said that if Medicare denies coverage for Aduhelm, “it will be the first time ever that CMS has declined to pay for a drug that was approved by the FDA for its on-label indication.”

    The looming coverage decision will also affect the financial well-being of Medicare and millions of seniors.

    In November, officials at CMS announced that one of the largest-ever increases in Medicare Part B premiums would be implemented in 2022 — due in large part to the possibility of covering Aduhelm, whose price tag at the time was $56,000 per year.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) implored President Joe Biden to intervene to prevent the rate hike. In a December 3 letter to the White House, Sanders wrote that “the notion that one pharmaceutical company can raise the price of one drug so much that it could negatively impact 57 million senior citizens and the future of Medicare is beyond absurd. With Democrats in control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, we cannot let that happen.”

    Amid weak sales and on the same day that 18 scientists released a statement that slammed the FDA’s approval of Aduhelm as “indefensible in both scientific and clinical terms” and called for its immediate withdrawal from the market, Biogen on December 20 slashed the drug’s price.

    The company is now charging $28,200 for an annual supply of infusions, which are administered monthly and necessitate regular MRI scans to monitor for potentially devastating side effects.

    Following Biogen’s announcement, David Mitchell, the founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs, argued that “the 50% price cut for Aduhelm demonstrates how arbitrary drug prices are.” He added that there should be a corresponding roll back in Medicare’s planned premium increase.

    And yet, despite Aduhelm’s reduced price and even though Medicare’s coverage of the drug remains uncertain, the Medicare Part B premium hike went into effect on Saturday, after Biden refused to heed Sanders’ advice to “take executive action to reinstate and expand the reasonable pricing clause that was established in 1989 by the National Institutes of Health requiring drug makers to charge reasonable prices for prescription drugs and treatments that receive federal funding.”

    As the Times noted on Friday, Aduhelm’s “new price is still much higher than many analysts have said is warranted.” The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent non-profit organization, has estimated that the drug should have a price tag no higher than $3,000 to $8,400 per year.

    “The total cost to Medicare would depend on the terms it sets and how many patients decide to use Aduhelm,” the newspaper added. “About 1.5 million Americans may be eligible because they have mild Alzheimer’s-related dementia.”

    Chambers told the Times that “while it of course depends on Aduhelm’s utilization, it seems that even at $28,000 a year, Aduhelm would still be one of Medicare’s biggest drug expenses.”

    In a recent joint statement, the American Academy of Neurology, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society said that if Medicare decides to cover Aduhelm, which typically means paying 80% of its cost, “many beneficiaries would pay thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket costs for a drug with substantial risks and without proven clinical benefit.”

    The Times explained that “in evaluating Aduhelm, Medicare officials are supposed to decide if it is a ‘reasonable and necessary’ treatment.”

    According to Tunis, that phrase typically “means adequate evidence of improved health outcomes.”

    “If you go strictly by what the language is, this doesn’t meet Medicare’s ‘reasonable and necessary’ criteria because the FDA themselves says there’s no direct evidence of improved cognition,” he told the newspaper.

    According to the Times, “Tunis, who also works as a consultant, including advising Biogen, before Aduhelm was approved, about Medicare’s various options for coverage… added that the FDA’s requirement that Biogen conduct another trial (which will take years while Aduhelm is available to patients) ‘implies that the cognitive benefits have not yet been shown.’”

    Michael Greicius, medical director of the Stanford Center for Memory Disorders and a co-author of an open letter signed by 180 Alzheimer’s doctors, told the Times that “I’m still quietly hoping that January is going to roll around and they’re going to say: ‘Look, we’re not going to cover this. The evidence is too poor.’”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks to striking Kellogg's workers in downtown Battle Creek, Michigan, on December 17, 2021.

    As labor advocates hail 2021 as the “year of the worker,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is encouraging workers to maintain the momentum by using their collective leverage to organize.

    On Wednesday, Sanders issued a warning to corporations and executives on Twitter. “For the ruling class, greed is a religion. They will cut back on workers’ wages, on workers’ benefits, on workers’ safety on the job — all for the sake of having more, more, more,” he wrote. “I’ve got news for the ruling class: you cannot have it all. The working class is fighting back.”

    Sanders’s statements come at the end of a consequential year for the labor movement. Over 100,000 workers authorized strikes this year, with workers at John Deere, Kellogg, and more – along with health care workers across the country – securing wins in contract negotiations with employers. This past year also saw workers organizing in solidarity against fierce anti-union retaliation from companies like Amazon and Starbucks, which have employed illegal union-busting tactics in response to workers’ demands.

    Sanders has repeatedly celebrated this year’s major labor moves – and on Thursday, he once again encouraged employees to organize their workplaces. “It’s true that corporate profits have never been higher. And still, they want more,” he said. “But there is another more important truth: there are a lot more of us than there are of them. Now is the time to organize. Now is the time to end their greed.”

    As the labor movement underwent a roaring resurgence in 2021, Sanders rallied with striking workers; in November, he sent pizza and a donation to striking Kellogg workers and joined them in Battle Creek, Michigan during the 11th week of their strike. He also praised Starbucks workers in Buffalo when they formed the company’s first-ever union, and slammed John Deere when it took drastic action to break its 10,000-worker strike.

    This week, Sanders sent a letter to billionaire Warren Buffett asking him to compel executives to offer a fair contract to workers in a manufacturing plant owned by Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. About 450 metal manufacturing workers for Precision Castparts in Huntington, West Virginia have been on strike for nearly three months, since October 1.

    The workers, who make specialty parts used in aircrafts and other equipment, say that they’re pushing for better working conditions, health care and wages – but that the length of the strike has been taking its toll.

    The union expects to return to the bargaining table next week. Chad Thompson, president of the United Steelworkers Local 40 union, told The Associated Press that the company hasn’t been negotiating in good faith, and that the union would be open to agreeing to a fair contract. But “we don’t think they’re even being in the ballpark of fair,” Thompson said.

    Sanders condemned the company for treating its workers poorly. “At a time when this company and Berkshire Hathaway are both doing very well, there is no reason why workers employed by you should be worrying about whether they will be able to feed their children or have health care,” Sanders wrote to Buffett. The senator then asked the billionaire to intervene in negotiations and to present an offer to workers that is better than the ones they’ve previously rejected.

    “There is no reason why the standard of living of these hard working Americans should decline. I know that you and Berkshire Hathaway can do better than that,” Sanders continued.

    Buffett rejected Sanders’s request. “Our companies deal individually with their own labor and personnel,” he wrote back.

    According to Forbes, Buffett is the eighth richest person in the world, with $109.3 billion in wealth. Like other billionaires in the U.S., his fortune has only grown since the pandemic began; per Bloomberg, Buffett’s wealth has increased by $21.4 billion this year alone.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Collage with United States Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and Senator Bernie Sanders

    Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday urged President Joe Biden to immediately request the resignation of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, citing the Republican megadonor’s ongoing “sabotage” of the U.S. Postal Service and potential conflicts of interest.

    In a statement, Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that “by any objective measure, Louis DeJoy, a top campaign contributor of Donald Trump, has been, by far and away, the worst postmaster general in the modern history of America.”

    Since DeJoy took charge of the USPS in 2020, Sanders said, “the quality of the Postal Service has been severely undermined” — a criticism that other lawmakers and advocates have leveled over the past year and a half as the postmaster general has rushed ahead with sweeping changes to mail operations nationwide.

    “Tragically, the situation has only gotten worse since Mr. DeJoy began implementing his disastrous 10-year plan to substantially slow down mail delivery, cut back on post office hours, shut down mail processing plants, and dismantle mail sorting machines,” the Vermont senator said Thursday. “Senior citizens have experienced massive delays in receiving the lifesaving prescription drugs they desperately need and working families have been forced to pay late fees because it is taking much longer than normal for the Postal Service to mail their bills.”

    Sanders went on to warn that the Biden administration’s newly announced plan to distribute 500 million free at-home coronavirus tests could be undercut by “the deterioration of the Postal Service under Mr. DeJoy.”

    “How can anyone have confidence that these life-saving tests will be delivered to the American people in a timely and efficient manner? I think the obvious answer to that question is they cannot,” said Sanders. “The United States Postal Service is a vital part of our economy and our way of life. We need a postmaster general who will strengthen and expand the Postal Service, not someone who continues to undermine and sabotage it. It is long past time for Mr. DeJoy to go.”

    Sanders’ demand came weeks after Biden moved to replace Ron Bloom and John Barger, two DeJoy loyalists on the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors — the body with the power to remove the postmaster general.

    If the Senate confirms Biden’s nominees to replace Bloom and Barger, the president’s picks will have a majority on the nine-member postal board and enough votes to oust DeJoy, who is reportedly under FBI investigation in connection to his past fundraising activities.

    Despite the firestorm of criticism he’s received over his performance as postmaster general and alleged financial conflicts, DeJoy has previously said he has no intention of leaving his position any time soon.

    Asked during a February congressional hearing how long he plans to remain postmaster general, DeJoy responded: “A long time. Get used to me.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks to striking Kellogg's workers in downtown Battle Creek, Michigan, on December 17, 2021.

    After the Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it is extending the federal student loan payment pause, progressive lawmakers are encouraging the president to take further action by cancelling student debt.

    Debt advocates and lawmakers have been pressuring Joe Biden to follow through with his campaign promise to cancel up to $10,000 of student debt per borrower, some of them urging him to forgive student loans altogether. These calls were amplified after the administration announced that it would be extending the payment freeze for another 90 days, until May 1 – a decision that debt cancellation advocates say was largely influenced by public pressure.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) praised the extension on Wednesday. “I applaud President Biden for once again pausing federal student loan payments for 45 million Americans,” he said. “Now let’s cancel it. All of it.”

    The Vermont senator has long advocated for the cancellation of all federal student debt and included the measure in his platform during his 2020 presidential run. Sanders’s stance is more radical than that of other debt cancellation advocates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who have urged Biden to cancel up to $50,000 in debt.

    While this would eliminate all debts for a vast majority of borrowers, it would still leave many borrowers – often those with the most dire need for cancellation – with a large burden to bear. Roughly 6 percent of borrowers owe $100,000 or more in student loans, meaning that a plan to cancel about $50,000 in debt would still leave millions of borrowers with tens of thousands of dollars to pay off.

    But either proposal would be more impactful than Biden’s promise to cancel up to $10,000 in debt per borrower – and also more impactful than cancelling no debt, which is what Biden has done so far.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) also celebrated the extension. “Thank you!” she wrote. “Next step: cancellation.”

    “This is what happens when we all come together to raise our voices,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) said, praising debt advocates for putting continued pressure on Biden. “Extending the student loan payment pause is a HUGE step forward that will help people get through this pandemic. Now let’s keep pushing until [Biden] cancels student loan debt.”

    Warren, Schumer and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who have been leading an ongoing effort to pressure Biden on loan forgiveness, issued a joint statement on the Biden administration’s decision. “Extending the pause will help millions of Americans make ends meet, especially as we overcome the Omicron variant,” they said. “We continue to call on President Biden to take executive action to cancel $50,000 in student debt, which will help close the racial wealth gap for borrowers and accelerate our economic recovery.”

    Indeed, data finds that Black and other non-white borrowers have been disproportionately affected by the student loan crisis. The Brookings Institute found that the average white graduate owes $28,006 in student loans four years after graduation, while the average Black borrower owes $52,726 – nearly double that of white graduates. Debt cancellation could help close the racial wealth gap; a recent report from the Roosevelt Institute found that cancelling up to $50,000 per borrower could increase the wealth of Black Americans by a whopping 40 percent.

    Financial assistance in the form of debt cancellation is especially urgent right now, as many families are about to lose a crucial safety net in the midst of yet another wave of the pandemic. The child tax credit program – which was expanded as part of the COVID stimulus packages – was crucial in reducing child poverty this year. But the last payment of the program went out recently, and thanks to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and his staunch opposition to the program, poverty rates may go back up as the program expires.

    Advocates say this makes debt cancellation all the more necessary, as it could help bolster the wealth of lower- and middle-income families as COVID continues to rock the economy. “The administration must now deliver on the President’s promise to cancel student debt, and lower costs for families at a time of tremendous health and economic uncertainty,” wrote the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “We need to continue our economic recovery and quest for racial justice.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Striking Kellogg's workers listen to Sen. Bernie Sanders speak in support of their cause in downtown Battle Creek, Michigan, on December 17, 2021.

    Kellogg union members have approved a new five-year contract with the company, marking an end to an 11-week strike. About 1,400 workers have been on strike since October 5, sparking boycotts of the cereal company’s products as it threatened to permanently replace the striking workers.

    According to the union, the new contract contains no concessions from the workers and no permanent two-tier employment system allowing Kellog to offer lower wages and benefits to new employees – one of the primary sticking points for striking workers. The agreement also boasted of wage increases and cost-of-living increases in the first year of the contract.

    The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) praised the contract on Tuesday.

    “Our striking members at Kellogg’s ready-to-eat cereal production facilities courageously stood their ground and sacrificed so much in order to achieve a fair contract. This agreement makes gains and does not include any concessions,” said BCTGM International President Anthony Shelton in a statement. “From picket line to picket line, Kellogg’s union members stood strong and undeterred in this fight, inspiring generations of workers across the globe.”

    American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Liz Shuler praised workers for fighting for the gains in the contract. BCTGM is affiliated with AFL-CIO.

    “The decision to strike is never an easy one. It takes an incredible amount of courage & tenacity. But strikes work,” Schuler wrote on Twitter. “There is no tool more powerful than our ability to withhold our labor. And there is power in a union.”

    Workers have taken particular issue with a two-tier system that allows the company to offer lower wages and inadequate benefits to newer hires, with little chance for upward movement. The system had been set in place in the contract with workers in 2015, and the company at the time had promised that employees in the second tier would have room for growth.

    Instead, the company seems to be limiting the number of employees who are able to see growth in wages and positions; as Jarod Facundo reported for The American Prospect, 15 employees have retired at the company’s Battle Creek, Michigan, plant since the adoption of the 2015 contract, but only one employee has moved up to a “legacy” status with higher pay.

    The new contract offers a way out of the lower tier, according to HuffPost’s Dave Jamieson, by automatically advancing workers who have been at the company for 4 years and then capping other advances at 3 percent of the workforce each year. This is better than the original contract offered by the company, which didn’t expand opportunities for growth, but it does not succeed in eliminating the system of a two-tiered workforce for the same jobs.

    Trevor Bidelman, president of BCTGM Local 3G representing workers in Battle Creek, told HuffPost that he believed that Kellogg’s threat to permanently replace striking workers was a way of forcing the union’s hand on the issue and that the contract was still not in a place that some members would have preferred it to be. Emphasizing his pride in the workers for the strike, Bidelman said, “The replacement threat was really the biggest piece” in turning out workers to vote for the contract.

    Indeed, though the legality of Kellogg’s threat could be questionable, it appeared to have worked for the company as a tactic to get workers to approve the new contract. The company has been facing increasing pressure from the public over the strike, facing a boycott and an online campaign to bog down its job application system to prevent it from hiring replacements.

    The workers’ strike had also garnered the support of lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who traveled to Battle Creek on Friday to rally with striking workers. “You’re sending a message not just to Kellogg’s, but to every corporate CEO in this country,” Sanders said in a speech. “You’re saying that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, you’ve got to give workers a fair shake.”

    Criticizing the divisive two-tier system, Sanders said that the company should offer a fair contract, saying “If you love America, you love the workers.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • joe manchin making a statement on capitol hill

    “I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation,” Mr. Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday, “I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there. This is a no.”

    The comments from Mr. Manchin dealt a fatal blow to the legislation that is central to President Joe Biden’s agenda.

    “I think he’s gonna have a lot of explaining to do to the people of West Virginia,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    Sanders said Manchin “doesn’t have the guts to stand up to powerful special interests.” “We’ve been dealing with Mr. Manchin for month after month after month. But if he doesn’t have the courage to do the right thing for the working families of West Virginia and America, let him vote no in front of the whole world,” Sanders added.

    In a statement following his CNN appearance, Sanders said:

    “If Sen. Joe Manchin wants to vote against the Build Back Better Act, he should have the opportunity to do so with a floor vote as soon as the Senate returns. He should have to explain to West Virginians and the American people why he doesn’t have the courage to stand up to powerful special interests and lower prescription drug costs; expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing and eyeglasses; continue the $300 per child direct monthly payment which has cut childhood poverty by over 40%; and address the devastating impacts of climate change. He should also have to explain why he is not prepared to demand that millionaires and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.

    “I also find it amusing that Sen. Manchin indicates his worry about the deficit after voting just this week for a military budget of $778 billion, four times greater than Build Back Better over ten years and $25 billion more than the president requested.”Manchin, a rightwing Democrat, put out a statement after his FOX News appearance detailing his decision to vote against the bill, pointed to rising prices, inflation, dependence on foreign supply chains and the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), also on CNN’s “State of the Union, said “He has continued to move the goalposts, he has never negotiated in good faith. and he is obstructing the President’s agenda. 85 percent of which is still left on the table. And in obstructing the president’s agenda, he is obstructing the people’s agenda.”

    “We cannot allow one lone senator from West Virginia to obstruct the president’s agenda, to obstruct the people’s agenda. Jake, all I want for Christmas is a senator that has compassion for the American people and not contempt,” Pressley added.

    Pressley was one of just six progressive lawmakers who voted against the bipartisan infrastructure bill in November to show their opposition to moving forward with the legislation without also passing the social spending and climate package.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar, (D-Minn.) in a tweet Sunday morning, said: “Let’s be clear: Manchin’s excuse is bullshit. The people of West Virginia would directly benefit from childcare, pre-Medicare expansion, and long term care, just like Minnesotans. This is exactly what we warned would happen if we separated Build Back Better from infrastructure.”

    President Biden, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer had promised that the Build Back Better bill would be passed after the bipartisan infrastructure bill, reversing previous vows to approve the two measures at the same time.

    Back in June, Pelosi said: “Let me be really clear on this: There ain’t gonna be no bipartisan bill, unless we have a reconciliation bill.” She reiterated: “As I said, there won’t be an infrastructure bill, unless we have a reconciliation bill. Plain and simple. In fact, I use the word ain’t. There ain’t going to be an infrastructure bill, unless we have the reconciliation bill passed by the United States Senate.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Kellogg's Cereal plant workers demonstrate in front of the plant on October 7, 2021, in Battle Creek, Michigan.

    With 1,400 cereal plant workers in the midst of their 11th week of striking, Kellogg Company says that it has reached a tentative agreement to end the strike. The union is expected to vote on the new agreement by Monday.

    The Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union has not yet put out a statement about the agreement, and workers rejected a deal just two weeks ago. As the company faces mounting pressure from the public and progressive lawmakers, however, it is hopeful that the new agreement will satisfy the union.

    However, the company’s latest offer fails to get rid of a two-tier employee structure that allows the company to pay new workers less and offer fewer benefits. That lower tier currently applies to about 30 percent of employees. Striking workers have said that getting rid of this structure is a top priority for them, and soundly rejected a previous tentative agreement from the company that also failed to remedy this concern.

    Shortly after workers struck down that deal, the company made a drastic move: It announced plans to permanently replace the 1,400 striking workers, a move that labor advocates and striking workers said showed the company’s bad faith in negotiations that have been going on for over a year.

    Kellogg has been facing a boycott since early October, when workers began striking. This move intensified calls for a boycott and inspired people on the “antiwork” subreddit to flood the company’s online job portal, spamming the website and causing it to crash multiple times, according to users of the forum.

    Influential lawmakers have called attention to the company’s union-busting efforts. President Joe Biden condemned the company’s decision to replace striking workers, saying that he was “deeply troubled” by the move and that it is “an existential attack on the union.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), meanwhile, is travelling to Battle Creek, Michigan on Friday to rally with the workers and stand up to Kellogg’s “corporate greed.” In October, he led a letter signed by six Democratic senators to Kellogg’s CEO signaling their staunch support of the striking workers.

    “Kellogg’s workers made the company BILLIONS during a pandemic by working 12-hour shifts, some for more than 100 days in a row. But Kellogg’s is now choosing corporate greed over the workers they once called ‘heroes,’” Sanders said in a tweet.

    Indeed, workers have reported having to work 80-hour weeks with few days off. “We don’t have weekends, really. We just work seven days a week, sometimes 100 to 130 days in a row,” Trevor Bidelman, president of the Battle Creek plant’s local, told The Guardian. “For 28 days, the machines run, then rest three days for cleaning. They don’t even treat us as well as they do their machinery.”

    The company has vilified its striking workers, saying their demands for better pay and equal treatment for all employees are unrealistic. However, the company has posted high profits as the pandemic has driven up demand, and the company’s CEO received a massive compensation package of over $11.6 million in the fiscal year ending in 2021. This is 279 times the median employee pay at the company.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Starbucks employees celebrate after unionization votes are counted, on December 9, 2021 in Buffalo, New York.

    Progressive lawmakers are celebrating after Starbucks workers in Buffalo triumphed over nearly insurmountable odds to form the company’s first-ever union on Thursday, a sign that the reawakening U.S. labor movement is growing stronger.

    Workers at the Elmwood location in Buffalo voted overwhelmingly to form a union, 19 to 8. One store, Camp Road, voted against unionizing; the count from Genesee Street, the third location whose votes were slated to be counted on Thursday, has not yet been finalized by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As of the unofficial count, however, the union is ahead 15 to 9, not counting seven challenged ballots. The union is confident that the vote will end up going their way.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) congratulated Elmwood workers for “the HISTORIC achievement of organizing the first-ever union at a company-owned Starbucks in the U.S.” He continued to criticize Starbucks, saying, “The company should stop pouring money into the fight against the union and negotiate a fair contract now.”

    The company poured a multitude of resources into its fight against the union, sending high-level executives to Buffalo to surveil and intimidate workers, holding mandatory meetings to promote anti-union propaganda, and telling workers to vote no. As More Perfect Union uncovered, the company was so desperate to union bust that it fired an employee with cancer because she was uncovering the company’s shady union-busting tactics.

    Sanders said that the workers’ efforts were inspiring, especially in the face of such strong opposition. “Workers with [Starbucks Workers United] made history today. They are a tremendous inspiration and it is so encouraging to see people all over the country standing up for themselves and each other,” he wrote. “In solidarity, together, working people can achieve the dignity they deserve.”

    In a tweet celebrating the workers’ effort, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) also highlighted the company’s union-busting campaign. “Hell yeah! Nothing like the smell of union coffee in the morning,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Congrats to [Starbucks Workers United] in Buffalo for making the first unionized Starbucks in the US! When we visited last month, workers shared the immense pressure they were under. Proud of them for pulling through.”

    Even after Elmwood was unionized, Starbucks corporate sent a letter expressing its disappointment over the vote. “I am saddened that in the end the majority of you decided it was best for Workers United to represent you to myself, your District Manager and your Store Managers,” wrote Starbucks district manager Michaela Murphy in a letter to Elmwood. “Everything we love most about Starbucks is the direct relationship we have to each of you and our ability to work together to create a better tomorrow.” Murphy then claimed that the union campaign was “divisive” for the staff.

    In response, Starbucks Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union, pointed out the company’s hypocrisy. “We ask them to live up to the company’s Mission & Values and collaborate with us, instead of continuing to change our work environment by trying to pit partners against partners in our store and third-partying our union,” the union wrote.

    Still, the win is a tremendous one for the labor movement, which has been in the midst of a resurgence in recent months and years. Last month, John Deere workers voted for a new contract after a 10,000 person, month-long strike. Nearly 100,000 workers were on strike at the same time in October, with union members across many industries fighting for better working conditions as the pandemic rages on.

    Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York) encouraged labor activists to continue fighting in a post on Twitter, saying, “Let’s unionize the whole country, and the world! Then let’s make these companies worker owned!”

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus also feted the win, offering congratulations to the workers and promoting the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize amid a time of decreasing union membership. “Every worker in the country should have the right to organize and join a union,” the caucus wrote. “It’s just one more reason we need to abolish the filibuster and pass the PRO Act in the Senate.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.