Via America’s Lawyer: 32 year-old Isaiah Brown is in critical condition after being shot 10 times by a Virginia deputy responding to Isaiah’s own 911 call. Attorney David Haynes joins Mike Papantonio to explain the grim details that led to the near-fatal shooting. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any […]
A new poll shows that almost half of Republicans believe that the jury reached the wrong verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial, which means that nearly half of Republicans believe it is ok for cops to just murder people. The video evidence was clear as day in this trial, and Republicans still think that Chauvin […]
Via America’s Lawyer: FL lawmakers pass a bill banning transgender student athletes from competing in women’s sports. The bill also subjects certain students to genetic testing and genital inspections. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to discuss whether the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act is in fact “fair.”
Locke described the the award in the New Year Honours list as recognition of the great work of human rights advocates in the many organisations he had worked in, such as those mentioned in the tribute read out at the ceremony.
“Mr Keith Locke has been a long-term human rights activist at both national and international levels,” said the citation.
“Mr Locke became the National Co-ordinator of the Philippines Solidarity Network from 1986 to 1991 and created exchange programmes between social justice groups in New Zealand and their counterparts in the Philippines.
“Around this time he opened the progressive One World Books store, which provided a hub for activists in Auckland.
“He was Secretary of the Wellington Latin America Committee from 1980 to 1985.
In the 1990s he was a Foreign Affairs spokesperson for the NewLabour, Alliance and Green parties and was a Green Member of Parliament between 1999 and 2011.
“During this time, he advocated on politically unpopular international human rights issues and drew attention to human rights abuses in Tibet, China, East Timor, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and the Middle East.
“He was recognised by Amnesty International with the Human Rights Defender Award in 2012 and the Harmony Award from the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand in 2013.
“Since retiring from Parliament, Mr Locke has served on the Boards of the Auckland Refugee Council from 2012 to 2017 and the New Zealand Peace and Conflict Studies Centre Trust until 2019.”
Locke described the the award in the New Year Honours list as recognition of the great work of human rights advocates in the many organisations he had worked in, such as those mentioned in the tribute read out at the ceremony.
“Mr Keith Locke has been a long-term human rights activist at both national and international levels,” said the citation.
“Mr Locke became the National Co-ordinator of the Philippines Solidarity Network from 1986 to 1991 and created exchange programmes between social justice groups in New Zealand and their counterparts in the Philippines.
“Around this time he opened the progressive One World Books store, which provided a hub for activists in Auckland.
“He was Secretary of the Wellington Latin America Committee from 1980 to 1985.
In the 1990s he was a Foreign Affairs spokesperson for the NewLabour, Alliance and Green parties and was a Green Member of Parliament between 1999 and 2011.
“During this time, he advocated on politically unpopular international human rights issues and drew attention to human rights abuses in Tibet, China, East Timor, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and the Middle East.
“He was recognised by Amnesty International with the Human Rights Defender Award in 2012 and the Harmony Award from the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand in 2013.
“Since retiring from Parliament, Mr Locke has served on the Boards of the Auckland Refugee Council from 2012 to 2017 and the New Zealand Peace and Conflict Studies Centre Trust until 2019.”
While a lot of the country reacted with relief after the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin was delivered, some right wing pundits were sickened by it and claimed that the deck was stacked against Chauvin from the beginning. There’s only so much you can do when a video exists of a human being kneeling on […]
I was part of the very first Magnolia Mother’s Trust program, back when it was just 20 moms almost three years ago. Then, talking about giving out money wasn’t this thing it is now, but I had a feeling it would be something bigger even back then. Because helping single moms, helping single women —it’s a great cause and people want to get involved with that.
With the program, I was able to take a road trip to see my dad up in Pennsylvania. I hadn’t seen him in 19, 20 years; my kids had never met him. And right before the program, he got sick. And I didn’t even think then I was going to get picked—when it first started, it was just 15 moms. And I wasn’t one of the ones who got it. So I thought, “Okay, I didn’t get it.”
But then they were able to add five more, and I got the call: Sarah from Springboard said, “I have a late Christmas present for you. We got some more funds, and you’ve been selected.” And I was just so excited, because I knew with the money I could go visit him. And my kids and I want to see him every year now. This last year, because of coronavirus, I wasn’t able to keep that up. But I’m really trying to see him this summer, my three kids and I will probably go for a week or two.
For the women who are about to start getting the money, my advice to them would be to map it all out—like, write down what you want to do. Whether that’s paying off something, buying something, getting a new car, getting your credit straight, buying a house. Write it all down, map it out and make a budget plan.
I did that, and my two big goals were to get my credit right and get into a house. I was able to do both of those things, and see my dad, which is something I’d been wanting to do for so long. I do wish I had saved more. When people would need something, I would help them, so that meant there were some things I wasn’t able to do.
But I did most of what I wanted to do, and I also changed personally.
I just wasn’t so stressed out about everything, because it’s different when you have that little extra help. My rent went up, and that was okay, I could handle it. My car broke down, I was able to get it fixed right away.
Things would happen, but I could take care of them. Before, I would’ve had to wait at least until the next pay period to take my car in. It was always just living paycheck to paycheck.
So knowing I had the money to cover things was huge. There were even times I was scared to spend it because I just liked knowing it was there. But then I figured, you know, it’s there, I have it, I can splurge a little. So I’d do stuff with my kids that I wasn’t able to before, just places, or go out to eat and if they wanted something I could buy it for them. I was even able to buy some little things for me, because normally I would just save my money to spend on my kids, not spend it on anything for me. So for the first time I didn’t feel guilty about spending a little on myself.
Then there’s just knowing that if your kids get sick, it’s going to be okay. That if needed to, I could take time off to care for my child without having to worry that my paycheck would be short. So that felt really, really good.
Normally, I’d have to move something around to cover taking time off. But my baby got sick and I was able to say, “Okay, I have some money in the bank, it’s going to be fine.” To not have that stress, it was wonderful. Won-der-ful.
I know people say that if you have programs like these, people will stop working. I don’t personally understand that—I mean, I think it’s fine if someone made that choice, but for me I’ll always want to be working, I want to be adding to my money, not decreasing it. It’s not about not working; it’s about just being able to take a little time off—to take a week and spend it with your kids, then go back to work. I wasn’t able to do that before, to have that time off without being worried about covering the bills.
And I’m still doing okay, even with the year of getting the money over. I was prepared for that to happen, we always knew it was temporary, and so I had been saving more toward the end. And the things I was able to do in that year, I’m still benefiting from now. And I really don’t think I would’ve been able to do those things otherwise, or it would’ve taken so much longer. So just being able to accomplish things faster, that was huge.
For me, being able to get out of affordable housing was such a big step. In those apartments, the walls are thin, you can hear everything.
Now I have a house, and through the walls I hear the kids playing in the yard. They can just run, they have a trampoline and they can just go crazy. I even let them get a dog last year during the pandemic, Bella.
And to have all of that, it just feels awesome. And I get emotional talking about it, but I just feel very honored. Because I was able to get that little push, and that’s what I needed. And so many people need that, just a little push.
Read original article here: https://msmagazine.com/2021/04/15/front-and-center-1-tia-guaranteed-income-black-mothers-women-ms-magazine-magnolia-mothers-trust/
Via America’s Lawyer: Sex trafficking and prostitution allegations have turned Matt Gaetz into a political pariah, as more details of his impropriety emerge by the day. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss. Then, Former education secretary Betsy DeVos left behind a controversial legacy: the overhaul of student sexual misconduct guidelines under Title IX. Mike Papantonio is joined by Public Justice attorney Alexandra Brodsky to […]
In an attempt to prevent further court packing on the Supreme Court by Republicans, liberal groups are now running a campaign begging left-leaning Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire. Liberals are afraid of another Ruth Bader Ginsburg-type situation, where an aging leftist jurist is replaced by a far-right hack. Their concerns are valid, but […]
The Labour Party is in an existential crisis. This is partially Keir Starmer’s fault for spending his first year as leader of the opposition defending the Conservative government. If the institution was healthy and thriving, it could survive a single bad leader. But the rot runs much deeper – right to the internal contradiction at the heart of the Party itself.
The Labour Party’s legitimacy rests on its reputation as a force for constitutional change in the United Kingdom, but its historic role has been to contain dissent by corralling would-be reformers into a stiflingly bureaucratic and ultimately conservative organisation. The much-lauded 1945 Labour government, which introduced the NHS, embodied this contradiction. Domestically, it ushered in a proper welfare state, improving the lives of the people of the UK. But internationally, the 1945-1951 Labour government established the structures – The Western Alliance, NATO, and the UN Security Council – that continued to enable Western imperialism well into the 21st century.
No political project can be progressive if it entrenches an imperialist world order founded on the backs of slaves and which works to increase inequalities of power both within nations and between them.
The Labour Party’s structure works against change
Labour’s structural conservatism runs right down to CLP level. I started my own ‘activism’ with Labour in 2013, having joined the party in the hope that Ed Miliband would move it forward. I thought there might be something I could do to help. But I found out the structures of the Labour Party work against even the smallest calls for change. When my CLP – supposedly the sovereign body – voted something ‘radical’ through, the committees could easily find a way to block it. This happened when I proposed a very moderate motion that sought to place conditions on the party’s support for estate ‘regeneration’ – a byword for social cleansing. The motion was passed with near unanimity – even strengthened by members who did not think it went far enough – but it was subsequently ignored by the gatekeeping committees.
Estate regeneration was just one example that committee jurisdictions seem to expand or shrink depending on the issue at hand. If an idea did not sit well with a local grandee sitting on the executive committee (EC), then it was the EC’s job to decide that it wouldn’t go ahead. If the objection came from the local campaign forum (LCF), then the LCF decision held sway. What all the committees agreed on all the time was that the priority was not ‘rocking the boat’.
Conflict of interests
Too often the interests of the party align with the interests of the people who hold influence within it and their friends, relatives, and associates – many of whom happen to be prominent members of the local and national establishment. To put it more simply, Labour councillors often socialise more with Lib Dem and Tory councillors than they do with ordinary people and naturally wouldn’t want to say or do anything that might upset their friends. The little people shouldn’t be let near power because, as a ‘socialist’ Labour councillor I once knew explained, “they don’t know what’s best for them”.
This culture runs from the top to the bottom in Labour. It explains why instead of challenging the austerity that most serious economists know to be nonsense, Miliband’s leadership ultimately signed on to the agenda of cuts to public services. It also illuminates why Starmer was so keen not to challenge the Conservative government’s already disastrous ‘big bang’ push to get children back into the classroom.
The one disruption to the cosy cross-party consensus was Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpected election as Labour Leader in 2015. Far too many people describe Corbyn’s leadership as having ‘failed’ in passive terms. Corbyn didn’t fail. If given a clear run, he would have succeeded. His leadership was sabotaged by a majority reactionary right wing careerist PLP, for whom democracy and true accountability is an anathema, and by a regressive party structure dominated by a coterie of elitists.
Experience now tells me that chimera of Labour Party ‘unity’ is based on the false premise that everyone in the organisation is seeking the same goal, albeit through different means. In truth, to unite Labour is to seek common cause with people who actively undermine democracy in service of an inherently unequal status quo. It cannot be done in good faith. Many people on the left say “don’t leave, organise”. But they don’t explain why or for what?
Why bother fighting tooth and nail against Labour Party committees to have your CLP adopt half sensible positions on local issues, only to have these blocked from above, when you can spend that time organising, mobilising, and fighting door to door? Even a change in leadership at the top won’t necessarily improve CLP culture, nor will it make many Labour councillors more interested in the needs of the people they claim to represent. Whoever leads, the vested interests that actively and intentionally sabotaged Corbyn’s chances are likely to remain and will aggressively contest any attempt at progressive reform.
Community politics
To stay in Labour or leave is always going to be a deeply personal decision. It was for me. I became far more influential in my local area when I stopped putting all my efforts into committee politics and started to organise in my community alongside people who wanted stop talking and act. Doing this also gave me the uninhibited freedom to campaign against estate regeneration with likeminded people, which was fun and very rewarding. Anyone can do this. Leaflets aren’t expensive, and neither is social media. If you have something worthwhile to say, people will listen, and you might be surprised by what you can achieve.
More broadly, the movement that led to Corbyn’s leadership hasn’t disappeared. It has simply changed focus, coalescing in opposition to the government’s increasingly authoritarian policies, like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and around the excellent Thelma Walker in her candidacy to be Hartlepool’s MP. The anti-war movement of the early 2000s eventually paved the way for Corbyn’s Labour leadership and raised the possibility of a British prime minister dedicated to social justice and human rights globally.
In the same way, without a credible mainstream political vehicle for people’s dissent, it’s likely the popular opposition to the present government and opposition’s racist authoritarianism will grow, becoming a strong force in British politics. What’s important now is not to fight within the small, increasingly confined space in Labour, but to build a widespread movement for social justice at national level, and, just as importantly, in our communities.
We don’t need Labour. We – ordinary people in communities across the country – can make a difference by fighting for social justice ourselves.
Via America’s Lawyer: Children living near a PA fracking well are found to have multiple biochemicals accumulate in their bodies. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss. Plus, Via America’s Lawyer: Unaccompanied minors are flocking to the southern border as the Biden administration deals with the highest immigration rate in almost twenty years. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to explain more. Transcript: *This transcript was […]
Via America’s Lawyer: Internal communications reveal Amazon employees are subject to horrific working conditions, forcing delivery drivers to relieve themselves in plastic bags and bottles while on the job. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Also, GA governor Brian Kemp enacts a voting bill being criticized for ushering in a “New Jim Crow” era. Investigative journalist Greg Palast joins Mike […]
Via America’s Lawyer: Unaccompanied minors are flocking to the southern border as the Biden administration deals with the highest immigration rate in almost twenty years. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to discuss how private prison contractors are eager to claim responsibility over thousands of migrant detainees. Transcript: *This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please […]
Book review: Bootstraps Need Boots: One Tory’s Lonely Fight to End Poverty In Canada
by Hugh Segal
The concept of a basic income – that is, providing every person with a financial foundation to ensure nobody suffers from want – has gained considerable traction in recent years. However, proponents hail almost exclusively from the political left.
Why, then, has one of Canada’s most thoughtful conservatives championed a basic income relentlessly for more than half a century?
This is the topic explored in Bootstraps Need Boots, a recent book written by former senator and Progressive Conservative political advisor Hugh Segal.
Bootstraps Need Boots is structured primarily as a memoir that begins from Segal’s childhood, focusing on the experiences that contributed to his enthusiasm for eliminating poverty. But the book is somewhat genre-defiant, as it avoids lusting after the drama of politics and instead expends considerable energy explaining the potential benefits of a basic income.
Segal expresses disbelief that after several decades of consideration, Canada has somehow still avoided adopting what he argues would be an obvious improvement to our society and economy.
Segal also yearns nostalgically for a bygone era in which Conservative politicians sought to achieve a better future through grand planning. While the political left’s Tommy Douglas is credited for championing social healthcare, Bill Davis of the political right deserves most of the plaudits for Canada’s guaranteed income supplement for seniors. Ontario was an incredibly progressive province under premiers Robarts and Davis despite their blue political tinge, constructing several public universities, teachers’ colleges and community colleges; creating GO Transit commuter rail; ensuring tuition fees weren’t a barrier for low-income students seeking a post-secondary education; and launching TVOntario, the first educational television channel in Canada. It was also the Tories who established public utility Ontario Hydro, some 115 years ago.
To further the point, it’s worth remembering that when Canadian provinces began to establish medical insurance programs as of the mid-1960s, half of the provinces adopted such publicly-funded healthcare under right-leaning governments.
Segal’s brand of Toryism stands in stark contrast to the government-loathing, Thatcheresque politicians of today who seem capable only of tearing down, rather than building.
According to Segal, conventional conservatism is just as interested in egalitarianism and communitarianism as the political left.
He defines his political philosophy as “a politics that sees as unacceptable the vast difference between those living happy, well-funded lives of travel and luxury and a sub-culture in which people are denied enough to eat, indoor plumbing, time for family, or any enjoyment at all. A Tory respects tradition and the rule of law but sees the reduction of the gap between rich and poor as essential to his or her mission.”
The author is a rarity: a Conservative who walked the corridors of provincial and federal power despite originating from a family that often struggled with poverty. This is what makes his conclusions so captivating: he’s not lecturing the poor with condescending “if only you’d worked harder” tropes we so often hear from right-wing politicians who inherited wealth.
Eradicating poverty is simple: give people money
Segal’s central argument in favour of Canada adopting a basic income is as follows:
Poverty is expensive, preventing people from living productive and fulfilling lives; more than three million Canadians fall beneath the poverty line; welfare and disability supports trap people in poverty, rather than liberating them; government tinkering at the peripheral symptoms of poverty with an array of constantly-shifting social programs achieves surprisingly little, while costing a lot; a basic income could quickly and directly lift people from poverty; and – unlike welfare – a basic income would actually incentivize work.
Canada already spends a surprising amount of money attempting to support people in poverty, but as Segal argues, it achieves little and is indeed often counter-productive, ensnaring recipients in a state of perpetual poverty. Considering that Ontario alone already spends almost $10 billion each year on welfare and disability supports, while a basic income program similar to Ontario’s recent pilot would cost just $43 billion annually if rolled out across the entire country, the reader quickly appreciates that cost is not the major barrier to eliminating poverty in Canada.
If a basic income still seems excessive, Segal points out that Canada already uses it – just not a universal program.
The guaranteed income supplement – which, again, originated from Conservatives – cut poverty among seniors in Ontario from 35 percent down to just five percent in only two years. The Canada child benefit, implemented in 2016, quickly lifted many low-income families out of poverty. If we genuinely wish to liberate people from want, the solution is simple: give them money.
Segal argues that a basic income is inherently conservative: give people money and let them choose what to do with it, rather than government spending a similar amount creating a bureaucracy-laden array of support programs of dubious value. Enable poor people to pay their rent or buy food with that money instead. Poverty and its myriad pathologies are ultimately caused by a lack of cash, so we should simply distribute money more widely if we really want to lift Canadians from poverty.
Preventing families from subsisting in Dickensian destitution might sound all well and good, but a basic income would make people lazy and disincentivize work, critics argue. In reality, pilot programs conducted across the world have shown that not to be the case.
On average, people worked slightly more when they received a basic income, and entrepreneurialism increased.
If thoughtful Canadians seek government that makes decisions based on data rather than bias and ideology, very few arguments against introducing a basic income remain.
Without dancing astray from the book’s core objective, Segal also makes a clarion call for Canadian conservatism to increase its appeal by returning to its roots, focusing on increasing equality of opportunity rather than an obsession with less government. The author paints a compelling argument for Red Tories to take back their party from Reformers, having lost control after the 2003 merger between Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance.
Texan accents, “swells” and unanswered questions
But is Segal’s book a captivating read? The concept of exploring how an intellectual Tory came to support a policy generally considered left-wing is intriguing, but it makes for a project that’s challenging to execute entertainingly. Segal partly succeeds, opting to tell stories and share anecdotes where possible. He wields a deliciously dark sense of humour that we get occasional glimpses at, and has concocted a political memoir that is refreshingly self-deprecating.
But frankly, parts of the book drag for the reader: describing meetings or interactions with bureaucrats and other officials isn’t exactly gripping drama, even if it’s a necessary aspect of the book’s journey. Delving into the October Crisis and the Front de libération du Québec makes chapter nine a page-turner, as is the concluding chapter. But much of the book lacks a sense of urgency.
To Segal’s credit, he keeps most chapters and the overall book rather short, and uses accessible language that ensures approachability for general readers. Academics from the social sciences are often guilty of using heavily verbose language to adorn simple assertions, but that’s thankfully not the case from this book, despite being released by an academic publisher.
One confusing matter central to the book’s objective that isn’t successfully clarified is why Segal opted to become a Conservative rather than join the left-wing New Democrats, if poverty alleviation was his primary political motive.
We receive part of the story: he mentions becoming enthralled by a John Diefenbaker speech at his school, and his political awakening occurred during an era when the Red Tories who wielded power had few inhibitions about nation building or constructing social programs. But Segal’s father was Liberal, and his grandfather an NDP ideologue. So why did Segal come to hold distain for the “far left” students he encountered at university? Which events or interactions subsequent to meeting Diefenbaker cemented Segal’s identity as a Tory? He would have been exposed to plenty of left-wing ideas about curtailing poverty, even at his own family’s dinner table, yet chose to reject them. But why? Sadly, this crucial part of his formative political story is left unexplained.
As thoughtful and open-minded as Segal generally appears compared to many of his right-wing peers, one annoyance for non-Conservative readers stems from the occasional partisan jabs he makes at Liberals and the political left, as well as petty shots directed toward the civil service and unions. Such right-wing tropes risk alienating readers from the book’s important message about a basic income. Several instances are perhaps necessary to explain how the author came to formulate his world view, but these needn’t drip with condescension. The unintentional irony is obvious as Segal refers to Pierre Trudeau as “the trust-fund-based dilettante” in the same chapter he praises mentor David MacDonald for eschewing hyper-partisanship. Segal also contradicts himself as he casts venom toward the civil service, referring to bureaucrats as “swells” only interested in “protect[ing] their own jobs,” yet elsewhere in the book commends Ontario government workers for their professionalism.
Because the book rigidly adheres to the scope of explaining how Segal’s experiences contributed to his views on alleviating poverty through a basic income, some of his fascinating roles in high political office receive scant attention. For example, if you’re looking for Segal to pull back the curtain on his time as Brian Mulroney’s chief of staff, only seven pages are devoted to that period, and half of it specifically to Segal’s basic income efforts. For readers who seek dramatic political memoir, Segal’s No Surrender: Reflections of a Happy Warrior in the Tory Crusade (Harper Collins Canada, 1996) would better scratch that itch.
Despite that many fascinating posts in Segal’s career are scarcely covered, others parts of the book arguably contain unnecessarily excessive detail. Do we really need to know the name of the shop where Segal printed a policy brochure in 1970, or that the owner had a Texan accent? Such specifics perhaps add to a bit of colour and tell a fuller story to what’s otherwise a policy-heavy manuscript, but it seems odd to gloss over some of Segal’s top career positions in favour of trivial facts perhaps only of interest to the author. Segal also has a habit of dropping names – not to brag about his extensive professional network, but rather to give credit to others. Normally that should win someone praise, but most readers probably aren’t interested in the names of Segal’s opponents from student council elections a half-century ago. These details belong in footnotes or endnotes, if they’re needed at all.
The number of Tories who are singled out for criticism from Segal is surprisingly short. Even though he bemoans how modern conservatism has replaced nation and community building with selfishness and an obsession with privatization, he is really only critical of one specific Conservative politician: Doug Ford. Perhaps this can be partly excused by the book adhering to the topic of poverty alleviation, as Ford infamously terminated Ontario’s basic income pilot pre-maturely despite promising not to, a duplicitous act Segal fumes over. But somehow there isn’t a single mention of former Ontario premier Mike Harris in the entire book despite his legacy of slashing social services, and yet Segal finds space to criticize Paul Martin for similar austerity, even though the former Liberal prime minister appointed Segal to the Senate. He also bestows very gentle treatment on Stephen Harper, despite incompetent meddling in Senate matters. Again, the reader occasionally wonders if they’re wading through a partisan manuscript, a dangerous outcome if Segal hopes to appeal across the political spectrum.
Several critics have remarked that Segal has not specified in Bootstraps Need Boots whether a basic income would complement existing social programs or replace them, a reason why some on the political left remain suspicious of a basic income.
But frankly, it’s not his responsibility to do so. That’s up to whichever future government entertains adopting such a program. And as Segal helpfully notes, the Canada child benefit implemented in 2016 replaced a series of pre-existing programs, yet didn’t decrease any individual family’s benefits. Future governments could easily eliminate fears of program replacement by guaranteeing that no household’s benefits would decline as the result of adopting a basic income.
The conservative appeal to eradicate poverty
Overall, Segal has written a provocative book in an engaging style. He dispenses erudite wisdom, masked with a folksy tone and self-deprecation to make what could have been a dry, policy-heavy manuscript instead palatable to a general audience.
As to whom Bootstraps Need Boots will appeal to most, there are three camps. First, people who seek social justice: those who campaign against poverty, particularly anyone interested in a basic income. Second, this book should fascinate open-minded conservatives who enjoy the intellectual stimulus of having their assumptions challenged, as well as Tories who simply can’t fathom how one of their own could support a basic income. But the third sub-audience is much wider: those from across the political spectrum who yearn nostalgically for the political right to once again offer more to society than yet another round of incessant, Thatcherite cuts. It’s incredibly refreshing to read from a Conservative who wants more social programs – not less – and can adeptly articulate how such a philosophical realignment would better match traditional conservative values than today’s bleak offerings of austerity. Intelligent Tories – especially younger ones – reading this book may find themselves in disbelief how their political movement veered so far off course in recent decades.
Ultimately, Segal makes a compelling case – with a conservative ethos – that society would flourish with the addition of a basic income, and that we’re letting fear of change and ideological stubbornness prevent us from both stimulating the economy and allowing people to reach their full potential.
For readers hoping to delve into the details of what a basic income program might look like, Evelyn Forget’s Basic Income for Canadians (Lorimer, 2018) would prove more relevant. But Bootstraps Need Boots is perhaps the most profoundly conservative argument yet in favour of Canada adopting a basic income, and is thus a welcome and much-needed addition to existing literature.
Twenty-one Senate Democrats led by Ron Wyden are pushing President Joe Biden to include recurring direct payments and an extension of jobless benefits in his economic recovery plan.
They want the aid tied to economic conditions so it does not lapse too early.
Biden plans to unveil his infrastructure and recovery proposal Wednesday.
More Senate Democrats are pressuring President Joe Biden to extend rescue measures as the U.S. recovers from a coronavirus-fueled economic drubbing.
Twenty-one members of the Senate Democratic caucus wrote to the president Tuesday urging him to include recurring direct payments and enhanced jobless benefits as part of his recovery plan.
The senators, led by Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden of Oregon, aim to tie the aid to economic conditions so relief does not lapse too early.
“This crisis is far from over, and families deserve certainty that they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads,” the senators wrote.
“Families should not be at the mercy of constantly-shifting legislative timelines and ad hoc solutions.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., speaks during a Senate Finance Committee nomination hearing for Deputy Treasury Secretary nominee Adewale Adeyemo on Feb. 23, 2021.Greg Nash | Pool | Reuters
Wyden has long called for Congress to phase out assistance as the economy improves so Americans do not lose benefits at arbitrary dates chosen by lawmakers. Democrats included a $300 per week unemployment supplement through Sept. 6 and $1,400 direct payments as part of their coronavirus relief package passed earlier this month.
Wyden wants to avoid repeating what took place last summer, when a jobless benefit boost expired and contributed to millions of Americans falling into poverty.
The senators who signed the letter include Wyden, No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Biden plans to unveil his infrastructure and economic recovery package in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. The administration and congressional Democrats are deciding whether to split $3 trillion or more in spending into two pieces of legislation.
Democrats will have two areas of focus: one pool of proposals related to transportation, broadband and climate change; and another tied to education, paid leave and health care.
As policymakers consider how much to raise taxes to fund the initiatives and mull whether any part of the plan can win Republican votes, it is unclear if senators can fit more economic aid into the package.
A White House spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request to comment on the letter.
Congressional Democrats are expected to pass at least part of the recovery plan through budget reconciliation, which would not require Republican votes in the Senate split 50-50 by party. The White House hopes to win GOP support for infrastructure policy.
While Republicans support measures to improve transportation and broadband, they have opposed tax increases.
Via America’s Lawyer: Federal legislators pass a policing act in Floyd’s honor which bans chokeholds and reforms qualified immunity so individuals can sue officers that break the law. RT Correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to explain more. Plus, the company behind TurboTax has been fleecing customers by overcharging for its annual tax software. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more. Transcript: *This transcript […]
The day after New Zealand’s first lockdown was announced, I expressed to a senior colleague my concern for those around the country whose livelihoods would suffer as a result.
She agreed, but was confident that the spirit of “we’re all in it together” accompanying these drastic public health interventions would allow the government to lead the country towards a kinder, more equitable society.
“I think we might see a universal basic income,” she said hopefully.
As it turns out, the government had little appetite for progressive welfare or tax reform.
Instead, working with the Reserve Bank, they have propped up the economy through a combination of measures that have drastically inflated the price of houses.
This has most likely protected some jobs, but it has also made work increasingly irrelevant as capital gains completely outstrip wages. The wealthy have been made even wealthier, while many can no longer afford a roof over their heads.
In the past year, the average New Zealander effectively lost $54.59 for every hour they turned up to work if they did not own a home.
According to Stats NZ, the median worker earned $26.44 per hour before tax in 2020. That comes to $21.49 per hour after tax if working a 40 hour week.
Median house prices
Meanwhile, in the year to end of February 2021, the median nationwide house price increased from $640,000 to $780,000: a difference of $140,000. If houses took weekends, public holidays and four weeks’ leave off each year – which of course they do not but it makes the calculation simpler – that makes an hourly rate equivalent to $76.08 per hour. Tax-free.
This is a direct result of the decision to support the economy through a combination of quantitative easing, a reduced Official Cash Rate and wage subsidies, instead of meaningfully increasing spending on things we need such as infrastructure and welfare.
The government handed out money to the banks, effectively at no cost, allowing them to lend more at increasingly attractive rates.
The government also bought bonds at the same time, devaluing deposits and making it pointless to keep money in the bank. This combination of easy credit and disincentivised saving caused a large amount of money to start sloshing around looking for somewhere to go.
The traditional concern with this approach to stimulus is that it will inflate the price of goods and services, increasing the cost of living.
In New Zealand, though, we like to buy houses. A tax system that drastically favours property ownership, combined with a cultural sensibility that houses are a safe bet, has seen much of this newly available money pumped straight into the housing market.
A feature
This is a feature, not a bug.
It represents a new, more interventionist version of trickle-down economics for the 2020s. Decried in 2011 by Labour MP Damien O’Connor as “the rich pissing on the poor”, politicians from the right have long argued that if the wealthy feel wealthier, their increased spending will benefit those less well off.
Generally used to advocate for reduced taxes on the rich, these ‘trickle down’ arguments refuse to die, no matter how comprehensively and repeatedly they are discredited.
This revival of trickle-down economics is a little different, as it is based on direct stimulus rather than a reduction in tax, but the effective mechanism is the same.
House price inflation is desirable, we are told, because homeowners feeling the resulting “wealth effect” will spend more on the goods and services provided by other New Zealanders. The win-win logic of this argument hides the fact that, fundamentally, someone is paying a heavy price.
Another way to think about it is that the government has effectively paid for covid-19 by levying a special tax on anyone who wants to live in New Zealand, but did not happen to own property during the summer of 2020/21, and handing that money to homeowners.
Too many won’t even be able to do that, and sleeping on the street or in emergency accommodation. The relatively lucky few who do manage to buy a home will have mortgages hundreds of thousands of dollars larger than they otherwise would, spreading the cost of covid across their entire lifetimes.
Even as the beneficiaries of this covid levy, most homeowners are unable to simply stop working and enjoy this newfound wealth.
They may feel that they cannot realise their capital gain because it is tied up in their family home. What this windfall does provide, however, is choice: the option to release some of their newfound capital by downsizing into somewhere cheaper, or to stay put, taking advantage of the extra equity to fund lifestyle improvements like a new boat, a bach or a remodelled kitchen.
Unprecedented demand for watercraft this summer suggests that many are doing exactly this.
It can be tempting to view this growing inequity as just another “baby boomers vs millennials” issue. Certainly, it does represent a massive transfer of wealth from generally younger New Zealanders who do not currently own homes, to the largely older folk who were able to buy homes cheaply in the past.
This disparity is reflected in Westpac’s latest consumer confidence figures, which show that younger New Zealanders are far more likely to be worried about their financial situation compared with older cohorts.
Patronising advice about avoiding avocados and food delivery services to save for a home entirely misses this point. Nonetheless, it is important to note that many older New Zealanders also live in poverty while subject to similarly individualising narratives of self-control.
Social divide Perhaps the more important question is how this rapidly accumulating wealth will be deployed to further entrench a growing social divide.
Parents with equity to spare are increasingly using it to help their children “get on the property ladder”. On an individual basis this is an entirely reasonable thing to do.
At a larger scale, though, the competitive advantage conferred by having generous, wealthy parents makes it even harder for those who do not have such privilege to obtain a home. Many are being left behind as a new landed gentry takes shape.
These political-economic arrangements favouring existing wealth over hard work have been a long time in the making, beginning well before most of the current crop of politicians arrived in parliament.
It is notable, though, that a government that promised to address the “housing crisis” has actively and knowingly pursued policies that have produced an unprecedented upward step-change in the market.
Perhaps most concerning is that the Prime Minister has expressed her intent that house price inflation should continue, just at a more “moderate” rate, because that’s what “people expect”.
It is exactly these expectations that are the problem: these issues will not be resolved while houses remain a speculative investment vehicle, rather than a home.
A substantial class of investors have certainly been made exceptionally wealthy by the covid-19 response, even as those who work for a living have seen their incomes stagnate. Image: David Robie/Café Pacific
‘Tipping the balance’
Tuesday’s announcement of measures to “tip the balance” towards home buyers, rather than investors, might begin to signal a growing recognition that housing is more than an investment.
A substantial class of investors have certainly been made exceptionally wealthy by the covid-19 response, even as those who work for a living have seen their incomes stagnate.
But while this separation of ‘investors’ or ‘speculators’ from ‘homeowners’ might be politically convenient, it makes something of a false distinction.
Whether a house is owned as a home, or purely a source of income, any non-improvement appreciation in value comes at someone else’s expense.
Until New Zealand acknowledges this, little will change: whoever is in charge, and no matter how many new homes get built.
Covid-19 has shown that when politicians want to act, they certainly can. As many others have pointed out, this government promised “transformational change”. I’m not sure that taking money from those with the least, handing it to those with the most, is quite the kindness my colleague had in mind.
Dr Brendon Blue is a geographer in Te Kura Tātai Aro Whenua, the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences at Te Herenga Waka, Victoria University of Wellington. He mostly studies and teaches the politics of environmental science and restoration, but would have been better off owning a house instead. This article was first published on The Democracy Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons licence.
But if you ask: “How can we give people security of tenure in a healthy, warm, dry, afforable home?” then lots of alterative answers emerge.
Such as long term leasing.
This would mean not relying on Mum and Dad private investors to house our people but creating large government funding mechanisms, eg. by insisting that the Superannuation Fund invest a set percentage of their profits in long term housing investments and reinstating the State Advances Corporation.
In short the government has to regain control of the mortgage market it abdicated to the privately owned banks in thhe early 1980s
This approach has worked in Berlin for example where citizens get lifelong leases on their apartments at government controlled and affordable rents (and, yes, people can decorate their homes as they wish as long as they don’t make structural alterations.)
You can find out about other solutions to our housing problems by watching my documentary Who Owns New Zealand Now? which I made almost 5 years ago now. (Especially the last couple of parts which deal with solutions).
Asia Pacific Report republishes occasional commentaries by journalist and documentary maker Bryan Bruce with permission.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham wants the country to know that he is afraid of children. During a recent appearance on Fox News, Graham warned that if we continue to allow migrant children to come into the country, some of them could eventually become “terrorists.” Graham might be confusing migrant children for the Republican Party’s base […]
Via America’s Lawyer: While federal lawmakers continue to grill Big Tech over the sharing of content that encourages extremism, what about content that encourages sexual exploitation and human trafficking? Attorney, author, and founder of Runaway Girl Carissa Phelps joins Mike Papantonio to explain how outlets like PornHub often turn a blind eye to child porn and rape scenes […]
The final report on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) concludes that the project has been ‘the most successful anti-poverty movement in history’. Two key claims underpin this narrative: that global poverty has been cut in half, and global hunger nearly in half, since 1990. This good-news narrative has been touted by the United Nations and has been widely repeated by the media. But closer inspection reveals that the UN’s claims about poverty and hunger are misleading, and even intentionally inaccurate. The MDGs have used targeted statistical manipulation to make it seem as though the poverty and hunger trends have been improving when in fact they have worsened. In addition, the MDGs use definitions of poverty and hunger that dramatically underestimate the scale likely of these problems. In reality, around four billion people remain in poverty today, and around two billion remain hungry – more than ever before in history, and between two and four times what the UN would have us believe. The implications of this reality are profound. Worsening poverty and hunger trends indicate that our present model of development is not working and needs to be fundamentally rethought.
— Jason Hickel, Third World Quarterly , Volume 37, 2016 – Issue 5
*–*
How could these two cohorts, the 85 richest and 3.5 billion poorest, have the same amount of wealth? The great majority of the 3.5 billion have no net wealth at all. Hundreds of millions of them have jobs that hardly pay enough to feed their families. Millions of them rely on supplements from private charity and public assistance when they can. Hundreds of millions are undernourished, suffer food insecurity, or go hungry each month, including many among the very poorest in the United States.
Most of the 3.5 billion earn an average of $2.50 a day. The poorest 40 percent of the world population accounts for just 5 percent of all global income. About 80 percent of all humanity live on less than $10 a day. And the poorest 50 percent maintain only 7.2 percent of the world’s private consumption. How exactly could they have accumulated an amount of surplus wealth comparable to the 85 filthy richest?
Staggering, no, the memory hole shoveling going on and perpetrated by elites in commerce, weapons, media, education, a la industrial complexes in the second decade of the 21st Century? Like plagues of locusts. Leeches two hundred worth per hominid, and the tapeworm eats the last, next and current generation like a desiccating alien of our nightmares.
The more light shining on the criminals, spotlights onto the military war lords, floodlights on the entire punishment cabal in governments, in corporations, in policing and uniformed military agencies, the more that bearing witness just peters out. It flags the average Yankee, and the doodle dandy is football, flicks and frolicking with furious caloric intent.
Welcome to the West. Then, the mind-numbing retorts to the initiation of discourse, of legitimate discussion about the ails of the world, largely set loose by the captains of industries — the military-media-legal-medical-penal-computing-financial-education-energy-AI-real estate-poison-agriculture COMPLEX. And, boy, is it never really “complex” — it’s about the art of the steal, the art of the scam, the art of the grift, the art of the toll-fine-fee-garnishment-penalty-tax-attachment set forth by the lobbies of the lords of death with the Eichmann’s of Bureaucracy greasing the skids and oiling the wheels. Keep those hedge funds going, the trains running, the profits heaping.
“We can only take so much trauma.”
“The human brain can’t take so much truth.”
“Trigger Warning; The Following Stories About Wealth for the Rich and Poverty for the rest of Us Might Cause Spasms of Collective Amnesia, Anxiety, Animosity.”
“There is no meek shall inherit the earth. We are talking about the meek and the poor inheriting the toxins, pollutants, the penury, the profound suffering inflicted upon them generation after generation by the rich and their enablers, the ultimate evil — those turning a blind eye to suffering, raping, razing, murdering.”
I’m getting it from all angles, really, the tired, the over-educated (in terms of college but not in terms of smarts). The tired middle class. Retired and one-trick phony environmentalist ponies. All those huffing and puffing and blowing down the Trump Towers, folk who are self-blinding themselves, as if bearing the truth of Biden et al, as well as bearing the weight of protecting Everything/Anything Empire, while the chorus of War Mongering Democrats a la LGBTQA-+ sing ‘Hallelujah, No More Trump’ puts them right smack where Oedipus was, exposed to the truth and overcome with shame, grief, and remorse. Poking eyes out is the least the people who follow the perverse leaders should do.
Except, their blinding is symbolic, life-long, from womb to cradle to grave, as in turning a blind eye to the roots, the very radical cause of all the suffering, the police no-knocks, the cesium floating in lungs and bellies, and a dozen other micro-particles from this or that nuclear fallout incident. Symbolic and demonstrative of the kill-for-profits Capitalism.
It is too too much for the masses — The Truth — so we all have to gather round the Zoom screen, tune into Amazon Prime, and sing, Give Peace a Chance while the world is fleeced by the billionaires, but also those millionaires (we tend to give millionaires, multi-millionaires a get-out-of-jail pass, when they too are the culprits helping spread that poisonous fallout).
Professor Bernd Grambow (co-author from IMT Atlantique) added “the present work, using cutting-edge analytical tools, gives only a very small insight in the very large diversity of particles released during the [Fukushima] nuclear accident, much more work is necessary to get a realistic picture of the highly heterogeneous environmental and health impact.”
Lockdowns for a flu virus, lockdowns for free thought, lockups for free speech, lock and loaded for the Empire, shackled to bills-mortgages-policies-ballooning debt…. BUT for fuck’s sake, we can’t lock-down the fossil fuel monsters, lock-up the Fukushima shills, shutdown the Olympics, punish and quell the military saber rattlers (read: purveyors of nuclear- chemical-bacterial-viral-digital-intergalactic weaponry).
Business as usual is a trillion easy dollars in Pandemic Profits, and a cool several trillion more with mandatory masking, Zooming, SARS-CoV2,3,4,5,6 annual vaccinations and semi-annual boosters.
Passports to their hell. Yet, when you talk to a Kamala Harris floozy, well, they get teary eyed, sing the All Spangled Banner of Buffoonery, and then tell you to hit the road, no more Haeder in their House.
Literally, people want nothing of politics, or the reveal — showing how their own colonized and kettled thinking under the guise of “liberal” looting under the Democrat Vote has always been part of the problem, not any solution to the world thievery or a pathway to world peace.
So What is The Answer?
It is not a $64,000 question, for sure, since the answer is collectively simple, easily repeated, easily understood, Yet, that is the jig, always looking for the messiah, or having their cake (capitalism) and eating it (profits-profits-profits) too. They are limited and limiting, and they gladly take the Kool-Aide and mix in a shot of Jack Daniels and a jigger of high fructose fizz.
Resisting for them is not an option. If they can’t converse, frame, contextualize, harmonize, recount, go back in history, recall the scene of the crime(s), then how the hell can these same folk who ask, Well, you sure know how to criticize and go on and on about the ills of Capitalism, but show me any other system that works. Humanity is humanity, whether in the center of Wall Street or out on the Rez?
This is their thinking, their great retort, and so, how do we get to that point where we just get to the basics, the Cornel West basics– Watch his rumble in the jungle: At Harvard, the worst kind of man-eating institution, along with a few hundred elite schools on this side and that side of the pond:
Listen to him, watch him, feel his presence of soul, Dr. West. Not a perfect man, thank god!
So, what is the answer? Justice. Social-spiritual-ecological-cultural-gender-age-racial-ethnic-ecnonmic-educational-food-energy JUSTICE? Using the inverse, the answer is the whole human-whole earth, toward holism, embedded in systems thinking, what it means to have the commons, what it is to be a society among other societies that is ecologically-based, agrarian-centered, humanistic-thriving, environmentally-aware, is, well, the opposite formulation of these Gandhian sins:
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge Without Character
Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
Science Without Humanity
Religion Without Sacrifice
Politics Without Principle
It doesn’t take much K12 education and applied learning to understand that reversing these sins and following the antithesis would illuminate the bearable weight of being a human in the world, triggering change at a global and galactical level. Prometheus steals the fire from the gods and gives it to people. Bound to the mountain. Prometheus grows weary. The future, oh, the future, swallowed up by that lack of hope. Let us all be Prometheus, and help each other take from the thieves, the rich, and give warmth and fire to the world. Unbound us together. Break the chains of the illicit gods and their devils.
Really, though, one person’s hope is another person’s oppression. In capitalism, there is the king of the dung heap, the winner being the one who dies with the most toys. Dog-eat-dog, and survival of the most unfit (using the Seven Sins of Humanity above as illustrative of what makes capitalism really zip along).
In Western culture, it all might seem like a Greek Tragedy of Trailer Park or Mar-a-lago proportions. It might all seem like a hardscrabble blues tribute to American stick-to-it-ness. That hardened soul, as DH Lawrence ascribed —
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.
We know that Western soul is a killer from the womb — those royals and despicable ones from the Old World, those Belgium in the Congo, those Romans, those hard, soldiering, religious zealots, hand in hand with silver chalice and golden rosary, those kings and queens, launching the deplorable ones, the rabble into crusades of raping-ravaging-razing. There is no “American soul” without the British slave traders-merchants-purchasers; no American soul without the French and Spanish interlopers. The American soul is part and parcel those former Nazis and the money-changers, the globalists looking for a micro-penny for every human corpuscle exploited in their gaming humanity. This is Turtle Island, not some chunk of land named for an Italian map maker for the king.
Now that’s a dark dark killer that never melts — Capitalism. It is now cleaned up, a la Madison Avenue and slick green-blue-pink-white washing, no longer presented as cold, stoic, but happy, illustrious, coopting, brainwashing, gleeful, the ice cream truck coming to serve all the children with gooey goodies. Shifty, slick, liberal, slippery, hip. It is now a virus inside a thousand viruses —
A democratic society shapes itself – by means of the participation of its citizens in discussing and deciding how things should be organised and to what ends.
But, as even their name reveals, the Global Shapers want to “shape” society from above and in their own interests.
This is not the solution to global problems, and, the rockets and payloads of Bezos and Musk and DoD and the rest of the capitalists looking for lucre and gold on Mars and the Moon. Reset is not rebounding. Reset is not reconvening the true holistic way of life. Reset is not returning to a point in time in our civilizations where we come together in mutual aid, live a biodynamic present and future, hold onto sacred tribal principles, understand the soil-air-water. The reset is not a return to sanity, actualization for woman, man, child, ecosystem. This reset is the rich’s bargain basement theft of our agency, our independence, our collective will to strike at them as the felons of our time. Their reset is tracking our every movement, each blink of the eye, each snore and defecation. This reset is about pulling strings, forcing the Faustian Bargain each moment. They will fine-garnish-withhold-penalize-criminalize our unborn, and our dying parents. You get a universal income, but not to be spent on what they do not want you/us to spend it on.
The foregone conclusion is what the teachers teach the children. It is what the media paint around us. Each narrative directed and shot for Netflix or Amazon or Hulu or Vudu, they are set to propagandize for the rich, the resetters, the titans who want mars colonized, who want the moon for their private resort. Orbiting Club Meds in the ionosphere.
Yet, the Lesson is Dead Wolves, Manatees and Turtles
The very place of Trump and Spring Break, Florida, is emblematic of the fall, the disgusting imbalance of the world, of sanity, of thinking. Manatees dying off in unfathomable numbers. Turtles washing up sick and dead. The expansion of the ocean, wiping out much of Florida by 2100. The bastion of Spring Break and lust and speedboats and dream hoarding.
Something not to be proud of, and to lend pause for humanity, but not more than once, and give it to me once in that 24-hour news cycle, please. At least 432 Florida manatees have already died in 2021, well over double the state’s 5-year average for the same time period.
Hundreds of sea turtles washing up on Southwest Florida beaches this year in a mass mortality event that researchers say will impact the recovery of the protected species is not a good sign of HUMAN health. The Great Reset has nothing to say about the reality of our own commons.
Then you have Wisconsin, gun-toting AR15-loving murderers taking on a record 216 wolves killed in 60 hours. What does this say about this society, this blood sport society of high powered weapons, radar trackers, dually pick-ups, $340,000 campers, TV, booze, and a quick trip in the woods to murder wolves?
Or, the hard cold soul of the European, Italians, putting 20-year sentences on people working with charities to help stranded and sinking and drowning refugees from African countries. Imagine that world of the cold Great Resetters. Save the Children and MSF among dozens facing sentences of up to 20 years over humanitarian work
Humanitarian organizations are rejecting what they say is an attempt to criminalize lifesaving aid to migrants and refugees at sea after Italian prosecutors charged three groups with aiding and abetting illegal immigration through their rescue operations in the Mediterranean.
Over 20 people are facing up to 20 years in prison. — Source.
Each story of injustice is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, demonstrating the insanity of systems — legal systems of punishment-abandonment-unruly laws against the suffering, laws meant to pay the rich, pay off the rotting bureaucrats, the Eichmann’s, big and small, who keep the wheels and the gears of death grinding, whether those wheels are those of the Empire, or the Capitalists, or the Economic Hitmen-Frontmen-Debasers, or all the pigs who make money off the penury and punishment unleashed by Capitalism.
Not me. Not I. Over my dead body.
The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it.
Via America’s Lawyer: Jury selection begins for the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin who is charged with murdering George Floyd. Meanwhile, federal legislators pass a policing act in Floyd’s honor which bans chokeholds and reforms qualified immunity so individuals can sue officers that break the law. RT Correspondent Brigida Santos joins Mike Papantonio to explain more. Transcript: *This […]
Via America’s Lawyer: President Biden signals he won’t compromise U.S.-Saudi relations, even after a report directly blames the crown prince for the murder of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more.
There’s a lot going on in the world at the moment, which means there’s a lot we need to talk about. It seems as though every day there is another incident that raises issues related to the socio-economic imbalances in our society, systemic racism, or the political decisions that shape our lives. These deserve considerate thought and productive debate.
Yet, we are so often told that there are places where it is inappropriate to talk about social justice topics, no matter how vital they are to our experiences. Perhaps the most common of these is the workplace. There is an expectation that employees and employers alike should keep their thoughts on potentially divisive topics to themselves, rather than risk rocking the boat. Yet to perpetuate this is to deny the opportunity for vital debate, and growth for everyone involved.
Let’s take a look at why businesses should be making greater efforts to support healthy social justice discourse. Where can both companies and their workers focus their efforts?
Why Discussion is Positive
So, why make a space at all? If discussions about social justice have the potential to cause friction in the workplace, isn’t it just better to avoid that? Well, no — maintaining silence on important issues tends to prevent us from addressing them in a meaningful way.
One of the reasons that sexual harassment in the workplace has taken such an insidious hold is the historic culture of silence that protects perpetrators and oppresses those who have been harassed. Part of the reason the #MeToo movement is so powerful is that women have been empowered to make their voices heard.
For business owners, it’s also not a good idea to discourage discussion on the prevalent issues of the times we’re living in. Employees from marginalized groups who don’t feel as though they can express themselves on important social justice issues will naturally consider discouragement as an act of continued oppression.
This oppression does not provide employees with any incentive for loyalty, nor does it encourage them to apply their talents in ways that lead to innovation. Employers who smother an open dialogue on social justice issues may find that it leads only to resentment.
Workers also have a responsibility not only to the power of their own voices, but to those around them who have perspectives on social justice topics. Not to mention that having the confidence to speak up in the workplace tends to strengthen an employee’s influence in the company. Discussion is contagious, and taking a positive attitude toward discourse helps to create the kind of healthy culture that makes workplaces intellectually and socially stimulating places in which to work.
Actions as an Employer
The constitutional right to free speech doesn’t necessarily extend to private workplaces. However, businesses have an ethical duty to encourage a social justice dialogue, and can benefit from it with strong and empowered employees. That said, it is also important to keep discussions constructive.
Employers have to acknowledge that there is a line to be drawn when debate negatively disrupts productivity and relationships. So, what elements should employers be putting in place to support a safe space for discussions?
Clear Policies
Employees and leadership alike benefit from clarity when it comes to behavioral expectations. Make it clear in official documentation — including employee handbooks and contracts — that the business supports the free exchange of ideas. Formalize the commitment that all workers are able to discuss issues and voice concerns without fear of reprisal.
However, it is also vital to confirm the line at which debate becomes unhealthy, and potentially prevents the business from being a safe space for customers and colleagues alike. Reinforce that behavior that constitutes discrimination of protected groups does not fall under the category of healthy discussion, and will not be tolerated.
These guidelines should also fall within the range of open discussion, and employees should be invited to contest them if they feel they are lacking.
Diverse Workforce
A healthy environment for social justice discussions begins at a cultural level. This is much more difficult if your business has a monocultural workforce. Sectors that already have a strong culture of diversity tend to encourage spaces where employees are not just able to discuss social issues, but contribute to solutions.
The beauty industry is a great example of how the growth of diversity has encouraged the contribution of different cultural perspectives that have highlighted issues, and led to continued vigilance and improvements. As an employer, one of the best actions you can take is to discover a broader range of employees.
Actions as an Employee
Workers should not need permission from their employers to discuss issues that are important to their lives. If debates don’t have negative effects on their ability to do their jobs and are not corrosive to company integrity, there’s really no reason not to broach topics that matter. However, this isn’t always a concept shared by employers, so employees should contribute to creating spaces where these discussions can be undertaken safely.
This could include:
Influence Inclusivity
The actions we take in the course of our duties can help provide a more supportive environment for open discussions about social justice topics. Learn more about the lives and needs of colleagues and customers who come from differing demographic groups and backgrounds than you. Seek to include them and their ideas in various aspects of your work, and encourage their input on projects. This helps to create a culture that supports differing perspectives and is conducive to more open discussions.
Vigilance on Toxicity
One of the barriers to healthy and productive social justice discussion is a toxic workplace. If your boss is not receptive to improvements that you feel need to be made regarding cultural issues, or is outright abusive or disrespectful, it’s important to respond calmly and methodically.
Analyze the situation to understand the extent of the problems, and if there is no resolution through discussion you should set strict and healthy boundaries while you document occasions of toxicity. Then formally address these with human resources (HR). Approach the matter as an action to make the business a safer and positive space for all employees.
Conclusion
Social justice is key to creating a more inclusive and positive society; this means that healthy discussion should be encouraged. Employers and employees alike must work together to ensure that the spaces they work in are conducive to constructive dialogue. This should include policies that put workplaces in a better position to facilitate these discussions, and efforts from everyone involved to improve the environment overall.
There’s a lot going on in the world at the moment, which means there’s a lot we need to talk about. It seems as though every day there is another incident that raises issues related to the socio-economic imbalances in our society, systemic racism, or the political decisions that shape our lives. These deserve considerate thought and productive debate.
Yet, we are so often told that there are places where it is inappropriate to talk about social justice topics, no matter how vital they are to our experiences. Perhaps the most common of these is the workplace. There is an expectation that employees and employers alike should keep their thoughts on potentially divisive topics to themselves, rather than risk rocking the boat. Yet to perpetuate this is to deny the opportunity for vital debate, and growth for everyone involved.
Let’s take a look at why businesses should be making greater efforts to support healthy social justice discourse. Where can both companies and their workers focus their efforts?
Why Discussion is Positive
So, why make a space at all? If discussions about social justice have the potential to cause friction in the workplace, isn’t it just better to avoid that? Well, no — maintaining silence on important issues tends to prevent us from addressing them in a meaningful way.
One of the reasons that sexual harassment in the workplace has taken such an insidious hold is the historic culture of silence that protects perpetrators and oppresses those who have been harassed. Part of the reason the #MeToo movement is so powerful is that women have been empowered to make their voices heard.
For business owners, it’s also not a good idea to discourage discussion on the prevalent issues of the times we’re living in. Employees from marginalized groups who don’t feel as though they can express themselves on important social justice issues will naturally consider discouragement as an act of continued oppression.
This oppression does not provide employees with any incentive for loyalty, nor does it encourage them to apply their talents in ways that lead to innovation. Employers who smother an open dialogue on social justice issues may find that it leads only to resentment.
Workers also have a responsibility not only to the power of their own voices, but to those around them who have perspectives on social justice topics. Not to mention that having the confidence to speak up in the workplace tends to strengthen an employee’s influence in the company. Discussion is contagious, and taking a positive attitude toward discourse helps to create the kind of healthy culture that makes workplaces intellectually and socially stimulating places in which to work.
Actions as an Employer
The constitutional right to free speech doesn’t necessarily extend to private workplaces. However, businesses have an ethical duty to encourage a social justice dialogue, and can benefit from it with strong and empowered employees. That said, it is also important to keep discussions constructive.
Employers have to acknowledge that there is a line to be drawn when debate negatively disrupts productivity and relationships. So, what elements should employers be putting in place to support a safe space for discussions?
Clear Policies
Employees and leadership alike benefit from clarity when it comes to behavioral expectations. Make it clear in official documentation — including employee handbooks and contracts — that the business supports the free exchange of ideas. Formalize the commitment that all workers are able to discuss issues and voice concerns without fear of reprisal.
However, it is also vital to confirm the line at which debate becomes unhealthy, and potentially prevents the business from being a safe space for customers and colleagues alike. Reinforce that behavior that constitutes discrimination of protected groups does not fall under the category of healthy discussion, and will not be tolerated.
These guidelines should also fall within the range of open discussion, and employees should be invited to contest them if they feel they are lacking.
Diverse Workforce
A healthy environment for social justice discussions begins at a cultural level. This is much more difficult if your business has a monocultural workforce. Sectors that already have a strong culture of diversity tend to encourage spaces where employees are not just able to discuss social issues, but contribute to solutions.
The beauty industry is a great example of how the growth of diversity has encouraged the contribution of different cultural perspectives that have highlighted issues, and led to continued vigilance and improvements. As an employer, one of the best actions you can take is to discover a broader range of employees.
Actions as an Employee
Workers should not need permission from their employers to discuss issues that are important to their lives. If debates don’t have negative effects on their ability to do their jobs and are not corrosive to company integrity, there’s really no reason not to broach topics that matter. However, this isn’t always a concept shared by employers, so employees should contribute to creating spaces where these discussions can be undertaken safely.
This could include:
Influence Inclusivity
The actions we take in the course of our duties can help provide a more supportive environment for open discussions about social justice topics. Learn more about the lives and needs of colleagues and customers who come from differing demographic groups and backgrounds than you. Seek to include them and their ideas in various aspects of your work, and encourage their input on projects. This helps to create a culture that supports differing perspectives and is conducive to more open discussions.
Vigilance on Toxicity
One of the barriers to healthy and productive social justice discussion is a toxic workplace. If your boss is not receptive to improvements that you feel need to be made regarding cultural issues, or is outright abusive or disrespectful, it’s important to respond calmly and methodically.
Analyze the situation to understand the extent of the problems, and if there is no resolution through discussion you should set strict and healthy boundaries while you document occasions of toxicity. Then formally address these with human resources (HR). Approach the matter as an action to make the business a safer and positive space for all employees.
Conclusion
Social justice is key to creating a more inclusive and positive society; this means that healthy discussion should be encouraged. Employers and employees alike must work together to ensure that the spaces they work in are conducive to constructive dialogue. This should include policies that put workplaces in a better position to facilitate these discussions, and efforts from everyone involved to improve the environment overall.
Beau Peters is a freelance writer based out of Portland, OR. He has a particular interest in covering workers’ rights, social justice, and workplace issues and solutions. Read other articles by Beau.
This article was posted on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2021 at 7:16pm and is filed under Social Justice, Workplace.
The American Rescue Plan (ARP) was passed in the House this past week and now heads to the Senate, where it will no doubt be changed before it becomes law some time in mid-March. The current unemployment benefits expire on March 14.
While we don’t know what the final bill will look like, at least now we can get an idea of what is in it. Overall, as expected, the provisions in the bill will help to provide some financial assistance to some people, but they won’t solve the crises we face. And the Biden administration is backtracking on promises made on the campaign trail.
As Alan Macleod writes, Biden has abandoned raising the minimum wage, ending student debt and the promised $2,000 checks. His focus is on forcing people back to work and school even as new, more infectious and more lethal variants of the virus causing COVID-19 threaten another surge in cases and deaths. There is only one promise Biden appears to be keeping, and that is one he made to wealthy donors at the start of his campaign when he said, “nothing would fundamentally change.”
Despite this, people are organizing across the country for their rights to economic security and health and an end to discrimination. These struggles are necessary as we cannot expect either of the capitalist parties to act in the people’s interest. But together, we can demand that one of the wealthiest nations on earth upholds its responsibility to provide the basic necessities for its people. This is consistent with a People(s)-Centered Human Rights approach.
What is and isn’t in the ARP?
The current version of the American Rescue Plan contains provisions that would provide money to people earning less than $75,000 per year. One is the one-time $1,400 check. Another is raising the tax credit for families with children, which will benefit those who file tax returns but leave out the millions of poor people who don’t.
The ARP will also extend unemployment benefits until the end of August and increase the enhanced benefits to $400/week. Unlike the previous bills, this one includes workers who left their jobs because of unsafe conditions and those who had to leave work or reduce their hours to care for children. The benefits are retroactive for some workers who were denied benefits.
While this will temporarily improve the economic situation for many people, it is not a plan to address the poverty crisis in the United States nor is it sufficient to support people through the current recession and pandemic. People will still face barriers to receiving the aid. Instead of making the programs something that people have to apply for, the government could provide monthly checks to everyone with incomes under a certain amount automatically. Numerous examples show that putting money into people’s hands, such as through a guaranteed income or giving unrestricted lump sums, improves their well-being.
An increase in the federal minimum wage to $15/hour, a promise of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, is in the House version of the bill, but it will not be in the Senate version unless the White House or Democrats intervene, which they seem unwilling to do. The minimum wage increase is being blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian, but the Vice President could override the decision or the Democrats could take steps to work around the Parliamentarian, as has been done in the past on other issues. They are choosing not to take this stand.
The ARP also fails to extend the eviction moratorium, which will expire at the end of March. While it does contain funds for rental assistance, they are being given to the Treasury Department to disburse to the states, so it is not clear how these funds will help people directly. A recent study found that corporate landlords received hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks last year but continued to evict thousands of people. When the eviction moratorium ends, those who cannot pay the back rent risk being evicted.
The health benefits in the ARP are not only inadequate but they are set to further enrich the medical-industrial complex, as I explain in “Biden’s Health Plan Shifts Even More Public Dollars into Private Hands.” The ARP is fulfilling a laundry list provided by private health insurers, hospitals and medical lobbying groups. It will subsidize the cost of insurance premiums but leave those who have health insurance still struggling to pay out-of-pocket costs and at risk of bankruptcy if they have a serious accident or illness.
And finally, another group that is being left out is those who have student debt. I spoke with Alan Collinge of Student Loan Justice on Clearing the FOG this week. He said the current student loan burden is likely over $2 trillion and that the vast majority of debtors will never be able to repay . Collinge argues that it is imperative the Biden administration cancel student debt using an executive order, which he has the power to do, rather than leaving it to Congress. If the President does it, then the debt disappears (tax payers have already paid for the loans), but if Congress does it, which is unlikely to happen, they would have to offset the ‘cost’ through cuts to other programs or by raising taxes. Collinge also explains that cancelling student debt would be a significant economic stimulus.
All in all, the current ARP is another attempt by Congress to throw more money at a failed system that doesn’t change anything fundamentally. We must demand more.
The case for wealth redistribution
Lee Camp recently made the case for a massive change in the direction of wealth redistribution based on a new study that finds “the cumulative tab for our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality has grown to over $47 trillion from 1975 through 2018. At a recent pace of about $2.5 trillion a year, that number we estimate crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020.” This amounts to over $1,000 per month per person in wealth that has been redistributed to the top or almost $14,000 per year.
It is time to reverse the direction of this wealth redistribution from one of consolidation at the top to one that creates greater wealth equality. This could be accomplished in a number of ways. In the middle of the last century, it was done through extremely high taxes on the wealthy and government investment in programs for housing and education. Camp advocates for taking all wealth over $10 million and redistributing it to the bottom 99.5% in a way that benefits the poorest the most.
Raising wages is another way to redistribute wealth. Professor Richard Wolff explains there are ways to raise wages without harming small businesses by providing federal support to them to offset the costs. Think of it as a reversal of the hundreds of billions in subsidies that have been given to large corporations, which they use to buy up and inflate the value of their stocks, to the small and medium businesses. It is smaller businesses that are most likely to keep wealth in their communities, unlike large corporations that extract wealth, and are the major drivers of the US economy. Small businesses alone comprise 44% of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
If workers earned higher wages, it would also save the government money that is currently spent on social safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps for low-wage workers. These programs enable large corporations to profit off worker exploitation, especially Walmart, Amazon and McDonalds, according to the DC Report.
Robert Urie points out that another price society pays for the gaping wealth divide is state violence and incarceration. He writes, “At $24 per hour, the inflation and productivity adjusted minimum wage in the U.S. from 1968, workers were still being added to employer payrolls. The point: $24 – $7.25 = $16.75 per hour plus a rate of profit is one measure of economic expropriation from low wage workers in the U.S. Maintaining an unjust public order is critical to the functioning of this exploitative political economy. Most of the prison population in the U.S. comes from neighborhoods where the minimum wage affects livelihoods.” Imagine the many ways that greater economic security would positively benefit families and communities.
People are fighting back
In our current political environment, we cannot expect Congress and the White House to do what is necessary to protect the health and security of people without a struggle that forces them to do so. There are many ways people are fighting locally for their rights through resistance and creating alternative systems. Here are a few current examples.
On February 16, fast food workers in 15 cities went on strike to demand $15 an hour. Other low-wage workers joined them. Last Monday, in Chicago, Black owners of McDonalds franchises began a 90-day protest outside of the McDonalds headquarters because of discrimination against them. They say, “McDonald’s has denied the Black franchisees the same opportunities as white operators and continually steer them to economically depressed and dangerous areas with low volume sales.”
In Bessemer, Alabama, workers are conducting a vote to start the first union for Amazon employees. If they succeed, it will be an amazing feat considering that Alabama is a right-to-work state and Amazon is doing what it can to stop them. In Arizona, another right-to-work state, workers at two universities are leading an effort to unionize all higher education employees in the state. They are concerned that federal funding provided to keep universities open will not be used in a way that protects all workers. They cite recent practices that prioritize the financial well-being of the universities over worker health and safety.
Some workers are taking power in other ways. Bus drivers in Silicon Valley organized with the support of community members to stop fare collections and only allow boarding in the rear, moves designed to aid passengers during the recession and protect drivers during the pandemic. They were committed to doing this whether management agreed to it or not. Others are building worker-owned platform cooperatives to challenge platform corporations that exploit their labor such as Spotify and Uber.
Others are working to meet people’s basic needs through mutual aid. Food not Bombs has been feeding people throughout the pandemic in various cities. In Santa Cruz, CA, they are out every day to feed the houseless despite being hassled by the city and moved around. A rural area in Canada that includes 65,000 people pulled together it local resources to make sure everyone is fed through a food policy council of elected officials, organizations and stakeholders. They reallocated their budget from events and travel to food security. They opened their seed banks to support local gardening efforts and commandeered unused buildings as spaces for assembling food boxes that were delivered to those in need.
These examples illustrate the tremendous power people have to force changes and create support networks in their communities when they organize together. While we should continue to expose and pressure Congress and the White House to invest in programs that provide for people’s needs, that is a function of government after all, we also need to organize in our communities to build popular power and create alternative systems that will slowly build the society we need.
Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can quietly become a power no government can suppress, a power than can transform the world.